See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305827817

An Analysis of Open-Phase Fault in Power Generation Station

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1109/NAPS.2016.7748004

CITATIONS READS
8 1,425

3 authors, including:

Saeed Mohajeryami Zia Salami

University of California, San Diego University of North Carolina at Charlotte
48 PUBLICATIONS   365 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving Customer Baseline Load (CBL) calculation for residential customers View project

Lightning Transients Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saeed Mohajeryami on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Analysis of Open-Phase Fault in Power
Generation Station
Saeed Mohajeryami, Milad Doostan, Zia Salami
Energy Production and Infrastructure Center (EPIC)
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, NC, USA
Email: {smohajer, mdoostan, zsalami}@uncc.edu

Abstract—This paper attempts to investigate and analyze the
electrical characteristics present on the power grid when an
open-phase event occurs at an off-site transformer. In order
to conduct such task, this paper uses transformer, load, and
connection data obtained from a real power plant to simu-
late several different power system configurations and analyzes
various model responses in EMTP-RV software. Several testing
scenarios that encompass a variety of loading conditions that can
be encountered at the power plant are also defined. At the end,
open phase simulation for these scenarios is carried out and all
results are presented and discussed in detail.
Index Terms—open phase fault; transformers; voltage study;
sequence currents; EMTP-RV
I. I NTRODUCTION
Several recent events in which protective relaying systems
did not correctly detect open-phase conditions on three-phase,
which led to safety related issues at many power plants,
have necessitated the power plants’ operators to address the
difficulties inherent in open-phase detection [1].
A prime example of this situation is the loss-of-phase event
at the Byron power plant in Jan. 2012, in which a loss of the
phase C conductor, which was feeding the off-site transformer
was not detected. This condition led to a voltage imbalance
that cascaded down to the station buses through the system
off-site transformer. Since this open-phase condition was not
detected by any of the protective relays, the condition was
allowed to exist for an extended period of time [2]. Similar
open-phase events at other power plants went undetected for
long periods of time in one case for 21 days [3]. Moreover, in
a recent case in which an Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG)
failed to start after an undetected loss of two phases, the event
caused damage to several motors [4].
Since the specific electrical quantities involved in the loss
of one or two phases can vary greatly depending on system
configuration, equipment designs, level of loading, and types
and connections of loads [5], it has so far proven challenging
for the industry to design a protective relaying system which
reliably recognizes open-phase conditions and trips appropri-
ately. As a matter of fact, the ability to detect open-phase
conditions allows plant operators to respond appropriately
when they occur. In addition, identifying open-phase events
can reduce dangers to individuals in the vicinity of the
condition. A hanging, high-voltage cable that has not been
tripped by over-current relaying and has not been identified as
an open phase presents a hazard to personnel in the area. This
hazard would be greatly reduced by the warning presented by
open-phase identification. As a result, various works have been
carried out for the purpose of detecting such events.
The authors in [6] intend to address different technical
issues associated with detecting an open-phase condition of a
power plant auxiliary transformer by considering various load
levels. To carry out such task, they apply different simula-
tion techniques including frequency domain and time domain
methods. According to their results, the system response to an
open phase event depends on the transformer connection and
core configuration.
In [7], the authors simulate and examine the terminal behav-
ior of a power plant auxiliary transformer under an open phase
condition on its primary side by employing electromagnetic
transient simulations. The transformer is modeled in PSCAD
software by using data gathered from manufacturer report.
Their results provide insight into the per-phase voltage magni-
tude and angles. Besides, positive, negative, and zero sequence
voltages and currents generated during the loss of one or two
phases of the transformer’s primary side are evaluated. In
