See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272093708

INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMER DIMENSIONING: PAST AND FUTURE

Conference Paper · November 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 1,626

4 authors:

Rainer Krebs Johann Jaeger

Siemens Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg
205 PUBLICATIONS   509 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   407 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrzej Bachry Dieter Braisch

Siemens Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg
17 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DynaGridCenter View project

Technical Performance of Renewable Generation and Energy Storage Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rainer Krebs on 11 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMER DIMENSIONING:
PAST AND FUTURE

J. JAEGER A. BACHRY, D. BRAISCH, R. KREBS∗

UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN SIEMENS AG

GERMANY GERMANY

Keywords: instrument transformers, current and necessity of the new perspective for the instrument
potential transformer dimensioning, power system transformer dimensioning is accentuated.
protection, secondary engineering, protection
coordination 2 Current Transformers Physical
Behaviour
1 Introduction
In order to understand the standards and give a
As the development of digital measurement and background to them the physical behaviour of the
protection equipment has progressed over the last years, current transformer must be shortly mentioned at first.
the criteria used for sizing the necessary instrument The most important is the fact that a CT due to its
transformers have changed as well. Whereas in the past, physics always tries to draw such a secondary current Is
due to the high burden of electromechanical relays, it through its secondary circuit that equalizes the magnetic
was the rated power of the current transformers (CT) flux Ψp or induction Bp excited by the primary current Ip
and potential transformers (PT) that was the crucial (Figure 1).
parameter. Nowadays, it is the transient performance of It means that each current transformer is forced to
instrument transformers that has gradually become the introduce such a secondary current Is so that the
over-riding influence within the digital world of relays, secondary magnetic flux Ψs. linked with it equalizes at
measuring and controlling devices. every point of time the primary flux Ψp.
Firstly, due to paradigm change in the technology of the
power system substations the traditional usage of high
VA-rated instrument transformers can become even
dangerous both for themselves and for the secondary
circuits and equipment connected to them. Secondly, the
reduction of the switchgear dimensions, especially Gas
Insulated Switchgear (GIS), leads to a reduction of the
available instrument transformer compartments. That is
the reason why the volume of the instrument
transformers have to be optimized and adapted to the
actual needs of modern measurement and protection
equipment connected to them.
This paper shows in structured form the state-of-the-art
of the instrument transformer dimensioning. Thereby
the physical behaviour and the standards regarding
instrument transformers are shortly discussed and the
Figure 1: Simplified equivalent of an ideal CT

∗
Siemens AG, Energy Sector, Power Technologies International, Freyeslebenstrasse. 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
The primary core flux for sinusoidal quantities is given
by eqation (1):
Ip
Φ p = w p ⋅ µ0 ⋅ µ r ⋅ ⋅ AFe (1)
l Fe
and the secondary core flux by eq. (2) respectively:
I wounded symmetrically over the core that build
Φ s = ws ⋅ µ 0 ⋅ µ r ⋅ s ⋅ AFe (2)
l Fe
with
Φ = B ⋅ AFe (3)
where B is magnetic flux density, AFe is the core cross-
sectional area, lFe is the mean length of magnetic path
and wp, ws are the number of primary and secondary
windings, respectively. For ideal conditions as shown
simplified in Figure 1, where winding resistance and
leakage flux were totally neglected, one can write the
equation for the core flux:
Φ p − Φ s = Φ m = 0 or : Φ p / Φ s = 1 (4)
Considering the relation in eq. (4) and using eq. (1) and
eq. (2) one can write the following relation:
Ip ws
= (5)
Is wp
which describes the law of Ampere-turn balance and is
the basics of the whole CT performance [1]. That means
that no magnetizing flux Φm is inside of an ideal CT
core, or, in other words, ideal working-conditions for a
CT are given when its core is fully balanced and no
magnetic flux is present.
In reality, there are no ideal conditions as described
above. There exists always some secondary burden as
resistance or impedance, e.g. at least the inner
secondary winding burden, which causes a voltage drop
in the secondary circuit. Thereby, the total linked flux
(coil flux) relevant in the secondary circuit is
Ψ m, s = ws ⋅Φ m = ws ⋅ Bm ⋅ AFe (6)
where the inner induced voltage on the secondary CT
side equals to:
dΨ m, s dBm
Um = ∝ (7)
dt dt
The magnetizing curve measured from the secondary
side in steady-state conditions usually with RMS –
values describes the non-linear magnetic characteristic
(eq.(8) and Figure 4) of the iron core on the shunt
inductance L.
