Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
DOI 10.1007/s00202-016-0364-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Setting-less transformer protection for ensuring security and
dependability
Sungyun Choi1 · A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos2
Received: 9 August 2014 / Accepted: 11 April 2016 / Published online: 26 April 2016
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract The “setting-less” protection approach is an inno-
vative protection scheme with increased dependability and
security. This method is based on dynamic state estimation,
which continuously extracts the operating condition of a pro-
tection zone from real-time measurements and the protection
zone dynamic model. The dynamic state estimation computes
the probability that the measurements fit the dynamic model
of the protection zone within the measurement accuracy via
the Chi-square test. The probability represents the goodness
of fit of measurements to the dynamic model of the protection
zone. We refer to it as the confidence level that the protection
zone is healthy. High confidence levels imply that the pro-
tection zone operates normally, while low confidence levels
indicate that internal abnormalities/faults may have occurred.
Note that the proposed method does not require coordination
with other protection schemes which sometimes compromise
security and/or dependability. In this paper, the setting-less
protection approach is described and applied to transformer
protection. The feasibility of the setting-less transformer pro-
tection is verified with numerical experiments of several case
studies (e.g., transformer energization, external faults, inter-
nal faults, and high impedance faults). The method has been
verified in the laboratory and there are plans for field testing.
The work was supported by EPRI, PSERC, DoE/NETL, and NEC.
B Sungyun Choi
schoi4ever@gmail.com
1 Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, Uiwang, Korea
2 School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250, USA
Keywords Nonlinear dynamic systems · Power system
protection · Power transformers · State estimation
1 Introduction
In the area of power system protection, security indicates the
ability for protective relays not to trip for normal or tolerable
conditions, while dependability is the ability of relays to trip
for any intolerable fault conditions of devices under protec-
tion. In fact, it is critical for a protection scheme to guarantee
both security and dependability, but in many cases, protective
relaying settings are selected as a trade-off among conflict-
ing factors. For example, in case of transformer protection,
overcurrent relay monitors transformer winding currents and
trips breakers when the monitored currents exceed preset
thresholds, considering the currents as fault currents. How-
ever, the overcurrent relay may interpret high inrush currents
(for example, during energization or during an abrupt volt-
age change) as internal fault currents and falsely trip. This
degrades the protection security [1]. In addition, legacy dif-
ferential protection may cause false trips because inrush
currents appear as internal faults.
In an attempt to increase the security and dependabil-
ity of transformer protection, many protection algorithms
have been proposed to differentiate inrush currents [1–3];
desensitization of protective differential relays, additional
time-delay settings for differential relays, harmonic-restraint
methods, waveform-shape identification, and dwell-time
methods. However, these methods primarily depend on man-
ual settings which many times compete with other objectives
such as speed and selectivity. The end result is that settings
are selected as a compromise among competing factors. For
example, the second harmonic restraint method, which iden-
tifies inrush currents by monitoring the magnitude of second
123
284
harmonic currents, requires manual settings for a threshold
of the magnitude; a typical setting is 20 % of the fundamental
current. Therefore, if the magnitude exceeds the threshold,
then it is concluded that the monitored current is not the
fault current, but the inrush current. The additional percent-
age adds to the desensitization of the relay settings. There are
many cases where the settings cannot guarantee secure and
dependable operation; for instance, high impedance internal
faults during transformer energization will be characterized
with high harmonics and relatively low internal fault current,
a condition that may not be recognized as internal fault by
legacy differential protective relay.
In the meantime, there are efforts to use artificial neural
network to discriminate inrush currents and fault conditions
[14,15], but these methods require training periods to fully
achieve their functionality. In [16], an effective method that
uses wavelet transform is proposed for indirect symmetri-
cal phase shift transformers. This method, however, initially
checks whether the differential currents exceed the prede-
fined thresholds to activate its main function. In [17], a new
sympathetic inrush detection method that calculate online
magnetic flux by integrating measured voltages on the tips
of the transformer is proposed, but the sudden change con-
dition of currents beyond the preset thresholds is required to
initiate the proposed algorithm.
This paper presents a new approach to increase the secu-
rity of transformer protection without compromising the
dependability. The new approach is based on dynamic state
estimation for monitoring the health of the protection zone,
in this case the transformer [4–6]. This method produces
the real-time operating conditions of the transformer from
real-time measured data and the dynamic model of the trans-
former under protection. It provides the confidence level (i.e.,
the goodness of fit of the model to the measurements). The
confidence level represents the health condition of the pro-
tected device; for example, low confidence level indicates
there are internal abnormalities in the transformer. The new
method does not require any settings, so it is coined “setting-
less” protection. The setting-less protection approach was
introduced in [6]. This paper presents an update with better
transformer models and extensive numerical experiments to
validate the approach.
2 The proposed protection method
The setting-less protection scheme can be viewed as an
extension of the traditional differential protection, which uti-
lizes the generalized Kirchhoff’s current law. The proposed
setting-less protection is based on not only the Kirchhoff’s
current law, but also other physical laws (e.g., Kirchhoff’s
123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
voltage law or Faraday’s law) relevant to the protection zone.
Dynamic characteristics of components enable the proposed
method to analyze transient phenomena by means of the
dynamic state estimation [7], [8] and, thus, the proposed
method can detect any violation of physical laws based on
the component dynamic model and real-time measurement
data.
A possible implementation of the proposed setting-less
protection is shown in Fig. 1. A relay that is responsible
for protecting a component monitors terminal voltages and
currents of the component with high sampling rates. Addi-
tionally, the relay collects other information including the
status of circuit breakers and component measurements (e.g.,
tap setting or temperature). With all the measurement data
and the information collected, the dynamic state estimation is
performed, generating dynamic operating states of the com-
ponent in real time. Then, the well-known Chi-square test
is used to quantify the goodness of fit of measurements to
the component dynamic model, thereby providing the prob-
ability that normalized measurement errors are distributed
within expected bounds. This probability is referred to as the
confidence level.
In general, a high confidence level implies that there is no
discrepancy between model and measurements, so it can be
concluded that the device operation is normal. Conversely, if
the confidence level is low, then the model is not consistent
with measurements. The main reason for this inconsistency
is any internal fault of the device under protection as long as
measurements are trustable. At the same time, the proposed
protection scheme can detect violation of operating limits
and may trip the device for predetermined violations as illus-
trated in Fig. 1. It is necessary to point out that the setting-less
protection method requires no setting such as pick-up cur-
rents or restraining quantities, because the method basically
depends on the confidence level, which can be obtained by
the dynamic state estimation. However, it can accept limits
on operating quantities, such as transformer temperature or
transformer current on specific coils (including through fault
current).
3 Dynamic state estimation
The main algorithm of the setting-less protection method is
the dynamic state estimation and the well-known Chi-square
test to evaluate the goodness of fit of measurements to com-
ponent (or protection zone) dynamic model. Initially, the
dynamic state estimation computes state variables based on
model constraints (i.e., measurement models), which define
measurements with relevant state variables. It should be
noted that component dynamic models of a device under
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297 285

