ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013

2001 Page 1 of 24
6 December 2004
CONFIDENTIAL
The information contained
REVISED CT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MiCOM in this document is not to
P540 RELAYS be communicated either
directly or indirectly to any
person not
authorized to receive it.

AUTHOR: SIMON RICHARDS: HV MARKETING MANAGER

SUMMARY:
This report serves to verify whether P540 relay CT requirements could be reduced. It
also aims to interpolate more accurate CT requirements at indermediate levels of If
and X/R. Note that it does not relax the 3-shot requirement for operation and stability,
it merely re-interprets the existing results. The conclusion is that exact formulae to
calculate the CT requirements are applicable, and should appear in product literature
at the phase 2.1 MiCOM CA date.
It is noted that where a transformer is in-zone, it is important that the high set element
is enabled, to avoid possible slow operation for high current faults on the HV side of
the transformer.

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................2

2. ANALYSIS........................................................................................2

3. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................24

ALSTOM T&D Protection & Control Ltd ALSTOM T&D Protection & Control Ltd
St Leonards Works Registered Office:-
Stafford St Leonards Works
ST17 4LX Stafford
England Registered in England No. 959256
Tel: +44 (0) 1785 223251
Fax: +44 (0) 1785 212232
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 2 of 24
6 December 2004

1. INTRODUCTION
P540 relays CT requirements as published to date are based upon extensive RTDS
simulator testing. This consists of 3 successive fault applications at the same point on
wave chosen to give the maximum dc offset in the flux. The CT requirements are
documented in Service Manual TG8613, and are of the form:

Vk > K . In (Rct + 2 RL)

Where:
Vk = Required IEC knee point voltage
K = Dimensioning factor
In = CT nominal secondary current
Rct = CT resistance
RL = One-way lead impedance from CT to relay

The K factor increases in coarse steps, according to the primary system X/R ratio,
and the product (maximum fault current x X/R). This approach replicates the LFCB
claims.

This report serves to investigate the exact variation of the K factor required with fault
current and X/R, in order to verify whether CT requirements could be reduced. It also
aims to interpolate more accurate CT requirements at indermediate levels of If and
X/R. Note that it does not relax the 3-shot requirement for operation and stability, it
merely re-interprets the existing results.

2. ANALYSIS
Development Specification 50304.3203.202 outlines the RTDS tests performed to
ascertain the previous CT requirement claims. Results are tabulated in Excel
spreadsheet 50304.3303.202.

For the tests, a target K factor was determined, and then CT lead burden was added in
order to find out the point where through fault stability would just be guaranteed.
Provided the RL lead burden at this point was in excess of the target, the K factor was
deemed to be verified. However, each additional insertion of RL was in steps of 0.25,
so the results give a pessimistic view of product performance. Also, where RL was
found to be much in excess of that required to achieve the quoted K factor, a real
stability limit was not recorded.
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 3 of 24
6 December 2004

WITH K2 SLOPE SET AT 150%

The table below highlights the results where a real stability limit was found from the
tests. Evidence of the source reference data is highlighted in yellow in the supporting
spreadsheet. As the A-N fault condition was always the worst-case, just the A-N limits
are recorded here.

