Page 1 of 9 2015-PPIC-0168

DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION USED WITH MOTORS, MOTOR

CONTROLLERS AND ADJUSTABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES: WHAT YOU
DIDN’T KNOW!
John A. Kay David C. Mazur Kenneth D. Mazur
Fellow, IEEE Member, IEEE, IAS Member, IEEE
Rockwell Automation Rockwell Automation Inc. Rockwell Automation Inc.
nd
135 Dundas St. 1201 South 2 Street 510 Lindbergh Drive
Cambridge, ON, N1R 5X1 Milwaukee, WI 53204 Coraopolis, PA, 15108
CANADA USA USA

Abstract - The application of differential protection has
been shown to be effective in many applications within
the Forest Product based industries. However, there are
some aspects of differential protection which need
special consideration. Some differential configurations
may be harmful to the systems to which they were
installed to protect. This paper will cover a few of the
basics surrounding typical differential applications. Also
highlighted are some of the risk areas which are typically
overlooked when applying differential protection for
certain applications.
Index Terms – Differential Protection, Motor Differential
Protection, Magnetizing Current, Core Balance Differential,
Transformer Protection, Differential Relay
I. INTRODUCTION
The electric distribution system will experience various
types of faults throughout its designed lifetime. These faults
could be due to internal or external sources and may be
temporary or permanent.
Internal faults may cause thermal effects when high fault
current flow results in system equipment overheating. This
can include cables, machines, and transformer windings. This
overheating may cause excessive insulation damage and
possibly melt the winding conductors. Additional internal
sources of electrical faults may also be caused by voltage
sags, switching surges, and over voltages. Voltage sags may
result in rotating machinery stalling due to lack of ride through
capability. Switching surges may cause over current
conditions due to the large inductive load created by motors.
External faults, or surges from outside the system, are mainly
due to external phenomena such as lighting strikes or physical
damage to the system (i.e. a downed tree).
Due to the possibility of internal and external faults, the
distribution system must be instrumented with protective
devices for continuous monitoring. These protective devices
should monitor for the electrical status of various system
components (circuit breakers, contactors, motors,
transformers, generators, feeders, etc.) and de-energize them
when they are the cause of abnormal operating conditions [1].
The industrial power system, which is a subset of the
electric distribution system, is subject to the same
vulnerability. This paper will focus on internal faults within the
distribution system that can be protected by using a
differential protection scheme. The paper will first define the
basics of differential protection and its importance in the
industrial power system. The paper will demonstrate the
application of motor and transformer differential protection
schemes including step up/step down transformers used with
variable frequency drives (VFD).
II. CURRENT TRANSFORMER FUNDAMENTALS
Instrument transformers are a general classification used
to identify devices that modify magnitudes or perform isolation
when used to monitor current and voltage. This isolation is
intended to separate the utilization voltage or current from the
supply voltage or currents for both operator and device safety.
This section will focus on current instrument transformers
better known as CTs. Typically the secondary of a CT will be
rated 5 [A] or 1 [A] so that they can be used in conjunction
with metering or in the case of differential protection, a
protective relay. This paper will focus on magnetic core CTs.
CTs are not a perfect transformation device and will incur
losses from resistance of the copper wire and stray
inductance of the copper windings and core. The largest
losses are due to current carrying copper windings and the
magnetic core that carries the flux to magnetize the circuit.
Fig. 1 depicts a model for a magnetic core CT from the
secondary side. It can be seen that the impedance
represented by
 and  +  cause current and voltage
losses within the circuit. [2]
I1
I’2 jX1 R1 I2
ZM Zb
Fig. 1 CT Equivalent Circuit Model
Additionally, the burden,
 , of the device to receive the
signal produced by the CT, i.e. the protective relay, must be

978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

 2015-PPIC-0168 Page 2 of 9

within a tolerance described by the CT manufacturer to obtain against symmetrical and unsymmetrical faults. The
accurate measurements. The burden of the CT is defined as corresponding current that would enter the differential branch
the impedance produced by the protective device itself, in would be defined by equation (1).
addition to the impedance of the wiring to the secondary of the
current transformer [3]. 1
∆
  =   
   −
    (1)