Fig. 1 Overall approach of the setting-less component protection scheme

⎡ ⎤
protection can be used to form the measurement models, ..
.
and thus the dynamic state estimation can capture dynamic ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤⎥⎥
f 1 (t) ⎢ v(t) v(t) ⎥
characteristics of the device as long as the characteristics are ⎢
⎢ f 2 (t) ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ y(t) ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎥
f (t) = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢⎢ ⎥ Q i ⎢ y(t) ⎥ ⎥ , (2)
⎣ v(tm ) ⎦ ⎥
modeled and included in component dynamic models. Once ⎣ f 1 (tm ) ⎦ ⎢ ⎣ v(tm ) ⎦ ⎥
the states variables have been estimated, the Chi-square test ⎢ ⎥
f 2 (tm ) ⎢ y(tm ) y(tm ) ⎥
calculates the confidence level. ⎣ ⎦
..
.
3.1 Protection zone model ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
b1 (t − h) M11 M12 
⎢ b2 (t − h) ⎥ ⎢ M21 M22 ⎥ i(t − h)
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
The derivation of the protection zone model is shown in the ⎣ b3 (t − h) ⎦ ⎣ M31 M32 ⎦ 0
Appendix for a three-phase transformer. The dynamic model b4 (t − h) M41 M42
is expressed in the form of a quadratic algebraic compan- ⎡ ⎤
ion form (i.e., QACF). The generalized syntax of the QACF N11 N12 
⎢ N21 N22 ⎥ v(t − h)
model is as follows: +⎢ ⎥
⎣ N31 N32 ⎦ y(t − h) , (3)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ N41 N42
i(t) K1 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 v(t)
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ K 2 ⎥ ⎢ L 21 L 22 L 23 L 24 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ y(t) ⎥
⎣ i(tm ) ⎦ = ⎣ K 3 ⎦ + ⎣ L 31 L 32 L 33 L 34 ⎦ ⎣ v(tm ) ⎦ where K is the constant vector; L, M, and N are the device-
0 K4 L 41 L 42 L 43 L 44 y(tm ) model matrices; h is the integration time step; t is the current
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
f 1 (t) b1 (t − h) time; tm is the intermediate time (i.e., the half point in the
⎢ f 2 (t) ⎥ ⎢ b2 (t − h) ⎥ interval [t to t − h]); i(t) is the instantaneous value of termi-
+⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ f 1 (tm ) ⎦ − ⎣ b3 (t − h) ⎦ , (1) nal currents at t; v(t) is the instantaneous value of terminal
f 2 (tm ) b4 (t − h) voltages at t; y(t) is the internal state variable at t; f (t) is