X/R (If x X/R) Fault Target A-N Table Calculated K Vkp Rct Actual K
Current factor needed
(A)
5 200 40 0.69 1 7.1.4.3 85 160 0.5 64
10 100 10 0.98 1.5 7.1.4.1 65 160 0.5 46
10 200 20 0.69 1.25 7.1.4.1 85 160 0.5 53
10 200 20 0.53 1.25 7.1.4.2 103 160 0.5 53
10 400 40 0.53 0.75 7.1.4.1 103 160 0.5 80
10 400 40 0.53 0.75 7.1.4.3 103 160 0.5 80
10 500 50 0.53 1 7.1.4.1 103 160 0.5 64
20 40 2 0.98 1 7.1.4.3 65 160 0.5 64
20 800 40 ? 1.25 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 53
30 60 2 0.98 1 7.1.4.3 65 160 0.5 64
30 120 4 0.98 1.25 7.1.4.3 65 160 0.5 53
30 1200 40 ? 1 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 64
40 60 1.5 0.98 1.25 7.1.4.1 65 160 0.5 53
40 60 1.5 0.98 1.25 7.1.4.3 65 160 0.5 53
40 160 4 0.69 1 7.1.4.1 85 160 0.5 64
40 160 4 0.69 1 7.1.4.2 85 160 0.5 64
40 160 4 0.69 1 7.1.4.3 85 160 0.5 64
40 160 4 0.69 1 7.1.4.7 85 160 0.5 64
40 160 4 1.63 2.5 7.1.4.7 85 320 0.5 58
40 240 6 0.69 1.25 7.1.4.1 85 160 0.5 53
40 320 8 0.69 1.25 7.1.4.1 85 160 0.5 53
40 400 10 0.53 1.25 7.1.4.1 103 160 0.5 53
40 400 10 0.53 1.25 7.1.4.2 103 160 0.5 53
40 400 10 0.53 1.25 7.1.4.7 103 160 0.5 53
40 400 10 1.3 2.5 7.1.4.7 103 320 0.5 58
40 800 20 ? 1.25 7.1.4.1 160 0.5 53
40 800 20 0.53 1.25 7.1.4.2 103 160 0.5 53
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 4 of 24
6 December 2004

40 800 20 ? 1.25 7.1.4.7 160 0.5 53

40 800 20 ? 1.5 7.1.4.7 320 0.5 91
40 800 20 ? 4.5 7.1.4.7 640 0.5 67
40 1600 40 ? 1 7.1.4.1 160 0.5 64
40 1600 40 ? 1.25 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 53
40 2000 50 ? 1.25 7.1.4.1 160 0.5 53
60 90 1.5 0.82 1 7.1.4.3 75 160 0.5 64
60 240 4 0.69 1 7.1.4.3 85 160 0.5 64
60 2400 40 ? 1.25 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 53
90 135 1.5 ? 1 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 64
90 180 2 ? 0.5 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 107
90 360 4 ? 1 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 64
90 3600 40 ? 1.25 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 53
120 180 1.5 ? 0.75 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 80
120 240 2 ? 0.5 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 107
120 480 4 ? 0.75 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 80
120 4800 40 ? 1.25 7.1.4.3 160 0.5 53

In column 10 of the table, the actual K factor really needed at the tested value of If
and X/R is shown. This is calculated from:
K > Vk / (Rct + 2 RL) For 1A relays.

As noted before, the coarse steps in lead resistance could be leading to an over-
pessimistic K.

For most instantaneous protection, CT knee point formulae increase according to the
factor If x X/R, or If x (1 + X/R). This given, the extremities up to which a particular
value of K applies can be analysed with reference to columns 1, 2, 3 and 10 above.

The results are inserted in the table below, such that:

The K factors shown indicate stability at the If and X/R value tabulated, and for any
fault current or X/R ratio lower (ie. any cells to the left, or above). Thus the table
aims to find the limits up to which each value of K applies.

FAULT CURRENT x In:

X/R 10 20 30 40 50
5 64
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 5 of 24
6 December 2004

10 46 53 80
20
30
40 64 91
60 91
90
120 107 107 107

For interest, these K factors are also tabulated against (If x X/R) below:

If x X/R K
100 46
200 53
400 64
500 80
800 91
1200 107
2400 107
4800 107

In order to try to establish a trend in the K factor, three graphs can be plotted:
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 6 of 24
6 December 2004

150% Variation of K factor with X/R

110

100

90

80 If = 10 In
K factor

If = 20 In
If = 40 In
70 Linear (If = 10 In)

60

50

40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
X/R Ratio

150% Variation of K factor with Fault Current

110

100

90

80
X/R Ratio = 10
K factor

X/R Ratio = 40
X/R Ratio = 120
70 Linear (X/R Ratio = 10)

60

50

40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fault Current
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 7 of 24
6 December 2004

A definite trend can be seen:

Graph 1:
At If = 10 . In: K = 40 + 0.6 X/R
= 40 + (0.06 x (If x X/R))

At If = 20 . In: K = 40 + 1.27 X/R

= 40 + (0.064 x (If x X/R))

(Insufficient points for 40In line).

