16PESGM1489 1

Analysis of Open Phase Fault Events Using

ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow Module
Preston O. Cooper III, MIEEE, Timothy A. Fallesen, MIEEE, Tamatha A. Womack, SMIEEE, and
Mark D. Bowman, SMIEEE

variations, impedance tolerances, grid voltage variation, grid

Abstract—Multiple events across the nuclear power industry voltage balance, etc.). Also, it is noted that specific
have highlighted the need for greater understanding of what transformer configurations/construction (delta or wye
happens during an open phase fault. These open phase events have
connections, three-phase or three single-phase transformers,
occurred on the high side of offsite power supply transformers and
have involved loss of one or two phases. This paper explores a core or shell construction, magnetic design, etc.) greatly affect
method to characterize the downstream system response to an open the resulting voltage unbalances.
phase fault using steady-state unbalanced load flow analysis. In In response to this industry-wide concern, the nuclear power
this method, multiple fault simulations are performed by varying industry formed a focus group of recognized technical experts
transformer loading and fault impedance in order to create a three to study the issue and identify an appropriate response to these
dimensional surface that can be used to visualize the effect of open-
events. Through the efforts of this focus group, it became
phase faults on the system voltage unbalance. This paper
demonstrates the viability of using these steady-state results to apparent that this was a previously unanalyzed failure mode
examine the detrimental effects on end devices. Existing electrical for nuclear station offsite power and that there was no
protection schemes can be examined to protect against these effects. standard method for analyzing the effects of such faults.
Additionally, these results can be used to explore new protection Additionally, there was no standard software for performing
schemes being developed to more directly address open-phase fault this type of analysis, so various software tools were initially
events.
used in an attempt to obtain meaningful results. Since ETAP
software is prevalently used by most of the nuclear industry,
Index Terms—Nuclear power generation, Open phase, Power
system analysis computing, Voltage unbalance the ETAP Nuclear Utility User’s Group (NUUG) worked with
the software developer to enhance the programs’ ability to
analyze the effects of OPFs using conventional modeling
I. BACKGROUND techniques and using equipment data that should be readily
available.
N RC Bulletin 2012-01 [1] describes a nuclear safety
concern involving an open-phase fault (OPF) occurring
on the offsite power (OSP) supply of Byron nuclear plant. In
Eventually, the nuclear power industry expanded the
definition of an OPF to include the loss of one or two phases
(single or double OPF) on the high-side of an OSP transformer
this event, an insulator stack for a single-phase connection
[2]. Accordingly, ETAP was developed to provide the nuclear
broke and resulted in an impedance fault on the high side of
industry with a qualified software package to simulate the
the plant’s offsite power supply transformers. This resulted in
steady state effects of both single and double OPFs.
adverse unbalanced voltages and currents on the low side of
the transformers. Although, some individual load protective
II. EVENT
devices tripped resulting in a reactor trip, it was found that the
plant’s existing undervoltage protection scheme did not An OPF can occur anywhere in an electrical system. If the
provide adequate protection for the nuclear safety loads during fault were to occur between the electrical system and an end
such an event. Since the event at Byron, similar events have device, that single device would experience approximately
occurred throughout the nuclear industry, which indicates this equal positive and negative sequence currents.
type of fault cannot be considered an isolated incident.
Multiple power system analysis industry experts determined
that there are various types of open-phase faults that must be
analyzed (true open-circuit, open-circuit with ground, open-
circuit with high impedance to ground, etc.). Additionally,
these faults would need to be considered under varying
operating conditions (various transformer loading, temperature

Fig. 1 Typical end device with open phase demonstrates there are only two
The authors acknowledge Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for
paths for the current to flow effectively single phasing the equipment.
supporting this research.
The authors are with TVA, Chattanooga TN 37402, USA.