U m = f (I m ) (8)
Practically, the current transformer during its duty of
‘core-balancing’ by drawing the secondary current
through the secondary circuit always has to overcome a
couple of ‘burden’. In other words it is forced to
magnetize itself (i.e. the magnetizing flux in the core
Φm≠0) to produce such a voltage (on the inductance L)
that draws the secondary ampere-turns current which
equalizes the ampere-turns of primary current. Such
‘burden’ for the CT are internal impedance of the
secondary winding and the total impedance that is
connected to its secondary clamps (i.e. wire and
instrument burden). Thereby, the higher the burden or
the higher the primary current, the higher voltage must
be induced to allow the secondary current flow.
In practice the construction of the CT for a simple
design is close to the one presented in Figure 2, where
the primary conductor is going symmetrically through
the iron core. On this iron core there are windings
secondary winding of such CT-core. For the comparison
to the simplified CT equivalent in Figure 1 the length of
magnetic path lFe and the core cross-sectional area AFe
are shown in Figure 2, correspondingly. The inductance
of such CT can be described
A
L = ⋅µ 0 ⋅ µ r ( H ) ⋅ ws 2 Fe (9)
l Fe
where µ0 is the absolute permeability = 4π ⋅ 10-7 H/m
and µr is the relative permeability of the material used.
In case of iron, µr is a non-linear function of the
magnetic field H and varies usually between 1000 and
50000.
Figure 2: Typical design of CT within GIS switchgear
At this stage, for the simplicity, the influence of leakage
inductance as well as the inductance of the secondary
wires and the inductance of the input burden of the
instrument/relay are neglected. The first assumption
cannot be made if for example the distance between
primary winding and core is high and the primary
winding has unsymmetrical layout with respect to the
core or there exists close proximity to return or
neighbouring conductors. All those issues will be
treated in foregoing papers and are mentioned here only
for the sake of completeness. For almost all practical
purposes the performance of CT can be described by its
simplified equivalent circuit shown in Figure 3.
Ip
Ip Is Is
Kn Kn Rct
Im
primary secondary
clamps L U m (Im )
clamps
Rb
connected
burden
Figure 3: Simplified equivalent circuit of a CT
The current ratio Kn of the CT is the ratio of primary Ipn
and secondary Isn nominal currents: Kn = Ipn /Isn. This is
symbolized in Figure 3 by the ideal transformer. The
nonlinear magnetic characteristic of the iron core is
described by the shunt inductance L on the electrical
side. The typical magnetizing curve Um (Im) of this shunt
inductance L is shown in Figure 4. Before the secondary
current reaches the CT secondary clamps and the
connected burden it passes the internal resistance Rct.(so
called: ‘internal CT burden’).
3 Standards for Current Transformers
Starting the discussion of the international standards
describing CTs it is worthy to discuss at first IEC class
PX standard [2], former British Standard (BS) class X,
since it is defined very close to the physical description
presented above.
3.1 IEC protective class PX
Within this standard a characteristic knee point on the
magnetizing curve is defined, where a voltage rise by
10% leads to a current rise of 50% (Figure 4). This knee
point voltage and the corresponding current are given on
the rating plate. In addition, the secondary winding
resistance Rct as inner burden is given for 75°C. At the
secondary terminals any external burden Rb may be
connected. The specification of such burden is not
subject to this standard.
U m [Vrms ]
1.1U knee
U knee
1.5 I knee
I knee I m [ Arms ]
Figure 4: Magnetizing curve of the shunt inductance of
the CT in Figure 3; Knee-point definition acc. to
IEC Standard, class PX
It is to underline here that this CT class describes the
CT in a very clear physical manner giving the parameter
of the magnetizing characteristic of inductance L and
the internal burden Rct (Figure 3).