Graph 2:
At X/R = 10: K = 37 + 0.86 X/R
= 37 + (0.086 x (If x X/R))

At X/R = 40: K = 37 + 2.72 X/R

= 37 + (0.068 x (If x X/R))

150% Variation of K factor with (If x X/R)

110

100

90

80
K factor

70

60

50

40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
(If x X/R)

Graph 3:
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 8 of 24
6 December 2004

K = 38 + (0.072 x (If x X/R))

Thus, it is seen that there is noticeable correlation between the results at a K factor
equation of:

K = 40 + (0.07 x (If x X/R))

This is valid for (If x X/R) 1000

For higher (If x X/R), K = 107.

A preliminary check reveals that this equation holds true, except for some faults where
If is close to 2.In. Here, imposing a minimum value of K = 65 ensures stability.

The 3 constraints for the K factor can be tested against all the RTDS results. This is
shown in the table below. The approach used is to compare the actual K value
required for stability with the formula. As the actual K value could be pessimistic
due to the 0.25 step in lead burdens on testing, the final column will indicate OK if
the formula yielded results within the effective error percentage spread due to the
0.25 steps.

X/R (If x X/R) Fault Current Table Actual K K from Allowable Within
(A) needed Formula Error (%) error
tolerance
5 200 40 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
10 100 10 7.1.4.1 46 65 14 YES
10 200 20 7.1.4.1 53 65 17 YES
10 200 20 7.1.4.2 53 65 17 YES
10 400 40 7.1.4.1 80 68 25 YES
10 400 40 7.1.4.3 80 68 25 YES
10 500 50 7.1.4.1 64 75 20 YES
20 40 2 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
20 800 40 7.1.4.3 53 96 17 YES
30 60 2 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
30 120 4 7.1.4.3 53 65 17 YES
30 1200 40 7.1.4.3 64 107 20 YES
40 60 1.5 7.1.4.1 53 65 17 YES
40 60 1.5 7.1.4.3 53 65 17 YES
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 9 of 24
6 December 2004

40 160 4 7.1.4.1 64 65 20 YES

40 160 4 7.1.4.2 64 65 20 YES
40 160 4 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
40 160 4 7.1.4.7 64 65 20 YES
40 160 4 7.1.4.7 58 65 9 YES
40 240 6 7.1.4.1 53 65 17 YES
40 320 8 7.1.4.1 53 65 17 YES
40 400 10 7.1.4.1 53 68 17 YES
40 400 10 7.1.4.2 53 68 17 YES
40 400 10 7.1.4.7 53 68 17 YES
40 400 10 7.1.4.7 58 68 9 YES
40 800 20 7.1.4.1 53 96 17 YES
40 800 20 7.1.4.2 53 96 17 YES
40 800 20 7.1.4.7 53 96 17 YES
40 800 20 7.1.4.7 91 96 14 YES
40 800 20 7.1.4.7 67 96 5 YES
40 1600 40 7.1.4.1 64 107 20 YES
40 1600 40 7.1.4.3 53 107 17 YES
40 2000 50 7.1.4.1 53 107 17 YES
60 90 1.5 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
60 240 4 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
60 2400 40 7.1.4.3 53 107 17 YES
90 135 1.5 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
90 180 2 7.1.4.3 107 65 33 NO
90 360 4 7.1.4.3 64 65 20 YES
90 3600 40 7.1.4.3 53 107 17 YES
120 180 1.5 7.1.4.3 80 65 25 YES
120 240 2 7.1.4.3 107 65 33 NO
120 480 4 7.1.4.3 80 74 25 YES
120 4800 40 7.1.4.3 53 107 17 YES

