electronics

Article
A Graph Theory Method for Identification of a
Minimum Breakpoint Set for Directional
Relay Coordination
Ronald C. Matthews *, Matthew J. Reno and Adam K. Summers
Department of Electric Power Systems Research, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87123, USA;
[email protected] (M.J.R.); [email protected] (A.K.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-505-845-7608




Received: 4 October 2019; Accepted: 18 November 2019; Published: 20 November 2019


Abstract: The energy grid becomes more complex with increasing penetration of renewable resources,
distributed energy storage, distributed generators, and more diverse loads such as electric vehicle
charging stations. The presence of distributed energy resources (DERs) requires directional protection
due to the added potential for energy to flow in both directions down the line. Additionally,
contingency requirements for critical loads within a microgrid may result in looped or meshed
systems. Computation speeds of iterative methods required to coordinate loops are improved by
starting with a minimum breakpoint set (MBPS) of relays. A breakpoint set (BPS) is a set of breakers
such that, when opened, breaks all loops in a mesh grid creating a radial system. A MBPS is a BPS
that consists of the minimum possible number of relays required to accomplish this goal. In this
paper, a method is proposed in which a minimum spanning tree is computed to indirectly break all
loops in the system, and a set difference is used to identify the MBPS. The proposed method is found
to minimize the cardinality of the BPS to achieve a MBPS.

Keywords: minimum breakpoint set (MBPS); minimum break point set (MBPS); minimum spanning
tree; graph theory; directional relay coordination

1. Introduction
The power grid is rapidly becoming more complex due to the integration of distributed energy
resources such as solar, wind, and distributed generators and diverse loads such as electric vehicle
charging stations. Additionally, these complex sources and loads are often controlled and managed
locally within a microgrid which may be coupled or decoupled from the main grid at any given time.
The assumption of a radial setup for distributed loads within the microgrid may only be partially true.
That is, even if the microgrid has no loops, it is highly likely that a feeder will have energy sources on
both ends. This is guaranteed when the microgrid is in grid-connected mode. Furthermore, the local
area electric power system (EPS) may require microgrids to have islanding capability [1]. Therefore,
any protection scheme in a microgrid must include at least one directional element. Microgrids are
typically set up so that feeders are radially connected [2]. The purpose of this is to limit fault paths
and allow for simple coordination of inverse time overcurrent relays [3,4]. However, autonomous
microgrids may introduce meshed components to satisfy contingency requirements [5]. Additionally,
in the case of remote outposts, the microgrid must be meshed to avoid loss of service when under
emergency situations [6]. In such cases, simple nondirectional inverse time overcurrent protection may
not be feasible for some connections. Directional protection, which accounts for both the magnitude
and direction of the fault current phasor, may be required for a portion, if not all, of the microgrid
network [7].

Electronics 2019, 8, 1376; doi:10.3390/electronics8121376 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 2 of 17

When a fault occurs in either a grid or microgrid, the immediate goal is to quarantine any faulted
elements while maintaining service to as many functional elements as possible. For overcurrent relays,
this is achieved by time grading [8–11] where relay operating times are systematically staggered to
minimize customer outages. This process is well established for radial networks. However, difficulties
arise in attempting to coordinate relays in a mesh system, especially where overlapping loops are
present. As discussed in [12], the complexity of the system increases with the number of loops present
in the system. The standard procedure for coordinating relays within a single loop is to cyclically
coordinate relays within the loop until the change in the relay setting becomes negligible upon repeating
the cycle. Added complexity arises from the fact that a given relay will often be contained in more
than one loop. To streamline this process, selection of a minimum set of relays which breaks all
loops to begin the coordination process and an efficient sequence for setting the remaining relays are
needed [12]. The goal of this paper is to efficiently identify a minimum breakpoint set of relays. For a
more in-depth discussion of directional relay coordination in a multi-loop system, the reader is referred
to [13].
Alternative protection schemes exist which do not involve directly addressing loop coordination
in the network. However, they involve additional cost which may not be feasible on a limited
project budget. One alternative is setting-less protection (also called dynamic state estimation-based
protection) which utilizes a detailed dynamic model of the system under protection and continuous
data measurements including voltage magnitudes and angles, frequency, and frequency rate of
change [14,15]. The communication, continuous measurements, and centralized controller all result in
a more costly system. Another alternative is fault-tolerant control which requires sufficient storage to
be available at any given time to cover user demands during the time required to clear the fault [16–18].
Charge/discharge rates at the megawatt (MW) level can require an investment of hundreds or thousands
of dollars in converters alone for a single storage bus [4]. Synchronous condensers could be used to
avoid power electronics interfaces. However, these devices lack the ability to control active power
discharge and have costly maintenance requirements [19]. As discussed in [20], communication-based
protection schemes, such as current differential, permissive overreaching transfer trip (POTT), and
directional comparison blocking (DCB), provide improved protection without requiring radial systems.
However, they require additional cost for the communication channels and introduce vulnerabilities to
communication failures.
Visualizing breakpoints in a small to moderate sized system may be simple for an experienced
protection engineer. However, this may be impractical for larger systems and can introduce increased
susceptibility for human error into the system. An efficient computational method is needed to
determine these breakpoints. Additionally, this de-looping set should consist of as few breakers as
possible to allow for system currents to be divided over as many lines as possible once the breakers have
been tripped. This feature can potentially avoid overloading other lines in the system. Coordinating
relays in a loop configuration requires iterative methods [21]. Additionally, the computation speed
of these iterative methods can be improved by starting with a minimum breakpoint set (MBPS) of
relays. Despite the potential advantages to computational efficiency, research in this area has been
sparse. In literature, claims have been made that sets of relays/breakers formed minimum breakpoint
sets. However, these claims were made without clearly establishing the cardinality of a true minimum
breakpoint set. Therefore, statements of the cardinalities of these MBPSs have varied depending upon
the author and have yielded suboptimal results in terms of MBPS cardinality.
As discussed in [22], algorithms for determining a MBPS are of three types: (1) Algorithms
based on graph theory, (2) algorithms based on coordination of relays, or (3) algorithms based on
optimization [22]. In this paper, a graph theory method is utilized as an intermediate step towards
optimal relay coordination. Optimal coordination of directional inverse time overcurrent relays will be
a topic of future work. The proposed method provides a simple but effective method for identifying the
true minimum breakpoint set and the cardinality of the MBPS. Other more computationally intensive
methods have managed to find a breakpoint set (BPS) without establishing the cardinality of a MBPS.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 3 of 17