The typical requirement of a protection device for CT
dimensioning is for example:
I psc, max
U knee ≥ ⋅ (Rct + Rb )
Kn
where the maximum detectable short-circuit current
Ipsc,max on the CT secondary side must not lead to a
voltage drop higher than the knee point voltage in order
to avoid too high error of the secondary current due to
magnetic saturation. Furthermore, the limit of the
magnetizing current may be required to ensure enough
fault sensitivity, for example:
I knee ≤ I m, max (11)
More detailed information about practical hints how to
proceed with CT dimensioning within IEC class PX
(BS X) will follow in the next papers. At this stage the
dimensioning process of the current transofrmer can be
finished. So that at least the following main physical
data of the equivalent circuit must be given on the rating
plate: Ipn, Isn ,Uknee, Iknee, and Rct.
3.2 IEC protective class P and IEC measuring class
The CT description within IEC class P standard is a
little bit different. The retrospective look to the past
generation of the secondary protection and measuring
equipment used within power systems brings more light
to the idea behind the nameplate parameters of the IEC
class P CTs. Namely, those devices had much more
burdens than nowadays. It was necessary to feed the
secondary equipment with sufficient power in order to
generate enough electromagnetic force that moves the
elements (moving-iron or moving-coil) inside
electromechanical relays. Therefore, usage of higher
secondary current was indispensable. So CTs with 5A
nominal current have been used for many decades.
During development process of the electromechanical
relays-technology the hunger for VAs was a little bit
reduced so that also CT with 1A nominal secondary
current appeared. Nevertheless, in the past the CTs were
used to feed protection cubicles full with
electromechanical relays and therefore ‘burden’ was the
useful term used in the CT nomenclature, however,
physically, it is the impedance (when cosϕ <0.8) or
resistance that should be mentioned for simplicity. One
should note that the following relation is essential:
Sb = Rb ⋅ Isn2, (12)
which implies that 30VA for a 5A CT equals to 1.2 Ω,
and for a 1A CT equals to 30 Ω.
Summarizing, for the CT nameplate the straight-forward
idea was to put there such nominal power Sbn that will
be needed to feed typical protection cubicle and in
addition to provide information about some multiple of
the nominal current that CT will be able to transform
without too high current error (which is described by the
CT error class) due to excessive saturation. In this way
on the nameplate of IEC class P the following parameter
have to be specified: Ipn, Isn ,Ksscn, and Sbn. , where
I psc
K sccn = (13)
I pn
is the overcurrent factor and Ipsc is the primary
(10)
symmetrical short-circuit current. In such way, the
typical 5P20 30VA has often been used.
It is very important to recognize that no other parameter
is necessary to describe the CT behaviour for the
symmetrical short-circuit current. Indeed, when CT is
burdened with operating burden that is close to the rated
one on the nameplate, the overcurrent factor will be
similar to the indicated one on the nameplate, so the
information about the internal burden Rct. is not
necessary.
Such definition of the IEC class P CT can be seen as a
heuristic description of the CT behaviour at nominal
operating conditions of the CT, which are in turn
defined by its nominal burden. This is the most
important issue considering IEC class P specification.
The exact definition of IEC class P is specified by
maximum transformation errors ε for the nominal
current Ipn and a well defined overcurrent Ipsc when the
nominal burden Sbn is connected to the terminals [2].
This is shown in the following table.
Table 1 Definition IEC class P, acc. to IEC 60044-1,
Edition 1.2 (2003)
at Overcurrent
Accuracy at Nominal current Ipn
Ips=Ksscn ⋅ Ipn
Current Phase Composite
Class error displacement error
εi [%] δ [min] εc [%]
5P ±1 ± 60 5 Sb = Sbn
10P ±3 not specified 10
It can be seen from Table 1 that CT class P is specified
for nominal primary current, as well. The most
important issue is to keep in mind that the exactness
specified at Ipn can only be guaranteed by the CT
manufacturer, when the CT is burdened with rated
burden Sbn.
As a further remark, one must consider that the error
values given in the table for the overcurrent behaviour
are maximum allowable errors, which fall in practice
always below the limits specified. So, practically, in the
last column the limits should be written as ≤ 5 and ≤ 10,
respectively.
Definition for measuring classes according to IEC are
based on the same principle, namely, on the nominal CT
conditions that are defined by its nominal burden Sbn.