(Allowable error = ( Rct + 2 (RL + 0.25) ) / ( Rct + 2 RL ) )

As can be seen, the formula only fails for fault currents = 2 x In, ie. positioned at the
knee of the dual slope bias characteristic. It can be seen that in reality, a CT would
never be sized based on a through fault current of 2 x In, even for a transformer
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 10 of 24
6 December 2004

feeder, a minimum of 10 In would be assumed. At the X/R ratios where the equation
failed, substituting 10 In, as per a real system condition would yield a K factor more
than sufficient for stability.

Thus, use of the formula is justified, allowing example K factors as below to be used:

Fault
Current
X/R If 10 20 30 40
5 65 65 65 65
10 65 65 65 68
20 65 68 82 96
30 65 82 103 107
40 68 96 107
60 82 107
90 103

(Figures in black show the imposition of the minimum K factor of 65, blue figures use
the formula, and red for (If x X/R) > 1000

A graphical illustration for selected K factors is plotted on the next page:

ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 11 of 24
6 December 2004

PLOT OF K FACTOR REQUIRED (150%)

10

20

30

40

50

60 50
70
70 90

80

90

100

110

120

130
5 10 15 20 25 30
Fault Current (x In)

Having proven that the new formula ensures stability for through faults, it is also
important to check that reliable operation for internal faults can also be guaranteed.
The trips times must not be extended. Reviewing the existing RTDS results it is seen
that the lead burden step increments are too large, and dont cover the required range
to adequately check performance. Thus, repeat tests were performed, at the values of
If and X/R from the table on page 3 where CT saturation was observed to be most
likely (ie. right on the boundary of the new formula).

The tests performed for the P542 relay, with default settings applied and K2 slope set
to 150% were chosen as:

Table Vkp X/R Fault (If x X/R) K from new RL limit from
Current (A) Formula new formula

7.1.4.1 160 10 10 100 65 0.98

7.1.4.2 160 10 20 200 65 0.98
7.1.4.7 320 40 10 400 68 2.10
7.1.4.7 320 40 20 800 96 1.42
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 12 of 24
6 December 2004

As per the original tests, three shots at the worst-case point on wave were performed,
to achieve the worst-case distortion due to saturation. The results for the maximum
and minimum trip time of the relay at either line end, on a per shot basis are tabulated
below (in ms).

Test 1:
If = 10 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 10
Burden
0 28.4 31.5 24.1 27.9 28.4 28.8
0.5 27.1 30.1 27.4 30.4 26.9 27.2
0.75 30.4 30.9 22.6 25.8 25.6 27.2
1 26.8 30.5 27.9 29.2 25.8 29.4
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 0.98)

Conclusion: No trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula is
acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Test 2:
If = 20 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 10
Burden
0 25.4 29.2 24.6 25.9 24.9 26.4
0.5 28.1 28.8 23.3 24.6 28.6 29.1
0.75 28.4 29.4 23.2 26.2 26.4 28.2
1 23.2 27.8 28.2 28.4 27.5 28.2
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 0.98)

Conclusion: No trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula is
acceptable at this value of If and X/R.
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 13 of 24
6 December 2004

Test 3:
If = 10 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 40
Burden
0 27.8 27.8 27.6 28.5 26.1 27.2
0.5 26.5 30.7 25.6 26.5 25.6 35.1
0.75 26.2 29.2 26.1 30.5 26.4 30.8
1 26.2 28.4 27.9 28.5 24.1 28.6
1.25 26.8 27.9 27.1 28.8 24.5 26.9
1.5 25.2 25.5 24.9 30.1 30.8 31.8
1.75 24.2 27.2 28.8 29.6 24.5 29.6
2 28.6 31.1 23.5 28.4 28.4 28.6
2.25 27.1 28.1 27.2 28.2 25.1 27.4
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 2.10)

