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

net/publication/263405825

Comparative Study of Protection CT Modeling Under Transient Conditions

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,117

5 authors, including:

Aurélio Coelho Paulo Roberto Mattos da Silveira

Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) - Campus Itabira 72 PUBLICATIONS   547 CITATIONS   
28 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Carlos A. V. Guerrero Benedito Donizeti Bonatto

Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
10 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Impact of Electricity Theft on Power Quality View project

Microgrids: Operation and Control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diogo Marujo on 26 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparative Study of Protection CT Modeling Under
Transient Conditions
Aurélio L. M. Coelho, Paulo M. da Silveira, C. V. Guerrero, B. D. Bonatto and Diogo Marujo
Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
Centro de Excelência em Redes Inteligente (CERIn)
Itajubá (MG), Brasil
Abstract—This paper presents the results of an investigation
about current transformers (CTs) transient behavior and the
factors that can lead its core to saturate. For this study, two
methodologies are used: CT model implemented in MATLAB
and CT modeling using ATP. The results of this analysis are
compared in order to validate the models and the main
conclusions are presented.
Index Terms--Current Transformer, Modeling, Saturation,
Transient Analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
It is well known that one of the Current Transformer (CT)
functions is provide access to high current of the primary
system through reduced replica on its secondary side, allowing
timely and correct identification of faults and disturbances by
protective relays. However, the CT core has non-linear
magnetic characteristics and, if subjected to high fault
currents, may achieve high flux values. In this case, the flux
density may be beyond the core capacity, characterizing the
saturation phenomenon. As a result, the CT primary current is
not fully reflected in their secondary side and, depending on
the saturation degree, the current seen by the relay can be
considerably reduced and distorted in relation to the ideal
secondary signal. So, the relay cannot operate in the desired
time. For this reason, a fully understanding of the CT transient
behavior has great relevance for the study of electrical systems
protection.
Several papers have been published concerning the CTs
modeling and their performance under transient conditions [1-
4]. Most of these publications are used the ATP (Alternative
Transients Program) software to perform this study.
In order to verify the effectiveness of the ATP CT model,
this paper presents an additional tool implemented to analyze
the CT response under transient conditions. In the section II is
shown all the mathematical development of the CT model
implemented in MATLAB that is based in the theory
published by the IEEE PSRC (Power System Relay
This work was supported in part by CAPES, CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil.
Committee) [5,6,9] in order to observe the CT behavior,
especially under several fault conditions and secondary
burden.
In section III, a similar approach is performed. It is shown
how to model a CT in ATP in order to examine the factors that
cause CT saturation.
Finally, the secondary current waveforms resulting from
each model are presented and compared to validate the CT
transient analysis in section IV. The evaluations of these tests
are based on existing standards [5] and the simulation results.
II. PSRC CT MODEL
Based on the theory published by IEEE PSRC [9], the
algorithm implemented in MATLAB is intended to provide a
quick indication, not only the existence of CT saturation in a
particular application, but also an accurate indication of the
secondary current waveform, in such way that the saturation
degree can be visualized as a function of time.
One of the difficulties in using an elaborated model is to
obtain the parameters for a particular case in order to
implement this model with facility, efficiency and accuracy
[9]. For example, the excitation current in the region below of
the knee point is a complex combination of magnetization,
hysteresis and elements of eddy currents. These parameters are
not generally known in a particular case. However, if the
excitation current waveform reaches the saturated region, the
part of the waveform in the region below of the knee point has
an insignificant effect on the global solution. For [9], this
simplifies the solution without much effect on accuracy.
Therefore, taking into account this fact, the hysteresis and
eddy current losses are not considered in the implemented
model. When it is desired to evaluate the errors under low
current, where the low burden conditions are of interest, a
more elaborate model should be used, which is not the concern
of this work.
The CT equivalent circuit which generates the mathemati-
cal model (the equations and boundary conditions) to obtain
the current resulting from the algorithm implemented in
MATLAB is represented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Equivalent Circuit of the IEEE PSRC CT Model.
The parameters of circuit represented in Fig.1 are:
Instantaneous primary current;
Instantaneous ideal secondary current;
Instantaneous real secondary current;
Instantaneous excitation current;
Instantaneous excitation voltage;
Number of CT turns;
Secondary winding resistance;
Burden resistance;
Burden inductance;
 radian frequency = 2πf; f = 60Hz.