The only differences are as follows:
1. Accuracy (current error εi and phase displacement δ)
is specified for more working points that lie not only at
the nominal current Ipn but start below it up to slightly
above the nominal current (e.g. at 1%, 5%, … up to
120% of Ipn).
2. Instead of overcurrent factor, an instrument security
factor (FS) is specified, at which the composite error
must be at least 10%. This is to protect the connected
measuring devices against too high over-currents.
Thereby, the most important are the following remarks:
Ad. 1. The accuracy class of metering CT can be only
maintained when the CT is burdened with operational
burden Sbo that lies between 25% .. 100% of its nominal
burden Sbn, and
Ad. 2. The nominal instrument security factor FSn is
defined at nominal working conditions of the CT, i.e.
when the CT is burdened with its nominal burden Sbn.
4 Dimensioning of IEC class P CTs;
Example for 1 A and 5 A cores
As an example a traditional 5P20, 30VA CT will be
considered.
4.1 CT with 1 A secondary nominal current
At first it is assumed that this CT has the secondary
nominal current Isn of 1 A and the internal resistance Rct
equals to 5 Ω. In Figure 5 the error diagram (error εc
versus overcurrent factor Kssc ) is given for this CT.
( Rct = )
ε [%] I p Is
K sscn FSn ;
I pn I sn
Ip Is
Rbn
2
Sbn [VA] = Rbn ⋅ I sn
Sb << Sbn
Figure 5: Error diagram for IEC class P CT with 1A
secondary nominal current: 5P20, 30VA, Rct =5 Ω
and relation to IEC measuring class
Remembering the fact that the error limits for protective
classes in Table 1 are maximum values, the actual errors
have to be lower. This is a minimum requirement for
dimensioning of protective class CTs and it is shown in
Figure 5 by the grey area with description ‘5P20’ It can
be also understood as ‘forbidden’ area for the error of
such protective-core CT.
The CT manufacturer has to verify by test that these
requirements are fulfilled. Before the test he will
estimate the characteristic accuracy limiting point
Ual(Ial) on the magnetizing curve. For class P the
maximum error current Ial as magnetizing current at
nominal overcurrent factor Ksscn can be estimated from
the accuracy class (Figure 6) according to equation (14):
I al = ε c ⋅ K sscn ⋅ I sn (14)
which in our example leads to:
I al = 5% ⋅ 20 ⋅ 1 A = 1 A (15)
The corresponding calculated accuracy limiting voltage
Ual can be estimated, as well, using equation (16) :
U al = K sscn ⋅ I sn ⋅ ( Rct + Rbn ) (16)
which for the analyzed CT will lead to:
U al = 20 ⋅ 1A ⋅ (5Ω + 30Ω ) = 700 V (17)
with nominal burden Rbn in Ω calculated from eq. (12):
S 30VA
Rbn = bn2
= = 30 Ω (18)
I sn (1 A) 2
The actual magnetizing curve has to be higher than this
calculated point for the worst case. An exemplary of
such curve is shown in Figure 6.
 U m [Vrms ] 1A CT
875 V U FS
700 V U al
I al I FS I m [ Arms ]
1A 2.5 A
Figure 6: Magnetizing curve of the CT from Figure 5
The protective class 5P20, 30 VA in this example may
also fulfill a measuring class if desired, for example:
0.5FS25, 30 VA, where for the instrument security
factor FS the error must be at least 10% in order to
protect measuring devices against too high overcurrents
by limitation of the CT secondary current. This is a
maximum requirement for dimensioning of measuring
class CTs and it is shown in Figure 5 by the grey area
with description ‘0.5FS25’ It can be also understood as
‘forbidden’ area for the error of such measuring-CT.
A similar approach is applied for the factor of security
FS. The magnetizing curve has to be lower than the
point UFS(IFS) shown exemplarily in Figure 6.
Acc. to IEC standard the winding resistance Rct is
usually not given on the rating plate because this
calculation is done by the CT manufacturer only.
Normally, the CT should be dimensioned and ordered
by the customer for the maximum detectable short-
circuit current Ipsc,max which leads to the nominal
overcurrent factor Ksscn whereas the nominal burden
should be slightly higher than the actual total burden
Rbo. Up to here, no winding resistance Rct is needed,
since it was assumed that the CT is burdened with an
actual burden that is close to its nominal burden, i.e.