Therefore, even
Electronics 2019, though
8, x FOR PEERstatements
REVIEW are made that a MBPS has been found, the result is often only a
3 of 18
BPS. It is shown by direct proof that the breakpoint sets computed in this paper are true MBPSs and
that any other
the result BPSonly
is often mustahave
BPS.theIt issame
showncardinality
by directorproof
greater.
thatAdditionally, the sets
the breakpoint lack computed
of computational
in this
intensity
paper arerequired
true MBPSs for the
andproposed method
that any other BPSallows for itthe
must have to be used
same for adaptive
cardinality protection
or greater. where the
Additionally,
protection
the lack ofscheme may need
computational to be altered
intensity quickly
required while
for the online. method allows for it to be used for
proposed
The contributions
adaptive protection where of this
thepaper are: scheme may need to be altered quickly while online.
protection
The contributions of this paper are:
• Establishment of the minimum cardinality of a BPS required for it to be classified a MBPS;
• Development
Establishment of of
a the
graphminimum cardinality
theory-based of a BPSwhich
algorithm required for it toa be
ensures classified
MBPS witha minimal
MBPS;
computation
Development of a graph theory‐based algorithm which ensures a MBPS with minimal
requirements;
• computation requirements;
A perturbation is introduced as part of the MBPS identification algorithm which allows for
enforcement
A perturbation is introduced
of thermal as partalong
line constraints of thewith
MBPStheidentification algorithm
MBPS computation which
where allows for
necessary;
• enforcement of thermal line constraints along with the MBPS computation
Successive MBPS reconfiguration based upon the most recent state of the system for where necessary;
adaptive
Successive MBPS reconfiguration based upon the most recent state of the system for adaptive
control.
control.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the advantage of starting from
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the advantage of starting from
a MBPS in solving the optimal coordination problem is demonstrated using a simple 6-bus meshed
a MBPS in solving the optimal coordination problem is demonstrated using a simple 6‐bus meshed
example. In Section 3, various methods for determining the MBPS from literature are discussed.
example. In Section 3, various methods for determining the MBPS from literature are discussed. In
In Section 4, the proposed method is introduced, and a simple proof is used to establish that the result
Section 4, the proposed method is introduced, and a simple proof is used to establish that the result
is a true MBPS. In Section 5, the method is applied to the IEEE 14-, 30-, and 57-bus test systems as well
is a true MBPS. In section 5, the method is applied to the IEEE 14‐, 30‐, and 57‐bus test systems as well
as the Utility 3120 test system, and comparisons are made with results from literature. In Section 6, the
as the Utility 3120 test system, and comparisons are made with results from literature. In Section 6,
results are summarized and goals for future work are discussed.
the results are summarized and goals for future work are discussed.
The overall objective of this paper is to develop a fast, optimal algorithm which quickly identifies
The overall objective of this paper is to develop a fast, optimal algorithm which quickly identifies
a MBPS. An additional goal is to be able to define a MBPS in such a manner that, when removed, results
a MBPS. An additional goal is to be able to define a MBPS in such a manner that, when removed,
in a grid which can continue to operate without overloading any lines (or other branch elements)
results in a grid which can continue to operate without overloading any lines (or other branch
beyond their thermal limits.
elements) beyond their thermal limits.
2. Application of the Minimum Breakpoint Set
2. Application of the Minimum Breakpoint Set
Consider the 6-bus mesh network shown in Figure 1. All relays are directional. There are 3
Consider
clockwise (CW) the 6‐bus
loops in mesh network
the system. shown in upon
Depending Figurethe
1. device(s)
All relayschosen,
are directional.
it may beThere areto3
possible
clockwise (CW)
coordinate loops directly.
this system in the system. Depending upon the device(s) chosen, it may be possible to
coordinate this system directly.

Figure 1. A 6-bus mesh network example.

Figure 1. A 6‐bus mesh network example.

Coordination of the relays in CW loop 1 results in the 4 inequalities

Coordination of the relays in CW loop 1 results in the 4 inequalities
𝑇 T𝐶𝑇𝐼 𝑇
12 + CTI ≤ T25
(1)(1)
𝑇 𝐶𝑇𝐼 𝑇 (2)
T25 + CTI ≤ T54 (2)
𝑇 𝐶𝑇𝐼 𝑇 (3)
𝑇 54 + CTI
T𝐶𝑇𝐼 𝑇 ≤. T41 (4)(3)
CTI is the coordination time interval.TCoordination
41 + CTI ≤ T12of
. the relays in CW loop 2 results in the(4)
4
inequalities
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 4 of 17

CTI is the coordination time interval. Coordination of the relays in CW loop 2 results in the
4 inequalities
T23 + CTI ≤ T36 (5)

T36 + CTI ≤ T65 (6)

T65 + CTI ≤ T52 (7)

T52 + CTI ≤ T23 . (8)

Coordination of the relays in CW loop 3 results in the 6 inequalities

T12 + CTI ≤ T23 (9)

T23 + CTI ≤ T36 (10)

T36 + CTI ≤ T65 (11)

T65 + CTI ≤ T54 (12)

T54 + CTI ≤ T41 (13)

T41 + CTI ≤ T12 . (14)

There are 14 total CW coordination constraints. The same process can be carried out for the
counterclockwise (CCW) loops yielding 14 additional coordination constraints. Let B be the set of all
coordination constraints. The optimal coordination problem becomes
X
Min Tij , subject to B. (15)

For this simple 6-bus example, 28 coordination constraints are required. However, starting from
an MBPS, the number of coordination constraints can be drastically reduced. As will be later shown,
the MBPS of this system must have a cardinality of exactly 2. One option for the MBPS is relays 1-2
and 2-5. Choose these 2 relays as the only 2 primary relays in the system. Assume these relays are
instantaneous with an operating time of T12 = T25 = 0s. Consider again the CW constraints (1)–(14).
Constraints (1), (2), (4), (7)–(9), and (14) no longer need to be considered. There are 7 additional
inequalities corresponding to the 3 CCW loops. The total number of inequalities is, therefore, reduced
by half from 28 to 14. This can make a drastic difference in computation time over considering all
constraints without considering the MBPS. Such a reduction in the number of optimization constraints
can drastically improve computation speed for large systems.

3. Methods for Determining a Minimum Breakpoint Set

In this section some methods which have been historically used to determine the MBPS are
discussed. These methods will be compared to the proposed approach later in the paper. In [22]
lower-upper (LU) factorization of a rectangular bus-branch adjacency matrix
h i
A = aij ∈ Rm×n , (16)

where 

 1, if vj is the sending end of branch ei

aij =  −1, is vj is the terminal end of branch ei (17)



 0, if vj is not and endpoint of ei
is used to both determine whether a graph is connected and to determine a MBPS. The benefit of this
method is that it allows a disjointed set to be identified so that a MBPS can be found for each subgroup.
However, LU factorization involves row reduction, which can be computationally expensive for larger
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 5 of 17

systems [23,24]. Additionally, as will be shown later, the solutions found in [22] are not necessarily the
minimal breakpoint sets.
According to [15], the computation time for coordination increases with the size of the breakpoint
set (BPS). If the cardinality of a BPS is minimal, the computational time of the directional relay
coordination algorithm can improve significantly [25]. Therefore, it is advantageous to operate from a
MBPS. The method proposed in [15] operates on a bus-bus adjacency matrix where Aij represents the
number of edges directly connecting buses i and j. The method directly focuses on breaking loops in a
mesh grid to allow for radial coordination of the directional relays. However, in the first computational
example of the paper, the algorithm allows for segmentation of the grid. That is, current paths may not
exist between arbitrary nodes. Additional measures are needed to ensure that the computed MBPS
does not isolate loads such that generators isolated along with the loads cannot support them.
If there are two directional relays “looking” toward each other on each line utilizing directional
relays and a current path exists between any two arbitrary buses, the system can be effectively treated
as an undirected connected graph. Where loops in a mesh grid are to be broken, it is ideal that at least
one current path remains between any two arbitrary buses. Otherwise, load or generator isolation may
occur in a manner such that generators become overloaded or loads become unnecessarily isolated.
Establishing a minimum spanning tree may aid in alleviating this issue.
For an undirected connected graph, a minimum spanning tree is a set of edges which forms a
network which connects all nodes without the presence of any redundant paths (loops). Additionally,
the sum of the weights of each path in this set must be less than or equal to any other possible set of
edges. That is, the total weight is unique, but the combination of edges forming the set may not be.
It can be shown that any minimum spanning tree of a connected graph with n vertices will have n − 1
edges [26]. Furthermore, in a spanning tree, a path must exist between any two arbitrary edges and
there are no loops. Therefore, because there is already one path between any two arbitrary vertices,
any additional edge added to the system will result in a redundant loop. For the results in this paper, a
built-in MATLAB function was used to compute the minimum spanning tree. For a more in-depth
discussion of this topic, the reader is referred to [27–30].
In Reference [31], a protection relay dependency dimension (PRDD) method is introduced which
considers relay coordination as a constraint in determining a MBPS. This allows for relay coordination
to be carried out simultaneously. However, combining these steps yields suboptimal results for the
cardinality of the breakers, as will later be seen in Section 5.
In Reference [25], an integer linear programming approach is proposed. However, as the size of
the system increases, the computation time for the algorithm can increase exponentially due to the
enumeration of loops involved in this algorithm [25], as will be seen in Section 5.
A method is proposed in [32] based upon a functional dependency approach. The cardinality
of the MBPS is also discussed in this reference. Consider a system consisting of e lines and v buses.
According to [32,33], the cardinality of the MBPS is |MBPS| = e − v + 2. Let rk denote relay k. For the
5-bus, 9-line system shown in Figure 2, the method detailed in [32] determines that the MBPS is
A = {r2 , r3 , r8 , r9 , r14 , r16 }. However, for this small system, an alternative breakpoint set can be found
by visual inspection. An alternative BPS is B = {r7 , r5 , r6 , r17 , r18 }. The existence of this smaller BPS
contradicts the original conclusion that A is a minimum breakpoint set. Furthermore, A segments
the system into 2 disjoint subsystems A1 = {r1 , r3 , r5 } and A2 = {r3 , r4 }. B remains a single connected
system. Note that no conclusion as to whether B is a MBPS has been made. This assertion is addressed
in Section 4.
An algorithm which avoids the computational requirement of generating all circuits (loops) in the
graph is proposed in [17]. However, this method is the foundation for [32] and also concludes for the
system of Figure 2 that the cardinality of the MBPS will be n + 1 = (9 − 5 + 1) + 1 = 6. Therefore, it
can readily be seen that this method also yields suboptimal results.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 6 of 17
Electronics 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Figure2.2.A
Figure A5-bus
5‐bustest
test case
case from [32]. A𝐴 isisthe
from [32]. theaaminimum
minimumbreakpoint
breakpointsetset(MBPS)
(MBPS)computed
computedusing
usingthe
the
methodology
methodologydetailed [32].B 𝐵is an
detailedinin[32]. alternative
is an breakpoint
alternative set set
breakpoint (BPS) of lower
(BPS) cardinality
of lower identified
cardinality by
identified
visual inspection.
by visual TheThe
inspection. existence
existenceof Bof 𝐵 contradicts
contradicts the conclusion that A
the conclusion is a𝐴MBPS.
that is a MBPS.

