A NEW MULTI-CRITERIA FUZZY LOGIC TRANSFORMER

INRUSH RESTRAINT ALGORITHM

D. Bejmert*, W. Rebizant*, L. Schiel‚à6WDV]HZVNL*

*Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland, daniel.bejmert@pwr.wroc.pl

‚
Siemens AG, Berlin, Germany, ludwig.schiel@siemens.com

Keywords: magnetizing inrush, differential protection, multi- First, a reliable set of criteria signals that can be used to solve
criteria protection, fuzzy logic, transient analysis. the problem of magnetising inrush and internal fault
discrimination is proposed. Except criteria signals the
Abstract operation thresholds are also suggested. Recommended
criteria are aggregated with use of fuzzy logic methods in
This paper presents a new multi-criteria stabilization multi-criteria system. Thorough statistical analyses of
algorithm of transformer differential protection. Proposed performance of the differential protection with application of
scheme bases on new criteria signals and appropriate the new stabilisation algorithm have been carried out, with
operation thresholds. New algorithm employs fuzzy reasoning use of signals generated in prepared digital transformer model
technique for better discrimination of inrush conditions. The (ATP-EMTP) as well as with signals received from field
developed stabilization algorithm has been tested with ATP- measurements for various transformer types.
EMTP generated signals, proving to be reliable and much
more sensitive than standard stabilization algorithms with 2 Criteria signals
crisp settings. In order to select optimal set of criteria signals for
stabilization of the power transformer differential protection
1 Introduction thorough statistical analyses were performed. The analyses
encompassed behaviour of various criteria signals under wide
The differential protection has been successfully used for
scope of power transformer operating conditions. For this
decades to protect power transformers against faults.
purpose EMTP model of power transformer with fragment of
Nevertheless, to assure proper operation the differential
power system was prepared. Using this model over 80
principle has to be supported by additional stabilization
thousand of various cases of internal and external faults as
algorithms which are aimed at avoiding unwanted tripping
well as transformer energisation were generated. Simulating
during transformer magnetizing inrush. Numerous single or
internal faults also turn-to-turn shorts (especially these with
compound criteria are usually used or proposed in the
low number of turns involved) were taken into account. As
literature to discriminate inrush conditions [1, 2, 3, 5, 8],
far as energisation cases are concerned various configurations
among which the second harmonic ratio restraint [4] is most
of transformer operation schemes (loaded, unloaded, supplied
commonly applied. Unfortunately, numerous transformer
from both sides and so on) were studied. This base of signals
protection operation records show that the second harmonic
was used to determine criteria signals, their combinations
restraint as well as other methods may not always be
(mutual relationships) and threshold values. The authors
effective. Magnetic cores of modern transformers are made
analysed courses of changes of various criteria signals within
from amorphous materials, what may be a reason of low level
first 0.5s after inception of disturbance. From this part of
of second harmonic ratio generated during energisation, being
research the following conclusions could be drawn:
insufficient for effective protection stabilization [7].
‡ it is hardly likely to find one universal criterion signal
Difficulties may also arise for the cases of loaded transformer
which could be used to realize (in an unaided way) the power
energisation (e.g. after fault clearing) and ultrasaturation
transformer stabilization task,
conditions [9], when the level of stabilization signal is very
‡ to ensure better and more reliable operation of new
low. Thus, in order to improve protection operation,
stabilization algorithm appropriate combination of various
especially for such difficult cases, new protection stabilization
criteria values should be used,
criteria are required. The criteria signals should be selected to
‡ from the wide scope of criteria signals which had been
meet the following requirements:
analysed an optimum set of signals was found, i.e:
‡ immunity to magnetizing inrush conditions regardless of
ª Kd1h= Id1h /In ± ratio of magnitudes of fundamental
the second harmonic ratio;
harmonic of the differential current and transformer rated
‡ fast operation under internal faults even for severe faults
current;
when CT saturation occurs;
ª Kr2h = Id2h /Id1h ± ratio of magnitudes of second harmonic
‡ sensitivity for low current internal faults (e.g. single turn-
and fundamental harmonic of the differential current;
to-turn faults).
ª KDCoff = IrDCoff /Id1h ± ratio of DC component (reconstructed
This paper presents original stabilization algorithm for
value) and fundamental harmonic of the differential
transformer differential protection under inrush conditions.
 current; The DC components are calculated using the algorithm based
ª KDCon = IrDCon /Id1h ± ratio of DC component (measured on full cycle averaging of the current, which corresponds to
value) and fundamental harmonic of the differential signal filtering with 0-order Walsh filter [6]. The measured
current; value of DC component, IrDCon, is determined using values of
ª D1d ± non-saturation interval distortion coefficient of the estimated time constant and initial value of DC component,
differential current [1, 8]; both measured at given time instant. The reconstructed DC
ª D2d ± non-saturation interval distortion coefficient of the component, IrDCoff, is based on actual values of time constant
differential current [1, 8]. and initial value of the DC component only until first
To estimate considered criteria signals the algorithms that are potentially correct estimates of the initial value of the DC
characterized by good dynamics and that at the same time component and time constant are known (about 20 ms after
ensure high ability to attenuate possible distortions were beginning of disturbance). From this moment consecutive
chosen. values of the reconstructed DC component are determined
In order to measure the fundamental Id1h and second harmonic employing first correct values of the DC component and its
Id2h components of differential currents traditional full cycle decaying time constant. Difference between these two
Fourier filters (a pair of sine and cosine filters) were methods of DC component estimation is illustrated in Fig. 1.
employed [6, 7]. Due to CT saturation measured DC component (solid curve)
a)
drops close to zero about 70 ms after fault inception, as
5 shown in Fig. 2b. It means that information about presence of
3 DC component in primary current is lost. On the contrary,
[A]