Conclusion: No trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula is
acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Test 4:
If = 20 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 40
Burden
0 24.9 28.1 24.8 25.1 24.2 29.4
0.5 28.8 29.2 23.3 24.1 23.5 29.2
0.75 27.8 27.9 23.5 27.6 23.5 27.6
1 24.5 27.5 24.9 26.8 26.8 27.5
1.25 24.8 27.4 26.2 29.4 22.5 27.4
1.5 26.5 29.2 26.5 31.4 26.2 26.8
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 1.42)

Conclusion: Only a marginal trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence
formula is acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Overall, the use of the formula has been proven to be justified, both on the grounds of
through fault stability, and satisfactory internal operating times.
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 14 of 24
6 December 2004

WITH K2 SLOPE SET AT 100%

The table below highlights the results where a real stability limit was found from the
tests. Evidence of the source reference data is highlighted in yellow in the supporting
spreadsheet. As the A-N fault condition was always the worst-case, just the A-N limits
are recorded here.

X/R (If x X/R) Fault Target A-N Table Calculated Vkp Rct Actual K
Current (A) K factor needed
5 200 40 0.19 0.25 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 160
10 80 8 0.59 1 7.4.4.1 95 160 0.5 64
10 100 10 0.59 1 7.4.4.1 95 160 0.5 64
10 200 20 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.1 180 160 0.5 107
10 400 40 ? 0.2 7.4.4.1 160 0.5 178
10 400 40 0.19 0.2 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 178
20 40 2 0.59 1 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 64
20 80 4 0.59 1 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 64
20 800 40 0.19 0.25 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 160
30 60 2 0.59 0.75 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 80
30 120 4 0.59 0.75 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 80
30 1200 40 ? 0.15 7.4.4.3 160 0.5 200
40 60 1.5 0.59 1.25 7.4.4.1 95 160 0.5 53
40 60 1.5 0.59 1.25 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 53
40 80 2 0.59 0.75 7.4.4.1 95 160 0.5 80
40 80 2 0.59 0.75 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 80
40 80 2 1.43 1.5 7.4.4.5 95 320 0.5 91
40 80 2 3.12 3.5 7.4.4.5 95 640 0.5 85
40 160 4 0.19 0.75 7.4.4.1 180 160 0.5 80
40 160 4 0.19 0.75 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 80
40 160 4 0.64 1.5 7.4.4.5 180 320 0.5 91
40 160 4 1.53 3.5 7.4.4.5 180 640 0.5 85
40 240 6 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.1 180 160 0.5 107
40 320 8 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.1 180 160 0.5 107
40 400 10 ? 0.25 7.4.4.1 160 0.5 160
40 400 10 ? 1 7.4.4.5 160 0.5 64
40 400 10 ? 1 7.4.4.5 320 0.5 128
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 15 of 24
6 December 2004

40 400 10 ? 2.5 7.4.4.5 640 0.5 116

40 400 10 ? 4 7.4.4.5 1000 1 111
40 800 20 ? 0.25 7.4.4.1 160 0.5 160
40 800 20 ? 0.5 7.4.4.5 160 0.5 107
40 800 20 ? 0.5 7.4.4.5 320 0.5 213
40 800 20 ? 1 7.4.4.5 640 0.5 256
40 800 20 ? 1.5 7.4.4.5 1000 1 250
40 1600 40 ? 0.1 7.4.4.1 160 0.5 229
40 1600 40 ? 0.1 7.4.4.3 160 0.5 229
60 90 1.5 0.59 1 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 64
60 120 2 0.59 0.5 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 107
60 240 4 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 107
60 2400 40 0.19 0.1 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 229
90 135 1.5 0.59 1 7.4.4.3 95 160 0.5 64
90 180 2 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 107
90 360 4 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 107
90 3600 40 ? 0.1 7.4.4.3 160 0.5 229
120 180 1.5 0.19 0.75 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 80
120 240 2 0.19 0.5 7.4.4.3 180 160 0.5 107
120 480 4 ? 0.5 7.4.4.3 160 0.5 107
120 4800 40 ? 0.1 7.4.4.3 160 0.5 229

In column 10 of the table, the actual K factor really needed at the tested value of If
and X/R is shown. This is calculated from:

K > Vk / (Rct + 2 RL) For 1A relays.