III. BASICS OF DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION
CT CT
Using simple input and output current measurements,
introduces a zone where protection is not present, (Fig. 2).
The zones of protection are defined by the placement of the CT CT
current transformers and their interconnection and interaction Protection Zone
with each other. In Fig. 2 the current transformers are CT CT
providing individual current feedback for the current measured
at the input, Zone A, and separately the output currents, Zone
B. There is no direct relationship to any loss or gain of current Iain/n Iaout/n
between the two zones. Rst

87
* Only one of three phases
Neutral shown
Iin Iout
Power System Fig. 4 Differential Protection Scheme
Zone A Zone A Component Zone B Zone B
CT
When differential protection is only needed for line to
CT
potential earth (PE), Fig. 4 can be modified to use only one 87
(differential) element and tying the secondaries of all current
transformers together. By connecting the current
Iout/n
Iin/n transformers in this fashion, the current flowing through the 87
element will be the residual difference from input and output
current transformers, i.e. the amount of current flowing to PE.
This can be seen in Fig 5. These types of schemes are
Fig. 2 Simple Zone Based Current Protection known as high impedance differential protection schemes.
There are additional types of differential protection known as
Differential protection is based on comparing phase low impedance differential protection, and voltage differential
currents entering the protective device Iin with the current protection. These schemes are often used on transformer
leaving the protective element Iout on each electrical phase circuits. There are multiple references on the basics
(Fig. 3). During normal operating conditions or with a fault surrounding these circuits and why these types of schemes
outside the protection device, the two currents are are utilized in industry [4] [5].
approximately equal. If there is a difference between the two
CT CT
currents, a fault is detected and the fault current is
proportional to this difference. Iain/n Iaout/n
A sample of both Iin and Iout is gathered by current CT Protected CT
transformers with a turns ratio n. As a result, the two currents
that are measured by this protection scheme are Iin/n and
Ibin/n Element Ibout/n
CT CT
Iout/n. This scheme can be seen in Fig 3.
Icin/n Icout/n
Iin Iout Ires-in Ires-out
Rst
Protection Zone
CT CT
87 ΔIres
Neutral
Iin/n Iout/n
Fig. 5 Differential Protection Scheme for High Impedance
Ground Fault
(1/n)(Iin-Iout)
In transformer applications related to motor applications,
Fig. 3 Basics of Differential Protection there are several factors that need to be considered in
relationship to differential protection:
Each phase of differential protection utilized a stabilizer • Magnetizing inrush currents
resistor Rst in series with a differential protection element • Over-excitation
(87). By connecting the differential elements, stabilizing • Current transformer saturation
resistors, and current transformers in the fashion depicted in • Phase relationships
Fig. 4, the resulting protection scheme will be able to protect • Multi-winding transformer applications

978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

Page 3 of 9 2015-PPIC-0168

protection for these transformers, with non-standard phase

All of these conditions can result in an unbalanced level of shifts, does pose some interesting challenges for the
currents being monitored by the differential protective device. application of differential protection. This is well covered in a
As well, the following conditions must also be accommodated paper by Sevov, Kennedy, Paes and Ostojic [6]. In some
by the differential protection device: cases, multiple transformers may be applied to provide the
• Phase shift or voltage taps necessary number of windings to support the style of
• Phase shifts in wye-delta configurations converter. The application of more modern microprocessor
• Phase shifts in multi-phase transformer differential relays offers the ability to provide an automatic
applications phase shift compensation model for various phase angles.
The calculations for current depend on transformer However, the protection of this type of transformer application
connection type. On step up or step down transformers, the does require a special review of the current transformer
connection measured currents are a ratio of the winding locations in the circuit, the connection of the differential relay,
currents. In this case, the current transformer ratios need to as well as the ability to enter the correct winding voltages and
be either matched or the protection device must be able to angles into the differential relay.
compensate for current transformers of different ratios.
The protection of a delta/wye or wye/delta transformer MOTOR OVERCURRENT DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION (87)
requires some specific special attention. The input current
characteristics are defined as shown in equation (2) and the Motor overcurrent differential protection, the most common
output side define in equation (3). These equations are method of differential protection for motors, measures the
depicted below Fig. 6. The application of differential current flowing into the motor and compares it to the current
protection to conventional power transformers with “standard” measured on the neutral side of the motor. The most common
phase shifts (multiples of 30° deg.) is relatively straightforward connection method of differential protection on electric motors
and can be managed using the current generation of is known as the core (self) balance method. This three current
electronic differential protection relaying. transformer configuration requires both sides of each of the
motors stator phases to be passed through a single current
IL1
transformer. This method is best for effective sensitivity and is
I’L1
highly immune to noise. Fig. 7 outlines the basic core balance
style of configuration. The core balance type of connection
IL2 I’L2 typically uses a lower primary pickup setting than the
summation method (Fig. 8) since the current transformer ratio
IL3 I’L3 is usually lower than that used in the summation method of
protection
When the core balance method is used, since the
Fig.6 Delta/Wye Differential Protection Scheme
differential current transformers are located only at the motor,
any cable faults between the motor controller and the motor