1 despite saturation of the current transformer the reconstructed

DC component (dashed line curve) behaves as if saturation
id

-1
-3 would not occur.
0 0.1 0.2 t [s] 0.3 0.4 0.5 The last criterion signal, non-saturation interval distortion
b) coefficient of the differential current belongs to the family of
3
measured
reconstructed
direct waveshape analysis methods [1, 8]. This method is
based on an assumption that current waveform in saturation
stage (under inrush condition) becomes similar to sinusoid
2
IdDC [A]

when internal fault occurs. Calculation of distortion

coefficients is done in four steps. In the first step direction
1
(polarity) of DC component is assessed. Then non-saturation
interval capturing is realized. To capture local sampling
0
sequence of non-saturation span the differential current (Fig.
-0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2a) is observed within a data window composed of 3/2N
t [s]
samples (Fig. 2b), where N is number of samples in one cycle
Fig. 1. Case of internal fault with CT saturation: of the fundamental harmonic. In the next step original
a) instantaneous values of differential current; b) DC samples sequences are approximated (Fig. 2c). Least squares
components measured and reconstructed. approximation of the original signal is employed for two
a) b) signal models. The first model (used to determine D1d) is
8 applied to improve low-current turn-to-turn faults
2 identification, while the second one (employed to determine
6
1 D2d) is used to speed-up operation of the proposed algorithm
[A]
[A]

4 under internal faults with high and long lasting DC

0
2 components in the differential current. As a result of
id
id

-1 approximation two sample sequences are achieved. In the last

0
-2
phase, using signals obtained from the approximation process
-2 the distortion coefficients are calculated. The lower is the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
t [s] t [ms] distortion coefficient value, the more probable is the
c) d) hypothesis of internal fault. When the captured fragment of
iorg1 16
0.2 differential current is identical to its approximation, then
iapr1
12 distortion coefficient is equal to 0 and it can be assumed that
id [A]