As noted before, the coarse steps in lead resistance could be leading to an over-
pessimistic K.

For most instantaneous protection, CT knee point formulae increase according to the
factor If x X/R, or If x (1 + X/R). This given, the extremities up to which a particular
value of K applies can be analysed with reference to columns 1, 2, 3 and 10 above.

The results are inserted in the table below, such that:

The K factors shown indicate stability at the If and X/R value tabulated, and for any
fault current or X/R ratio lower (ie. any cells to the left, or above). Thus the table
aims to find the limits up to which each value of K applies.
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 16 of 24
6 December 2004

FAULT CURRENT x In:

X/R 10 20 30 40 50
5 160
10 64 107
20 178
30 200
40 160 256 256
60
90
120

For interest, these K factors are also tabulated against (If x X/R) below:

If x X/R K
100 64
200 107
400 160
800 256
1600 256
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 17 of 24
6 December 2004

In order to try to establish a trend in the K factor, three graphs were plotted, as
follows:

100% Variation of K factor with If

240

200

160
K factor

X/R = 10
X/R = 40
Linear (X/R = 10)

120

80

40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fault Current If
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 18 of 24
6 December 2004

100% Variation of K factor with X/R

240

100% Variation of K factor with (If x X/R)

A definite trend can be seen:
200

Graph
240 1:

At If160
= 10 . In: K = 34 + 3.16 X/R If = 10 In
K factor

If = 20 In
If = 40 In
= 34 + (0.316 x (If x X/R)) Linear (If = 10 In)
200 Poly. (If = 40 In)
120

At If = 20 . In: K = 34 + 7.53 X/R

160
= 34 + (0.376 x (If x X/R))
80
K factor

(Insufficient points for 40In line).

40
120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
X/R Ratio
Graph 2:
At X/R = 10: K = 28 + 4.04 X/R
80
= 28 + (0.404 x (If x X/R))

(Insufficient
40 points for X/R = 40 line).
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
(If x X/R)

Graph 3:
K = 38 + (0.32 x (If x X/R))

Thus, it is seen that there is noticeable correlation between the results at a K factor
equation of:

K = 40 + (0.35 x (If x X/R))

This is valid for (If x X/R) 600

For higher (If x X/R), K = 256.

A preliminary check reveals that this equation holds true, except for some faults where
If is close to 2.In. Here, imposing a minimum value of K = 65 ensures stability.
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 19 of 24
6 December 2004

The 3 constraints for the K factor can be tested against all the real results. This is
shown in the table below. The approach used is to compare the actual K value
required for stability with the formula. As the actual K value could be pessimistic
due to the 0.25 step in lead burdens on testing, the final column will indicate OK if
the formula yielded results within the effective error percentage spread due to the
0.25 steps.