1 = !
′ 1 −
2$ '√3 will not be detected. These cable faults would need to be

2 = 
2 −
3 ∕ √3 (2) detected with an overcurrent or ground fault protection
element connected to current transformers in the main

3 = 
3 −
1 ∕ √3 controller.
IL1

′ 1) =
′ 1

* 2) =
* 2 (3)

* 3) =
* 3 IL2

Bias current describes the average current flow in

transformers. Bias and differential currents must be calculated
individually for each phase.
If the transformer is earthed, then zero current must be
compensated before differential and bias current calculation.
This is usually accomplished using a method of zero current
compensation selected individually for IL and I’L side, in the
protection system.
The differential protection device used for transformer
differential generally are set less sensitive with a typical
characteristic percentage of between 15% - 50%. When
settings within these ranges are used, accommodation for
different current transformer characteristics, magnetizing in-
rush currents and current transformer ratios are accounted
for.
Another prevalent application of differential protection
includes multi-secondary, multi-pulse transformers used on
medium voltage AC adjustable speed drives (ASD). The
IL3
M
Fig. 7 Core Balance Motor Differential Method
The alternative method of motor differential requires that six
current transformers are used; three at the input to the motor
and three at the star point within the motor. This method is
called the summation method and a simple circuit
representation is shown in Fig. 8.
This method is much more prone to issues related to
asymmetrical currents and variations between current
transformers. If the current transformers are not perfectly
identical, their output signals may not be directly proportional

978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

 2015-PPIC-0168 Page 4 of 9

causing nuisance trips. To avoid this situation, the level of
differential protection may need to be adjusted to be much
less sensitive or an additional time delay may be injected to
extend a ride through period for specific problem times, such
as during motor start cycles.
In this regard, the summation differential method is better
than the core balancing differential method because the motor
cables are also included in the differential protection zone.
IL1
IL2
IL3
M
branch. This value takes into account the resistance of the
current transformer itself in addition to the resistance of the
wire that connects the secondary of the current transformer to
the differential element. I2SC corresponds to the short circuit
current at the secondary of the current transformer. This can
be calculated by dividing the primary short-circuit current by
the turns ratio of the current transformer. Finally, Iset is
defined as the set point of the differential relay. This value
should be selected to be higher than the nominal current that
would flow within the differential branch in order to prevent
unwanted tripping.
B. Sufficient Voltage at Differential Branch

Current transformers must be accurately selected so that

the voltage at the differential branch of protection is sufficient
to activate the differential relay element, when a fault occurs
within the protection zone. Fig. 9 depicts the typical behavior
of a magnetic core current transformer.

