886

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2002

A Current-Based Solution for Transformer

Differential ProtectionPart II: Relay Description
and Evaluation
Armando Guzmn, Senior Member, IEEE, Stanley Zocholl, Gabriel Benmouyal, Member, IEEE, and
Hctor J. Altuve, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper describes a new approach for transformer

differential protection that ensures security for external faults, inrush, and overexcitation conditions and provides dependability for
internal faults. This approach combines harmonic restraint and
blocking methods with a wave-shape recognition technique. We
compare in the paper the behavior of some traditional transformer
protection methods to that of the new method for real cases of magnetizing inrush conditions.
Index TermsDifferential protection, power transformer protection, protective relaying.

methods may fail to ensure security for some real-life inrush

conditions. Common harmonic restraint/blocking could provide
solutions, but the behavior of these methods for internal faults
combined with inrush currents requires further study.
Combining restraint and blocking into an independent
restraint/blocking method provides a new approach to
transformer differential protection. Even harmonics of the
differential current provide restraint, while the fifth harmonic
and dc component block relay operation.
A. Even-Harmonic Restraint

I. INTRODUCTION

ART I of this paper [1] analyzes the problem of transformer differential protection and summarizes the existing
methods for discriminating internal faults from inrush and
overexcitation conditions. Most transformer differential relays
use only current signals. These relays use the harmonics of the
operating current to restrain [2] or to block [3] relay operation.
These methods ensure security for most of the inrush and
overexcitation cases but fail for cases with very low harmonic
content in the operating current. Common harmonic restraint
or blocking [4] increases relay security but could delay operation for internal faults combined with inrush currents in the
nonfaulted phases. Wave-shape recognition techniques [5] represent another major group of methods. By themselves, these
methods fail to identify transformer overexcitation conditions.
This paper describes a new approach for transformer differential protection using current-only inputs. The approach ensures
security for external faults, inrush, and overexcitation conditions and dependability for internal faults. It combines harmonic
restraint and blocking methods with a wave-shape recognition
technique. The new method uses even harmonics for restraint
and also blocks operation using the dc component and the fifth
harmonic. We also compare, in the paper, the behavior of some
traditional transformer protection methods to that of the new
method for real cases of magnetizing inrush conditions.
II. NEW APPROACH FOR TRANSFORMER PROTECTION
The evaluation of existing harmonic restraint/blocking
methods makes it clear that independent restraint/blocking
Manuscript received January 20, 2000; revised February 14, 2002.
The authors are with the Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA
99163 USA
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2002.803736

In contrast to the odd harmonics ac CT saturation generates,

even harmonics are a clear indicator of magnetizing inrush.
Even harmonics resulting from dc CT saturation are transient
in nature. It is important to use even harmonics (and not only
the second harmonic) to obtain better discrimination between
inrush and internal fault currents.
Our tests suggest the use of even harmonics (second and
fourth) in a restraint scheme that ensures security for inrush
currents having very low second-harmonic current. The operation equation is
(1)
is the relay operating current,
is the restraining
where
current, and are the second and fourth harmonics of the opand
are constant coefficients.
,
erating current, and
, and SLP were defined in Part I of this paper [1].
and
are constants equivalent to the traditional second and fourth
harmonic restraining percentages.
B. Fifth-Harmonic Blocking
It is a common practice to use the fifth-harmonic content of
the operating current to avoid differential relay operation for
transformer overexcitation conditions [4]. In our opinion, the
best solution is a harmonic blocking scheme in which the fifth
harmonic is independently compared with the operating current.
In this scheme, a given relay setting, in terms of fifth-harmonic
percentage, always represents the same overexcitation condition. In a fifth-harmonic restraint scheme, a given setting may
represent different overexcitation conditions, depending on the
other harmonics that may be present.
Relay tripping in this case requires fulfillment of (1) and not
(2).