4. Proposed Method
4. Proposed Method
For the proposed method, parallel lines are treated as a single equivalent line. Let n be the number
For the proposed method, parallel lines are treated as a single equivalent line. Let 𝑛 be the
of buses and m be the number of lines. Define the lines as a set of lines E = {e1 , . . . em }. Let l ≡ (i, j)
number of buses and 𝑚 be the number of lines. Define the lines as a set of lines 𝐸 𝑒 , … 𝑒 . Let
represent the index for the edge connecting nodes i and j. If line capacities are considered, let MVAl
𝑙 ≡ 𝑖, 𝑗 represent the index for the edge connecting nodes 𝑖 and 𝑗. If line capacities 1
are considered,
represent the thermal capacity of line l. Define the initial edge weights as wl = MVA . The modified
let 𝑀𝑉𝐴 represent the thermal capacity of line 𝑙. Define the initial edge weights asl 𝑤 . The
edge weights are w∗l . Each bus k has ∗ an apparent load of SL,k = PL,k + jQL,k with magnitude sL,k = SL,k .
modified edge weights are 𝑤 . Each bus 𝑘 has an apparent load of 𝑆 , 𝑃, 𝑗𝑄 , with
e e
Pmagnitude
L,k and QL,k 𝑠 denote|𝑆the|active and
andreactive load power at bus k, respectively.
, , . 𝑃 , 𝑄 , denote the active and reactive load power at bus 𝑘 ,
In the
respectively. proposed method, a graph theory method is proposed for identifying a MBPS. This
algorithm
In the proposed method, a graph theory method is proposed foritsidentifying
seeks a minimum spanning tree for the system and identifies complement as a MBPS.
a MBPS. This
Additionally, thermal line limits can be considered to avoid overloading lines unnecessarily
algorithm seeks a minimum spanning tree for the system and identifies its complement as a MBPS. when the
primary breakers (those in the MBPS) open. Thermal limits are enforced by iteratively
Additionally, thermal line limits can be considered to avoid overloading lines unnecessarily when perturbing the
weights of lines
the primary with higher
breakers (those load
in thedemands. The process
MBPS) open. Thermalinlimits
summarized in Algorithm
are enforced 1. perturbing
by iteratively
the weights of lines with higher load demands. The process in summarized in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1. Proposed MBPS determination algorithm.

Algorithm
Result: MBPS 1. Proposed MBPS determination algorithm.
Initialization: set w∗l wl , ∀l ∈ {1, . . . , m}, choose α ∈ (0, 1)
Result: MBPS
if not considering line MVA ∗ limits, then:
Initialization: set 𝑤 ≔ 𝑤 , ∀𝑙 ∈ 1, … , 𝑚 , choose 𝛼 ∈ 0,1
(1) ifSet allconsidering
not modified edge weights
line w∗l = 1.
MVAtolimits, then:
(2) Compute theall
(1) Set minimum
modified spanning tree. Thistotree
edge weights 𝑤 ∗will1.have n − 1 edges. This will give the set of edges in
the minimum spanning
(2) Compute the minimum . . . ls }.
tree T = {l1 ,spanning tree. This tree will have 𝑛 1 edges. This will give
(3) T ⊆ E, defines the set of lines not in the MBPS. It must then hold that the minimum breakpoint set is
the set of edges in the minimum spanning tree 𝑇 𝑙 ,…𝑙 .
exactly the set difference MBPS = E\T. That is, MBPS and T are complementary subsets of E.
(3) 𝑇 ⊆ 𝐸, defines the set of lines not in the MBPS. It must then hold that the minimum
else breakpoint set is exactly the set difference 𝑀𝐵𝑃𝑆 𝐸\𝑇. That is, 𝑀𝐵𝑃𝑆 and 𝑇 are
(1) complementary subsets of 𝐸.
sL,k
else βk = Pn α, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , n} (18)
i=1 sL,i
(1)
𝑠 , (18)
𝛽 𝛼, ∀𝑘 ∈ 1, … , 𝑛
∑ 𝑠 ,

for 𝑘 1, … , 𝑛 do
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 7 of 17

for k = 1, . . . , n do
for l = 1, . . . , m do
if k ∈ l ≡ (i, j)

w∗l
w∗l (19)
1 + βk

end if
end for
end for
(2) Compute the minimum spanning tree. This tree will have n − 1 edges. This will give the set of edges in
the minimum spanning tree T = {l1 , . . . ls }.
(3) T ⊆ E defines the set of lines not in the MBPS. It must then hold that the minimum breakpoint set is
exactly the set difference MBPS = E\T. That is, MBPS and T are complementary subsets of E.

end if

If α is too small, line weight perturbations may not be sufficiently large to break ties where
necessary. However, if α is too large (near 1.0), line weight perturbations may be too large resulting in
inaccurate line limits. It is suggested that α = 0.01 (1%) be used as a heuristic to avoid these phenomena.

Theorem 1. Given a connected grid or microgrid consisting of n buses and e lines, the cardinality of any MBPS
will be
|MBPS| = e − n + 1. (20)

Proof. Consider a grid with n buses. Start with some minimum spanning tree (MST). Recall that
|MST| = n − 1. Any MST must form a network connecting all nodes and has no loops. Define some
! !
n n
k≤ − (n − 1), where the combinatorial is the total possible number of unordered pairwise
2 2
connections. Assume that k non-parallel lines are added to the network. Each line added forms a loop
and is, therefore, in some MBPS. Consider the MBPS which consists solely of these k newly added
lines. Then,
e = |MBPS| + |MST| ⇔ (21)

e = |MBPS| + (n − 1) ⇔ (22)

|MBPS| = e − (n − 1) ⇔ (23)

|MBPS| = e − n + 1. (24)

The MBPS is not unique. However, any MBPS will have the same cardinality. Therefore, Equation
(24) will hold for any MBPS. 

5. Results
The MBPS is computed for the IEEE 14-, IEEE 30-, and IEEE 57-bus test systems. Additionally, the
Polish Utility 3120 test system detailed in [34,35] is also examined. The computations were carried out
on a Dell Latitude 7490 with an i7-8650U 1.90 GHz processor with 16 GB RAM.