-0.2 internal fault undoubtedly occurred. In Fig. 2d, course of non-

D1d

8
saturation interval distortion coefficient during healthy
-0.6 4 transformer energisation with CT saturation is presented. It is
seen that distortion coefficient, D1d, does not reach 0 (its
-1 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 value exceeds 1 during all simulation) supporting the
t [ms] t [s] hypothesis of magnetizing inrush of the transformer.
Fig. 2. Extraction of the non-saturation interval, The usage of each criterion value was justified, in the context
approximation distortion coefficient calculation. of transformer inrush identification, by the simulative
analysis. Additionally, it must be emphasised that to enhance
simultaneously security, dependability and operation speed of
the differential protection selected signals should be properly
combined.
3 Multi-criteria fuzzy logic transformer inrush
stabilization algorithm
The new proposed stabilization algorithm is a part of power
transformer differential protection presented in Fig. 3.
Decision-making process starts from estimation of criteria
signals described in former section. Obviously, each criterion
value is estimated for all phases. In presented scheme it was
assumed that the path responsible for external fault and
overexcitation exclusion (blocks 1, 2 and 3 in Fig. 3) operates
correctly. Thus proposed algorithm has was designed only for
distinguishing transformer inrush from internal fault cases. In
the next sections description of individual blocks of the
proposed stabilization scheme (block 4) is presented.
CT CT
CB1 CB2
VT i1 i2 VT
3.2 Fuzzification block
To describe uncertainty of the measured criteria values all
input signals (1)-(8) are fuzzified at the beginning of
inference process. In fuzzification process the singleton
method was used. As a result of fuzzification process the
criterion signal FIX(n) is converted into logic signals
—L(FIX(n)), —M(FIX(n)) and —H(FIX(n)), which then support
certain hypotheses. To realize fuzzification process fuzzy sets
for each input signals have to be defined. To describe
particular value of input signal following shapes of
membership functions are used:
x Low value —L(FIX(n)) ± L-function;
x Mean value —M(FIX(n)) ± trapezoidal function;
x High value —H(FIX(n)) ± J-function.
All membership functions of each fuzzy input are based on
analyses discussed in Section 2 as well as WKH GHVLJQHU¶V
experience. Membership functions of logic signals (fuzzy
settings) for considered input signals are presented in Fig. 4.
1 1
MEAN LOW HIGH
P(FI1)

P(FI2)
u1 u2
Estimation of criteria signals LOW HIGH
Input
criteria Tripping
signals
2. External signal
1. Relay 3. Overexcitation 0 0
fault ruled 0.02 0.05 FI1 7.5 8.0 0.05 FI2 0.1
activated ? ruled out ?
out ? 1 1
Magnetizing LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
4. Multicriteria fuzzy logic inrush ruled out ?
transformer inrush AND P(FI4)
P(FI3)

stabilization algorithm

Fig. 3. Block scheme of differential protection with multi-

criteria fuzzy logic magnetising inrush stabilization
0 0
algorithm. 0.5 FI3 0.55 0.37 FI4 0.43
1 1
MEAN LOW HIGH
3.1 Input signals of proposed fuzzy logic transformer
stabilization algorithm
P(FI5)

P(FI6)

All criteria signals were defined in Section 2 but since one of LOW HIGH
them is used in different rule bases, therefore for the sake of
clarity of description of designed fuzzy system the input
0 0
signals (FIX, where X is a number of variable) are recalled 0.9 1.0 FI5 3.0 3.5 0.4 FI6 0.5
here again, given by the following equations: 1 1
LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
FI1 = Kd1h (1)
FI2 = Kd2h (2)
P(FI7)

P(FI8)

FI3 = KDCoff (3)

FI4 = Kd2h (4)
FI5 = D1d (5) 0 0
0.55 FI7 0.6 0.15 FI8 0.2
FI6 = Kd2h (6)
FI7 = KDCon (7) Fig. 4. Membership functions of fuzzy input sets.
FI8 = D2d (8)
3.3 Bases of rules
One can see that FI2, FI4 and FI6 are defined in the same
way (Kr2h). It is necessary because these inputs are employed Operation of designed fuzzy system is defined by means of
in different bases of rules where they are dedicated to distinct fuzzy statements If... Then... containing linguistic variables.
phenomena recognition. These statements describe relationship between fuzzy input
sets FIX and fuzzy output (fuzzy conclusions) sets FO, which 3.5 Defuzzification
are presented in Fig. 5. Universe of discourse for fuzzy output
was divided into three arbitrary defined ranges: As a result of defuzzification final fuzzy conclusion signals
—B(FO) are converted into crisp values CO. For
x Transformer inrush range between 0 and 6; defuzzification the centre of area method was used:
x Normal operation range between 3 and 9; M
x Internal fault range between 6 and 12; ¦ FO P k B ( FOk )
CO k 1 (11)
M

1
PI (FO) PN (FO) PF (FO)
Membership functions of sets
PN (FO) - Normal operation
¦P
k 1
B ( FOk )
PI (FO) - Transformer inrush
where: M is an overall number of points considered in
PF (FO) - Internal fault
P(FO)

integration process and FOk is a value from range 0 to 12.