another attempt, the authors in [8] analyze the open phase con-
ditions in three phase transformers. Their work examines the
impact of transformer’s winding and core construction on the
fault voltage and currents of the low-side of the transformer.
According to their results, fault voltage and current on the low-
side greatly depend on the winding configuration as well as the
transformer’s core construction. Nevertheless, the simplified
test system used by the paper, neglects many other parameters
including the different loading scenarios. Moreover, Authors
in [9] analyzed these power transformers’ inrush current in
the presence of such internal faults. Furthermore, in [10],
the authors explored how to detect such faults. Authors in
[11] recommended the application of a positive temperature
coefficient (PTC) devices, which can be connected in series
with a circuit breaker and disconnect it. Moreover, authors
in [12] assessed the transient recovery voltages (TRV) in
order to improve the post-fault situation in the presence of
superconducting fault current limiters (SFCL). Besides, there
are some wide-area control approaches to mitigate the impact
of disturbance propagations of such faults [13]- [16].
 Fig. 1: Schematic of the power system model, modeled in EMTP-RV
This paper attempts to investigate and analyze the electrical
characteristics present on the power grid when an open-phase
event occurs at an off-site transformer. Off-site transformers
typically provide operating power to a power plant from the
grid when the plant is unable to provide its own power, such
as upon startup or during accident scenarios. As such, loss of
a phase at the transformer can result in severe unbalances and
adverse operating conditions for critical plant machinery and
infrastructure, including safety related equipment. However,
since different power plants have a variety of configurations in
the way they are connected to the power grid, a loss of phase
on one configuration might not produce the same observed
conditions as loss of phase on another configuration. The goal
of this paper, therefore, is to simulate a specific model in
a variety of configurations to gather data about the system
response to open phase conditions. In order to overcome
the problems associated with transient phenomenon, several
approaches are suggested in the literature.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section II,
the test system is presented and its components are described
in detail. Then, in section III, several testing scenarios that
encompass a variety of loading conditions that can be en-
countered at the power plant are defined, and various open
phase types are described. Also, in this section the testing
procedure is explained. Afterwards, open phase simulation for
these scenarios is carried out and all results are presented and
discussed in section IV. Finally, section V closes the paper by
drawing conclusions.
II. S YSTEM MODELING
The power system model is determined based on the generic
layout of the typical offsite power grid connection at power
plants, which allows flexibility in loading levels and types, as
well as the potential for various transformer types or other
similar changes. The overview of the model can be seen in
Fig. 1.
All components that are used in the model are discussed in
detail as follows.
• Power Supply: The power supply to the system is a grid
connection modeled using a voltage source set at 345kV,
line-to-line.
• Transformer: A 3x1 phase, 3 winding, 345/6.9/4.16kV,
Yg-Yg-Yg connected (solid ground on primary, resistive
ground on secondary and tertiary), 40/35/5MVA nominal
transformer. For the transformer core, a 3-legged core is
selected. The secondary and tertiary grounding resistors
are calculated to limit the ground current in the event
of a ground fault to 600A. For the secondary winding,
the resistor calculation produces 6.64 ohms, and for the
tertiary winding, 4.00 ohms.
• Buses: Three types of electrical buses are modeled: The
switchyard high-side bus, an Engineered Safeguard (ES)
bus, and a Balance of Plant (BOP) bus. The switchyard
high-side bus is simply modeled as the connection
between the transformer and the grid interconnect. It
is modeled as an ideal (no impedance), 3-phase bus in
EMTP-RV. An ES bus runs safety related equipment,
such as safety injection pumps and critical equipment
for accident situations, and as such, would normally
be lightly loaded during plant normal power operation.
The BOP bus provides power for non-safety loads
 such as steam-side pumps (e.g. feedwater, condensate,
circulating water), lighting, HVAC, etc. The ES and
BOP buses are modeled at 4.16 and 6.9kV, respectively,