978-1-5090-4168-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

16PESGM1489
A more noteworthy case occurs when the OPF is above an
OSP transformer as shown in the following diagram.
Fig. 2 Open phase ahead of a transformer similar to the Byron Event.
In this configuration (Fig. 2), the magnetic circuits of a
three phase transformer will attempt to reconstruct the missing
phase. This is especially true in the case of three leg core type
transformers. With a three limb core type transformer, the flux
is forced into the limb with the OPF. This will rebuild the
missing phase voltage.
Fig. 3 Three limb transformer showing the forced path for magnetic flow.
A four limb transformer core supplies a low reluctance path
on the limb without a winding. Thus, the voltage built on the
missing electrical phase is greatly reduced. A fifth limb would
exacerbate this condition with an additional path.
Fig. 4 Four limb transformer showing low reluctance magnetic path.
Depending on the transformer winding configurations and
magnetic circuit configuration, various amounts of negative
and zero sequence voltages will be produced on the low
voltage side of the transformer.
III. WHY STEADY STATE?
Due to the typical connection of end devices used in
industrial facilities, the zero sequence voltage is not of
concern. (i.e., no ground path, Fig. 1) However, the negative
sequence voltages will create negative sequence currents in
three phase equipment. For non-motor loads, the negative
sequence impedances are approximately equal to the positive
sequence impedances [3]. Nominal settings for the
978-1-5090-4168-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
2
instantaneous pickup for non-motor loads are between three
and five times rated current. Assuming positive and negative
sequence voltages create the maximum single phase current
(200% rated) phase overcurrent tripping is not a concern in the
transient timeframe for non-motor loads.
When considering motor loads typical overcurrent devices
used to protect end devices work on single phase values.
Negative sequence currents when combined with positive
sequence currents will elevate one or more phase currents.
Upon inspection it was determined that the worst case single
phase currents exist when the positive and negative sequence
currents are in phase (i.e., ±120° out of phase) with each other.
1 1 1
1 (1)
1
For example a positive sequence current of 100A and a
negative sequence current of 10A would yield a worst case
phasor current of up to 110A.
1 1 1 0 110 0
1 100 0 95.4 125.2 (2)
1 10 0 95.4 125.2
Since negative sequence impedance approximately equals
locked rotor impedance [4] the following justification can be
used to ignore instantaneous tripping. A motor running with
100% positive sequence voltage and 100% loading will pull
100% full load current. If 100% negative sequence voltage
was applied on top of the already present positive sequence
voltage, the negative sequence current would be
approximately locked rotor. If the angles of positive and
negative sequence currents were exactly 0°,120°, or 240°
apart, one phase overcurrent relay would see a maximum of
locked rotor current plus full load current. Since the
instantaneous phase overcurrent relays are generally set at
more than 1.6 times locked rotor current [4], phase overcurrent
tripping is not a concern in the transient timeframe for motors.
The negative sequence current still remains a concern
because it creates additional heating in the equipment,
especially motors. Additional heating is caused by current
flowing in the low impedance, low power-factor, negative
sequence circuit. Therefore, in order to account for this
additional heating an equivalent current has been developed to
show the effect of negative sequence current on the overall
heating of the motor [5].
175 (3)
IEQ Equivalent Current
I1 Positive Sequence Current
I2 Negative Sequence Current
IFL Motor Full Load Current
ILR Motor Locked Rotor Current
The additional heating caused by negative sequence
currents does not place the motors in immediate jeopardy of
16PESGM1489
catastrophic failure. Due to thermal mass of the machines, it
can take anywhere from minutes to hours to reach equilibrium
temperatures [6]. Therefore, the heating is not a concern in the
transient (less than 30 cycle) timeframe.
By combining Eq. 1 and 3, it can be determined that at
some point, unbalance would cause there to be more thermal
heating of the load than what would be detected by the
overcurrent devices, potentially damaging the loads.
IV. STUDY METHOD
With the understanding that the true impact (heating) on the
motors can be determined from the positive and negative