Ph A Ph B Ph C

Flux Density
Saturation Region

Fig. 8 Summation Motor Differential Method Knee Point

IV. DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION RULES OF THUMB

In order to provide a stable differential protection scheme,
four main aspects must be taken into account:

1. Differential protection is insensitive to external faults

2. There must be sufficient voltage at the differential
branch in order to activate the 87 element for
Ankle Point
protection against internal faults
3. Limiting the voltage at the secondary of the current Ampere Turns
transformer in order to prevent damage
4. Define a protection scheme that can identify a Fig. 9 Regions of Magnetization Curve
minimum fault current
It can be seen that there are two regions of a magnetic core
A. Insensitivity to External Faults
current transformer: the linear region as defined by the ankle
and knee points of the curve, and the saturation region
It is important to recognize and develop a scheme that will
defined by increased Ampere turns [A-T] beyond the knee
guarantee that current flowing in the differential branch is due
point. It is important for the current transformers to be sized
to a fault occurring within the protective zone. Due to
such that normal operation is defined within the linear region
saturation of current transformers, the currents at both ends of
of operation. The knee point, Vk of a magnetic core current
the differential branch may not be equal during faults outside
transformer is defined by Standard BS 3938 class X [7] and
the protected zone. Additionally, current transformers do not
IEEE C37.110 [8]. At this point on the curve, an increase of
saturate at the same levels due to manufacturing tolerances.
50% of magnetizing current only produces a 10% increase in
As a result, without careful selection of current transformers
flux density. Generally speaking, when selecting a current
and trip settings, the differential protection scheme may be
transformer for a differential scheme equation (5) should be
oversensitive and cause unwanted disruptions within the
examined.
industrial facility. This problem can be easily avoided by
providing a restraining resistor in series with the differential
element to limit current flow. This stabilizing resistor should 34 ≥ 6 ,
-78 [V] (5)
be sized by equation (4).
In equation (3), Vk is the knee point of the current

-. transformer. Rmax is the combined maximum resistance of the
 >  , [Ω] (4) current transformer pair and its secondary wire connection to

 the 87 element. And, I2sc is the short circuit current
measured on the secondary side of the current transformer.
In this equation  refers to the stabilizing resistor sized in In general, the 6 constant should be bound between 1.5 and
ohms. Rmax is defined by the max resistance of either the 2. Satisfying (3) is crucial to the success of defining a
current transformer on the entrance or exit of the differential