X/R (If x X/R) Fault Table Calculated Actual K K from Allowable Within error
Current (A) K factor needed Formula Error (%) tolerance
5 200 40 7.4.4.3 180 160 110 50 YES
10 80 8 7.4.4.1 95 64 68 20 YES
10 100 10 7.4.4.1 95 64 75 20 YES
10 200 20 7.4.4.1 180 107 110 33 YES
10 400 40 7.4.4.1 178 180 56 YES
10 400 40 7.4.4.3 180 178 180 56 YES
20 40 2 7.4.4.3 95 64 65 20 YES
20 80 4 7.4.4.3 95 64 68 20 YES
20 800 40 7.4.4.3 180 160 256 50 YES
30 60 2 7.4.4.3 95 80 65 25 YES
30 120 4 7.4.4.3 95 80 82 25 YES
30 1200 40 7.4.4.3 200 256 63 YES
40 60 1.5 7.4.4.1 95 53 65 17 YES
40 60 1.5 7.4.4.3 95 53 65 17 YES
40 80 2 7.4.4.1 95 80 68 25 YES
40 80 2 7.4.4.3 95 80 68 25 YES
40 80 2 7.4.4.5 95 91 68 14 NO
40 80 2 7.4.4.5 95 85 68 7 NO
40 160 4 7.4.4.1 180 80 96 25 YES
40 160 4 7.4.4.3 180 80 96 25 YES
40 160 4 7.4.4.5 180 91 96 14 YES
40 160 4 7.4.4.5 180 85 96 7 YES
40 240 6 7.4.4.1 180 107 124 33 YES
40 320 8 7.4.4.1 180 107 152 33 YES
40 400 10 7.4.4.1 160 180 50 YES
40 400 10 7.4.4.5 64 180 20 YES
40 400 10 7.4.4.5 128 180 20 YES
40 400 10 7.4.4.5 116 180 9 YES
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 20 of 24
6 December 2004

40 400 10 7.4.4.5 111 180 6 YES

40 800 20 7.4.4.1 160 256 50 YES
40 800 20 7.4.4.5 107 256 33 YES
40 800 20 7.4.4.5 213 256 33 YES
40 800 20 7.4.4.5 256 256 20 YES
40 800 20 7.4.4.5 250 256 13 YES
40 1600 40 7.4.4.1 229 256 71 YES
40 1600 40 7.4.4.3 229 256 71 YES
60 90 1.5 7.4.4.3 95 64 72 20 YES
60 120 2 7.4.4.3 95 107 82 33 YES
60 240 4 7.4.4.3 180 107 124 33 YES
60 2400 40 7.4.4.3 180 229 256 71 YES
90 135 1.5 7.4.4.3 95 64 87 20 YES
90 180 2 7.4.4.3 180 107 103 33 YES
90 360 4 7.4.4.3 180 107 166 33 YES
90 3600 40 7.4.4.3 229 256 71 YES
120 180 1.5 7.4.4.3 180 80 103 25 YES
120 240 2 7.4.4.3 180 107 124 33 YES
120 480 4 7.4.4.3 107 208 33 YES
120 4800 40 7.4.4.3 229 256 71 YES

(Allowable error = ( Rct + 2 (RL + 0.25) ) / ( Rct + 2 RL ) )

As can be seen, the formula only fails for fault currents = 2 x In, ie. positioned at the
knee of the dual slope bias characteristic. It can be seen that in reality, a CT would
never be sized based on a through fault current of 2 x In, even for a transformer
feeder, a minimum of 10 In would be assumed. At the X/R ratios where the equation
failed, substituting 10 In, as per a real system condition would yield a K factor more
than sufficient for stability.

Thus, use of the formula is justified, allowing example K factors as below to be used:

Fault
Current
X/R If 10 20 30 40
5 65 75 93 110
10 75 110 145 180
20 110 180 250 256
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 21 of 24
6 December 2004

30 145 250 256 256

40 180 256 256
60 250 256
90 256

(Figures in black show the imposition of the minimum K factor of 65, blue figures use
the formula, and red for (If x X/R) > 600
A graphical illustration for selected K factors is plotted below:

PLOT OF K FACTOR REQUIRED (100%)

10

20

30
100
140
180
40

50

60

70
5 10 15 20 25 30
Fault Current (x In)

Having proven that the new formula ensures stability for through faults, it is also
important to check that reliable operation for internal faults can also be guaranteed.
The trips times must not be extended. Reviewing the existing RTDS results it is seen
that the lead burden step increments are too large, and dont cover the required range
to adequately check performance. Thus, repeat tests were performed, at the values of
If and X/R from the table on page 13 where CT saturation was observed to be most
likely (ie. right on the boundary of the new formula).
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 22 of 24
6 December 2004