123
286 Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297

the quadratic nonlinear terms at t; and Q i are the matrices All equations in (1) of which left terms are zero can
for the quadratic terms. become virtual measurements as follows:

3.2 Measurement model formulation and state 0 = K 2 + L 21 v(t) + L 22 y(t) + L 23 v(tm ) + L 24 y(tm )
estimation + f 2 (t) − b2 (t − h), (11)
0 = K 4 + L 41 v(t) + L 42 y(t) + L 43 v(tm ) + L 44 y(tm )
The measurement model is obtained from the quadratic
+ f 2 (tm ) − b4 (t − h). (12)
algebraic companion form of the device model by simply
expressing the measured quantity as a function of the states
The virtual measurements are expressed as follows:
of the protection zone model. The generalized form of a mea-
surement model is: 0 = Equ(k) + ηr , (13)

zr = h r (x) + ηr , (4) where Equ(k) is the right terms of the k-th row in (11) or

h r (x) = c + ai xi + b jk x j xk , (5) (12).

i j k Pseudo measurements represent quantities that are not
where zr is the measured value of the r -th measurement;
h r (x) is the function of state variables for the r -th measure-
ment; ηr is the measurement error for the r -th measurement;
c is the constant term; ai are the linear coefficient terms;
b jk are the nonlinear coefficient terms, which are quadratic
terms; xi , x j , and xk are the state variables; and i, j, and k
are the indices of state variables.
In general, there are four types of measurements such as
across, through, virtual, and pseudo measurements. Across
measurements (e.g., voltage measurements) can be directly
mapped to state variables, and therefore the measurement
model is formulated as follows:
zr = xi − x j + ηr , (6)
where xi and x j refer to state variables that correspond to the
two measured points.
Through measurement, models (e.g., current measure-
ments) are extracted from the device model, (1); for example,
the phase-A current of the device will be the first row of the
device model, expressed as follows for time t and tm :
i(t) = K 1 + L 11 v(t) + L 12 y(t) + L 13 v(tm ) + L 14 y(tm )
+ f 1 (t) − b1 (t − h), (7)
i(tm ) = K 3 + L 31 v(t) + L 32 y(t) + L 33 v(tm ) + L 34 y(tm )
+ f 1 (tm ) − b3 (t − h). (8)
Therefore, the measurement model of a terminal current will
be as follows:
zr = i(t)(k) + ηr , (9)
zr = i(tm )(l) + ηr , (10)
where k indicates the k-th row in (7), and l the l-th row in
(8).
directly measured but we know their approximate value, such
as the voltage of the neutral wire. In this case, the pseudo-
measurement is expressed as follows:
0 = xi + ηr , (14)
where xi refers to a state variable that corresponds to the
neutral voltage at the time t or tm . The expected error (i.e.,
standard deviation) of this measurement is high.
After formulating the measurement models for all mea-
surements, the state estimation algorithm is performed. In
this paper, the well-known weighted least squares method,
which minimizes the sum of weighted squares of residuals,
is used. The objective function can be formulated as follows:
min J = η T W η = [h(x) − z]T W [h(x) − z], (15)
where J is the objective function, η is the vector of all mea-
surement errors, W is the weight matrix, x is the vector of all
state variables, h(x) is the vector of functions with respect
to x, and z is the vector of all measurements. The diagonal
entries of the weight matrix consist of the inverse of squared
standard deviations of measurement errors. Then, the state
variables at the (i + 1)-th iteration can be obtained by the
Gauss–Newton iterative algorithm as follows:
x i+1 = x i − (H T W H )−1 H T W (h(x i ) − z), (16)
where x i+1 and x i are the state variables at the (i + 1)-th and
i-th iteration, respectively; and H is the Jacobian matrix of
h(x).
3.3 Chi-square test and protection logic
After the dynamic state estimation algorithm is completed,
the confidence level is computed using the degrees of free-
dom and the Chi-square critical value. First, the degrees of
freedom can be obtained as follows:

123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
ν = m − n,
where ν is the degree of freedom, m is the number of measure-
ments, and n is the number of state variables. The Chi-square
critical value is calculated by summing all squares of normal-
ized measurement errors as follows:
m 
287
(17) 4 Application to transformer protection
A transformer can experience many operating conditions
including a variety of faults: (a) steady state, (b) transformer
energization, (c) overexcitation, (d) external faults, and (e)
internal faults. In steady-state conditions, voltages and cur-
rents are near sinusoidal with a frequency of near 60 Hz.
 During transformer energization, high inrush currents with
h i (x̂) − z i 2
ζ = , (18)
σi
i=1
where ζ is the Chi-square critical value, x̂ is the best estimate
of states, h i (x) is the function of state variables of the ith mea-
surement, z i is the measured value of the ith measurement,
and σi is the standard deviation of the i-th measurement.
Then, the confidence level is obtained as follows:
Pr[χ 2 ≥ ζ ] = 1.0 − Pr[χ 2 ≤ ζ ] = 1.0 − Pr(ζ, ν) (19)
where χ 2 is the chi-square random variable; ζ is the Chi-
square critical value; Pr[χ 2 ≥ ζ ] is the probability that χ 2 is
larger than ζ , indicating the confidence level; both Pr[χ 2 ≤
ζ ] and Pr(ζ, ν) are the cumulative distribution function of χ 2
with the degree of freedom, ν.
The confidence level indicates the health index of a device
(or a zone) under protection. If the confidence level drops to
zero or low values for several cycles, then the device is in a
fault condition.
Fig. 2 The diagram of the test power system
harmonics are possible because of the nonlinear character-
istics of transformer cores. Although inrush currents are
typically five to eight times larger than the rated current, the
setting-less protective relay will not trip since the inrush cur-
rents are normal characteristics of transformers. Likewise,
overexcitation is also a possible operating condition when
the system is experiencing overvoltage. Relays should not
trip for overexcitation condition unless the conditions persist
to the point that the transformer starts to overheat. Moreover,
the setting-less protective relay must not operate external to
the transformer faults, yet the relay must trip when internal
faults occur.
5 Numerical experiments
This paper presents numerical experiments to verify the fea-
sibility of the setting-less transformer protection. For this
purpose, a test system has been used to simulate the various
conditions and events. The WinIGS-T program was used for
this purpose [9]. The simulation results are stored in COM-
123
288 Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297

TRADE format, and the data in the CONTRADE files are is the sign function, and n is the exponent. The exponent
played back into the setting-less protective relay. n is set to eleven, representing the magnetization charac-
Figure 2 shows the single-line diagram of a test power teristics of typical transformer core material. The detailed
system. It consists of a 15 kV–450 MVA-rated generator, component dynamic model of the transformer is presented in
an 18 kV–850 MVA-rated generator, step-up transformers, Appendix.
a step-down transformer, transmission lines, distribution Several case studies are presented in this paper: (a) trans-
lines, loads, and capacitor banks. The setting-less protection former energization, (b) an external fault condition (i.e.,
scheme is tested with the step-down transformer, which is through fault), (c) an internal fault condition, and (d) other
marked with a red dashed square in Fig. 2. The transformer fault conditions including three-phase external fault, phase-
is three-phase, two-winding, delta-wye-connected, saturable to-phase internal fault, three-phase internal fault, and high
iron core, 35 MVA, and 230 kV/25 kV. The magnetizing cur- impedance internal fault. For each study case, the simulated
rent and the flux linkage are as expressed in the following data include the six terminal voltages and six terminal cur-
equation: rents of the transformer with a sampling rate of 20,000 Hz.
These voltages and currents are input to the setting-less pro-
λ(t) n tective relay as measurement data. The sampling rate used

i m (t) = i 0 sign(λ(t)), (20)
λ0 in this case is high for the present day relays. The proposed
setting-less protection scheme works equally well for differ-
where i m (t) is the magnetizing current, λ(t) is the mag- ent sampling rates [6].
netic flux linkage, i 0 and λ0 are equation constants, sign()