978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

Page 5 of 9
differential protection that will activate when differential
currents are above the protection scheme set point.
C. Limiting Voltage at current transformer Secondary
During times of a large fault within the protection zone, (i.e.
three phase bolted fault), there will be a large short-circuit
current produced inside the protection zone. At this time, the
current transformer(s) selected will be highly saturated and
high voltage (HV) peaks may occur. These HV peaks may
permanently damage the current transformer(s) if not sized or
manufactured to handle these high voltages. In order to
prevent damage to current transformer(s), a non-linear
resistor may be connected in parallel with the restraint resistor
and differential element to limit the voltage at the current
transformer’s terminals. This can be seen in Fig. 10.
Iin
Iout
Protection Zone
CT CT
Iin /n Iout/n
Rs
Rnon
87
Fig. 10 Differential Protection with Non-linear (variable)
Resistor
D. Detection of Minimum Fault Current
The last item that is needed to configure a successful
differential protection scheme is to determine the minimum
fault current that can be detected. The minimum fault current
can be calculated by taking the model of the current
transformers in Fig. 1 and making linear approximations to
calculate both the primary and secondary side fault currents,
in terms of components listed in Fig 4. The resulting equation
from solving for the fault current in Fig. 10 can be seen in
equation (6).
; = (
 +
 + 2
 ) [<] (6) transformer’s operating range need only be that of the
In this equation
; is the primary side fault current measured are handled by a secondary protection system which is made
in Amps,
 is the current flowing through the differential up of main power fuses in coordination with any overload
element,
 is the current flowing through the non-linear device and the interrupting rating of the contactor.
resistor, and
 is the current flowing through the magnetizing The rated accuracy limit current is the value of primary
branch of the current transformer.
978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE
2015-PPIC-0168
E. Current Transformer Selection Summary
In order to provide differential protection to rotating assets
such as motors, generators, or transformers the previous
rules of thumb should be followed in order to create an
effective protection scheme. In order to have an effective
differential scheme, proper stabilizing resistor sizes must be
calculated in order to prevent unwanted tripping. Current
transformers must also be sized so that the knee point of the
magnetizing curve is selected so to keep the current
transformer within the linear region of operation as much as
possible. Finally, the minimum fault current must be
calculated. An effective differential protection scheme will
satisfy equations (2), (3), and (4).
V. CURRENT TRANSFORMER SELECTION
The output characteristics of typical iron core current
transformers is that they are optimized when they are used
near their nominal design values. When used with very low
end or very high end currents, they are far from an ideal
transformer. For overcurrent and differential protection, where
high or low currents must be measured and checked, the
protection relay in combination with the actual performance of
current transformers at high and low end excitation levels
must be accurate to ensure correct protection functionality.
The difference between the ideal secondary current and the
actual secondary current, under steady-state conditions, is
defined as the composite error. The composite error includes
amplitude and phase errors and also the effects of any
possible harmonics in the excitation current. The standard
rating and accuracy class characteristics for current
transformers, is generally defined as the rated frequency with
rated burden connected, the amplitude error, phase error and
composite error.
A. Current transformer saturation
Current transformers used for protection must retain a
reasonable accuracy of between 1 and 10% up to the largest
relevant fault current [9]. Protection-class current transformers
are not as accurate as metering-class current transformers,
which have an accuracies ranging between 0.3 to 1.2%, but
are designed to operate over a wider range of current [9]. This
wider range is necessary to allow the protective relay to
operate at different fault levels. Protection-class current
transformers are typically rated to operate accurately up to 20
times their rating. This is where some confusion arises
depending on the control system. If the control system
consists of a circuit breaker, the current transformer must be
suitable to accurately measure high fault currents. In the case
of a fuse contactor style of control (E2), the current
connected load requirements. High or short circuit currents
current up to which the current transformer will comply with
the requirements for composite error.
 2015-PPIC-0168
The standard accuracy limit factors are 5, 10, 15, 20 and
30. The actual accuracy limit factor depends on the actual
burden applied to the current transformer.
When the current through a current transformer equals and
exceeds the nominal operating range, there may be enough
secondary differential current to trip a relay although there is
really no in zone fault. This is because each current
transformer is unique and thus does not behave equally when
approaching saturation. To avoid false trips caused by heavy
through faults, the actual accuracy limit factor kA of the
current transformers should exceed the relative setting ISET
of the non-stabilized differential stage.
Some protective relays include overcurrent elements that
can operate using a type of mathematic adaptive current
algorithm when the relay detects when a current transformer
is in a severely saturated condition. These algorithms are
typically only used for phase instantaneous overcurrent
elements and have other limitations on their application to
corresponding pickup settings. These protective algorithms
are always based solely only on the fundamental system
frequency.
VI. DIFFERENTIAL RELAYING AND PROTECTION
CHARACTERISTICS
The setup for differential protection typically includes at
least two setting variables in regards to the rate of current
biasing required in relationship to the percentage of the pickup
current settings. This is typically referred to as a dual slope
setting and can be seen in Fig. 11. The first part of the slope
is used to compensate for the apparent differential current
caused by things like tap changers. For example, a 19
position tap changer ±9x1.67% in its max/min position gives a
setting 9x1.67%=15%. The start of the second slope and its
steepness are rule of thumb values. The steepness and thus