The tests performed for the P543 relay, with default settings applied and K2 slope set
to 100% were chosen as overleaf:
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 23 of 24
6 December 2004

Table Vkp X/R Fault (If x X/R) K from new RL limit from
Current (A) Formula new formula

7.4.4.1 160 10 10 100 75 0.82

7.4.4.1 160 10 20 200 110 0.48
7.4.4.1 160 40 10 400 180 0.19
7.4.4.5 640 40 20 800 256 1.00
As per the original tests, three shots at the worst-case point on wave were performed,
to achieve the worst-case distortion due to saturation. The results for the maximum
and minimum trip time of the relay at either line end, on a per shot basis are tabulated
below (in ms).

Test 1:
If = 10 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 10
Burden
0 28.2 30.7 28.1 30.7 28.9 31.1
0.5 27.6 30.2 27.4 29.9 26.8 29.5
0.75 28.2 30.8 28.4 30.1 29.4 30.1
1 27.6 33.2 27.5 32.5 27.4 32.4
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 0.82)

Conclusion: No trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula is
acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Test 2:
If = 20 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 10
Burden
0 28.4 28.5 28.4 28.4 27.8 28.8
0.5 26.2 28.6 26.2 28.6 25.8 28.6
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 0.48)

Conclusion: No trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula is
acceptable at this value of If and X/R.
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 24 of 24
6 December 2004

Test 3:
If = 10 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 40
Burden
0 29.6 31.2 29.5 30.8 28.8 30.5
0.1 28.1 28.9 27.6 28.6 26.9 28.6
0.2 29.9 32.7 29.8 32.5 29.4 32.1
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 0.19)

Conclusion: Only a slight possible trend increase in operating time with lead burden,
hence formula is acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Test 4:
If = 20 Shot1 Shot1 Shot2 Shot2 Shot3 Shot3
(min) (max) (min) (max) (min) (max)
X/R = 40
Burden
0 24.1 26.5 23.5 27.5 24.3 27.4
0.2 26.2 27.2 24.8 26.9 25.6 27.4
0.4 28.4 28.8 28.1 28.6 28.2 28.8
0.6 26.5 27.2 26.6 27.2 26.2 27.2
0.8 25.6 28.4 25.2 27.9 25.6 27.9
1 28.8 31.2 28.2 30.7 28.5 30.8
(Maximum burden according to the formula is 1.00)

Conclusion: A slight trend increase in operating time with lead burden, hence formula
is acceptable at this value of If and X/R.

Overall, the use of the formula has been proven to be justified, both on the grounds of
through fault stability, and satisfactory internal operating times.
ENGINEERING REPORT 150/HV0013
Page 25 of 24
6 December 2004

3. CONCLUSIONS
In-depth analysis of the P540 CT requirement test results has allowed CT oversizing
K factors to be determined which allow more economical CTs to be used typically
20% lower than previously. Finding a formula which can be applied also allows
interpolation of the K factor at intermediate values of If and X/R.

The new CT requirement claims are as follows:

Vk > K . In (Rct + 2 RL)

Where:
Vk = Required IEC knee point voltage
K = Dimensioning factor
In = CT nominal secondary current
Rct = CT resistance
RL = One-way lead impedance from CT to relay

For relays set at Is1 = 20%, Is2 = 2 In, k1 = 30%, k2 = 150%:

K 40 + (0.07 x (If x X/R))
And: K 65

This is valid for (If x X/R) 1000

For higher (If x X/R) up to 1600:

K = 107.

For relays set at Is1 = 20%, Is2 = 2 In, k1 = 30%, k2 = 100%:

K 40 + (0.35 x (If x X/R))
And: K 65

This is valid for (If x X/R) 600

For higher (If x X/R) up to 1600:

K = 256.
Where:
If = Maximum value of through fault current for stability (multiple of In)
X/R = Primary system X/R ratio
150/HV0013 ENGINEERING REPORT
Page 26 of 24
6 December 2004