Presentation 13.

GPS Synchronized Primary Injection Tests to Prove the Stability of the

765kV Perseus – Beta Line Differential Scheme

Alexander Dierks, Alectrix, South Africa

Jan Cronje, ESKOM, South Africa
Theo Wink, MegaWatt Solutions, South Africa

Abstract completed within the next twelve months. The

overview of the 765kV network in Eskom can be
Eskom, the national utility of South Africa has viewed on Figure 1.
embarked on an aggressive upgrade program of its
transmission network, which includes a 765kV
network backbone connection between the
Northeast (Mpumalanga) and Southwest (Western
Cape) of the country. The 765kV transmission line
between Perseus and Beta substation is one of the
few lines in this backbone protected by a line
differential scheme.
The commissioning of this line differential scheme
will be described, which includes an overview of
the various commissioning tests executed. One
specific commissioning test requires proving and
verifying the stability of the full line differential
scheme for load and through fault conditions by
means of primary injection. The challenge lies in
the high ratio CTs (typically 3200:1 or 4800:1)
utilized, which make it impossible to use any
conventional test technique.
This paper describes a new test technique of Figure 1: 765kV Transmission Network of Eskom
synchronizing two primary injection test sets
together in phase angle (using a synchronized
voltage signal from a secondary injection test set) From Perseus substation to Beta substation a
and fault inception (using the 1ppm signal from a 765kV line links the new extra high voltage network
GPS receiver). Test results as well as experiences into the existing 765kV substation via a short 15km
from the actual tests performed will be analyzed. line. This line is one of the only such short lines in
the 765kV network, and hence also is one of the
In summary the merits of performing such tests as
lines which are presently protected with a line
a standard test for all line differential schemes will
differential protective scheme.
be discussed.

Introduction Line Differential Protective

Since 2009 Eskom has embarked on an
aggressive upgrade program of its transmission
network. This included upgrading and supporting
the existing 400kV transmission network with a
completely new 765kV backbone network, which
links into the 400kV network at strategic places.
The 765kV network also adds to the two 765kV
extra high voltage lines between Alpha and Beta
substations, which have been operational for the
past 25 years. The 765kV backbone starts at Zeus
substation in Mpumalanga, which is in the
Northeast of the country near the high occurrence
of coal fired power stations. Presently the
transmission lines between Zeus, via Mercury and
Perseus to Hydra substation are commissioned.
The line from Hydra substation to Sterrekus via
Gamma and Kappa substations should be
Scheme
Eskom is presently utilizing protective IEDs of a
single vendor for all their 765kV protective relay
schemes. All the schemes are designed around
the breaker-and-a-half substation layout, i.e. a
diameter consists of dual Main 1 / Main 2 set-ups
for each of the line and/or transformer fed from the
diameter. A further IED is situated in the Diameter
Control panel, which houses the control functions
as well as the common protection functions (e.g.
synchronizing, auto reclose,…). The Diameter
Marshaling Kiosk IED, which is positioned in a
small cubicle in the HV yard, is in essence a
‘junction box’ between the signals from the primary
plant and the protection scheme [1].
Specific IEDs are used within a diameter,
depending on whether the diameter is connected

© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 13.2
to a long line (Main 1 and 2 both are impedance
IED), or a short line (Main 1 is a line differential
IED, Main 2 is an impedance IED), or a
transformer (Main 1 and 2 are both transformer
differential IEDs). In specific cases a line or busbar
connected reactor is part of the diameter (Main 1
and 2 are both transformer differential IEDs).
All IEDs utilize IEC 61850 for vertical
communication, i.e. communicating between the
IED and the substation computer using reports - as
well as horizontal communication between the
IEDs, e.g. the line protection IEDs enable the auto
reclose function on the Central Diameter Control
IED using a GOOSE signal.
For the line from Perseus to Beta, Main 1 utilizes a
line differential IED, Main 2 an impedance IED.
Commissioning of a Line
Differential Scheme
The commissioning procedure of an instance of
line protection IEDs consists of the following steps:
1. Ring out panel wiring according to drawing.
2. Ring out and connect all control cabling.
3. Capacitive Voltage Transformer (CVT) tests:
a. Ratio test
b. Polarity test
4. Tan Delta Tests on the bushings of the CVT.
5. Current Transformer (CT) tests:
a. Ratio test
b. Magnetization curve
c. Polarity test
d. Confirm class of CT
6. Verify CT secondary burden
7. CT primary injection to verify secondary wiring
and ratios in use.
8. IED Main 1 and Main 2 secondary injection
using standard test template for the scheme
[3].
9. Scheme function tests such as tripping the
correct Circuit Breaker (CB) pole, etc.
10. GPS synchronized secondary injection end-to-
end tests:
a. Main 1 (line differential): Confirm
communication and stability by
performing a GPS synchronized
secondary current injection at both
ends of the line.
b. Main 2 (impedance): Confirm power
line carriers by performing a GPS
synchronized secondary injection of
voltage and current at both ends of the
line.
© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium
11. GPS synchronized primary injection end-to-
end tests to prove the stability of the scheme.
12. Energizing of line:
a. Ensure impedance direction is correct
b. Line differential IED is stable on load.
Topic of this paper is the test performed under 11
above.
Proving Stability of Line
Differential Scheme
Purpose of this test is to prove the stability of the
complete line differential protection scheme. GPS
synchronized secondary injection tests have been
conducted on line differential schemes for the past
20 years [2]. However, this still leaves the
uncertainty of the connection between the primary
and secondary of the CT as well as the secondary
CT wiring within a substation. In addition to
performing separate polarity tests on the CTs,
there still remained some doubt as to the
completeness of the test, i.e. one test to prove the
overall scheme. This gap could be bridged by
performing a GPS synchronized primary injection
test for the whole line.
The rationale of this test is simple: To prove
stability of the scheme, the current must flow into
the physical line on the one side and out of the
same line on the other side of the line. This will
result in the relay only measuring stabilizing (or
bias) current and no differential (or operating)
current. To simulate a fault, the current must flow
into the line on either one or both sides of the line
to create sufficient differential current.
The primary of the CTs at both ends are injected
with a primary injection test set which is
synchronized both in phase angle as well as in
fault inception. The direction of current flowing on
the primary line is quite obvious in the way the test
equipment is connected to the primary of the CTs,
i.e. P1 and P2 – and hence this test leave little
room for error, resulting in the overall scheme
being tested and commissioned better than ever
before.
Test Set Up
For each end of the line, a primary injection test set
with a regulated high current output was used. The
first challenge lay in the ability to synchronize the
phase angle of the output current to a signal, which
is common to both ends of the line, i.e. a
synchronization signal.
Initially it was attempted to use the 220V mains
voltage at the substation as the synchronization
signal. However - after some testing- it was
established, that this voltage was not reliable
enough, due to variances in this voltage between
 Presentation 13.3

the two substations, such as which phase of the

feeding transformer was used to power a particular
plug in the relay building, where the feeding
transformers at both substations of the same
vector group, and/or the difference in power
system busbar voltage phase angle between the SF6 Duct to Line
two substations.
It was hence decided to produce the
synchronization voltage with a GPS synchronized CT
secondary injection test set, which had a very
stable output voltage. In this way the voltage
controlling the phase angle of the primary injection
test set was identical.
Once the phase angle was synchronized, the fault
inception had to be synchronized. For this the
same 1 pulse per minute GPS signal used to
synchronize the secondary injection test was used.
In earlier tests conducted on a transformer
differential scheme [4], it was established, that the
current could not be stepped up from load current
to fault current in one step, which necessitated an
intermediate fault current step. Due to the accuracy Earth-Switch
of time synchronization between the two test sets, (Busbar Side)
this did not affect the test results in any way.
Hence the test consisted of four states: Earth-Switch
State 1 – Load current State: 100A @0° (Line Side)
State 2 – Intermediate State: 500A @0°
State 3 – Through-fault State: 1000A @0° Figure 3: Injected GIS CT at Beta Substation
State 4- In-zone Fault State: 1000A @180°
At Perseus substation, the primary currents were
Figure 2 shows the state sequencer function with injected into a dead-tank CT, by looping the
injected primary current five times through the gap
the four states programmed.
between the dead-tank CT and the bushing and
then injecting 1/5th of the required test current.
Figure 4 shows the CT injected at Perseus
substation.

Figure 2: State Sequencer for Primary Injection Test

At Beta substation, the currents had to be injected

into the primary of the GIS switchgear utilized at
the substation. For this a 2000A booster, which the
test system supports, was used to inject the
currents via the grounding links (on the one side
the grounding link was lifted). Figure 3 shows the
layout of the CT injected at Beta substation.

© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 13.4

Figure 5 shows the actual test set up for the GPS

Direction Busbar synchronized primary current injection at one end
of the line.