as these are the conditions at Byron power plant. Both
buses are modeled as ideal, 3-phase buses.
• Load: Two types of electrical loads are modeled on each
bus: asynchronous inductive motor loads, and static PQ
loads.
A. Motor Loads: An asynchronous, inductive motor load
is modeled on each low-side bus according to the infor-
mation provided in Table I.
B. Static Loads: Static loads are modeled according to
the information presented in Table II.
• Switches: Open-phase conditions are simulated using an
ideal, three-phase switch placed at the high-side of the
transformer. The switches are also placed between the
buses and motor loads to allow the motors to be switched
on after the occurrence of the open phase. These motor
control switches will be operated as three phase devices,
all closing simultaneously.
III. T ESTING PLAN AND PROCESS
The testing plan refers to the types of open-phase events that
will be placed on the power system, and to the configuration
of the power system during each open phase. The individual
sections of the plan were determined based on various sources
and will be discussed individually as follows.
A. Power System Configurations
This subsection outlines the steady state and motor start
conditions. This refers to the conditions on the power system
when the open phase occurs. Motor start means that an open
phase will occur on the system and a motor will then be
switched into service. Tables III and IV show the steady state
and motor start scenarios that will be tested, respectively.
According to Table III, normal power operation is simulated
by setting the ES and BOP static loads to 20% and 100%,
respectively, of their nominal operating powers. That is to
say, load level (%) only refers to the level at which the
static loads are set. Motor loads are always run at full power.
With all components at steady state, the specific open phase
TABLE I: MOTOR LOADS INFORMATION
Power Apparent Power Efficiency
Bus Type
(hp) (MVA) (%)
BOP 7000 6.184 99
ES 1000 1.285 99
TABLE II: STATIC LOADS INFORMATION
Real Power Reactive Power Voltage
Bus Type
(MW) (Mvar) (kVLL)
BOP 25.934 12.56 6.2
ES 3.344 1.619 4 Fig. 2: Four basic open phase types
is applied and all relevant measurements are taken once the
system reached its new steady state. Similar procedures are
repeated for ”refueling outage”, ”accident”, and ”lowest load
conditions”, with the only change being the respective levels
at which the static loads are set.
According to Table IV, accident conditions with motor start
on ES are simulated by setting the ES and BOP static loads
to 80% of their nominal operating powers. The BOP motor
load begins the simulation already turned on at 100% power;
however, the ES motor load is switched on and run at 100%
power after the open phase is applied to the system. All
relevant measurements are taken before and after the ES motor
load is switched on. Similar procedures are repeated for lowest
load with motor start on ES, and lowest load with motor start
on BOP with the only change being the load levels and the
bus on which the motor starts.
All conditions that are outlined in Tables III and IV are
repeated for each type of open phase.
B. Open Phase Types
This subsection outlines the exact manner in which the open
phase events are applied to the system. All open phase faults
are applied in simple open phase (case 1), open phase with
line-to-ground fault on the grid side (case 2), open phase with
line-to-ground fault on the transformer high-side (case 3), or
double open phase (case 4).
A further subdivision of cases 2 and 3 is the insertion of
resistances in the ground faults in addition to testing solid
ground faults.
The resistances used for the ground faults (0, 100, and
400 ohms) are decided based on [20]. They represent high,
middle, and low estimates of ground resistance, depending on
the type of material in contact with the downed line and/or
how solid the contact between the line and ground is. Figure
2 demonstrates the four basic open phase types.
C. Testing Procedure
All faults are placed exactly as described earlier, including
load values and system configurations for each case. The
timing of open phase fault placement and motor start varies
depending on the exact scenario and case. Before data are
collected for each test, a sample simulation is performed
to determine how long the system requires to reach steady
state, before and after fault or motor start initiation. The open
phase fault or motor start is then applied to the system at
the appropriate time and the simulation is run long enough to
ensure that no normal system transients are included as fault
 TABLE III: STEADY STATE TESTING CONFIGURATIONS
Condition ES Load Level BOP Load Level