the slope and selectivity is a function of the level of protection
required.
Pickup Current Setting
Current Bias
Fig. 11 Typical Differential Relay Setting Profile
Most differential protection relays include settings for a
restraint and blocking elements. These two different aspects
of protection enable discrimination between differential current
978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE
Page 6 of 9
caused by internal faults and that caused by magnetizing
inrush or over excitation. Typically the blocking element has
an independent and settable threshold level. Most new
generation microprocessor based relays also include a fifth-
harmonic element to produce an over excitation trip if fifth-
harmonic current is detected for a settable time. Typically
transformer over-excitation causes about 20-50% of fifth
harmonic component compared to the measured phase
currents.
.
There are also some microprocessor based relays which
include the interrogation of the second harmonic content for
transformer inrush. The second harmonic function
interrogates the inrush current of a transformer and provides a
restraint or blocking function to maintain the integrity of the
differential protection during inrush events. Generally the
recommended setting for this protection is around 15-20% of
fundamental current, but this should be adjusted based on
actual operating practices. There are situations where this
setting may be well below that 20% level. As the second
harmonic current setting is lowered, the inrush restraint level
is also lower which may impact the tripping time of the
differential element for fault conditions
VII. MAGNETIC CORE CURRENT TRANSFORMERS AND
VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Most magnetic core current transformers are designed for
an operating range between 40 and 400 Hz. The designs are
typically optimized for 50 or 60 Hz depending on their
manufacturing origin or specifications. Most of these types of
current transformers can be used for frequencies lower than
40 Hz but only with very careful consideration of the particular
situation and application. The capability of any ferromagnetic
current transformers is proportional to the frequency of the
current being measured. If the current transformer is designed
for an optimal 60 Hz, and current at lower frequencies are
applied and measured, the current transformer’s output drive
capability will fall proportionally to the frequency being
applied. This means that the burden on the current
transformer secondary must go down in proportion to
frequency to maintain secondary output accuracy. This
burden must also include the winding resistance of the current
transformer and the protection devices to which it is attached.
The other aspect that has to be considered is the heating
effect to the magnetic core. When a frequency lower than the
designed minimum is applied, the current transformer’s core
saturates and begins to heat up above its designed
maximums. Few magnetic core manufacturers have any good
data on the increased core heating with a frequency variation
below the designed frequency. The fact is, the required testing
to validate various lower frequency ranges (below its designed
lowest continuous frequency) isn’t a simple test and is not a
standard requirement for any magnetic core current
transformer. To perform and validate testing to lower
frequency currents (<40Hz) requires that the voltages and
currents be parameterized and only the frequency be varied.
There are currently no standards to validate and configure to
these requirements. The separation of temperature rise due to
losses in the core from the nominal losses associated with the
secondary winding coil would also be very difficult to separate.
Page 7 of 9 2015-PPIC-0168
As a general rule, for most magnetic core current
transformers, the losses in the magnetic core, the hysteresis
and associated eddy currents will vary approximately 1.6 to 2
degree as a function of frequency.
VIII. PROTECTION WHEN APPLYING CONTACTORS VERSUS
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
The recommended use of differential protection on large
electric machines has been suggested in standards such as
the [10] for quite some time. In fact, this recommendation
began well before the introduction of vacuum switching
technologies and microprocessor based relays.
Early switching devices, used for motor control, were air
blast (break) style devices, (fig. 9). These devices were very
large electro-mechanical switching mechanisms. Because of
their inherent size, they were not the fast switching devices
we know today, having opening times in the range of 6-15
cycles. So getting these devices open as fast as possible was
very important to prevent extensive motor damage. Getting
the load offline quickly, in the event of a phase to phase fault,
is the intent of differential protection.
The newer switching technologies now include vacuum
circuit breakers and fused vacuum contactors. As with the
older electromechanically switching devices, circuit breakers
still require a given amount of time to open their contacts and
disconnect current flow, in the range of 3-8 cycles.
Fig. 12 Early Air Blast Style Medium Voltage Switching
Device
Circuit breakers typically have a very high interrupting rating
in comparison to a contactor. These short-circuit interrupting
capacities range from 10 to 65kA depending on medium
voltage class breakers. A typical circuit breaker characteristic
trip curve and interrupting rating are shown in figure 13.
978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE
Power Fuse
Minimum Melt
Curve
Circuit Breaker
Maximum
Time
Interrupting
Rating
Circuit Breaker Trip
Characteristic Curve
Current
Fig. 13 Typical Circuit Break Trip Curve and Interrupting
Ratings
Vacuum contactors, on the other hand, due to their smaller
size, can open quite rapidly. However, unlike a circuit breaker,
vacuum contactors have a very low current interrupting
capability when compared to that of a circuit breaker. It is
common for medium voltage vacuum contactors to have
interrupting capabilities from 4000 to 6000A. This is the
reason vacuum contactors are almost always used in
coordination with primary medium voltage fuses. This primary
fusing provides the short circuit interrupting capability for the
contactor fuse combination. Medium voltage power fuses are
able to quickly clear high levels of fault current within ¼ to ½
cycle.
Fig. 14 Typical Medium Voltage Vacuum Contactors
This coordination actually requires that the vacuum
contactor remain closed so that these power fuses clear any
current greater than the interrupting rating of the contactor
[11]. Figure 16 graphically illustrates the relationship of the
contactor’s interrupting rating, the power fuse clearing curve
and the drop out time of the vacuum contactor.
 2015-PPIC-0168 Page 8 of 9