0885-8977/02$17.00 2002 IEEE

(2)

GUZMN et al.: SOLUTION FOR TRANSFORMER PROTECTION PART II: RELAY DESCRIPTION

where is the fifth harmonic of the operating current, and

is a constant coefficient.
C. DC Ratio Blocking
The proposed method of even-harmonic restraint and fifthharmonic blocking provides very high relay security for inrush
and overexcitation conditions. There are, however, some inrush
cases in which the differential current is practically a pure sine
wave. One of the real cases we will analyze later exhibits such a
behavior. Any harmonic-based method could cause relay misoperation in such extreme inrush cases.
The dc component of inrush current typically has a greater
time constant than that for internal faults. The presence of dc
offset in the inrush current is an additional indicator that can
be used to guarantee relay security for inrush. This wave-shape
recognition method is relatively easy to apply in a digital relay,
because extraction of the dc component is a lowpass filtering
process.
We propose splitting the differential current into its positive
and negative semicycles and calculating one-cycle sums for both
semicycles. We then propose using the ratio of these sums to
of the positive current samblock relay operation. The sum
ples is given by the following equations:
(3)

887

with an
ratio of greater than 40, the delay will increase
slightly without sacrificing dependability.
The response of this dc blocking method depends on the dc
signal information apart from the harmonic content of the differential current. For example, the method ensures dependability
for internal faults with CT saturation and maintains its security
during inrush conditions with low even-harmonic content.
D. Additional Even-Harmonic Restraint Based on dc Content
Another alternative solution for inrush detection is to calculate the ratio of the dc component to the fundamental component
of the differential current and use this ratio information to boost
the even-harmonic restraint quantity. Calculate the dc compofrom the following:
nent
(9)
The extreme case of dc offset for an internal fault is a completely asymmetrical sine-wave current. In this case, the dc component equals the peak value of the fundamental component of
the current, or
(10)

(4)

where is the root-mean-square (rms) value of the differential

current fundamental component.
In general, the following condition will identify internal faults
without CT saturation:

is the number
where represents the current samples, and
of samples per cycle.
of the negative current examples is given by
The sum

(11)

(5)

On the other hand, magnetization inrush conditions produce

almost fully asymmetrical current signals. These signals have
harmonic content that reduces the fundamental component. We
then expect the following condition to be true for inrush current:

(6)

(12)

We calculate the dc ratio DCR according to (7), to account

for positive and negative dc offsets

In order to increase relay security, modify (11) as follows:

Min
Max

(7)

Equation (7) yields a DCR value that is normalized (its value

is always between zero and one) and avoids division by zero.
By comparing DCR with a threshold DCRF, we implement
the relay dc blocking method

(13)
This solution applies a multiplying factor to the even-harmonic restraint quantity in (1) when (13) is true
(14)

(8)
Relay tripping requires the fulfillment of (1), but neither (2)
nor (8).
DCRF is an internal relay setting. Selecting a value for DCRF
means deciding on a compromise between security and speed. A
high value of DCRF (approximately one) affords high security
but is detrimental to speed. From tests, we defined a value of 0.1
as a good solution. The delay for internal faults is practically
ratios as great as 40. For systems
negligible for system

III. CURRENT DIFFERENTIAL RELAY

The relay consists of three differential elements. Each differential element provides percentage differential protection with
independent even-harmonic restraint and fifth-harmonic and dc
blocking. The user may select even-harmonic blocking instead
of even-harmonic restraint. In this case, two blocking modes
are available: 1) independent harmonic and dc blocking and
2) common harmonic and dc blocking.

888

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2002

Fig. 1. Restrained 87R1 and unrestrained 87U1 differential elements.

Fig. 5. Additional even-harmonic restraint solution based on dc content.

Fig. 2.

DC blocking logic.
Fig. 6.

Fig. 3.

Differential element blocking logic.

Transformer energization while A phase is faulted.

ized current samples are the inputs to four digital bandpass

filters. These filters extract the samples corresponding to the
fundamental component and to the second, fourth, and fifth
harmonics of the input currents. A dc filter also receives the
current samples as inputs and forms the one-cycle sums of
the positive and negative values of these samples. The outputs of the digital filters are then processed mathematically
to provide the scaling and connection compensation required
by the power and current transformers.
B. Restraint Differential Element

Fig. 4. Differential relay blocking logic.