Scenario 1: Normal Power Operation 20% (P=0.6688MW, Q=0.3238MVar) 100% (P=25.934MW, Q= 12.56MVar)
Scenario 2: Refueling Outage 20% (P=0.6688MW, Q=0.3238MVar) 20% (P=5.1868MW, Q= 2.512MVar)
Scenario 3: Accident 100%(P=3.344MW, Q=1.619MVar) 80%(P=20.7472MW, Q= 10.048MVar)
Scenario 4: Lowest Load 10%(P=0.3344MW, Q=0.1619MVar 10%(P=2.5934MW, Q= 1.256MVar)

TABLE IV: MOTOR START TESTING CONFIGURATIONS

Conditions ES Load Level BOP Load Level

Scenario 5: Accident Conditions with

80%(P=2.6752MW, Q=1.2952MVar) 80%(P=20.7472MW, Q=10.048MVar)
Motor Start on ES
Scenario 6: Lowest Load with
10%(P=0.3344MW, Q=0.1619MVar) 10%(P=2.5934MW, Q=1.256MVar)
Motor Start on ES
Scenario 7: Lowest Load with
10%(P=0.3344MW, Q=0.1619MVar 10%(P=2.5934MW, Q=1.256MVar)
Motor Start on BOP

or motor start effects. Because the normal transients change in
length depending on the exact scenario being tested, the data
sets for each scenario can vary from 2 seconds to 40 seconds.
IV. R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After processing and analyzing the data, the authors have
drawn some conclusions that can serve as indicators of the
different types of open phases studied. These conclusions
are not intended to be definitive, but rather serve as starting
points for anyone seeking to look for signs of an open phase
condition.
A. Significant negative sequence current for all open phases
conditions
All open phase cases produce significant negative sequence
current (I2 ) on the low-side buses, even for lightly loaded
(10%) scenarios. The exact level of I2 with respect to positive
sequence current (I1 ) varies depending on the loading scenario
and case; however, I2 is always significant and detectable.
Examples of I2 behavior for scenario 1 are illustrated in
Figures 3 and 4.
From Figure 3, it is understood that the negative sequence
current on the ES bus (scenario 1, case 1) increases from 0 to
approximately 1100 A upon open phase initiation at t=0.5s.
The negative sequence current is actually greater than the
original positive sequence current in this simulation.
From Figure 4, the negative sequence current on the BOP
bus (scenario 1, case 3) increases from 0 to approximately
1800A upon open phase initiation at t=0.5s. The negative
sequence current is less than the positive sequence current in
this simulation; however, it is still a significant and detectable
quantity. The general trend of the I1 to I2 ratio is that negative
sequence current is greater than the positive sequence current
for the ES bus and the opposite for the BOP bus. This
difference in behavior is likely due to loading levels, since
100% loading on the ES bus is 5MVA, and 35MVA on the
BOP. Indeed, even light loading on the BOP is larger than the
majority of scenarios on the ES bus.
With respect to the ES bus having higher negative sequence
current than the pre-fault positive sequence, the authors believe
that this is due to the three winding transformer; that is to say,
it is caused by the interaction between the BOP and ES buses
through the transformer. If the BOP has much heavier load,
it has a greater effect on sequence currents, which are then
partially forced onto the ES side.
All other cases and scenarios produce similar results. For
the specific transformer windings, grounding configuration,
and lack of core, tested in this paper, tripping the circuit on
detection of I2 would appear to be a legitimate response to
isolate the open phase fault. However, other types of faults
produce I2 ; hence, this is not a guaranteed method to positively
identify an open phase condition. It is possible that using I2
detection in conjunction with some of the other conclusions
discussed in what follows would be sufficient to make a
positive open phase identification.
B. Zero sequence current is Split Equally Between Buses
For all Cases and Scenarios, the zero sequence current (I0 )
flowing through the BOP bus is equal to the I0 flowing through
the ES bus, always to within 5A, but usually with less than
1A difference. However, the authors believe this behavior is
not specifically related to the open phase condition, but rather
to the selection of the low-side transformer grounding resistor.
C. Phase voltage depends on exact open phase application
The phase voltages for each bus vary substantially depend-
ing on the specific case being tested. For case 1 and case 2, the
three phase voltages settle at three different levels. The basic
pattern is: the phase B stays close to the pre-fault voltage,
the phase C (open) drops to the lowest, and the phase A
approximately falls between B and C. The authors believe
that this behavior is related to phase rotation; that is, if the
phase rotation was reversed (ACB instead of ABC), the phase
A would stay at pre-fault voltage, the phase B would fall, and
the phase C (open) would remain the same as the previous
test. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate this behavior for scenario 1,
cases 1 and 2.
According to Figures 5 and 6, for scenario 1, cases 1 and 2,
on the ES bus, the phase B (green) remains at pre-fault voltage,
the phase C (blue, open) drops by approximately 50%, and the
phase A (red) is roughly the average of B and C.
 However, for case 3, phase A and B voltages drop roughly