chance of permanent vacuum interrupter damage which could

also result in catastrophic vacuum interrupter failure.
There are also application issues identified in [11].If the
CB interrupting device is not rated to break the potential fault
current levels, then differential protection should be disabled
Power or there must be a control assurance that the contactor will
Fuse not be allowed to open under fault current conditions greater
(3) CT
than the vacuum contactor’s interrupting capability. An
M alternative control method could be the inclusion of an
auxiliary output relay which is connected, in such a way, that it
(1) CFCT trips an upstream device capable of breaking the fault current.
(3) CT Alternatively, protection engineers may decide to delay the
operation of the differential protection in order to distinguish
between low level faults and short circuits. However, delays in
Typical Vacuum the controls will add latency to the system and is
(1) CFCT
Circuit Breaker counterintuitive to the intent of differential protection being
rapid. If properly sized, the power fuses will provide an
adequate level of high level protection. When used in
Typical Fused combination with a microprocessor based protection system,
Vacuum Contactor even small fault currents can be identified and the current
removed from the load very rapidly.
Fig. 15 Typical MV Vacuum Contactors and Circuit Breaker
Controller Single Line
Power Fuse
Utilizing differential protection control schemes on a fused Minimum Melt
vacuum contactor arrangement can, in fact, result in damage Vacuum Interrupter
Curve Damage Zone
to the vacuum contactor if this system is not applied correctly.
Many differential protection relay suppliers now place
warnings in their user’s materials advising users to take
special care when enabling differential protection with fused
contactor arrangements. If the contactor control is interrupted
abnormally, forcing the contactor to open or drop out faster Un-Controlled
Time

than its designed specifications, an abnormal coordination Contactor Drop

condition could occur between the fuses and the contactor. Out Time
Contactor
Interrupting
Rating
Power Fuse
Minimum Melt
Curve
Controlled
Contactor Drop Current
Out Time Fig. 17 Improper Coordination of Vacuum Contactor with
Power Fuses
Time

IX. CONCLUSIONS
The use of differential protection on critical motor or
transformer applications does require some review of the
Contactor control system to which it is being applied. Traditional breaker
Interrupting control systems, where differential protection is used to
Rating reduce the potential damage to the connected load, has
significant practical value. Special care is required on the
application of differential protection where the control is by a
fused vacuum contactor. Vacuum contactors typically have a
Current relatively low interrupting capability. They should not be
Fig. 16 Proper Coordination of a Vacuum Contactor with configured to open under current conditions higher than their
Power Fuses interrupting rating. Always confer with the vacuum contactor
and/or controls supplier to validate control requirements of this
The three interrupters of the vacuum contactor, may be type.
placed in a situation where they must interrupt currents higher Care must be taken when magnetic core style current
than their designed maximums. In this case, there is a high transformers are applied to the output of any variable
frequency controller. Unpredictable characteristics may result