30 VA, which means for 1A CT 30Ω.
4.2 CT with 5 A secondary nominal current
Now, also a 5P20, 30VA CT will be considered.
However, for comparison, the CT has the secondary
nominal current Isn of 5 A. The internal resistance Rct
will be assumed to be 0.3 Ω. As this CT shall fulfil the
same IEC class P standard its error diagram (Figure 7)
can be constructed analogously to the 1A CT.
( Rct = ) had burdens up to many VAs. The potential
ε [%] Ip I transformers have also supplied many relays in the
K sscn FSn ; s
I pn I sn
Ip
Sbn [VA] = Rbn ⋅ I sn
Sb = Sbn Sb << Sbn
Figure 7: Error diagram for IEC class P CT with Isn=5A
5P20 30VA, Rct =0.3 Ω
Now, for a 5A CT the nominal burden of 30 VA equals
to 1.2 Ω. The calculated magnetizing curve can be
constructed analogously, too, using equations (14), (16),
and (18). In such way one can find the results, as shown
in Figure 8.
U m [Vrms ]
U FS
U al
I al I FS I m [ Arms ]
Figure 8: Magnetizing curve of the CT from Figure 7
Comparing the results of calculations for the examples
shown the following can be stated:
1. Only form the VA-rating no-one can draw
conclusions about CT performance, so the statement:
‘the more VA the better CT’ is completely false
2. Considering nominal burden of the CT from the
example shown it can be observed that 30VA seems to
be right nominal burden for a 5A CT (wire and devices
connected have total resistance of <1.2Ω, which
nowadays looks reasonable). However, for the 1A CT
the 30VA (i.e. 30Ω) seems to be too high nominal
burden considering modern digital relays and measuring
instruments. As a result of this the CT works under-
burdened. The consequences of this be then analyzed in
the next chapter.
3. For the performance the CT magnetizing curve
should be always analyzed. So the usage of resistances
and voltages is the right way. On the contrary, the usage
of power (burden) and overcurrent factor can be
misleading. How far misleading it is, the current
practice by the dimensioning of the CTs shows very
clearly, whereas high VA for 1A CT are now the less
suitable state-of-the-art.
5 Dimensioning practice: Past and Future
As described above, in the past, electromechanical
protection relays worked with 5 A nominal current and
protection cubicles. Nowadays, the power consumption
Is of the modern digital relays is hundredth times lower.
Unfortunately, the dimensioning practice of the
instrument transformer has not been changed through
Rbn the years. Therefore, a new perspective is necessary to
be given for the instrument transformers dimensioning
2
practice. This is discussed in this chapter.
At first, Table 2 presents an overview on power
consumption of current and voltage input circuits of the
secondary instruments comparing old-technology with
the new one [3].
Table 2 Input circuits power consumption of relays
Description
Power consumption for input
Current
VA
Current measurement
(moving-iron)
0.1 - 1.6
Voltage measurement
0.9 - 4
(moving-iron)
electro- Power-factor meas. 3.8
mechanical Power meter 2 4.4
O/C protection 15 - 20 - 30
Distance prot. (MV) 3 - 30
Distance prot. (HV) 2 - 6 - 20
O/C protection 0.1 - 6
static
Line diff. prot. 4 - 11
Distance prot. 0.35 - 1.35
numerical Digital protection and 0.05 - 0.1 (1A CT)
measuring devices ~0.3 (5A CT)
A big difference can be observed between the burdens
of electromechanical relays and numerical relays used
nowadays. Therefore in the past high nominal burden
have been chosen for both CTs and PTs. Unfortunately,
this approach still continuous to be applied nowadays.
Coming back to the examples from section 4 it is now
clear that in the past the typical operating burdens Sbo of
up to 20 .. 30 VA were the result, because relays that
were connected consumed many VAs. Furthermore, as
the relay pick up setting was rarely higher than 20 ⋅ Ipn
the standard CT 5P20 30 VA has been used for many
purposes. The DC component of the short-circuit
current, which is very critical for CT saturation within
the first cycles after fault inception, has been considered
for special cases only due to slower operation times of
the relay.