A. PSRC CT Model Implemented in MATLAB
Through of Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, the circuit shown in
Fig. 1 is described by (1):
( ) ( )
where Rt is the total resistance in the CT secondary side, i.e.,
the sum of the burden resistance with the secondary winding
resistance.
Considering the circuit shown in Fig. 1 under fault
conditions, the CT instantaneous ideal secondary current, in
function of time (t), has its symmetry and/or asymmetry
expressed by (2):
√ ( ) (2)
where Ip is the rms fault current and K is the factor that
determines the characteristics of the secondary current
waveform, so:
 K = 1, when there is asymmetric component in the
fault current. In this case, τ =1/(X/R) is the time con-
stant of the system under fault, where X and R are the
reactance and resistance of the power system until the
fault point, respectively;
 √
K = 0, when there is only symmetric component in
the fault current.
In practice, the excitation current is nonzero and its
magnitude determines how much the primary current will be
reflected erroneously in the CT secondary side. Thus, as
shown in the circuit of Fig. 1, the CT actual secondary current
in function of time is represented by (3):
(3)
Thus, the excitation current expressed in (3) must be
defined to determine the secondary current in function of time.
The saturation curve that relates the excitation secondary
voltage and the excitation current in rms values, presented in
IEEE Std. C57.13 [8], is used in this model. However, for
simplification, only two parameters are extracted from the
excitation curve: (i) the slope (S) of saturated section and (ii)
the saturation voltage (Vsat) for which the excitation current is
10 [A] [1].
According to the IEEE Std. C37.110 [7], the saturation
maximum voltage value for a secondary current of 20 times
the rated CT is determined for an excitation current of 10 [A].
In this model, the flux (λ) versus excitation current (ie)
curve has been used to solve the implicit differential equations
in the circuit illustrated in Fig. 1. This curve is defined by (4):
| | (4)
where “A” is a constant of the model defined in [9].
Note in (4) that in order to evaluate the excitation current
effects in the CT saturation it is necessary to determine the
flux evolution on CT core. For a computer implementation,
this flux can be calculated in relation of its variation (Δλ) in
the time, as well as in function of the remanent flux (λrem)
multiplied by the flux peak value in the saturation point (λsat),
if there is remanence.
(1)
The implemented algorithm requires an initial flux value to
start the simulation. In mathematical terms, this consideration
is expressed by (5):
( ) (5)
By Faraday's Law, the flux (λ) is related to the instantane-
ous excitation voltage (ve) as given by (6):
(6)
On the other hand, the excitation curve is obtained from a
sinusoidal excitation voltage, given by (7):
√ ( ) (7)
implying that its flux (λ) will be also sinusoidal.
Combining (6) and (7) it is obtained (8), given by:
( ) (8)
The flux peak value at the saturation point (λ sat) in this
model is defined at the point where the excitation current is 10
[A], i.e., where the excitation voltage (Ve) corresponds to the
saturation voltage (Vsat). Thus, from (8) is obtained (9) given
by:
√ (9)
The remanent flux (λrem) inserted in this model has its
value defined in per unit (p.u.), as the ratio of a voltage below
the knee point (Vknee) by the saturation voltage (Vsat), as
expressed in (10):
(10)
Finally the flux variation (Δλ) is obtained from the
derivative of the excitation current as a function of time,
present in (1). This current can be decomposed, as shown in
(11):
| | (11)
Thus, replacing (6) and (11) in (1), and manipulating them,
the flux is a function of time, as expressed by (12):
(12)
| |
where dips/dt is defined from the derived of the ideal
secondary current (ips) expressed in (2).
With the initial flux value obtained from (5), the initial
values of the excitation current and flux variation, expressed
in (4) and (12), respectively, are also determined.
After obtaining the initial values, the flux evolution (λ) in
the core as a function of time becomes given by its previous
values, as expressed in (13):
λ λ Δλ (13)
where (n) is the index that indicates the actual flux position
and (n-1) is the previous position.
The implemented algorithm can solve all the presented
equations, and the following input data must be provided by
the program user: i) the rms value of symmetrical fault current
(Ip); ii) the presence or not of the asymmetry factor (K) in the
fault current; iii) the X/R ratio of the power system until the
failure point, when K=1; iv) the burden values (Rb and Lb); v)
the secondary winding resistance (Rs ); vi) the turns ratio (N);
vii) the saturation voltage (Vsat); viii) the slope (S) of the
saturated region of the excitation curve and ix) the remanent
flux (λrem ) if necessary.
With the correct information, the implemented program
will provide as a result the CT secondary current waveform
for several transient conditions.
III. ATP CT MODEL
This section shows how to perform the CT modeling from
a saturable power transformer in ATP, as illustrated in Fig.2.
Figure 2. Saturable power transformer model in ATP.
The parameters of the equivalent circuit of the saturable
power transformer model of ATP, shown in Fig. 2, are
specified by:
: Number of turns of the primary winding;
: Number of turns of the secondary winding;
: Primary winding resistance;
: Secondary winding resistance;
: Primary winding inductance;
: Secondary winding inductance;
: Magnetization resistance.
To reproduce a CT, C-class, based on the power trans-