978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

Page 9 of 9 2015-PPIC-0168
from applications at frequencies outside the design
specification for the magnetic core current transformer. It may
be possible to apply magnetic core current transformers at
frequencies lower than their design recommendation, but
special relay settings will be required to facilitate the varying
outputs from the current transformers.
Special differential protection schemes require a full review
by a qualified protection engineer. Too often untrained
personnel, who are not familiar with the settings of the
protection devices or of the full system configuration, enter
settings which permit a trip free environment but place the
overall system and critical equipment in jeopardy.
X. REFERENCES
[1] Sallam, Abdelhay A., and Om P. Malik. “Electric
Distribution Systems”. Hoboken: IEEE, 2011. Print.
[2] Pansini, Anthony J., “Guide to Electrical Power
Distribution Systems”. Lilburn, GA: Fairmont, 2005. Print.
[3] Horowitz, Stanley H., “Power System Relaying”.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2014. Print.
[4] Mozina, C.J., "Protection of Power Plant Transformers
using Digital Technology," Transmission and Distribution
Conference, 1999 IEEE , vol.1, no., pp.421,432 vol.1,
11-16 Apr 1999, doi:10.1109/TDC.1999.755388
[5] Mozina, C.J., "Protection and Commissioning of
Multifunction Digital Transformer Relays at Medium
Voltage Industrial Facilities," Industry Applications, IEEE
Transactions on, vol.41, no.6, pp.1420,1429, Nov.-Dec.
2005, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2005.858278IEEE,
[6] Sevov, L., Kennedy, S., Paes, R., Ostojic, P., Differential
Protection for Medium Voltage Pulse Transformers,
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference
(PCIC), 2014 IEEE, DOI:
10.1109/PCICon.2014.6961882 Publication Year: 2014,
Page(s): 173-184.
[7] BS 3938:1973, British Standard, Specification for
Current Transformers, ISBN:0580073092
[8] Std. C37.110, IEEE Guide for the Application of Current
Transformers used for Protective Relaying Purposes,
ISSN:0885-8977, DOI:10.1109/61.736693
[9] IEEE, PC57.13-2008, Standard Requirements for
Instrument Transformers, ISBN:978-0-7381-5411-4,
DOI:10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4581634
[10] Std. 242-2001, IEEE Recommended Practice for
Protection and Coordination of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems (IEEE Buff Book), E-
ISBN:978-0-7381-2845-0,
DOI:10.1109/IEEESTD.2001.93369
[11] Kay, J. A., Selection, Application, and Interchangeability
of Medium-Voltage Power Fuses in Motor Control
Centers, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
VOL. 42, NO. 6, pp1574-1581
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006.
XI. AUTHORS’ INFORMATION
John A. Kay (M’94, SM’98, F’12), received his degree in
Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technology from Conestoga
College, Kitchener, Ontario in 1977. He has authored a wide
variety of award winning technical papers and other technical
articles and manuals related to medium voltage electrical
978-1-4799-7114-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE
control and protection systems, arc resistant equipment and
infrared technologies. Several of his papers have been
published in the IEEE IAS Transactions and the IAS
magazine. He is a Fellow member of the IEEE, the Industry
Application Society and is actively involved with the IEEE Pulp
and Paper Industry Committee, serving on its main executive
board, its conference committee and on several sub-
committees. He serves on several other technical groups and
participated on the local planning committees for the 2011
IEEE-PCIC and 2002 IEEE-PPIC. He was won several IEEE
paper awards and was awarded a Meritorious Service Award
from the IEEE Pulp and Paper Industry Committee (PPIC) of
which he now leads as the committee chairman. He also sits
on the IEEE IAS Executive Board as the chairman of the
Process Industries Department. Mr. Kay is a Certified
Engineering Technologist, in the province of Ontario.
David C. Mazur (S’07, M’12), works as a global technical
consultant for Rockwell Automation in Milwaukee, WI with a
current focus on SCADA communications and substation
automation. His experience includes the development of
regenerative variable frequency drive technology. David was
engaged in the development of technology for time
synchronized continuous casters for the steel industry. David
received his B.S. EE degree summa cum laude and first in his
class from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA in 2011. David graduated with his M.S. EE
degree in 2012 for his work based on rotor angle
measurement of synchronous machines from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. He graduated with
the Ph.D. in Mining Engineering in September 2013 for his
work with automation and control of the IEC 61850 standard.
David is an active member of the IEEE IAS and serves as
working group chair for the Communication-Based Protection
of Industrial Applications Working Group. He also serves as a
member of the Mining Industry Committee (MIC) as well as
the Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Committee
(I&CPS). David is also an active voting member of the IEEE
Standards Association (SA).
Kenneth D. Mazur received his BSEE West Virginia
University 1977. Ken has worked for United States Steel,
serving as a field construction engineer for 9 years before
moving to Rockwell Automation. During his tenure at
Rockwell, Ken has held the roles of: lead project engineer,
field service engineer, PLC area manager, and account
manager. He has 25 plus years in design and construction
experience in process control facilities.