Nowadays, modern digital protection devices work with
1 A nominal current and have burdens lower than
0.1 VA so only the burden of secondary wiring is the
most significant one. Maximum operation times have
been shortened to a few milliseconds up to a few cycles,
so the DC component must be now considered by an
additional transient dimensioning factor Ktd [4]. The
typical requirement of a protection device for CT
dimensioning will now be:
I psc, max
K sscn ≥ K td ⋅
I pn
Considering CT Data as from example in section 4.1
and assuming Ktd = 4, the CT with 5P80 should be
specified (4 ⋅ 20 = 80). Assuming that the real
operational burden Rbo is less than 2.5Ω, which is
almost true in the new GIS switchgears, the straight-
forward specification should be 5P80 2.5VA.
However, as a state-of-the-art for class P CTs at first
some arbitrary burden is chosen as nominal burden (e.g.
30VA) then the calculation of the actual operational
overcurrent factor Kssco is done since the CT is
connected to a small burden only (<2.5VA). When the
connected operational burden Rbo is much lower than
nominal burden Rbn the actual overcurrent factor Kssco
rises up because the fix accuracy limiting voltage Ual of
the CT is reached for higher currents than nominal
overcurrent indicated on the nameplate as Ksscn. For this
calculation the winding resistance must be known.
Voltage
Considering the CT data from the example in section
VA 4.1: 5P20 30VA with Rct =5Ω (Figure 5 and Figure 6) it
can be written:
U al = K sscn ⋅ I sn ⋅ (Rct + Rbn ) =
(20)
1.4
K ssco ⋅ I sn ⋅ ( Rct + Rbo ) = 700 V
This calculated accuracy limiting voltage Ual influences
directly the size of the iron core according to eq.(6) and
13 - 120 eq. (7) and provides the possibility of CT core
35 - 120 optimization especially in small GIS CT compartments.
Eq. (20) leads to:
R + Rbn 5 Ω + 30 Ω
K ssco = K sscn ct = 20 = 93 (21)
15 Rct + Rbo 5 Ω + 2 .5 Ω
As a result the requirement of actual overcurrent factor
0.1 - 0.3
Kssco ≥ 80 is fulfilled. Such practice is still used
nowadays as a state-of-the-art. Often it is assumed that
for class P protective cores it has no significant
drawbacks against the straight-forward way (i.e.
5P80 2.5VA). But the two following issues must be
pointed-out:
1. Using under-burdened protective CT with turn-
compensation and measuring CTs (see below) can
exceed the error at nominal current (the error curve is
lower for lower burdens than nominal burden – dotted
curve shown in Figure 5).
2. Using under-burdened CTs with small current ratio
Kn can damage the connected relays in case of strong
close-in fault (very high secondary current that flow on
the CT secondary due to high Kssco).
These two critical and very important facts have to be
considered in the same way for the factor of security FS
for measuring classes, too. The operating factor of
security FS0 for the under-burdened measuring CT from
our example can be calculated:
R + Rbn 5 Ω + 30 Ω
FS o = FS n ct = 25 = 116 (22)
Rct + Rbo 5 Ω + 2.5 Ω
That means that the CT will be surely in saturation for
more than 100 times the nominal current!
Such very high operating factor of security FS0 can be
dangerous to the connected devices, especially in the
case of low current ratios. Here the nominal burden
(19)
cannot be chosen arbitrary for the same CT.
As already mentioned above, for measuring classes, the
new error curve may exceed also the accuracy limit for
nominal currents (Figure 5 dotted line), because acc. to
IEC these limits are required to be valid only for
burdens between 25% .. 100% of its nominal burden Sbn.
This requirement leads very often to additionally
installed resistors in order to compensate too low
burdens, which is surely a dangerous practice of
introducing new elements into the secondary circuit of a
CT and should be abandoned. Such additional resistive
introduce a risk as day may be damage by overcurrents
and lead to interruption of the CT secondary circuit.
Furthermore a general drawback must be mentioned for
the sake of completeness. When a CT 5P20, 30 VA is
used for the real burden of approx. 2.5VA (instead of
5P80, 2.5 VA), the conversion of the overcurrent factor
must be done, as shown above. For this purpose the
winding resistance Rct is needed which must be asked
additionally at the CT manufacturer.