former shown in Fig. 2, the following considerations about the
CT parameterization on ATP should be observed [10]:
 The CT secondary side is modeled in the primary
winding of the power transformer;
 On the secondary winding of the power transformer,
set the resistor RS equals to zero and the inductance
LS to a value slightly greater than zero (10e-6, for
example);
 Set the inductor LP of the primary winding of the
power transformer to a value equals to zero, whereas
a C-class CT has leakage inductance almost negligi-
ble;
 Set the resistor RP of the power transformer primary
to a value equal to the resistance of the CT secondary
winding;
 It should be add a circuit to represent the resistance
and inductance of CT burden;
 Set the magnetization resistance RMAG to infinity,
since RMAG is very large. Enter "0" in the model of
ATP to a RMAG infinite;
 Select ten points of excitation current versus excita-
tion voltage from the CT saturation curve, to include
saturation in the model;
 Convert these current versus voltage points into
current versus flux points using the ATP supporting
routine called SATURA.
A. ATP CT Model in a Power System
As well as the models presented in previous sections, the
data of CT saturation curve shown in IEEE Std C57.13 [8]
may be used in this model. From these curves are obtained the
secondary winding resistance and the CT saturation voltage.
Initially, it creates an *.atp file with the pairs of current
and voltage obtained from the saturation curve. It is selected a
point at the lower end of the curve, many points in the knee
region, and a point at the upper end of the curve. An example
of *.atp file with these points, is presented in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. Example of *.atp file with data of CT saturation curve.
The file illustrated in Fig. 3 is compiled and it generates a
*.pch file, as shown in Fig. 4, which contains pairs of current
versus flux and also define the CT characteristic used in the
magnetization branch of the power transformer model used in
this study.
Current
x proportional to this voltage.
Voltage
Current
x Theoretically, in an inductive purely circuit, this condition
Flux
Figure 4. Example of *.pch file with data of CT saturation curve (current
versus flux) obtained from *.atp file.
The circuit for analysis of the CT transient response may
be prepared in ATPDraw (*. adp file) as shown in Fig. 5. For
the study purpose, this circuit is composed of five main
components: a primary voltage source (in this modeling, the
primary side of the power transformer is used as the CT
secondary side, and vice-versa); a saturable transformer
model; a load that represents the CT burden; a load that
represents the CT primary impedance and a switch for
applying disturbances.
Figure 5. CT circuit model implemented in ATPDraw.
In order to provide a fully symmetrical primary current for
the CT of the circuit shown in Fig.5, the RLC impedance
value of the primary system should be set without reactive
portion.
To provide an asymmetry primary current for the CT, the
RLC impedance value of the primary system should be set
considering the inductive reactive portion. From the variation
of R and L, it is possible to control the X/R ratio, which
determines the time constant of the primary circuit, as well as
the asymmetry degree of the CT current waveform.
With respect to the CT burden, this is represented in the
ATPDraw model by a impedance which can be easily varied
to check its influence on the CT secondary current.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the CT transient behavior for the two
presented CT models. For this study, the following CT
saturation factors are analyzed:
a) symmetrical fault current and burden value;
b) asymmetric fault current and X/R ratio.
In order to examine these items it is used a CT C-class
300/5 [A], with the standard features presented in the guide
IEEE Std. C57.13 [8].
A. Symmetric fault current and burden effects in CT transient
response
High values of burden connected to the CT secondary side
result in increased core saturation and thus cause errors in the
current reflected in its secondary side. The reason for this is
that a given secondary current demands greater CT voltage for
an increase in the burden value. The flux density is
With respect to the fault current, it is fully symmetrical
when the angle of fault incidence in the voltage signal
waveform corresponds to the current crossing through zero.
occurs when the voltage is maximum, i.e., the voltage angle
equals 90°.
The IEEE Std. C37.110 guide [7] suggests that CTs used
with protective relays be selected considering that maximum
symmetrical fault current does not exceed 20 times the CT
rated current and that load voltage does not exceed the voltage
of their accuracy class. Mathematically, the AC saturation can
be prevented from (7):
(14)
where if is the maximum fault current in per unit of rating CT
and zb is the CT burden in per unit of standard burden.
Two cases are selected to show the effects of the symmet-
ric fault current magnitude and burden values in CT
saturation, as indicated in Table I.
TABLE I. SIMULATED CASES TO VERIFY THE INFLUENCE OF THE SYMMETRIC
FAULT CURRENT MAGNITUDE AND BURDEN VALUES IN CT SATURATION.
Case if (p.u) zb (p.u) Equation (14)
1 8 10 20,0 < 80,0
2 20 1 20,0 = 20,0
According to the criteria defined in (14), there is only CT
saturation in the case 1 presented in Table I. Figs. 6 and 7
resulting of the implemented model in MATLAB and model
simulated in ATPDraw, respectively, for the case 1 present in
Table I.
 IEEE PSRC CT Model - Case 1 ATP CT Model - Case 2
40 100
Ideal
Ideal
30 Actual 80 Actual