Primary Injection
Test Equipment
Dead-tank CT

GPS
Current
Output

GPS 1ppm Pulse

Sync Voltage
Figure 5: Test Set Up at Perseus Substation

Test Results
For all three phases the stability (through-fault) as
well as the operation of the protection IED (in-zone
Direction Line fault) was proven.
For each phase, the relay remained stable during
the intermediate state as well as the through-fault
state, but immediately and correctly operated for
Figure 4: Injected Dead-tank CT at Perseus Substation
the in-zone fault state. A typical fault recording
recorded with the protection IED can be seen in
Note the followings practical user tips: Figure 6.
1) Use the binary output of the GPS receiver For interest sake also the transition from state 3 to
to trigger the binary input of the primary state 4 on the side, where the phase angle is
test set. As the outputs signal from the switched from 0° to 180° is shown in Figure 7.
GPS receiver is a TTL signal, the polarity During the through-fault state, the two current
of this signal needs to be reversed on the measurements for the local and remote side of the
binary input of the primary injection test line are clearly in phase opposition. After the fault
equipment, in order to trigger this input. inception, both currents are in phase.
2) Use the same test file at both ends of the
line.
3) Ensure to inject the current INTO the line at
one end, and OUT of the line at the other
end of the line, to simulate a through fault
conditions for state 1 – 3.
4) The only difference between the two test
files is that for step 4, the current is
switched by 180 ° at ONE end of the line to
simulate the current flowing into the line at
BOTH ends during the final in-zone fault
stage.
5) Save the test file on the test equipment,
once the test is set up.

© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 13.5

Intermediate Through-fault In-Zone Fault

State State State

Figure 6: Complete Recording of ALL States

Figure 7: Recording of Transition between State 3 and 4

© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 13.6
Summary
Even though the actual tests appear quite simple,
the technology involved in achieving these tests is
remarkable.
Firstly it is very important to ensure that the test
system is set up correctly at both ends of the line,
especially with regards to the direction in which the
primary current is injected. Note also the user tips
given in the paper. Once the test set up is correct,
the test is probably the best and most
comprehensive way to prove and test a full line
differential scheme, which includes the current
transformers and protection IEDs at both end of
the line as well as the communications link
between the two relays.
Eskom Transmission will in future utilize such a
GPS synchronised primary injection test as the
final commissioning test on all short 765kV lines
utilizing line differential protection to prove and
verify the overall stability and operation of the
protection scheme.
Literature
[1] Bower, Thys; Topham, Graeme; Dierks,
Alexander; Pretorius, Gawie: Implementing
New Generation Protective Relay Schemes
based on IEC61850 Standard for Substation
Communication in the Eskom 765kV
Transmission Network; Developments in
Power System Protection Conference 2008,
Glasgow, United Kingdom
[2] Worthington, Ian; Olivier, Piet; Dierks,
Alexander: GPS Synchronised end-to-end
tests of transmission line tele-protection
schemes in the ESKOM network;
Developments in Power System Protection
Conference 1997, Nottingham, United
Kingdom
[3] Dierks, Alexander; Christo Venter: Ein
vollautomatisches Prüfkonzept für Schutz-
relais im ESKOM 765kV Übertragungsnetz:
Ein Erfahrungsbericht; OMICRON
Anwendertagung 2010; Dresden; Germany
[4] Cronje, Jan; Dierks, Alexander: GPS
Synchronized Primary Injection: Stability Test
of a 765kV Transformer Differential Protective
Relay Scheme; OMICRON South African
User Conference 2011; Johannesburg; South
Africa
© OMICRON 2013 – International Protection Testing Symposium
About the Authors
Alexander Dierks (born 18
March 1966 in Windhoek,
Namibia) received a Master of
Science degree from the
University of Cape Town in
1990. He received his practical
training at Eskom Distribution –
Western Region in Brackenfell,
before joining OMICRON
electronics as a Sales and Application engineer. In
1997 he started up Alectrix, which is the exclusive
distributor for OMICRON test equipment in
Southern Africa. Alexander has delivered dozens
of papers at local and international conferences.
He is a professional engineer, member of SAIEE,
IEEE and Cigre.
Jan Cronje (born 1 May 1964
in Mokopane, Limpopo),
received two National N
Diplomas in 1995 and 1998. He
qualified as Certificate Engineer
in 1999 (GCC). Jan started his
career with Eskom as
apprentice electrician in 1983.
He joined the protection field in
1988, where is still working
today. Currently he is a commissioning engineer
for the new breaker-and-a-half substations. He is
registered as professional Technologist with ECSA
and is member of ICMEESA.
Theo Wink (born 02
September 1973 in Elliot,
Eastern Cape, South Africa)
received a National Diploma in
Electrical Engineering from the
Johannesburg University of
Technology in 1995. He
received his practical training
at Eskom Transmission
(Central Region in Germiston), and worked for
Eskom in various divisions and as a contractor until
2006. He joined IST Energy for a short period
before returning to Eskom as Senior Technologist
until 2012. In 2012 he started up MegaWatt
Solutions together with Kobus Theunissen.
Currently Theo is providing consulting services as
Secondary Plant Chief Technologist to Trans Africa
Projects and Eskom on the 765 kV Breaker-and-a-
half project. Theo has delivered and co-authored a
numerous papers at the local OMICRON User
Conferences. He is registered as professional
technologist with ECSA, member of the SAIEE and
member of the regional Cigre B5 RAG committee.