5.1. MBPS Not Considering Line MVA Limits

The results of various methods from literature are summarized in Table 1. The results for the
proposed method are summarized in Table 2 and the results from [22] are summarized in Table 3.
Comparing the results of Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that the cardinality using the proposed method
is improved (reduced) for the IEEE 14-bus, IEEE 30-bus, IEEE 57-bus, and Utility 3120 test cases by 3,
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 8 of 17

7, 12, and 279 relays, respectively. For the Utility 3120 case, there are 9 parallel lines corresponding
to breakers B973,982 , B992,1031 , B1098,1031 , B1667,1589 , B3069,3090 , B3058,3052 , B3103,1105 , B3119,72 , and B2472,175 .
The computation times were irregular and were too close to directly compare overall for the smaller
scale systems. A single trial was run for the proposed method, and for [22] there is no statement about
the number of how many trials was run to yield the published computation times. However, for the
large-scale Utility 3120 system, the computation time was drastically improved. This is likely due
to the computational inefficiency of computing the LU factorization for a large system as was done
in [22]. Additionally, the results of the proposed method seen in Table 2 are consistent with Theorem 1.
Note that in Table 2, each set of parallel lines is considered as a single equivalent line. Particularly, for
the Utility 3120 case, B1667,1589 corresponds to a pair of breakers on a set of parallel lines. Considering
these separately, the cardinality of the MBPS increases to |MBPS| = 566. The complete results for the
Utility 3120 test case are given in Appendix A.

Table 1. Comparison of MBPS cardinalities of various methods.

Cardinality of Computed MBPS

Algorithm
IEEE 14-Bus IEEE 30-Bus
Graph theoretical result from [36] 13 20
Relay coordination-based result from [31] 18 43
Optimization based result from [25] 10 18
LU factorization-based result from [22] 10 19

Table 2. MBPS computation using proposed method.

Test System Cardinality of MBPS Total Number of Lines CPU Time (ms)
IEEE 14-bus 7 20 8.8594
IEEE 30-bus 12 41 8.976
IEEE 57-bus 22 78 9.5913
Utility 3120 565 3684 12.2759

Table 3. MBPS results from [22].

Test System Cardinality of MBPS Total Number of Lines CPU Time (ms)
IEEE 14-bus 10 20 4.09
IEEE 30-bus 19 41 7.73
IEEE 57-bus 34 78 14.16
Utility 3120 844 3684 919.18

Visual representations of the IEEE 14-, 30-, and 57-bus systems are shown in Figures 3–5,
respectively. In each figure, the minimum spanning tree is marked in blue and the MBPS is marked in
red. The complementary nature of these sets can be seen in each figure. The combination of these two
disjoint sets form the entirety of the grid for each case, as is desired. It can readily be seen for each case
that adding to the cardinality of the MBPS will result in a disjointed network and that reducing the
cardinality will result in at least one loop in the network. In Table 1, a comparison is made among
several MBPS computations from literature. In comparing Tables 1 and 2, the cardinality MBPS is
improved for all cases implying that the results of Table 1 are breakpoint sets (BPSs), but not MBPSs.
In Tables 2 and 3, additional computational time information is given for the proposed method (Table 2)
and the method of [22] (Table 3). For each case, case the cardinality is improved. The computation
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 9 of 17

Electronics 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

times were relatively close together for small to moderate-sized systems. However, for large 3120 bus
Electronics 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
case, there was a drastic reduction in computation time.

Figure 3. IEEE 14‐bus test system MBPS results using the proposed algorithm (minimum spanning
tree is blue
Figure and14-bus
3. IEEE MBPStest
is red). TheMBPS
system full MBPS for
results this case
using is summarized
the proposed in Table
algorithm 4.
(minimum spanning tree
Figure 3. IEEE 14‐bus test system MBPS results using the proposed algorithm
is blue and MBPS is red). The full MBPS for this case is summarized in Table 4. (minimum spanning
Table
tree is blue and MBPS is red). 4.full
The FullMBPS
MBPS forfor
thisIEEE 14‐bus
case is test case.
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Full MBPS for IEEE 14-bus test case.
B , . 4.B Full
Table , B ,
MBPS Bfor. IEEE B , testB case.
B , 14‐bus ,
B1,5 B2,4 B2,5 B5,6 B6,12 B7,9 B10,11
B, . B , B , B . B , B , B ,

Figure 4. IEEE 30-bus test system MBPS results using the proposed algorithm (minimum spanning tree
Figure 4. IEEE 30‐bus test system MBPS results using the proposed algorithm (minimum spanning
is blue and MBPS is red). The full MBPS for this case is summarized in Table 5.
tree is blue and MBPS is red). The full MBPS for this case is summarized in Table 5.
Figure 4. IEEE 30‐bus test system MBPS
Table 5. resultsfor
Full MBPS using
IEEEthe proposed
30-bus algorithm (minimum spanning
test case.
Table
tree is blue and MBPS is red). 5.full
The FullMBPS
MBPS forfor
thisIEEE 30‐bus
case is test case.
summarized in Table 5.
B1,3 B2,6 B4,6 B6,9 B6.10 B6,28 B10,20 B10,22
𝐵 ,
B14,15
𝐵 , 5. BFull
Table
B22,24
𝐵 , MBPS𝐵 , for IEEE
B28,27
𝐵 , test𝐵case.
𝐵 . 30‐bus , 𝐵 ,
27,29
𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
𝐵 , 𝐵, 𝐵, 𝐵, 𝐵. 𝐵, 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,

𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 10 of 17
Electronics 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure 5.5. IEEE

IEEE 57-bus
57‐bustest
testsystem
systemMBPS
MBPSresults using
results thethe
using proposed algorithm
proposed (minimum
algorithm spanning
(minimum tree
spanning
is blue and MBPS is red). The full MBPS for this case is summarized in Table 6.
tree is blue and MBPS is red). The full MBPS for this case is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Full MBPS for IEEE 57-bus test case.

Table 6. Full MBPS for IEEE 57‐bus test case.
B B B B B6,7 B9,10 B9,13 B
𝐵 1,15
, 𝐵 1,16
, 𝐵 1,17
, 𝐵4,5
, 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵11,13
,
B13,15 B14,15 B28,29 B37,38 B38,49 B41,43 B44,45 B47,48
𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
B48,49 B50,51 B54,55 B56,41 B56,42 B57,56
𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
5.2. MBPS Considering Line MVA Limits
5.2. MBPS Considering Line MVA Limits
As earlier stated, it is possible that line capacities are limited. In such cases, higher capacity lines
Asbe
should earlier
keptstated, it is for
in service possible that
as long asline capacities
possible. Theare limited.
updated In such
MBPS forcases, higher
the IEEE capacity
30-bus lines
system is
should be kept in service for as long as possible. The line MVA (megavolt‐ampere)
shown in Figure 6 and is summarized in Table 7. The line MVA (megavolt-ampere) ratings for the ratings for the
41 lines
41 lines of
of the
the IEEE
IEEE 30-bus
30‐bus testtest case
case as
as documented
documented in in [37]
[37] are
are summarized
summarized in in column
column 55 of of Table
Table 8.
8.
The updated MBPS for the IEEE 30‐bus system is shown in Figure 6 and is summarized
The MVA capacity of each line is italicized and colored purple. A gradient/Hessian-based optimal in Table 7.
The MVA
power flowcapacity
(OPF) isof each linetoisvalidate
computed italicized and
this colored
new topologypurple.
usingAMatpower
gradient/Hessian‐based
6.0b1. The reason optimal
that
power flow (OPF) is computed to validate this new topology using Matpower 6.0b1.
an OPF is computed is to establish that a feasible operating point exists for the proposed topology. The reason that
an OPF is computed is to establish that a feasible operating point exists for the
Any power flow computation could be used to serve this same purpose. The choice of an OPF over a proposed topology.
Any power
general flow
power computation
flow could be The
is purely arbitrary. usedcost
to serve this for
function same purpose.
each Theaschoice
generator of an
defined OPFisover a
in [37]
general power flow is purely arbitrary. The cost function for each generator as defined in [37] is
𝑐 c0.02𝑃 22𝑃
1 = 0.02PG1 + 2PG1 (25)
(25)
𝑐 0.0175𝑃 1.75𝑃 (26)
c2 = 0.0175P2G2 + 1.75PG2 (26)
𝑐 0.0625𝑃 1.0𝑃 (27)
c5 = 0.0625P2G5 + 1.0PG5 (27)
𝑐 0.00834𝑃 3.25𝑃 (28)
2
𝑐 c = 0.00834P
8 0.025𝑃 + 3.25PG8
3.0𝑃
G8 (28)
(29)
𝑐 c110.025𝑃
= 0.025P2 3.0𝑃 . G11
+ 3.0P (30)
(29)
G11
The OPF results are summarizedcin Table 8. Each
2 line remains within its desired operating range
13 = 0.025PG13 + 3.0PG13 . (30)
and there are no loops in the system. Therefore, the computed MBPS is valid allowing the system to
continue to operate with all primary breakers open without overloading any branch elements.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 11 of 17

The OPF results are summarized in Table 8. Each line remains within its desired operating range
and there are no loops in the system. Therefore, the computed MBPS is valid allowing the system to
continue2019,
Electronics to operate
8, x FORwith
PEER all primary breakers open without overloading any branch elements.11 of 18
REVIEW

Figure 6. IEEE
IEEE 30‐bus
30-bus MBPS results considering
considering thermal
thermal line limits. The
The full
full MBPS
MBPS for
for this
this case is
summarized in Table
Table 7.
7.