Summarizing, there is no need to choose the nominal
burden much higher than the connected one and an
overcurrent factor much lower than the required one
from the physical point of view. Such practice can lead
to some dangerous or unwanted issues, like:
• for non-gapped protective cores, (like IEC class
P) in cases of turn-compensated CTs and small-
ratio CTs
• for gapped protective cores (like IEC class PR,
TPY, TPZ): Importance of the correct VA-rating
in general, otherwise secondary time constant
and transient behaviour changes
• Measuring CTs: Accuracy issue and necessity for
secondary current limitation in case of fault in
the primary system; dangerous practice of adding
an resistor into the secondary circuit to reach the
accuracy of high VA-rated CTs.
• Potential transformers: Accuracy issue and raise
of resonance danger by under-burdened PTs.
Some issues need further explanations and are therefore
shortly commented in the next subsections.
5.1 High VA-rated Small Ratio CTs
As a short example from a medium voltage switchgear,
the transient behaviour of 100 A/1 A CT, 5P20, 10 VA,
with assumed internal resistance Rct of 0.5 Ω will now
be analyzed. In this example it is assumed that the
actual operating burden equals to 1 Ω, which
corresponds to burden of a digital relay (0.05 VA) that
is connected via approx. 80m 4mm2 copper wire (0.9 Ω)
to the CT clamps. Using eq. (21) the operating accuracy
limiting factor Kssco is calculated:
R + Rbn 0.5 Ω + 10 Ω
K ssco = K sscn ct = 20 = 140 (23)
Rct + Rbo 0.5 Ω + 1Ω
Figure 9 shows the transient behaviour of the CT for
40 kA primary short circuit current with 50 ms primary
time constant and fault inception angle of 0°. The
simulation of the CT transient behaviour was carried out
using the transient simulation module of the software
tool CTDim [6].
primary current
secondary current
Figure 9: CTDim Simulation of transient behaviour of
IEC CT 100/1 5P20 10VA, Rct =0.5 Ω on Ipsc=40 kA
with Tp=50 ms
It can been observed that the under-burdened CT
delivers very high current to the relay (Figure 9). Its
instantaneous peak value reaches more than 500 A and
the steady-state rms value is close to 300 A. Such a
portion of energy is very dangerous and may damage
the connected digital relay, where the input circuits of
such relay cannot handle such currents. Exemplarily, the
current inputs of the used digital relay are limited to
250 A peak current and 100 A steady-state rms current
for 1 s.
In general, such critical situations occur for busbars
with high short-circuit power and feeders with low rated
currents, where low CT ratios are chosen. This fact is
also valid for the HV substations.
Such situations require detailed analysis that includes
strong co-operation with the CT manufacturer and worst
case considerations. More details on this subject will
follow in foregoing publications. For the purpose of this
paper the strong relation between traditional practice of
CT dimensioning should be underlined. Due to
unnecessarily high VA-rating of the CT an unclear and
confusing situation appears. The risk of such high
currents can be easily seen and counter-measured if the
corresponding CT will be ordered as 5P20, 1.5VA, as a
typical medium voltage CT core.
5.2 Gapped-cores CTs
In cases when some protection approach limits the
usage of classic methods of instrument transformer
design it is often impossible to obtain good and usable
results with classic non-gapped cores. This is the case,
for example, with high values of fault current, low
values of current transformer transformation ratio and
high network time constants. E.g. for auto-reclosing the
hysteresis and remanence of the iron core have to be
taken into account.
The standards organizations have reacted to the
changing circumstances in the methods of sizing current
transformers as shown in IEC Standard [4], which
classifies a number of current transformer classes, such
as TPS, TPX, TPY and TPZ, for transient operation.
Thereby cores TPY and TPZ are gapped cores, whereby
their transient operation is specified through several
parameters. Moreover with amendment 1 in Year 2000
to the Standard [2] a gapped anti-remanence core class
PR was introduced, as well.
Especially for gapped cores (IEC class PR, TPY, TPZ)
the time constant of the CT secondary circuit Ts
L
Ts = (24)
Rct + Rbn
is the key parameter for the transient performance and
must be much lower than for non-gapped CTs (class P,
TPX, PX, TPS). If such CTs are connected to too low
burdens than nominal burden, the time constant rises up
and the desired performance won’t be fulfilled. Such
cases may lead to critical situations, when not
considered carefully.