A. Data Acquisition, Filtering, Scaling, and Compensation

The data-acquisition (DAQ) system includes analog lowpass
filters and analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The digital-

Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of one of the percentage

differential elements with even-harmonic restraint (Element 1).
,
Inputs to the differential element are the operating current
, and the second- and fourth-harmonic
the restraint current,
restraint currents ( and , respectively).
is scaled to form the restraint quantity
Restraint current
(SLP), which provides a dual-slope percentage characteristic. Harmonic restraint currents are scaled to form the
second- and fourth-harmonic restraint quantities. The scaling
and
, respectively.
factors are
Comparator 1 compares the operating current to the sum of
the fundamental and even-harmonic restraint quantities. The
comparator asserts for fulfillment of (1). Comparator 2 enables
is greater than a
Comparator 1 if the operating current
threshold value. Assertion of Comparator 2 provides the relay
. Switch S permits enabling or
minimum pickup current
disabling of even-harmonic restraint in the differential element.
The differential element includes an unrestrained instantaneous differential overcurrent function. Comparator 3, which
with a threshold value
compares the operating current
provides the unrestrained differential overcurrent function.

GUZMN et al.: SOLUTION FOR TRANSFORMER PROTECTION PART II: RELAY DESCRIPTION

Fig. 7. Element 1 high-side winding current I

the transformer with an A-phase fault.

recorded while energizing

889

Fig. 9. DC component as a percentage of the rms value of fundamental during

inrush conditions.

Fig. 10. Transformer energization while A phase is faulted and the transformer
is loaded.

Fig. 8. Second, third, and fourth harmonics as percentages of fundamental of

the inrush current.

C. DC Filtering and Blocking Logic

Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of the dc blocking logic
and negative
onefor Element 1. We form the positive
cycle sums of the differential current. We then determine the
minimum and the maximum of the absolute values of the two
one-cycle sums and calculate the dc ratio DCR by dividing the
minimum one-cycle sum value by the maximum one-cycle sum
value. When DCR is less than a threshold value DCRF, the relay
issues a blocking signal DCBL1. Then, the relay blocking condition follows (8).
By defining DCR as the ratio of the minimum to the maximum values of the one-cycle sums, we account for differential
currents having positive or negative dc offset components. In
addition, the resulting DCR value is normalized.
Relay tripping requires the fulfillment of (1), but neither (2)
nor (8).

Fig. 11. Element 1 inrush currents from the high- and low-side transformer
windings after relay scaling.

D. Relay Blocking Logic

Fig. 3 depicts the blocking logic of one of the differential
elements (Element 1). If the even-harmonic restraint is not in
use, switch S1 closes to add even-harmonic blocking (2HB1,
4HB1) to the fifth-harmonic (5HB1) and dc blocking (DCBL1)
functions. In this case, the differential elements operate in
a blocking-only mode. Switches S2, S3, S4, and S5 permit
enabling or disabling of each blocking function. The output

890

Fig. 12.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2002

Element 1 differential current for Case 2.

(87BL1) of the differential element blocking logic asserts when

any one of the enabled logic inputs asserts.
Fig. 4 shows the blocking logic of the differential relay.
You can set the relay to an independent harmonic blocking
) or a common harmonic blocking mode
mode (
).
(
The additional even-harmonic restraint solution based on dc
content is shown in Fig. 5. The even harmonics are boosted
when the dc component is greater than the rms value of the fundamental. In this solution, the boosting factor depends on the
to ratio.

Fig. 13. Second, third, and fourth harmonic as percentages of fundamental for
the Fig. 12 current.

IV. DIFFERENTIAL ELEMENT PERFORMANCE

DURING INRUSH CONDITIONS
Let us study the performance of the differential elements for
three field cases of transformer energization. These cases are
special because they cause some of the traditional differential
elements to misoperate, as we will soon see.
A. Case 1
Fig. 6 shows a transformer energization case, while A phase
is faulted, and the transformer is not loaded. The transformer
is a three-phase, delta-wye-connected, distribution transformer;
the CT connections are wye at each side of the transformer.
Fig. 7 shows the differential element 1 inrush current; this
current. This signal looks like a typical inrush
element uses
current. Let us analyze the signal characteristics.
The current signal has low second-harmonic content and high
dc content compared to the fundamental. Another interesting
fact is that this signal also has high third-harmonic content.
Fig. 8 shows the second, third, and fourth harmonics as percentages of fundamental. Note that the second harmonic drops
below 5%.
Fig. 9 shows the dc content as a percentage of fundamental
of the inrush current. The dc content is greater than the rms
value of the fundamental current during the event; this is useful
information for adding security to the differential relay.
The differential elements operate as follows.
1) Second- and Fourth-Harmonic Blocking: The low
second- and fourth-harmonic content produces misop-

Fig. 14.

DC content of the differential current for Case 2.

Fig. 15.