Table 7. Full MBPS for IEEE 30-bus test case considering thermal line limits.
Table 7. Full MBPS for IEEE 30‐bus test case considering thermal line limits.
B2,4 B2,6 B5,7 B6,10 B6.28 B10,22 B14,15 B15,18
𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 . 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
B16,17 B22,24 B25,27 B27,29
𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 , 𝐵 ,
Table 8. Matpower optimal power flow (OPF) result for IEEE 30-bus with MBPS open.
Table 8. Matpower optimal power flow (OPF) result for IEEE 30‐bus with MBPS open.
|Sf | |Smax |
|𝑺𝒇 | |S |
Branch # From Bus to Bus (MVA) |𝑺 𝒎𝒂𝒙 |
(MVA) |𝑺𝒕 | t
Branch # From bus to Bus (MVA)
(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)
1 1 2 27.01 130 28.44
2 1 11 32 27.01
61.09 130
130 28.44
58.68
3 2 4 0 65 0
4
2 3
1 4
3 61.09
56.15
130
130
58.68
55.71
5 3 22 54 0
2.41 65
130 0 0.21
6 2 6 0 65 0
4 3 4 56.15 130 55.71
7 4 6 67.7 90 66.62
8 5 52 75 2.41
0 130
70 0.21 0
9 6 7 25.29 130 25.27
6 2 6 0 65 0
10 6 8 12.86 32 12.79
11 7 64 96 67.7
35.56 9065 66.62
35.67
12 6 10 0 32 0
8 5 7 0 70 0
13 3 11 0 65 0
14 9 36 107 25.29
35.67 130
65 25.27
35.82
15 4 12 25.8 65 27.22
10 6 8 12.86 32 12.79
16 12 13 47.95 65 50.19
17 11 12 6 149 35.56
6.47 6532 35.676.4
18 12 15 5.3 32
12 6 10 0 32 0 5.3
19 12 16 3.96 32 3.94
20 13 14 3 11
15 00 6516 0 0
21 14 16 3 17
10 0
35.67 6516 35.820
15 4 12 25.8 65 27.22
16 12 13 47.95 65 50.19
17 12 14 6.47 32 6.4
18 12 15 5.3 32 5.3
Electronics 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

20 14 15 0 16 0
21 16 17 0 16 0
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 22 15 18 0 16 0 12 of 17
23 18 19 3.32 16 3.34
24 19 20 8. Cont.
Table 13.42 32 13.52
25 10 20 16.25 32 15.83
|Sf | |Smax |
|St |
Branch26
# From 10
Bus 17
to Bus 10.79
(MVA) 32
(MVA) 10.71
(MVA)
27 10 21 18.76 32 18.97
22 15 18 0 16 0
23 28 1810 22
19 0
3.32 32
16 0 3.34
24 19 20 13.42 32
29 21 22 31.77 32 3213.52
25 10 20 16.25 32 15.83
26 30 1015 23
17 12.88
10.79 16
32 13.03
10.71
27 31 1022 21
24 18.76
0 32
16 018.97
28 10 22 0 32 0
29 32 2123 24
22 15.87
31.77 16
32 15.2732
30 33 1524 23
25 12.88
4.32 16
16 13.03
4.26
31 22 24 0 16 0
32 34 2325 26
24 4.26
15.87 16
16 4.19
15.27
33 35 2425 25
27 4.32
0 16
16 0 4.26
34 25 26 4.26 16 4.19
35 36 2528 27
27 32
0 65
16 34.330
36 37 2827 27
29 32
0 65
16 034.33
37 27 29 0 16 0
38 38 2727 30
30 14.06
14.06 16
16 13.32
13.32
39 39 2929 30
30 2.56
2.56 16
16 2.59
2.59
40 8 28 31.49 32 32
41 40 6 8 28
28 31.49
0 32
32 32 0
41 6 28 0 32 0
5.3. Post Fault Reconfiguration
5.3. Post Fault Reconfiguration
Consider again the result of Figure 3 (repeated below as Figure 7 for convenience). It may be
Consider
desired again the reconfigure
to automatically result of Figure
relay3coordination
(repeated below
afteras Figure 7orfor
a breaker convenience).
recloser It may
has cleared be
a fault.
desired to
Assume automatically
that instantaneousreconfigure
reclosers relay coordination
are placed on each after a breaker
line in the MBPS.or recloser has cleared
Furthermore, a fault.
assume that
Assume
there is athat instantaneous
sustained fault onreclosers
line 6-5.are placed
This faultonwill
eachbeline in the MBPS.
removed Furthermore,
from service by the assume that
radial relay
there is a sustained fault on line 6‐5. This fault will be removed from service
coordination after MBPS opens to remove all loops. A new MBPS configuration can be determined by the radial relay
coordination
after removing after
thisMBPS opens
line from theto remove
next MBPSall loops. A new MBPS configuration can be determined
computation.
after removing this line from the next MBPS computation.

Figure 7.7. IEEE

IEEE 14-bus
14‐bustest
testsystem
systemMBPS
MBPSresults using
results thethe
using proposed algorithm
proposed (minimum
algorithm spanning
(minimum tree
spanning
is blue
tree and MBPS
is blue is red).
and MBPS is red).

5.3.1. Reconfiguration 1: Line 6-5 Removed

After the fault on line 6-5 clears, a non-MBPS breaker remains open, reducing the cardinality of
the new MBPS by 1. This is because the missing line has effectively become a forced member of the full
MBPS. Overall, 7 breakers are still open in the system on the inception of an additional fault. The only
difference is that one (6-5) is now always open. This result is summarized in Figure 8.
5.3.1. Reconfiguration 1: Line 6‐5 Removed
After the fault on line 6‐5 clears, a non‐MBPS breaker remains open, reducing the cardinality of
the newAfter the fault
MBPS by 1.onThis
lineis6‐5 clears,the
because a non‐MBPS breaker
missing line remains open,
has effectively reducing
become a forcedthemember
cardinality of
of the
the
full new
MBPS. MBPS by 1.7This
Overall, is because
breakers the
are still missing
open in theline has effectively
system become
on the inception of aanforced member
additional of The
fault. the
full
onlyMBPS. Overall,
difference 7 breakers
is that one (6‐5)are still open
is now in the
always open.system on theisinception
This result of anin
summarized additional
Figure 8. fault. The
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 13 of 17
only difference is that one (6‐5) is now always open. This result is summarized in Figure 8.

Figure 8. IEEE 14‐bus test system reconfiguration after line 6‐5 has cleared a fault algorithm
Figure 8. IEEE 14-bus test system reconfiguration after line 6-5 has cleared a fault algorithm (minimum
(minimum
Figure spanning
8. IEEE treetest
14‐bus is blue and MBPS
system is red).
reconfiguration after line 6‐5 has cleared a fault algorithm
spanning tree is blue and MBPS is red).
(minimum spanning tree is blue and MBPS is red).
5.3.2. Reconfiguration
5.3.2. Reconfiguration 2: 2: Line
Line 9-4
9‐4 Removed
Removed
5.3.2. Reconfiguration 2: Line 9‐4 Removed
Startingfrom
Starting fromthethefirst
firstreconfiguration
reconfiguration of of Figure
Figure 8, suppose
8, suppose a second
a second sustained
sustained faultfault occurs
occurs on
on line
9-4. Starting
line The
9‐4. secondfrom
The second the first reconfiguration
reconfiguration
reconfiguration is shown
is shown of Figure
in Figure
in Figure 8, suppose
9. Note
9. Note a
that that
againsecond
again sustained fault
the cardinality
the cardinality occurs
ofMBPS
of the the MBPSon
has
line 9‐4. The
has reduced
reduced by 1second
by so reconfiguration
so 1that that
therethere 5 is
are now
are now shown
5 lines
lines in
in the Figure
inMBPS. 9. Note that again the cardinality of the MBPS
the MBPS.
has reduced by 1 so that there are now 5 lines in the MBPS.