 5.2 Under-burdened Potential Transformer
Some remarks with respect to the instrument
transformer dimensioning practice should be also given
with respect to potential transformers. Within IEC there
exists a Standard [5] describing inductive potential
transformers that are, with exception of ultra-high
voltage air-insulated switchgears, the state-of-the-art
within the electrical power systems.
Here the paradigm change took place too and nowadays
almost exclusively digital equipment is connected to
them. However, the practice of sizing the PT remained
unchanged. Considering the values given in Table 2 for
the power consumption in the PT circuits the same, as
for the CTs can be stated. Namely, the PTs that are
currently ordered are extremely under-burdened. The
PT manufacturer designs and produces a PT with e.g. a
nominal burden of 100 VA, whereas in the substation
only several VA or sometimes below 1VA is then
connected.
As a result dangerous situation is introduced. The PT
was designed (together with its accuracy turn-
compensation and anti ferro-resonance measures) to
some nominal burden. Now it is burdened with very low
burden, i.e. close to the open clamps conditions. This
has the following drawbacks:
1. The accuracy class cannot be guaranteed (acc. to IEC
these accuracy is valid only for burdens between
25% .. 100% of its nominal burden Sbn). This, in turn,
leads very often to additionally installed parallel
resistors in order to compensate too low burdens, which
is surely no good practice.
2. Increase of resonances or ferro-resonances danger
due to under-burdening of VT secondary circuit and de-
tuning of anti-resonance counter-measures (if
applicable). In the last years the number of resonance or
ferro-resonance phenomena has increased, and it can be
partially explained by the traditional sizing approach
mentioned above.
6 Conclusions
The paper described different instrument transformer
definitions acc. to IEC Standard with relation to the
physics of an iron-cored current transformer. The
background of instrument transformer dimensioning
with 5A sec. currents and requirements of
electromechanical relays was presented, in comparison
to 1A sec. currents and modern numerical relays.
Thereby, different protection functions with their
requirements and their impact on the dimensioning of
instrument transformers in the past and today were
described and discussed.
In the past protection and measuring devices connected
to current transformers had much higher burdens than
nowadays. Nominal burdens of CTs had been chosen
accordingly. Nowadays device burdens are much lower
but CT nominal burdens are still ordered traditionally
very high and nominal overcurrent factors too low.
As the accuracy limiting voltage (or knee point voltage)
is the physical quantity which is important for CT
View publication stats
dimensioning, the required lower burden and high
overcurrent factor are converted to a high nominal
burden and low overcurrent factor via the often
unknown winding resistance. This conversion is a long
way around and totally unnecessary for P class CTs
without turn compensation.
For measuring CTs class and protective CT class with
turn compensation operational burdens much lower than
nominal burden can violate the requirements of the
accuracy class. Moreover, it was shown, that a mixture
of high rated powers of CTs with modern low burden
relays may lead to a damage of the secondary
equipment, especially when small-ratio under-burdened
CTs are used. The remark and the background
information that the problems of resonances within
under-burdened PT circuits raise in the last time was
given, as well.
Summarizing, it is strongly recommended that the
current practice of instrument transformer dimensioning
should be abandoned and CT and PT nominal burdens
should be chosen appropriately to the operational
burden with a realistic safety margin included.
More information related to the subject of CT and PT
dimensioning within the modern digital relaying and
measuring technology also with relation to other
standards like ANSI will be described in the foregoing
publications.
References
[1] M. E. Korponay, “Application Guide to IEC
Standard IEC 44-6” (1995)
[2] International Standard: IEC 60044-1, “Instrument
transformers – Part 1: Current transformers”,
Edition 1.2, (2003)
[3] Interessengemeinschaft Energieverteilung (ABB,
AEG, Siemens): ‘Auslegung und Ausführung von
Strom- und Spannungswandlerkreisen’ (1992)
[4] International Standard: IEC 44-6, “Instrument
transformers – Part 6: Requirements for protective
current transformers for transient performance”,
First Edition , (1992)
[5] International Standard: IEC 60044-2, “Instrument
transformers – Part 2: Inductive voltage
transformers”, Edition 1.2, (2003)
[6] CTDim: Software Program for Current
Transformer Dimensioning;
www.siemens.com/ctdim