15-20% from pre-fault voltage, while phase C (open) voltage
drops to approximately half of the A and B levels as illustrated
in Figure 7.
For case 4 (double open phase), all three phase voltages
drop to 15% or less of the pre-fault voltage. While all three
phases are low, the two open phases (B and C) decrease further
than the unopened phase. Figure 8 shows an example of this
system behavior.
From Figure 8, the phase A (red, unopened) has dropped
to 13% of the pre-fault voltage, while the B and C (green and
blue, open phases) have dropped to around 2% of the pre-fault
voltage. Fig. 3: I2 Behavior (Red Line) Fig. 4: I2 Behavior (Red Line)
It is worth mentioning that although the exact levels and on ES bus, scenario 1, case 1 on BOP bus, scenario 1, case 3
percent changes of the phase voltages can vary depending on
the loading and motor conditions, the general pattern of three
different phase voltages holds for all cases.
D. Long motor acceleration times result from double open
phase
Long electrical transient times are observed in the case 4
motor start scenarios. The authors believe that these transient
Fig. 5: ES Phase Voltages for Fig. 6: ES Phase Voltages for
times are likely caused by long motor acceleration times, scenario 1,case1 scenario 1, case 2
which are in turn caused by low voltage and insufficient,
unbalanced current. Figures 9 to 12, show a scenario 7 motor
start on the BOP bus. Figures 9 and 10 show the scenario
with no open phases, while Figures 11 and 12 show the same
scenario with a double open phase on B and C.
Comparing Figures 9 and 11 shows that with no open phase,
the BOP motor draws a peak current of around 4000 A upon
starting at t=2s . However, with a double open phase applied,
the BOP motor has to wait 30 seconds before it can start while Fig. 7: ES Phase Voltages for Fig. 8: ES Phase Voltages for
scenario 1, case 3 scenario 1, case 4
the ES motor is reaching steady state in Figure 11. After the
BOP motor starts at t=30 seconds, the motor is only able to
draw about 220 A of positive sequence current, with severe
unbalances shown by the other sequences.
The voltage graphs tell the same story. Comparing Figures
10 and 12 shows that with no open phase, the BOP bus has
the full pre-fault voltage available after a short startup sag.
However, with the double open phase applied, the ES motor
has unbalanced, low voltages available which drop even further Fig. 9: Sequence Currents for Fig. 10: Phase Voltages for
once the BOP motor switches on at t=30s. scenario 7, No open phase scenario 7, No open phase
The graphs show long, slow changes in the electrical values
while initial motor builds up to speed. Once the initial motor
has reached steady state and the second motor is started, these
values drop even further.
V. C ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This paper investigated the electrical response to open-phase
conditions on a power plant. EMTP-RV software was chosen
for simulation of the relevant conditions. Then, a testing plan Fig. 11: Sequence Currents for Fig. 12: Phase Voltages for
scenario 7, case 4 scenario 7, case 4
that included system layout, desired configurations, and equip-
ment to be modeled was developed. The testing plan, also,
covered a range of realistic alignment and loading conditions
at power plant, as well as encompassing the known ways in
which an open phase can develop. All identified alignments,
loading conditions, and open phase types were simulated and
the results were presented. At the end, by analyzing the results,
the discussions were provided about system behavior during
open phase conditions. The authors believe that the model,
data, and conclusions resulting from this study could give
insight into open phase conditions, as well as provide a solid
foundation for researchers who want to extend the study.
As a future study, the authors plan to investigate the impact
of various transformer winding types, load connections, and
transformer cores on the open-phase condition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Mr. Joel Mathewson,
Mario Poujol, Volodymyr Habovda, and Lee Easter for their
invaluable contributions to this work.
[16] J. Lang, S. Pascoe, J. Thompson, J. Woyak, K. Rahimi and R. Broadwa-
ter, ”Smart Grid Big Data: Automating Analysis of Distribution Systems,”
2016 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC), Westminster, CO,
USA, 2016, pp. 96-101.
[17] M. Rakhshan,et al., ”Design of networked polynomial control systems
with random delays: sum of squares approach,” in International Journal
of Automation and Control, 10(1), 73-86. 2016
[18] M. Dabbaghjamanesh, et al.,”High performance control of grid con-
nected cascaded H-Bridge active rectifier based on type II-fuzzy logic
controller with low frequency modulation technique.” International Jour-
nal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), Vol.6, no.2, 484-
494. 2016
[19] M. Biglarbegian, N. Shah, I. Mazhari and B. Parkhideh, ”Design
considerations for high power density/efficient PCB embedded inductor,”
IEEE 3rd Workshop on Wide Bandgap Power Devices and Applications
(WiPDA), Blacksburg, VA, 2015.
[20] PSRC Working Group D15 ”High Impedance Fault Detection Technol-
ogy,” March 1, 1996.