sequence results of an OPF, a process was developed to
analyze the system response to various OPFs and collect the
necessary data to draw conclusions. The overall method is a
steady-state load flow technique using the Unbalanced Load
Flow module in ETAP. While this cannot determine the
dynamic response of the power system to an OPF, it does
provide steady-state voltages and currents throughout the
system (phase and sequence quantities). These results are
indicative of the system’s response to the OPF with all loads
remaining in their initial state (i.e., running or starting).
Initially, because it would take an almost unlimited number of
simulations to produce accurate results for every eventuality,
(various transformer loadings, temperature variations,
impedance tolerances, grid voltages, grid balances, etc.)
bounding techniques and modeling conventions were
developed to account for the competing conservatisms needed
to address these variations and tolerances.
V. ETAP INSTRUCTIONS/CONVENTIONS
Additional data was entered into the transformers to support
the OPFA (i.e., S-C impedance and loss data including zero-
sequence values). In the case of OSP transformer specific data
must be used and each transformer model validated against
actual tests (see below). If sufficient model data is not
available for an OSP transformer, meaningful OPFA is not
possible since it cannot be assumed.
However, delta-delta transformers typical data can be
assumed where actual data is not available. The mathematical
model of a delta-delta transformer is provided below, which
from inspection one can determine that any value of ZT will
produce the same results.
Fig. 5 Delta- Delta zero sequence model [3]
This was confirmed in ETAP by performing a sensitivity
study where the typical zero sequence impedance is evaluated
ranging from 1% to 10,000% of the typical values and
comparing the downstream voltages.
All existing motor models had their negative-sequence
reactance (X2) adjusted such that [4]. To limit the
978-1-5090-4168-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
3
review, a bounding technique was developed where the motor
with the smallest X2 on each bus that is running in any
applicable case had its diversity set to 0.1% for the remaining
cases where it was not “running”. This allows the calculation
of negative sequence currents on these worst-case motors
without changing loading on the upstream transformers.
Elements were added to the model supporting the insertion
of a grounded OPF. A single OPF with ground is modeled in
ETAP using an infinite single-phase load to ground via a
single-phase impedance, which can be varied from zero to
high values to simulate solid grounds or high impedance
faults.
VI. ASSUMPTIONS
The grid unbalance was set to 1.41% based on the
maximum statistically expected grid unbalance in the
Tennessee Valley [8].
The Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG) are assumed as
not operating during the OPF. This is because EDG protective
devices for the cases studied would either allow the EDGs to
mask the voltages or trip immediately resulting in the analyzed
condition. Validating with a few iterations it was confirmed
that runs in which the OPF was ungrounded the voltage and
current were less unbalanced and cases in which the OPF was
grounded the unbalance voltage and current would exceed the
capabilities of the diesel generator engine.
Because automatic voltage correction actions such as
transformer LTCs or yard capacitor actuations may obscure
the results in terms of detectability, existing protection will
only be considered if it can detect the OPF before automatic
actions occur. Therefore the LTCs will be assumed as “fixed”
in the pre-fault position during the OPFA.
To make the appropriate determinations for the amount of
unbalance and its effect, the following information was
recorded:
ƒ Phase voltage and angles for the medium voltage nuclear
safety buses.
ƒ Phase current for the open-phase bus.
ƒ Negative sequence current for the worst-case (lowest
negative sequence impedance) motor per affected bus.
With the bus information, voltage unbalance can be
calculated using the following formula:
100 (4)
Current unbalance will be calculated by the formula where
is the negative sequence current and is the motor full
load current:
100 (5)
VII. EXAMPLE BASED RESULTS
After a few initial iterations where many individual
variables were changed, it was determined that transformer
loading and fault impedance were the two critical parameters
that affect the results. Two types of faults were considered for
each OSP transformer, truly open (no path to ground) and
16PESGM1489 4