Figure 9. IEEE 14-bus test system reconfiguration after line 9-4 has cleared fault algorithm (minimum
Figure 9. IEEE 14‐bus test system reconfiguration after line 9‐4 has cleared fault algorithm (minimum
spanning tree is blue and MBPS is red).
spanning
Figure tree is
9. IEEE blue and
14‐bus test MBPS
systemisreconfiguration
red). after line 9‐4 has cleared fault algorithm (minimum
6. Conclusions
spanning tree is blue and MBPS is red).
6. Conclusions
In this paper, it was found that the proposed method yielded a true MBPS for each case examined.
6. Conclusions
In this paper,
The cardinality it MBPS
of the was foundfor thethat the proposed
proposed method method
was the yielded
lowest for a true MBPS and
all circuits, for for
eachlarger
case
systemsIn this
examined. there paper,
Thewas it was of
cardinality found
a substantial the that the
MBPS
improvement proposed
for the in proposed method
computation method yielded
time was the
compared a true
lowest MBPS for
for all
to results each
circuits,
from case
and
literature.
examined.
Compared The
for larger systems
to thecardinality
there
best prior of
was the MBPS
a substantial
results for the proposed
improvement
from literature, method was
werethe
in computation
the cardinalities lowest for
by all
time compared
decreased 30,circuits, and
to results
33.33, 35.29,
for
from
and larger
33.06%, systems
literature. there for
Compared
respectively, wasto
theathesubstantial
IEEE priorimprovement
best14-bus, results in computation
from literature,
IEEE 30-bus, IEEE theand
57-bus, time compared
cardinalities
Utility 3120were to results
bus decreased
test cases,
from
by 30,literature.
33.33, 35.29,
respectively. Compared
Additionally, ato
and 33.06%, the
proof best prior for
respectively,
was carried results from14‐bus,
thewhich
out IEEE literature,
IEEEthe
established cardinalities
30‐bus,
that were
IEEE 57‐bus,
the cardinality decreased
ofand
the Utility
MBPS
by
for 30,
3120any 33.33,
bus test35.29,
system and
cases, 33.06%,
respectively.
consisting respectively,
of n buses Additionally,for the
and e lines IEEE
a proof
must 14‐bus,
wasexactly
equal IEEE
carriede −30‐bus,
out 1. IEEE
n +which 57‐bus,determined
All established
MBPSs andthat
Utility
the
3120
using bus
cardinality test cases,
of the
the proposed MBPSrespectively.
methodfor were
any system Additionally,
consisting
consistent with thea of 𝑛 buses
proof
resultwas and
of this 𝑒 lines
carried
proof,out which established
must equal
establishing exactly
that 𝑒 𝑛the
that
the proposed
1. All MBPSs
cardinality
results wereoftrue
the MBPS
determined
MBPSs. forAlso,
any system
using when consisting
the proposed
line limits of 𝑛 buses
method
were and 𝑒for
were consistent
considered lines must
with
the IEEE equal
the exactly
result
30-bus of this
test 𝑒 proof,
case, 𝑛
the
1. All MBPSs determined using the proposed method were consistent
proposed algorithm was able to generate a MBPS which allowed for a valid OPF to be computed for
establishing that the proposed results were true MBPSs. Also, when with
line the
limits result
were of this
considered proof,
so
establishing
that no branch that the proposed
element is overloadedresultsif were true MBPSs.
all primary breakersAlso,
are when
open at line limits
once underwere considered
normal operating for
conditions. That is, if all primary breakers (MBPS) are opened to clear a fault, the system can continue
to run if there are no transient instabilities present and the fault occurs on and is cleared by a breaker
in the MBPS.
Additionally, the proposed algorithm was able to determine reconfiguration after successive fault
clearances to maintain a current path between all nodes. This process may be repeated each time a
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 14 of 17

line is lost until the cardinality of the MBPS reaches zero. Beyond this point, further breaker trips will
partition the system.
Overall, the proposed Algorithm was found to determine a true MBPS each time it was applied.
The simplicity and lack of computational intensity required for this method allows for fast application
of the algorithm as needed. The proposed method is intended as a preprocessing step towards optimal
relay coordination. Fast computation of optimal relay setting is required for efficient application of
adaptive protection.
In future work, the goal will be to use the computed MBPS to initialize the computation of an
optimal relay coordination process. DERs will be considered and an optimization will be performed
to minimize all operating times with the coordination times of backup relays being the constraints.
Also, closing times of reclosers in the MBPS need to be considered. Closing too many reclosers all
at once, in too short of a time frame, or too quickly could result in transient instability. This is not
expected to be problematic because additional current paths are being added when the recloser closes,
reducing the burden on lines already active. However, this should be further investigated to draw a
more concrete conclusion.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C.M., M.J.R., and A.K.S.; methodology, R.C.M. and A.K.S.; software,
R.C.M; validation, R.C.M.; formal analysis, R.C.M.; investigation, R.C.M.; resources, M.J.R.; data curation, R.C.M.;
writing—original draft preparation, R.C.M.; writing—review and editing, A.K.S. and M.J.R.; visualization, R.C.M.;
supervision, M.J.R. and A.K.S.; project administration, M.J.R.; funding acquisition, M.J.R.
Funding: This research was funded by U.S Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration
under contract DE-NA-0003525.
Acknowledgments: Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National
Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc.,
for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.
This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be
expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United
States Government.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Utility 3120 Complete MBPS Results

The 565 distinct breakers in the MBPS for the Utility 3120 bus test case are detailed below. B_i_j
represents the breaker on line connecting nodes i and j. The single parallel breaker is highlighted
in green. The data are listed here in their entirety for the sake of repeatability of the results. Again,
different MBPSs may exist. However, according to the Theorem 1, they must all have the exact
same cardinality.
B_35_25, B_36_24, B_36_30, B_37_32, B_38_37, B_38_108, B_41_184, B_57_55, B_59_58, B_69_68,
B_71_70, B_72_55, B_73_57, B_73_72, B_75_74, B_76_55, B_77_72, B_77_76, B_106_105, B_107_41,
B_108_107, B_118_117, B_121_149, B_122_121, B_124_123, B_129_128, B_130_145, B_132_116,
B_133_123, B_133_132, B_135_134, B_136_78, B_137_136, B_139_137, B_139_138, B_141_140, B_142_119,
B_143_142, B_145_144, B_149_147, B_153_152, B_167_153, B_168_167, B_174_173, B_181_180, B_184_187,
B_184_197, B_187_186, B_188_168, B_189_188, B_194_193, B_196_168, B_196_195, B_196_198, B_199_178,
B_199_198, B_202_178, B_202_201, B_203_201, B_206_205, B_215_239, B_217_221, B_222_221, B_226_225,
B_228_234, B_233_235, B_235_234, B_237_236, B_239_238, B_259_258, B_324_323, B_371_370, B_403_525,
B_418_457, B_437_436, B_444_443, B_476_475, B_486_485, B_487_486, B_497_496, B_508_354, B_517_436,
B_518_503, B_519_473, B_524_474, B_525_375, B_525_427, B_546_545, B_557_543, B_560_559, B_562_561,
B_574_573, B_579_571, B_588_587, B_597_528, B_598_597, B_611_792, B_618_617, B_624_623, B_631_651,
B_638_526, B_647_645, B_670_669, B_702_701, B_710_625, B_739_738, B_741_723, B_741_737, B_749_748,
B_753_746, B_757_756, B_759_758, B_761_760, B_768_767, B_773_750, B_773_755, B_774_772, B_784_780,
B_790_526, B_794_564, B_800_781, B_804_778, B_806_805, B_810_609, B_810_809, B_811_589, B_811_798,
B_812_811, B_815_814, B_822_821, B_826_825, B_828_687, B_830_829, B_832_831, B_867_1112,
B_868_867, B_917_925, B_922_615, B_923_872, B_923_922, B_924_940, B_929_858, B_947_834, B_957_894,
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 15 of 17