Fig. 3 Terminal voltage and

current measurements (case
study 1)

123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
5.1 Case study 1: transformer energization
In this case study, the switch connected to the left of the step-
down transformer was initially open, so the transformer was
disconnected. The transformer is energized at time 3.495 s by
closing the switch. Inrush currents are observed on the high
voltage side of the transformer. Figure 3 illustrates the six
terminal voltages and seven terminal currents of the trans-
former. Inrush currents are clearly shown in the primary side
of the transformer (i.e., XFMR1 bus) after the switch was
closed.
Figure 4 shows results of the dynamic state estimation
during the test period. The figure shows examples of mea-
surements superimposed on the estimated measurement—in
this case, the difference between actual measurements and
estimated is very small and one cannot distinguish the two
curves (measurement and estimated measurement). The con-
fidence level is maintained 100 % even when inrush currents
were flowing through the step-down transformer, indicating
that there was no internal fault in the transformer. Hence,
Fig. 4 Results of the dynamic
state estimation (case study 1)
289
the setting-less relay would not trip, and this decision is cor-
rect since inrush currents are natural characteristics of the
transformer due to the saturable core.
5.2 Case study 2: external fault condition
This event involves a single phase-A-to-ground fault at
LOAD1 bus in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 5, the fault was initi-
ated at 11.995 s and cleared at 12.102 s. Indeed, this external
fault generated high fault currents, which was also observed
at the transformers, but the setting-less protective relay recog-
nized that the fault was external and would not take action. In
other words, the external fault should be cleared by the pro-
tective device that protects the zone where the fault occurred.
The test results for this study case are illustrated in Fig. 6.
Note that the confidence level remained 100 % during the
external fault period in spite of the high electric currents. As
shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the fault currents due to the external
fault were high enough that may cause false trip of over-
123
290
Fig. 5 Terminal voltage and
current measurements (case
study 2)
current relays, but the setting-less protection would not trip
breakers because the confidence level remained 100 %.
5.3 Case study 3: internal fault condition
In this case study, the phase-A terminal at the primary side
of the step-down transformer (i.e., XFMR1 bus) was shorted
to ground at 11.995 s and cleared at 12.101 s. As described
in Fig. 7, during the internal fault, the phase-A voltage at the
bus XFMR1 was nearly zero, and high fault current flowed
through the phase A of the XFMR1 bus. The setting-less
protective relay should be able to detect this internal fault by
computing the confidence level.
As depicted in Fig. 8, the confidence level dropped to zero
when the internal fault occurred. Note that in this simulation,
the fault was extinguished and, then, the confidence level was
back to 100 %. These changes of the confidence level imply
that the setting-less protection method can detect internal
123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
faults of devices under protection. Figure 8 indicates that the
estimated values through measurements at the primary side
are much different from the measured values during internal
faults. Moreover, the confidence level is maintained at zero
during the internal faults, and there are little nonzero spikes;
among them, the noticeable nonzero confidence levels are
13.22 and 5.98 %.
5.4 Case study 4: other fault conditions
In addition to the previous case studies, case study 4 presents
the various fault conditions, which are listed in Table 1. For
case study 4–1, the three-phase fault occurred outside the
step-down transformer and is cleared. However, for case stud-
ies 4–2, 4–3, and 4–4, internal fault conditions are tested at
the primary side of the transformer (i.e., XFMR1 bus). Note
that the high impedance fault (HIF) occurs in case study 4–4.
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
Fig. 6 Results of the dynamic
state estimation (case study 2)
For all these cases, fault occurred at 11.995 s and is cleared
at 12.101 s.
The confidence level of each case is displayed in Fig. 9
separately. For case study 4–1, the confidence level is main-
tained at 100 % even during the faults; this is correct because
the fault location is outside the transformer under protection.
In case of case studies 4–2, 4–3, and 4–4, the results indicate
that the confidence level becomes zero during the internal
fault, which exactly follows the concept of the proposed pro-
tection scheme. From Fig. 9, it is observed for case study
4–2 that right after the fault is cleared, the confidence level is
recovered to 100 % and then slips to zero momentarily. More-
over, for case study 4–4, the confidence level is maintained
to be zero even after the fault is cleared, and then it becomes
100 % again with a slight dip in a moment. These phenomena
are due to the nature of the dynamic state estimation that the
previously estimated values affect the consecutive estimation
instants; in other words, badly estimated results during fault
291
conditions have impacted on the following estimation even at
post-fault conditions. However, in the actual implementation
of setting-less protection, the dynamic state estimation will
be reset to initial values on detecting the internal fault and
tripping breakers, and therefore it is more significant that the
confidence level drops to zero as soon as fault occurs. In this
sense, the case study 4–2, 4–3, and 4–4 validates the feasibil-
ity of the setting-less protection in various fault conditions;
in case of case study 4–3, the spike of confidence level during
fault conditions can be ignored since the duration of spike is
much short.
Case study 4–4 represents the high impedance fault case
at one of the transformer terminals. The given fault resistance
is 10 kilo-ohms, which is enough to make waveforms of each
terminal look normal as illustrated in Fig. 10; it seems like
that there is no harmonic or high fault current. It should be
pointed out that the proposed method successfully detects
the high impedance internal fault as shown in Fig. 9.
123
292
Fig. 7 Terminal voltage and
current measurements (case
study 3)
5.5 Verification
The numerical experiments indicate that in the study cases,
the confidence level dropped to zero only when an inter-
nal fault occurred. The health status of the transformer is
normal when inrush currents or external fault currents flow
through the transformer, thus generating confidence levels
of 100 %. Accordingly, the setting-less protective relay pro-
tects the transformer by successfully and reliably detecting
internal faults. The relay does not compromise the security
by correctly identifying inrush currents and through faults
as “tolerable” conditions for the transformer. It is concluded
that the proposed setting-less protection scheme improves
dependability and security.
123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
6 Conclusion
The proposed setting-less protection method is demonstrated
for a transformer via a series of numerical experiments.
For this purpose, a three-phase, two-winding, saturable-
core, delta-wye-connected transformer is modeled, which
is then used for testing the setting-less protection scheme.
A variety of case studies are tested: transformer energiza-
tion, external fault conditions, internal fault conditions, and
high impedance fault conditions. The results of the numerical
experiments indicate that the confidence level is maintained
at 100 % during transformer energization or during exter-
nal fault conditions, but drops to zero when an internal
fault occurs in the transformer. The numerical results clearly
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297 293