Transformer energization during commissioning.

eration of the differential element that uses independent

harmonic blocking.
2) All-Harmonic Restraint: The harmonic restraint relay that
uses all harmonics maintains its security because of the
high third-harmonic content of the inrush current.
3) Low-Current Detection: The waveform has a low differential current section that lasts one-quarter of a cycle each

GUZMN et al.: SOLUTION FOR TRANSFORMER PROTECTION PART II: RELAY DESCRIPTION

891

cycle: the minimum time that the element requires for

blocking. This element marginally maintains its security.
4) Even-Harmonic Restraint: The low second- and fourthharmonic content produces misoperation of the differential element that uses independent harmonic restraint.
5) DC Ratio Blocking: The ratio of the negative to the positive dc value is zero; therefore, this element properly
blocks the differential element.
6) Additional Even-Harmonic Restraint Based on dc Content: The dc value exceeds the rms value of fundamental;
theefore, this element has additional restraint that maintains its security.
B. Case 2

Fig. 16.
cycle.

Inrush current with low current intervals of less than one-quarter

Fig. 17.

Second-harmonic percentage drops to approximately 9%.

Fig. 18.

DC content of the differential current for case 3.

This case is similar to Case 1 but differs in that the transformer

is loaded while being energized with reduced A-phase voltage.
Fig. 10 shows the delta-wye distribution transformer; the CT
connections are wye and delta to compensate for transformer
phase shift. In this application, the differential relay does not
need to make internal phase-shift compensation.
Fig. 11 shows the differential element one inrush current from
the high- and low-side transformer windings after relay scaling.
The two signals are 180 out of phase, but they have different
instantaneous values. These values create the differential current
shown in Fig. 12.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the harmonic and dc content, respectively, for the differential current as a percentage of
fundamental. This signal has a second-harmonic content that
drops to 7%, whereas the fourth harmonic drops to approximately 10%. In this case, the even harmonics, especially the
fourth, provide information to properly restrain or block the
differential element. The dc content is greater than the rms
value of fundamental. The dc content also provides information
that adds security to the differential element.
The differential elements operate as follows.
1) Second- and fourth-harmonic blocking: The second and
fourth harmonics properly block the differential element.
Note that the second-harmonic percentage must be at
6% for independent harmonic blocking applications.
Blocking percentages of less than 10% will add delay for
internal faults because of transient harmonics [6].
2) All-harmonic restraint: The harmonic restraint relay that
uses all harmonics maintains its security because of the
even-harmonic content of the signal.
3) Low-current detection: The waveform has a low differential current section that lasts longer than one-quarter
cycle; therefore, this logic properly blocks the differential element.
4) Even-harmonic restraint: The even-harmonic content of
the signal restrains the differential relay from tripping.
5) DC ratio blocking: The ratio of the negative to the positive
dc value is zero; therefore, this element properly blocks
the differential element.
6) Additional even-harmonic restraint based on dc content:
The dc value is greater than the rms fundamental value;
therefore, this element has additional restraint that maintains its security.

892

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2002

TABLE I
INRUSH DETECTION METHODS PERFORMANCE DURING INRUSH CONDITIONS.

C. Case 3
Fig. 15 shows a field case of energization during commissioning of a three-phase, 180-MVA, 230/138-kV autotransformer. The autotransformer connection is wye-wye; CTs at
both sides of the autotransformer are connected in delta.
Fig. 16 shows the secondary currents from the autotransformer high side. These currents result from autotransformer
energization with the low-side breaker open. The currents are
typical inrush waves with a relatively small magnitude. Note
that the signal low current intervals last less than one-quarter
cycle.
Fig. 17 shows the harmonic content of the inrush current. Note
that the inrush current has a relatively small second-harmonic
percentage, which drops to approximately 9%. As in previous
cases, Fig. 18 shows that the dc content of the inrush current
exceeds the rms value of fundamental.
All differential elements except the low-current detector
operate correctly for this case. The low current zone in this
case lasts less than the one-quarter cycle required to determine
blocking conditions.
Table I summarizes the performance of the different inrush
detection methods discussed earlier. The all-harmonic restraint
method and the additional even-harmonic restraint method perform correctly for all three cases. The former sacrifices relay
dependability during symmetrical CT saturation conditions, and
the latter sacrifices speed when the dc content is greater than the
rms value of fundamental during fault conditions. Combining
the even-harmonic restraint method and the dc ratio blocking
method provides a good compromise of speed and reliability.
In addition to the presented cases, the proposed approach has
been tested with satisfactory results during such multiple conditions as internal faults, internal faults during energization, and
external faults.