R EFERENCES
[1] Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), ”Design Vulnerability in Electric
Power System.” Bulletin 2012-03, July 27, 2012
[2] EPRI , ”Nuclear Maintenance Application Center: Development and
Analysis of an Open Phase Detection Scheme for Various Configurations
of Auxiliary Transformers”, 3002000764, May 10, 2013.
[3] Entergy, ”Inoperable 115 kV Line in Excess of Technical Specification
Allowed Out of Service Time” Docket No. 50-333 LER-05-006 (CR-
JAF-2005-05289), February 13, 2006.
[4] International Reporting System For Operating Experience, ”EDG Failed
To Start After Undetected Loss Of Two Phases On 400 kV Incoming
Offsite Supply” IRS No. 8315, June 6, 2013.
[5] S. Khosravani, et al., ”Wide-Area Measurement-Based Fault Tolerant
Control of Power System During Sensor Failure,” Electric Power Systems
Research, Volume 137, pp. 66-75, August 2016
[6] EPRI, ”Analysis of Station Auxiliary Transformer Response to Open
Phase Conditions”, 1025772, June 18, 2012.
[7] N. Y. Abed, F. Ashrafi and K. Chang, ”Simulation and Detection of
Open Phase for Generating Station Auxiliary Three Phase Transformers,”
2014 IEEE PES General Meeting — Conference & Exposition, National
Harbor, MD, 2014
[8] A. Norouzi, ”Open Phase Conditions in Transformers Analysis and
Protection Algorithm,” 66th IEEE Annual Conference for Protective
Relay Engineers, pp. 112-125, College Station, TX, 2013
[9] H. Abniki, et al.,”Identifying inrush currents from internal faults using
symmetrical components in power transformers,” In 2010 IEEE proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Modern Electric Power Systems
(MEPS), Sept. 2010.
[10] M. Davoudi, J. Sadeh and E. Kamyab, ”Parameter-free fault location for
transmission lines based on optimisation,” in IET Generation, Transmis-
sion & Distribution, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1061-1068, 8 6 2015.
[11] V. Sarfi, V. Hemmati and M. M. Arabshahi, ”Simulation of PTC devices
as fault current limiters in power systems by finite element method,”
High Voltage Engineering and Application (ICHVE), 2014 International
Conference on, Poznan, 2014, pp. 1-4.
[12] A. Mohseni, et al., ”Sensitivity analysis and stochastic approach in study
of transient recovery voltage with presence of superconducting FCL,”
Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), 2011 IEEE, Winnipeg,
MB, 2011, pp. 479-484.
[13] M. Mahmoudi, J. Dong, K. Tomsovic, and S. Djouadi, Application of
distributed control to mitigate disturbance propagations in large power
networks, in North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 16. Oct.
2015.
[14] M. Mahmoudi and K. Tomsovic, ”A Distributed Control Design Method-
ology for Damping Critical Modes in Power Systems” Power and Energy
Conference at Illinois (PECI), IEEE, Feb. 2016.
[15] S. Moghadasi and S. Kamalasadan, ”Optimal Fast Control and Schedul-
ing of Power Distribution System Using Integrated Receding Horizon
Control and Convex Conic Programming,” in IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 2596-2606, May-June 2016.

View publication stats