As a result of this process a non-fuzzy value CO is obtained.
Location of this value in the domain of the final fuzzy output
set determines conditions for the relay operation. The tripping
0
0 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 12
is initiated if obtained crisp value CO overreaches the
FO threshold ǻ:
Fig. 5. Membership functions of fuzzy output set. TRIP IF CO>ǻ (12)
When all fuzzy sets are defined an inference process can take with the threshold ǻ equal to 7.5, being a point of intersection
place. For this purpose four bases containing overall number of membership functions of Normal operation and Internal
of 24 rules (Rx) were proposed. All rules consist of two or fault, see Fig. 5.
three input antecedents and one output consequent. The The complete inference process proceeds in three parallel
proposed rule bases (except Base 4, which contains only two streams. The first one was defined to ensure maximal
rules) are presented synthetically in form of tables, as shown security. Rules responsible for this are gathered in bases 1 and
in Fig. 6. 2. Two other streams are responsible for enhancement of
internal fault identification. Rules from base 3 bring
Ÿ FO 1 - Normal operation 2 - Transformer inrush 3 ± Internal fault improvement of low current winding fault identification. The
last stream (processing rules from base 4) is responsible for
FI1 FI 3
speed-up of operation during internal faults (mainly when CT
L M W L H
FI 2 FI 4
R1 R3 R5 R7 R9 saturation occurs). At the output of designed fuzzy system
BASE 1 L 1 3 3 BASE 2 L 3 2 three crisp values (from each stream) are achieved CO1, CO2,
H
R2
1
R4
2
R6
3 H
R8 R10 CO3. These values are then compared with threshold (12) and
2 2
results of these comparisons are aggregated using OR logic
element. From the output of this element final decision is
FI
5, F achieved.
FI 7
I 6 L, L L, H M , L M , H H , L H , H
R11 R13 R15 R17 R19 R21
BASE 3 L 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 Simulative tests
R12 R14 R16 R18 R20 R22
H 3 3 2 2 2 2 The developed fuzzy stabilization scheme described in
previous Sections has been tested in simulative way for the
Fig. 6. Fuzzy rule bases. model of an HV/MV 32MVA 115/22kV YNd11 five-leg core
transformer. The protected transformer was a part of wider
3.4 Fuzzy reasoning system model consisting also of equivalent feeding systems
from both sides (represented by electromotive sources behind
Fuzzy reasoning block determines fuzzy outputs using fuzzy appropriate impedances). The protected transformer could be
rules and observed fuzzy inputs. To realize inference process fed from the HV side, MV side and from both sides. Proposed
the max-product method was used. In this process two phases fuzzy stabilization scheme processes current signals from the
can be distinguish. First, depending on estimation, using secondary side of CTs with non-linear characteristic. The
product operation, intermediate membership function of basic aim of carried out simulative analysis was to check
conclusion for individual inference rules are calculated, see whether requirements imposed on the new stabilization
example for rule 3: algorithm has been achieved.
P R ( FO)( n) P F ( FO) ˜ min>P M ( FI1(n)), P H ( FI 2(n))@ (9)
3
Performance of proposed stabilization algorithm was
compared with the traditional percentage differential scheme
Then all intermediate membership functions are aggregated
supported by the 2nd harmonic restraint, with the threshold set
into one final fuzzy conclusion, see example for base 1
low (10%) and high (20%). Results of statistical analysis of
consisting of 6 rules:
performance of the considered stabilisation schemes for all
P B ( FO)( n) max
k 1,..., 6
^P R (FO)(n)` k
(10) generated transformer energisation cases (over 40000) are as
follows:
x new proposed algorithm ± no maloperation observed; transformer tripping against operation time of considered
x traditional second harmonic restraint with the threshold set stabilization algorithms for all analysed cases of internal
low ± undesirable tripping in 7.47% of cases; faults. Presented results prove that higher security of new
x traditional second harmonic restraint with the threshold set algorithm ± what is discussed formerly ± has not been
high ± undesirable tripping in 28.68% of cases. achieved at the cost of its operation speed. With the new
In Figs. 7 an example of operation of the proposed fuzzy logic proposed algorithm most of transformer fault clearances
transformer stabilization algorithm for energisation case is occur not later than 20 ms after fault inception, as shown
presented. This is extremely unfavourable, since waveforms in Fig. 8b. Generally, one can notice that tripping time
of differential currents are very similar to that observed distribution for proposed algorithm is much more favorable
during internal faults, as shown in Figs. 7a, b, c. than when traditional stabilization algorithms are used (Fig.
energisation 8a). Such conclusion finds confirmation in values of minimal,
id /IN , L3 [pu] id /IN , L2 [pu] id /IN , L1 [pu]