solidly grounded (short to ground). Both of these faults were

evaluated for three transformer loading cases; the normal plant
operation, a heavily loaded case, and a lightly loaded case. Surface without Stabilizing Winding
The normal loading case represented normal operating
40
condition and alignment. The heavily loaded case combined

Voltage Unbalance (%)

35
the maximum loading and the plant configuration that placed 30
the most downstream buses on the transformer. The lightly 25
loaded case applied the minimum loading with the least buses 20
15
that could be placed on the transformer. 10
5 90
Transformer Ungrounded Grounded 0 70
50
Loading case (% UB) (% UB) 30
10
Light 0.26 38.36
Fault Impedance (Ω)
Normal 2.22 38.26
Heavy 3.79 36.43 Fig. 7 Voltage unbalance vs. transformer loading and fault impedance
Table 1 Results from the initial 6 point analysis for a Y-Y transformer

The six point analysis determined that the amount of
voltage unbalance increases as the fault impedance decreases
(solidly grounded) and that the amount of voltage unbalance
increases slightly as the loading on the transformer increases.
These six points determined the boundaries of the plant
OSP transformers, however did not explore the full
capabilities of the transformers nor various amounts of fault
impedance. The second stage of comparison occurred using a
range of transformer loading (in increments of 10%) and a
logarithmic scale of impedance values between true open and
solid ground.
Using this larger progression of data values, a graphical
visual aid was developed that allows for better perception of
the results. A three dimensional surface of voltage unbalance
was developed around various transformers and plant
configurations feeding the same system. These include
transformer with and without a stabilizing winding (i.e., buried
delta) and system configurations such as generator connected
and disconnected.
The comparison between Fig. 6 & 7 illustrates the impact of
the stabilizing winding. The voltage unbalance increases in
the high impedance range of the surface without the presence
of a stabilizing winding. Additionally, the rise in unbalance
voltage for the range of 10% to 100% loading is increased for
that same range of impedance. For a given downstream power
system there is a “saturation point” for which the unbalance
will not further increase. The maximum unbalance on both
surfaces is approximately equal.
A generator connected between the open phase and the
loads will produce large negative sequence currents. These
currents will eventually trip the generator in a few seconds.
Fig. 8 shows that the generator will work to balance the
downstream voltages. It is only when the excitation system
becomes maxed out that the unbalances begin to increase.
Surface for Generator Connected
40
Voltage Unbalance (%)

35
Surface with Stabilizing Winding 30
25
20
15
Voltage Unbalance (%)

40
35
10
30 5 90
0 70
25 50
20 30
15 10
10
5 90
70 Fault Impedance (Ω)
0 50
30
10 Fig. 8 Voltage unbalance vs. transformer loading and fault impedance
with a generator connected downstream
Fault Impedance (Ω)
These results were compared to a given criteria for either
Fig. 6 Voltage unbalance vs. transformer loading and fault “acceptability” (is the fault acceptable for continued safe
impedance for a Y-D-Y transformer operation), or “detectability” (can the fault be detected with
existing protective devices). The acceptability was originally
This information clearly visualizes the significant unbalance developed based on the unbalanced factors previously
potential, especially as the fault impedance decreases. established such as the 1% and 5% voltage unbalance [7].
To see the effect of stabilizing windings on the results, a These are conservative but acceptable values. Detectability is
transformer with no stabilizing winding was substituted for the discussed in the following section.
previous transformer.