B_960_945, B_960_948, B_960_955, B_960_959, B_964_962, B_965_960, B_966_959, B_966_965, B_969_954,

B_971_864, B_971_970, B_975_850, B_993_867, B_997_982, B_1002_1011, B_1002_1025, B_1005_1001,
B_1007_1000, B_1008_1000, B_1012_981, B_1012_1011, B_1018_1017, B_1019_1020, B_1020_988,
B_1023_1027, B_1028_1027, B_1028_1029, B_1031_914, B_1031_982, B_1032_986, B_1032_1031,
B_1035_1024, B_1037_867, B_1038_937, B_1038_1037, B_1044_1043, B_1046_1045, B_1047_1039,
B_1054_839, B_1054_908, B_1054_942, B_1054_1053, B_1055_1044, B_1056_1058, B_1057_1051,
B_1064_1062, B_1069_1093, B_1070_1053, B_1076_1052, B_1077_1012, B_1078_1043, B_1079_999,
B_1079_1078, B_1083_1068, B_1085_1079, B_1086_991, B_1086_1117, B_1087_1048, B_1088_932,
B_1090_1086, B_1097_892, B_1102_978, B_1104_1009, B_1105_903, B_1105_1104, B_1108_1089,
B_1110_967, B_1111_1075, B_1113_860, B_1119_1096, B_1119_1099, B_1119_1118, B_1120_1101,
B_1122_980, B_1123_1087, B_1125_1124, B_1127_1043, B_1289_1383, B_1301_1875, B_1305_1274,
B_1383_1377, B_1439_1438, B_1444_1926, B_1470_1473, B_1529_1295, B_1529_1296, B_1532_1531,
B_1544_1665, B_1546_1188, B_1546_1545, B_1562_1509, B_1564_1563, B_1586_1518, B_1590_1992,
B_1599_1839, B_1609_1702, B_1655_1665, B_1658_2020, B_1666_1665, B_1667_1589, B_1674_1673,
B_1679_1881, B_1683_1682, B_1703_1702, B_1705_2099, B_1707_1706, B_1728_1727, B_1730_1729,
B_1739_1483, B_1746_1775, B_1747_1738, B_1747_1746, B_1765_1764, B_1791_1790, B_1799_1798,
B_1804_2003, B_1808_1382, B_1829_1849, B_1834_1833, B_1842_1841, B_1854_1853, B_1860_1859,
B_1864_1863, B_1874_1873, B_1876_1875, B_1880_1443, B_1886_1885, B_1906_2181, B_1908_2091,
B_1916_1915, B_1928_1927, B_1930_2146, B_1936_1935, B_1940_1939, B_1943_1942, B_1945_1944,
B_1947_1949, B_1955_1954, B_1964_1963, B_1975_2103, B_1982_2009, B_1986_1985, B_1988_1987,
B_1993_1744, B_1996_1979, B_1997_1996, B_1998_1993, B_2003_2002, B_2016_2015, B_2022_2021,
B_2024_2023, B_2025_1630, B_2025_1890, B_2026_1631, B_2028_2027, B_2036_2035, B_2038_2037,
B_2043_2042, B_2045_1872, B_2045_2044, B_2047_2046, B_2053_2052, B_2055_2054, B_2057_2097,
B_2058_1903, B_2059_2058, B_2061_2188, B_2063_2062, B_2065_2064, B_2069_2068, B_2075_2074,
B_2079_2078, B_2081_2080, B_2083_1992, B_2083_1998, B_2083_2082, B_2085_2084, B_2087_2086,
B_2093_2092, B_2095_2094, B_2096_1911, B_2096_2072, B_2097_2073, B_2097_2096, B_2110_2109,
B_2111_2008, B_2112_1982, B_2112_2111, B_2114_2113, B_2117_2101, B_2118_2117, B_2120_2175,
B_2122_1876, B_2124_1652, B_2125_1680, B_2125_1924, B_2126_1462, B_2126_1466, B_2126_1679,
B_2128_2127, B_2130_2129, B_2132_2131, B_2134_2133, B_2141_2140, B_2144_1950, B_2144_1981,
B_2145_1624, B_2145_1850, B_2147_1674, B_2148_2012, B_2152_2151, B_2154_2153, B_2156_2155,
B_2158_2157, B_2162_2161, B_2166_1421, B_2166_1425, B_2167_1884, B_2169_2168, B_2171_2170,
B_2176_2143, B_2183_2182, B_2185_2184, B_2187_2186, B_2189_2188, B_2191_2190, B_2192_1669,
B_2192_1940, B_2193_1809, B_2195_2194, B_2199_2198, B_2201_1968, B_2201_2200, B_2205_2204,
B_2209_2208, B_2211_2210, B_2214_2218, B_2223_2222, B_2225_2224, B_2227_2226, B_2231_2230,
B_2244_2644, B_2254_2489, B_2300_2415, B_2343_2787, B_2384_2557, B_2400_2472, B_2407_2374,
B_2418_2417, B_2419_2571, B_2426_2571, B_2430_2369, B_2449_2402, B_2455_2318, B_2459_2765,
B_2480_2374, B_2488_2480, B_2498_2577, B_2513_2511, B_2529_2528, B_2535_2534, B_2537_2536,
B_2541_2643, B_2552_2576, B_2556_2555, B_2574_2573, B_2578_2577, B_2585_2532, B_2587_2644,
B_2588_2528, B_2592_2499, B_2595_2479, B_2598_2597, B_2601_2600, B_2602_2684, B_2604_2603,
B_2613_2557, B_2618_2517, B_2623_2788, B_2628_2566, B_2629_2627, B_2631_2670, B_2636_2643,
B_2640_2733, B_2641_2504, B_2647_2748, B_2649_2497, B_2651_2523, B_2657_2533, B_2666_2665,
B_2668_2667, B_2669_2574, B_2673_2672, B_2674_2321, B_2674_2599, B_2676_2675, B_2677_2576,
B_2677_2581, B_2681_2658, B_2687_2726, B_2691_2750, B_2697_2566, B_2697_2625, B_2702_2386,
B_2707_2626, B_2710_2752, B_2716_2715, B_2718_2695, B_2719_2725, B_2723_2680, B_2728_2528,
B_2729_2572, B_2734_2706, B_2738_2553, B_2738_2579, B_2739_2730, B_2741_2575, B_2742_2680,
B_2744_2787, B_2745_2423, B_2746_2652, B_2751_2388, B_2753_2756, B_2760_2653, B_2761_2565,
B_2766_2765, B_2768_2767, B_2770_2586, B_2774_2773, B_2776_2506, B_2781_2697, B_2784_2783,
B_2789_2621, B_2790_2574, B_2814_3095, B_2835_2834, B_2846_2849, B_2851_3068, B_2868_2867,
B_2869_2868, B_2874_2867, B_2876_2875, B_2878_2877, B_2895_3063, B_2908_2878, B_2911_2909,
B_2914_2899, B_2925_2924, B_2925_2941, B_2926_2954, B_2932_3045, B_2954_2957, B_2955_2954,
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 16 of 17

B_2955_2958, B_2958_2957, B_2959_2954, B_2960_2847, B_2961_2969, B_2962_3096, B_2964_2919,

B_2965_2990, B_2972_2931, B_2973_2972, B_2973_2996, B_2974_2849, B_2975_2915, B_2979_2978,
B_2981_2844, B_2988_3056, B_2993_3037, B_2997_2865, B_3000_3078, B_3001_3065, B_3006_3019,
B_3009_2992, B_3012_3011, B_3015_3014, B_3015_3016, B_3016_3101, B_3019_2896, B_3027_3025,
B_3028_3030, B_3029_3036, B_3030_3029, B_3031_2939, B_3032_3080, B_3034_3024, B_3038_2957,
B_3039_2861, B_3042_2936, B_3043_2994, B_3044_2869, B_3047_2937, B_3049_3048, B_3050_2893,
B_3052_3054, B_3054_3053, B_3055_3052, B_3059_3097, B_3062_3079, B_3064_2927, B_3066_3095,
B_3070_3073, B_3071_3031, B_3074_3073, B_3075_3072, B_3077_2958, B_3082_3030, B_3083_2795,
B_3084_3083, B_3096_3095, B_3098_3097, B_3099_3074, B_3100_3086, B_3101_3100, B_3107_3106,
B_3114_120, B_3116_181, B_3117_170, B_3118_62, B_3120_236