20 60
Secondary Current (A)

40

Secondary Current (A)

10
20
0
0
-10
-20
-20
-40

-30 -60

-40 -80
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s)
-100
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s)
Figure 6. Secondary signals resulting of the case 1 presented in Table I -
PSRC CT modeling in MATLAB.
Figure 9. Secondary signals resulting of the case 2 presented in Table I -
ATP CT Model - Case 1
CT modeling in ATPDraw.
40
Ideal
Actual
In case 2, as previously mentioned, the CT does not enter
30
in the saturation state, since the fault current is within the
20 limits determined in (14) and it is used a standard CT burden.
It is observed in Figs 12 to 14 that the primary current is
Secondary Current (A)

10
reflected without errors in its secondary side.
0
From the presented graphics, it is observed that the
-10 secondary waveforms responses for the two CT models are
almost identical for both analyzed cases.
-20
B. Asymmetric fault current and X/R ratio in CT transient
-30 response
-40 An important consideration in the fault current is that it
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s) can provide a continuous aperiodic component (DC offset),
leading to asymmetry, which depends on the value of the
Figure 7. Secondary signals resulting of the case 1 presented in Table I - voltage at the instant of its occurrence (point-on-wave). If the
CT modeling in ATPDraw.
voltage at the time of fault is null, the asymmetry is maximum
In the case 1 it is applied a small fault current in compari- for inductive purely circuits. The DC component of the fault
son with the maximum current supportable by the CT defined current, responsible for this asymmetry, decays exponentially
in (14). However, a high CT burden value is used compared with a time constant in function of the X/R ratio [6].
with its standard value, which explains the high saturation It is important to note that the criterion of 20 times of the
degree which reduced and distorted the actual secondary rated current as the limit for the CT does not exceed its
current, as illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7. accuracy class is only valid for symmetrical purely fault
Figs. 8 and 9 shows the same analysis for the case 2 currents. In the presence of continuous aperiodic component in
present in Table I. the fault current, the CT can really saturate for a fault current
below 20 times of the rated current, depending of the X/R
100
IEEE PSRC CT Model - Case 2 ratio.
Ideal
80 Actual In order to avoid CT saturation from an asymmetrical fault
60 current, the IEEE Std. C37.110 guide [7] suggests that the
40
secondary voltage be less than the saturation voltage, now
given by (15):
Secondary Current (A)