id mean and maximal operation times which are lower for new
0.2 1. harm
a)
0.1 algorithm than for traditional method (regardless of restraint
0
-0.1
threshold), as shown in Tab. 1.
-0.2
0.1 a) b)
id
0.05 1. harm 45
25

Occurrence frequency [%]

0

Occurrence frequency [%]

b) 40
-0.05 20 35
-0.1 30
15 25
0.1
id 20
0.05 1. harm 10
0 15
c) 5 10
-0.05
5
-0.1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 Operation time [ms] Operation time [ms]
Id2h /d1h [pu]

Phase A
Fig. 8. Results of statistical analysis of performance of the
d) 0.5
considered stabilisation schemes for all generated internal
fault cases (over 40000) presented as an occurrence frequency
0
7 of the transformer tripping against operation time for:
6 Phase A a) traditional restraint algorithm set high; b) proposed
CO1

e) 5 algorithm.
4
3 Operation Traditional Traditional Proposed
1 time set low set high algorithm
Trad. algorithm
Decision

set low Minimal [ms] 9 8 2

signal

f) set high
Mean [ms] 22.2 17.9 16.3
0 Maximal [ms] 134 111 66
1 Proposed Table 1: Results of statistical analysis of performance
Decision

algorithm
signal

g)
0
0 0.05
Fig. 7. Transformer energisation with ultrasaturation effect:
a), b), c) instantaneous values of differential currents; d)
second harmonic ratio; e) crisp intermediate input value CO1;
f) decision signals of differential protection with traditional
stabilization; g) decision signals of differential protection
with new proposed fuzzy logic stabilization algorithm.
Due to this the second harmonic ratio is very low and for
some period drops close to zero (Fig. 7d). In such conditions
the traditional stabilization method fails (regardless of
thresholds) and transformer would be tripped (Fig. 7f). When
new stabilization algorithm is applied one can see that
intermediate input value CO1 (Fig. 7e) does not overreach 7.5
level what guaranties proper stabilization in this situation.
Results of statistical analysis of considered stabilization
algorithms performance for internal fault cases are presented
in Fig. 8. One can find there occurrence frequency of the
(operation time) of the considered stabilisation schemes for
all generated internal fault cases.
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Analysing cases of transformer energisation accompanying
t [s] winding faults the Authors concentrated mainly on situations
when fault embraces low number of turns (even just one
turn). In such cases the differential protection with traditional
stabilization algorithm was completely ineffective, blocking
tripping signal in all analysed cases. The new proposed
algorithm identified all considered cases and the fastest
tripping took place after 22 ms, while the longest delay was
equal to 312 ms. In Fig. 9 signals observed during transformer
energisation with CT saturation and winding fault (concerned
small number of turns) initiated at time instant 200ms are
presented. One can see that once again traditional
stabilization was insufficient and differential protection was
blocked (Fig. 9f). Although fault current is hardly noticeable
in differential current the new algorithm reacts correctly.
Intermediate output CO2 exceeded threshold value 24ms after
fault inception (Fig. 9e) leading to transformer tripping (Fig.
9g).
 energisation fault
10 References
id /IN , L2 [pu] id /IN , L1 [pu]