Fig. 8 Results of the dynamic

state estimation (case study 3)

Table 1 Test scenarios

Case number Fault location Fault type

4–1 GEN1-XL1 bus (external) Three phase

4–2 XFMR1 bus (internal) Phase-to-phase (A–B–G)
4–3 XFMR1 bus (internal) Three phase
4–4 XFMR1 bus (internal) Single phase (A–G), HIF

show that the proposed scheme naturally recognizes inrush 7 Appendix

currents and characterizes them as normal operation of the
transformer; thus no filters are needed. All in all, it can be
concluded that the setting-less protective relay has the ability
to successfully distinguish internal faults from other condi-
tions in which the relay should not trip.
The dynamic state estimation of the setting-less protection
is based on the time-domain dynamic model of the protec-
tion zone. Specifically, the component dynamic model is a
set of algebraic and differential equations that describe the
dynamics of the component as follows:

123
294
Fig. 9 Confidence level (case
study 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, and 4–4)
0 = g(i(t), x(t), t), (21)
dx(t)
= f (i(t), x(t), t), (22)
dt
x(t) = [ v(t) y(t) ]T , (23)
where x(t) is the vector of state variables, i(t) is the vector
of terminal currents, v(t) is the vector of terminal voltages,
y(t) is the vector of internal states, and t is the current time.
These equations are first quadratized, i.e., in case of the exis-
tence of nonlinearities of degree larger than two, additional
variables are introduced so that the resulting differential and
algebraic equations do not include any nonlinearities greater
than degree two [10], [11]. Subsequently, the quadratic inte-
gration method is used to integrate (21), (22), and (23) with a
time step determined by three consecutive measured samples
[12], [13], (i.e., by the sampling rate of the data acquisi-
tion system). As a result, a set of algebraic and differential
123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
equations are converted to a set of linear and quadratic alge-
braic equations, which are the component dynamic model
expressed as (1), (2) and (3) in Sect. 3. This procedure is
shown here for a three-phase transformer bank.
Figure 11 describes the equivalent circuit of the single-
phase transformer model, which contains two resistances r1
and r2 , two inductances L 1 and L 2 , a shunt core resistance
rc , a shunt inductance L m , and a magnetizing current i m (t).
The currents i 1L (t) and i 3L (t) represent the terminal currents
i 1 (t) and i 3 (t), respectively.
The model equations for the single-phase transformer can
be expressed as follows:
i 1 (t) = i 1L (t), (24)
i 1 (t) + i 2 (t) = 0, (25)
i 3 (t) = i 3L (t), (26)
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297 295