20

-20 | | (15)
-40

-60 where X and R represent the reactance and resistance of the

-80 primary system, respectively, up to the failure point.
-100
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s) It is adopted the case 2 of the Table I in order to show the
Figure 8. Secondary signals resulting of the case 2 presented in Table I -
effects of the asymmetric fault current and X/R ratio in CT
PSRC CT modeling in MATLAB. saturation, but now considering asymmetric fault current with
high values of the X/R ratio (X/R = 19).
The Figs. 10 and 11 shows the ideal and actual CT
secondary signals resulting of the implemented model in not fully equals.
MATLAB and CT model simulated in ATPDraw,
respectively, for this case. From these models comparison, it was demonstrated that
the CT saturation degree is dependent of factors such as: the
IEEE PSRC CT Model ; X/R = 19 level and type of fault current, the X/R ratio and the CT
200
Ideal
burden value. These factors may cause the magnitude
Actual reduction and distortion of the secondary current and then may
150 result in problems in the protection devices connected to it
In addition to a better understanding of the saturation
Secondary Current (A)

100
phenomenon, the secondary current signals resulting from the
simulations can be converted to COMTRADE format and
50
loaded into a injection test device to evaluate the response of
protection relays under these events.
0

REFERENCES
-50
Periodicals:
[1] Kezunovic, M. et al. (1994). Experimental Evaluation of EMTP-Based
-100 Current Transformer Models for Protective Relay Transient Study. IEEE
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s) Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 405- 413.
[2] Tziouvaras, D.A. et al. (2000). Mathematical Models for Current,
Voltage, and Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformers. IEEE
Figure 10. Secondary signals resulting of the case with asymmetric fault Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 62- 72.
current and X/R =19 - PSRC CT modeling in MATLAB.
[3] Guerra, F. C. F. and Mota, W. S. (2007). Current Transformer Model.
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 187- 194.
ATP CT Model ; X/R = 19
200
Ideal Papers from Conference Proceedings (Published):
Actual [4] Kojovic, Lj. A., July 2002b, “Comparison of Different Current
150 Transformer Modeling Techniques for Protection System Studies” –
IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, vol. 3, no., pp.
1084- 1089.
Secondary Current (A)

100
[5] A. L. M. Coelho; P. M. da Silveira; F. N. Belchior; C. V. Guerrero.
“Algorithm for CT Transient Analysis and Evaluation of the Effects on
50 Numerical Overcurrent Relays,” XIX Automatic Brazilian Conference -
CBA, Campina Grande, 2012.

0
Dissertations:
[6] A. L. M. Coelho; “Analysis of Current Transformer Transient Response
-50 and the Impact on Numerical Protection Relays,” MSc. dissertation,
Dept. Electrical Eng., UNIFEI, Itajubá, 2011.

-100
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 Standards:
Time (s) [7] IEEE Guide for the Application of Current Transformers Used for
Protective Relaying Purposes, IEEE Standard C37.110-2007, 2007.
Figure 11. Secondary signals resulting of the case with asymmetric fault [8] IEEE Requirements for Instrument Transformers. IEEE Standard
current and X/R =19 - CT modeling in ATPDraw. C57.13-2008, 2008.

By the criterion defined in (15), there is CT saturation Technical Reports:

when considering a fault with asymmetry and high X/R ratio. [9] G. Swift (2003). “CT Saturation Theory and Calculator,” IEEE Power
System Relay Committee (PSRC). Available: http://www.pes-
From Figs. 10 to 11 it is observed that, differently of the psrc.org/Reports/CT_SAT%2010-01-03.zip.
case 2 shown in Figs. 8 to 9, the CT enter in saturation state [10] Ralph Folkers. “Determine Current Transformer Suitability Using
due to the asymmetric component presented in the fault EMTP Models,” Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Pullman,
WA, USA, 1999.
current. From the graphics presented, it is observed that the
secondary waveforms for the two CT models are very similar.
V. CONCLUSIONS
First, an efficient and accurate CT model, based on the
theory published by IEEE PSRC was implemented in
MATLAB. The program implemented proved to be a
convenient tool to evaluate the CT transient behavior under
different fault conditions and secondary load. This model
showed a satisfactory response when compared with the
transient behavior of the CT modeled in ATPDraw, which was
configured with the same parameters, presented similar
secondary waveforms. The small difference observed in the
models is acceptable, because the mathematical CT models are

View publication stats