id
5 1. harm
a) [1] D. Q. Bi, X. A. Zhang, H. H. Yang, G. W. Yu, X. H.
0 :DQJ:-:DQJ³&RUUHODWLRQDQDO\VLVRIZDYeforms
-5 in nonsaturation zone-based method to identify the
2 PDJQHWL]LQJ LQUXVK LQ WUDQVIRUPHU´ IEEE Transactions
id
0 1. harm on Power Delivery, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 1380-1385, (July
b)
-2 2007).
[2] Z. BR * :HOOHU 7 /RPDV ³$ QHZ WHFKQLTXH IRU
-4
2 WUDQVIRUPHU SURWHFWLRQ EDVHG RQ WUDQVLHQW GHWHFWLRQ´
Id2h /Id1h [pu] id /IN , L3 [pu]

id IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 3,

0 1. harm
c) pp. 870-875, (July 2000).
-2 [3] % .DV]WHQQ\ ( 5RVRáRZVNL ³$ PXOWL-criteria
-4 GLIIHUHQWLDO WUDQVIRUPHU UHOD\ EDVHG RQ IX]]\ ORJLF´
1
Phase A IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1786-
d) 0.5
1792, (1995).
[4] / ) .HQQHG\ & ' +D\ZDUG ³+DUPRQLF-current-
0
restrained relays for differentiDO SURWHFWLRQ´ AIEE
9 Transactions, Vol. 57, pp. 262-266, (May 1938).
Phase A
8 [5] 0.LWD\DPD01DNDED\DVKL³$QHZDSSURDFKWRIDVW
CO2

e) 7 inrush current discrimination based on transformer

6 PDJQHWL]LQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV´ 14th PSCC, Sevilla, Paper
5 No. 2, (June 2002).
1 Trad. algorithm [6] W. Rebizant, J. Szafran, A. Wiszniewski: "Digital
Decision

set low
signal

f)
set high Signal Processing in Power System Protection and
Control", Springer Verlag, Series: Signals and
0 Communication Technology, London, (2011).
1 Proposed [7] + 8QJUDG : :LQNOHU $ :LV]QLHZVNL ³3URWHFWLRQ
Decision

algorithm Techniques iQ (OHFWULFDO (QHUJ\ 6\VWHPV´ Marcel

signal

g)
Dekker Inc., New York, (1995).
0
[8] = :DQJ < 0D < ;X / 0D ³$ 1HZ 3ULQFLSOH RI
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Inrush Current and Internal Fault Current of
t [s] Transformer based on Self-&RUUHFWLRQ )XQFWLRQ´ 7th
Fig. 9. Transformer energisation, then turn-to-turn internal International Power Engineering Conference, IPEC
fault: a), b), c) instantaneous values of differential currents; d) 2005, Vol. 2, pp. 614-617, (29 Nov.- 2 Dec. 2005).
second harmonic ratio; e) crisp intermediate input value; f) [9] A. Wiszniewski, W. Rebizant, D. Bejmert, L. Schiel,
decision signals of differential protection with traditional ³8OWUDVDWXUDWLRQ SKHQRPHQRQ LQ SRZHU WUDQVIRUPHUV-
stabilization; g) decision signals of differential protection myths and realit\´ IEEE Transactions on Power
with new proposed fuzzy logic stabilization algorithm. Delivery, vol. 23 nr 3 pp. 1327-1334, (2008).

5 Conclusions
The problems of effective power transformer inrush current
discrimination and at the same time reliable operation of
differential protection appear very essential especially in the
light of continuously increasing requirements of utilities to
prevent unwanted outages with the consequential costs. In the
paper new stabilization algorithm of the power transformer
differential protection is presented. Proposed stabilization
method employs several criteria signals combined with use of
fuzzy logic system. Stabilization scheme is described in detail
and validated using digital simulation (EMTP model).
The proposed multi-criteria fuzzy logic transformer inrush
restraint algorithm in comparison with traditional stabilization
method shows higher security and sensitivity as well as
higher immunity to CT saturation.