Fig. 10 Terminal voltage and

current measurements (case
study 4–4)

Fig. 11 The equivalent circuit

r1 L1 1:N r2 L2
diagram of a single-phase
v1(t) v3(t)
transformer + +
i1(t) = i1L(t) i3(t) = i3L(t)
rc Lm im(t) e(t) Ne(t)
– –
v2(t) v4(t)
i2(t) i4(t)

 2
i 3 (t) + i 4 (t) = 0, (27) λ(t)
0 = y1 (t) − , (33)
rc i 1 (t) + rc N i 3 (t) = rc i m (t) + e(t), (28) λ0
0 = i m (t) − z(t), (29) 0 = y2 (t) − y1 (t)2 , (34)
d 0 = y3 (t) − y2 (t) , 2
(35)
0 = v1 (t) − v2 (t) − e(t) − r1 i 1L (t) − L 1 i 1L (t), (30)
dt 0 = y4 (t) − y1 (t)y3 (t), (36)
d λ(t)
0 = v3 (t) − v4 (t) − N e(t) − r2 i 3L (t) − L 2 i 3L (t), (31) 0 = y5 (t) − y4 (t) , (37)
dt λ0
d
0 = e(t) − λ(t), (32) 0 = −i 0 y5 (t) + z(t), (38)
dt

123
296 Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297

Fig. 12 Index mapping

between the single-phase
Single Phase Three Phase -Y
transformer model and the 1 (14) 3 (16) a A
three-phase transformer model. 1 (35) 4 (38)
Numbers in parenthesis mean
5-13 8-16
the indices of state variables of
the intermediate time tm (18-26) (42-50)

2 (15) 4 (17)
b B
2 (36) 5 (39)
17-25
(51-59)

c C
3 (37) 6 (40)
26-34
(60-68)
N
7 (41)

where i(t) is the currents, v(t) is the voltages, N is the turn Based on the index mapping, the matrices and vectors (i.e.,
ratio of the transformer, y(t) and z(t) are the internal states, K , L, M, and N ) of the single-phase transformer model in
i 0 and λ0 are the constants, and t is the current time. By (39), (40), and (41) are integrated into one, finally forming
applying the quadratic integration and model quadratization the following three-phase transformer model:
into equations, the single-phase transformer dynamic model
is obtained as follows:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
i 1φ (t) v1φ (t) i 3φ (t) v3φ (t)
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ y1φ (t) ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ y3φ (t) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ i 1φ (tm ) ⎦ = K 1φ + L 1φ ⎣ v1φ (tm ) ⎦ ⎣ i 3φ (tm ) ⎦ = K 3φ + L 3φ ⎣ v3φ (tm ) ⎦
0 y1φ (tm ) 0 y3φ (tm )
 
f 1φ (t)   f 3φ (t)  
+ − b1φ (t − h) , (39) + − b3φ (t − h) , (42)
f 1φ (tm ) f 3φ (tm )
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
.. ..
. ⎢⎡ .
⎢⎡
⎢ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤⎥⎥ ⎢ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤⎥⎥
 ⎢ v (t) v1φ (t) ⎥  ⎢ ⎢ v 3φ (t) v3φ (t) ⎥
⎢⎢ 1φ ⎥
f 1φ (t) ⎢ y (t) ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎥ f 3φ (t) ⎢⎢ (t) ⎥ ⎢ (t) ⎥
⎥⎥
= ⎢ ⎢ 1φ ⎥ Q i ⎢ y1φ (t) ⎥ ⎥ y
= ⎢ ⎢ 3φ ⎥ Q i ⎢ 3φ y
,
⎣ v1φ (tm ) ⎦ ⎥
, ⎣ v3φ (tm ) ⎦ ⎥
(40) (43)
f 1φ (tm ) ⎢ ⎣ v1φ (tm ) ⎦ ⎥ f 3φ (tm ) ⎢ ⎣ v3φ (tm ) ⎦ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ y1φ (tm ) y1φ (tm ) ⎥ ⎢ y3φ (tm ) y3φ (tm ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
.. ..
. .
 