978-1-5090-4168-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

16PESGM1489
VIII. PROTECTIVE DEVICE CONSIDERATIONS
For any protective device scheme to detect an OPF, it must
be sensitive enough to see the fault, and fast enough to
preclude damage to the end devices. The results from the
collective group of simulations can be used to define a set of
significant OPFs which have detrimental effects on the end
devices. These significant cases are defined by two criteria:
1) The equivalent current (Eq. 3) is greater than the motor
“safe” current (i.e., current at motor service factor).
2) The equivalent current is greater than the worst phase
current.
With phase current less than the equivalent current, there can
be “unmeasured” heating of the motor by standard overcurrent
protection. The timing of an OPF protective scheme must be
fast enough that the equivalent current will not damage the
motor.
Existing protective devices that may detect an OPF include
Transformer Phase Overcurrent (50/51), Transformer Neutral
Overcurrent (51N), Transmission line negative-sequence (46),
& loss of voltage (27) relays. Degraded Voltage (27) and
Transformer Differential (87) relays have been discounted
from consideration due to the time delay found in most
degraded voltage schemes and the potential that the fault could
occur outside the zone of protection respectively.
Regardless of technology selected to detect the OPF or
protect the nuclear safety system from the event, it should
coordinate with installed devices to prevent a reduction in
plant operational margin. For example, an OPF protective
scheme should be slower than the clearing time for yard faults
so that an open phase event can be differentiated from a
system fault. This should include the first zone of distance
relays as well as the backup overcurrent. If the offsite power
transformer has a neutral connection, an OPF protective
scheme should coordinate with the neutral overcurrent and
overvoltage for unbalanced faults.
Many nuclear power stations have voltage correcting
devices such as capacitor banks or auto-tap transformers. An
OPF protective scheme should coordinate with attempts of the
system to correct the voltage. An OPF protective scheme
should trip fast enough so the end device protective devices
will not preclude nuclear safety related loads from performing
their function [2]. The OPF protection scheme should protect
motors from damage caused by the additional heating that can
occur with elevated negative sequence currents [6].
This methodology was applied to several typical nuclear
power plant protection designs and none of the studied
schemes would completely protect the loads from the
damaging effects of an OPF in all significant cases. Industry
response to the OPF events has revealed a number of new
potential solutions which could be used.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
The following generalities can be observed for a single open
phase with variable ground impedance. Greater transformer
loading results in greater unbalances. Less impedance to
ground results in greater unbalances. When placed into the
same electrical system, different transformers will have a
978-1-5090-4168-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
5
similar maximum unbalances. Having a stabilizing winding
will allow for lower overall unbalances, but with increasing
loading and ground fault current, it will eventually saturate
and produce similar results to a transformer without a
stabilizing winding.
The ETAP unbalanced load flow module can accurately and
effectively calculate steady state voltage and current
unbalances resulting from OPFs [9]. Multiple fault simulations
can be performed in order to create a three dimensional
surface in order to visualize the effect of open-phase faults on
the system voltage unbalance. By using these values, the
detrimental effects on end devices can be determined. The
results can then be used to determine applicability of existing
protection schemes, or to develop new ones.
REFERENCES
[1] NRC Bulletin 2012-01 "Design Vulnerability in Electric Power
Systems," http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1207/ML12074A115.pdf
[2] NRC BTP 8-9 “Open Phase Conditions in Electrical Power System,”
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15057A085.pdf
[3] J. D. Glover, M. S. Sarma and T. J. Overbye, “Symmetrical
Components” in Power System Analysis and Design, 5th ed., Stamford,
CT: Cengage Learning, 2012, pp 419-470
[4] J. L. Blackburn and T. J. Domin, “Motor Protection” in Protective
Relaying Principles and Applications, 3rd ed., Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 2007, pp.385-410
[5] M. Bowman et al. “Open-Phase Fault Analysis” presented at 2014
ETAP Nuclear Utility User Group (NUUG) Conference and
Symposium. ETAP Learning Center. Irvine, CA, June 18 -20, 2013.
[6] P. Pillay and M Manyage, “Loss of Life in Induction Machines
Operating With Unbalanced Supplies,” IEEE Trakns on Energy
Conversion, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 813-822, Dec 2006.
[7] Motors and Generators, ANSI/NEMA MG 1, 2011
[8] J. Rossman et al. “Transmission Voltage Unbalance Evaluation.” Future
of Instrumentation International Workshop. Park Vista. Gatlinburg, TN.
Oct. 9, 2012.
[9] A. Eltom, A. A. Karrar, M. M. Kamel and H. A. Saeed, “Investigation of
Open Phase Conditions in Three-Leg Core-Type Transformers” Internal
Report prepared for TVA, Sept. 2014