V. CONCLUSIONS
1) A new approach combining harmonic restraint and blocking
methods with a wave-shape recognition technique adds security to the independent harmonic restraint element without
sacrificing dependability. This new method uses even harmonics for restraint, plus dc component and a fifth harmonic
for blocking.
2) Using even-harmonic restraint ensures security for inrush
currents with low second-harmonic content and maintains
dependability for internal faults with CT saturation. The use
of fifth-harmonic blocking guarantees an invariant relay response to overexcitation. Using dc offset blocking ensures
security for inrush conditions with very low total harmonic
distortion.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Guzmn, S. Zocholl, G. Benmouyal, and H. J. Altuve, A currentbased solution for transformer differential protection. Part I: problem
statement, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery., vol. 16, pp. 485491, Oct.
2001.
[2] C. D. Hayward, Harmonic-current-restrained relays for transformer
differential protection, AIEE Trans., vol. 60, pp. 377382, 1941.
[3] R. L. Sharp and W. E. Glassburn, A transformer differential relay with
second-harmonic restraint, AIEE Trans., pt. III, vol. 77, pp. 913918,
Dec. 1958.
[4] C. H. Einval and J. R. Linders, A three-phase differential relay for
transformer protection, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-94, pp.
19711980, Nov. 1975.
[5] A. M. Dmitrenko, Semiconductor pulse-duration differential restraint
relay (in Russian), Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Elektromekhanika, no. 3, pp. 335339, Mar. 1970.
[6] L. F. Kennedy and C. D. Hayward, Harmonic-current-restrained relays for differential protection, AIEE Trans., vol. 57, pp. 262266, May
1938.

GUZMN et al.: SOLUTION FOR TRANSFORMER PROTECTION PART II: RELAY DESCRIPTION

893

Armando Guzmn (M95SM01) received the B.S.E.E. degree with honors

from Guadalajara Autonomous University (UAG), Guadalajara, Mexico, in
1979. He received the diploma in fiber-optics engineering from Monterrey
Institute of Technology and Advanced Studies (ITESM), Monterrey, Mexico,
in 1990.
Currently, he is is a Research Engineer with Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA, where he has been since 1993. He was also Regional
Supervisor of the Protection Department in the Western Transmission Region of
the Federal Electricity Commission (the electrical utility company of Mexico),
Guadalajara, Mexico, for 13 years. He has lectured at UAG in power system
protection.

Gabriel Benmouyal (M87) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering

and the M.Sc. degree in control engineering from Ecole Polytechnique, Universit de Montral, Montral,, PQ, Canada, in 1968 and 1970, respectively.
Currently, he is a Research Engineer at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA. In 1969, he joined Hydro-Qubec, Montreal, QC, Canada,
as an Instrumentation and Control Specialist. He worked on different projects
in the field of substation control systems and dispatching centers. In 1978, he
joined IREQ, Varennes, QC, Canada, where his main field of activity was the
application of microprocessors and digital techniques to substation and generating-station control and protection systems.
Mr. Benmouyal has served on the Power System Relaying Committee since
May 1989.

Stanley Zocholl received the B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees from Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, in 1958 and 1973, respectively.
Currently, he is a Distinguished Engineer at Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, Pullman, WA, where he has been since 1991. He was Director
of Protection Technology at ABB Power T&D Co., (formerly ITE, Gould,
BBC) Allentown, PA, from 1947 to 1991.
Mr. Zocholl received the Best Paper Award at the 1988 Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Conference and the Power System Relaying Committees
Distinguished Service Award in 1991.

Hctor J. Altuve (SM95) received the B.S.E.E. degree from Central University
of Las Villas (UCLV), Santa Clara, Cuba, in 1969, and the Ph.D. degree from
Kiev Polytechnic Institute, Kiev, Ukraine, in 1981.
Currently, he is a Research Engineer with Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA. From 1993 to 2001, he was a Professor in the Ph.D. program
with the Mechanical and Electrical Engineering School, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico. He was also a Professor in the School
of Electrical Engineering at UCLV from 1969 to 1993.
Dr. Altuve is a member of the Mexican National Research System.