  i 3φ (t − h) v3φ (t − h)
where the subscript 1φ represents the single phase. b3φ (t − h) = M3φ + N3φ ,
0 y3φ (t − h)
  (44)
  i (t − h) v (t − h)
b1φ (t − h) = M1φ 1φ + N1φ 1φ .
0 y1φ (t − h)
(41)
where the subscript 3φ indicates the three phase. Note that
Finally, three single-phase transformer models are merged the above model is in the same form (syntax) as the model
into a three-phase transformer dynamic model as illustrated expressed with (1), (2), and (3). The model corresponds to
in Fig. 12. The indices of the single-phase transformer models a transformer bank. A similar model can be developed for
are re-assigned to those of the three-phase transformer model. shell-type or core-type three-phase transformers.

123
Electr Eng (2016) 98:283–297
References
1. Patel S (2001) Fundamentals of transformer inrush. In: Proceedings
of the 65th annual Georgia tech protective relaying conference,
May 2011
2. Harlow JH (2007) Electric power transformer engineering, 2nd
edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
3. Hunt R, Schaefer J, Bentert B (2008) Practical experience in setting
transformer differential inrush restraint. In: Proceedings of the 61st
annual conference for protective relay engineers, pp 118–141
4. Meliopoulos APS, Cokkinides GJ, Sungyun C, Yonghee L (2012)
Requirements for setting-less protection schemes. In: Proceedings
of Georgia tech fault and disturbance analysis conference, Atlanta
5. Meliopoulos APS, Cokkinides GJ, Tan Z, Choi S, Lee Y, Myrda P
(2013) Setting-less protection: feasibility study. In: Proceedings of
the 46th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences
6. Choi S, Lee Y, Cokkinides GJ, Meliopoulos APS (2011) Dynam-
ically adaptive transformer protection using dynamic state esti-
mation. In: Proceedings of the protection, automation and control
world, Dublin, Ireland
7. Farantatos E, Stefopoulos GK, Cokkinides GJ, Meliopoulos APS
(2009) PMU-based dynamic state estimation for electric power
systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES general meeting
8. Huang R, Farantatos E, Cokkinides GJ, Meliopoulos APS (2010)
Substation based dynamic state estimator—numerical experiment.
In: Proceedings of IEEE PES transmission and distribution confer-
ence and exposition, New Orleans
9. Integrated grounding system for windows (winigs), Advanced
grounding concepts, Atlanta, GA. [Online]. http://www.
ap-concepts.com
10. Stefopoulos GK, Cokkinides GJ, Meliopoulos APS (2009) Quadra-
tized model of nonlinear saturable-core inductor for time-domain
simulation. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES general meeting
297
11. Meliopoulos APS, Cokkinides GJ, Stefopoulos GK (2006) Sym-
bolic integration of dynamical systems by collocation methods. In:
Proceedings of IEEE PES power systems conference and exposi-
tion, pp 362–367
12. Meliopoulos AP, Cokkinides GJ, Stefopoulos GK (2005) Improved
numerical integration method for power/power electronic systems
based on three-point collocation. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE
conference on decision and control, and European control confer-
ence, pp 6780–6787
13. Meliopoulos APS, Cokkinides GJ, Stefopoulos G (2005) Quadratic
integration method. In: Proceedings of international power system
transients conference, Montreal
14. Moon RR, Dhatrak RK (2014) Extraction of features to discrim-
inate and detect transformer inrush current and faulty condition
using ANN. In: Proceedings of annual international confer-
ence emerging research areas: magnetics, machines and drives
(AICERA-2014 iCMMD)
15. Vishwakarma DN, Balaga H, Nath H (2014) Application of genetic
algorithm trained master-slave neural network for differential pro-
tection of power transformer. In: Proceedings of 9th international
conference computer engineering and systems (ICCES)
16. Bhasker SK, Tripathy M, Kumar V (2014) Wavelet transform based
discrimination between inrush and internal fault of indirect sym-
metrical phase shift transformer. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES
general meeting
17. Wang F, Qi X, Wang Y, Luo H, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Yin X (2014)
A sympathetic inrush detection method based on on-line magnet
flux calculation. In: Proceedings of international conference power
system technology, (POWERCON), Chengdu, China
123