References
1. IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with Associated Electric
Power Systems Interfaces; IEEE Std 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547-2003); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2018; pp. 1–138. [CrossRef]
2. Venkata, S.S.; Reno, M.J.; Bower, W.; Manson, S.; Reilly, J.; Sey, G.W., Jr. Microgrid Protection: Advancing the
State of the Art; SAND2019-3167; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2019.
3. Seuss, J.; Reno, M.J.; Broderick, R.J.; Grijalva, S. Maximum PV Size Limited by the Impact to Distribution
Protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14–19 June 2015.
4. Matthews, R.C.; Hossain-McKenzie, S.; Reno, M.J. Fault Current Correction Strategies for Effective Fault
Location in Inverter-Based Systems. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC 46), Chicago, IL, USA, 16–21 June 2019.
5. Kirthiga, M.V.; Muppiddi, P. A case study for controlled islanding based on line contingency ranking in
autonomous micro-grids. In Proceedings of the AFRICON Conference, Pointe-Aux-Piments, Mauritius,
9–12 September 2013.
6. Jane, R.; Parker, G.G.; Weaver, W.; Matthews, R.; Rizzo, D.; Cook, M. Optimal Power Management of Vehicle
Sourced Military Outposts. SAE Intern. J. Commer. Veh. 2017, 10, 132–143. [CrossRef]
7. Hossain-McKenzie, S.; Piesciorovsky, E.C.; Reno, M.J.; Hambrick, A.J.C. Microgrid Fault Location: Challenges
and Solutions; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2018.
8. Keil, T.; Jäger, J. Advanced coordination method for overcurrent Protection Relays Using Nonstandard
Tripping Characteristics. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2008, 23, 52–57. [CrossRef]
9. Kargar, H.K.; Abyaneh, H.A.; Ohis, V.; Meshkin, M. Pre-processing of the optimal coordination of overcurrent
relays. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2005, 75, 134–141. [CrossRef]
10. Abyaneh, H.A.; Al-Dabbagh, M.; Karegar, H.K.; Sadeghi, S.H.H.; Khan, R.A.J. A newoptimal approach for
coordination of overcurrent relays in interconnected power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2003, 18,
430–435. [CrossRef]
11. Sharifian, H.; Abyaneh, H.A.; Salman, S.K.; Mohammadi, R.; Razavi, F. Determination of the Minimum
Break Point Set Using Expert System and Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2010, 25, 1284–1295.
[CrossRef]
12. Abyaneh, H.A.; Al-Dabbagh, M.; Sedeghi, H.; Kazemikargar, H. A comprehensive method for break points
finding based on expert system for protection coordination in power systems. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2007,
77, 660–672. [CrossRef]
13. Gajbhiye, R.; De, A.; Helwade, R.; Soman, S. A simple and efficient approach to determination of minimum
set of break point relays for transmission protection system coordination. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Future Power Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 18 November 2005.
14. Meliopoulos, A.P.S.; Cokkinides, G.J.; Tan, Z.; Choi, S.; Lee, Y.; Myrda, P. Setting-Less Protection: Feasibility
Study. In Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA,
7–10 January 2013.
15. Yang, X.; Shi, D.; Chen, J.; Duan, X. Determination of Break Point Set for Directional Relay Coordination
Based on Analysis of Breaking Loop. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
Montreal, QC, Canada, 18–22 June 2006.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1376 17 of 17

16. Prodan, I.; Stoican, F.; Zio, E. On a fault tolerant strategy for efficient energy management in microgrid
systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 458–463. [CrossRef]
17. Hosseinzadeh, M.; Salmasi, F.R. Fault-Tolerant Supervisory Controllerfor a Hybrid AC/DC Micro-Grid.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2018, 9, 2809–2823. [CrossRef]
18. Goud, P.C.D.; Gupta, R. Dual-mode control of multi-functional converter in solar PV system for small off-grid
applications. IET Power Electron. 2019, 12, 2851–2857. [CrossRef]
19. Igbinovia, F.O.; Fandi, G.; Müller, Z.; Švec, J.; Tlusty, J. Cost implication and reactive power generating
potential of the synchronous condenser. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent
Green Building and Smart Grid (IGBSG), Prague, Czech Republic, 27–29 June 2016.
20. Moxley, R.; Fodero, K. High-Speed Distribution Protection Made Easy: Communications-Assisted Protection
Schemes for Distribution Applications. SEL J. Reliab. Power 2012, 3, 1–9.
21. Zeineldin, H.H.; Sharaf, H.M.; Ibrahim, D.K.; El-Zahab, E.E.-D.A. Optimal Protection Coordination for
Meshed Distribution Systems With DG Using Dual Setting Directional Over-Current Relays. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 2015, 6, 115–123. [CrossRef]
22. Liu, L.; Fu, L. Minimum Breakpoint Set Determination for Directional Overcurrent Relay Coordination
in Large-Scale Power Networks via Matrix Computations. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2017, 32, 1784–1789.
[CrossRef]
23. Zill, D.G.; Wright, W.S. Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 5th ed.; Burlington: Burlington, NJ, USA; Jones &
Bartlett Learning, LLC: Burlington, MA, USA, 2014.
24. Shen, Y.-Q.; Ypma, T.J. Solving Separable Nonlinear Equations Using LU Factorization. ISRN Math. Anal.
2013, 2013, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Gajbhiye, R.K.; De, A.; Soman, S.A. Computation of Optimal Break Point Set of Relays—An Integer Linear
Programming Approach. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2007, 22, 2087–2098. [CrossRef]
26. Hillier, F.S.; Lieberman, G.J. Introduction to Operations Research, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.:
New York, NY, USA, 2005.
27. Sun, X.; Chang, C.; Su, H.; Rong, C. Novel Degree Constrained Minimum Spanning Tree Algorithm Based on
an Improved Multicolony Ant Algorithm. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 601782. [CrossRef]
28. Hasuike, T.; Katagiri, H.; Tsuda, H. Risk-Control Approach for a Bottleneck Spanning Tree Problem with the
Total Network Reliability under Uncertainty. J. Appl. Math. 2012, 2012, 364086. [CrossRef]
29. Cormen, T.H.; Leiserson, C.E.; Rivest, R.L.; Stein, C. Minimum Spanning Trees, in Introduction to Algotithms;
The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 623–642.
30. Hillier, F.S.; Lieberman, G.J. The Minimum Spanning Tree Problem, in Introduction to Operations Research, 8th ed.;
McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 384–388.
31. Yue, Q.; Lu, F.; Yu, W.; Wang, J. A Novel Algorithm to Determine Minimum Break Point Set for Optimum
Cooperation of Directional Protection Relays in Multiloop Networks. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2006, 21,
1114–1119. [CrossRef]
32. Elrefaie, H.B.; Irving, M.R. Determination of minimum break point set for protection co-ordination using a
functional dependency concept. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2010, 15, 371–375. [CrossRef]
33. Prasad, V.C.; Rao, K.S.P.; Rao, A.S. Coordination of directional relays without generating all circuits.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 1991, 6, 584–590. [CrossRef]
34. Korab, R. Case3120, MATPOWER. 22 October 2014. Available online: https://matpower.org/docs/ref/
matpower5.0/case3120sp.html (accessed on 29 July 2019).
35. Zimmerman, R.D.; Murillo-S´anchez, C.E.; Thomas, R.J. MATPOWER: Steady-state operations, planning and
analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2011, 26, 12–19. [CrossRef]
36. Damborg, M.; Venkata, S. Specification of Computer-aided Design of Transmission Protection Systems; Electric
Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1984.
37. Alsac, O.; Stott, B. Optimal Load Flow with Steady-State Security. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 1974,
PAS-93, 745–751. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).