Consideration of Magnetizing Inrush Current Characteristics for Transformer Protection

M.L. Jain, Vice President (Technology), Chetan Adalja, Dy. Manager (Design)
EMCO Limited, Thane
E-mail: [email protected]

0. Abstract:
A power system comprises diverse elements of equipment. Amongst these, transformer is
the most expensive asset. In order to maximize the return on this asset, the system must
operate reliably in a safe manner. No matter how well a system is designed, faults will
always occur on a power system and these may pose risk to the assets and if they prolong
for more than a few seconds could cause extensive damage to the system equipment. The provision of adequate
protection is therefore an integral part of the power system design to detect and disconnect a faulted element from
the remainder of the system so that the system can continue to function and in the event of fault, it helps limit the
damage to the faulted equipment and minimize the possibility of fire. At the same time, the protection devices
should ensure that there is no spurious tripping of the system on account of improper protection system as this leads
to undue electrical and mechanical stresses on the transformer. Inadvertent tripping of transformer due to
magnetizing inrush currents is often a cause for concern and calls for special considerations while designing the
protection system, especially in case of large size transformers.

This paper presents a conceptual overview of magnetizing inrush current phenomenon, supported by a case study
and highlights considerations for selecting appropriate protection system based on inrush current characteristics to
guard against undesired occasional tripping of the transformer connected in transmission network.

1. Introduction:
Primarily the magnetizing inrush is usually considered associated with the energizing of a
transformer. However, practically it could also be caused by any abrupt change of
magnetizing voltage, arising out of the occurrence of a fault, the removal of a fault, the
change of character of a fault (e.g. the change from a single phase-to-ground fault to a two
phase-to-ground fault), and out-of-phase synchronizing.

Various protections, viz. differential, restricted earth fault, over current and over fluxing protection are provided to
safeguard the transformer against adverse system operating conditions and to avoid unplanned outages due to
undesired tripping of transformer. In practice, a transient phenomenon that occurs when a transformer is energized,
gives rise to Magnetizing Inrush Current, which may cause false tripping of system. This is truly not a fault
condition, and therefore transformer protection system must remain stable during inrush transient.

Magnetizing inrush current in transformer is an inherent phenomenon. Uncontrolled energization of large power
transformer may result in large dynamic flux and saturation in the core of transformer. The saturation results in high
amplitude magnetizing inrush current in the energized winding that is rich in harmonics and has a high DC current
component. Magnitude of current thus produced could reach many times the transformer rating
and the duration ranging from a few cycles to many seconds.

2. Inrush Current Characteristics:

The magnetizing inrush current is non-sinusoidal in nature and may persist
for several cycles. The typical inrush current wave form is shown in Fig. 1.
The inrush current may be 8 to 10 times the normal rated current when
switched on from outer winding and 10 to 20 times when switched on from
the inner winding. The decay of inrush current depends on time
constant (L/R) of the circuit, which is not constant. The value
of L changes depending on the extent of transformer core
saturation. During the first few cycles, saturation is high and
L is low. Hence, initial rate of decay of inrush Fig. 1: Typical Inrush Current Waveform13
current is quite high. As the losses damp the circuit and saturation drops in subsequent
voltage cycles, L increases slowing down the decay. Thus, the decay of inrush current starts
with a high initial rate and progressively reduces. The time constant of inrush transient has a range
from 0.1 sec (for 100kVA transformer) to 1.0 sec (for a large unit) but it can be observed to be still changing after
30 minutes of switching on.

There are several conditions that cause particularly severe magnetizing inrush
phenomenon. One such condition involves the energizing of a transformer at which at least
Page 1 of 8
one more transformer is already energized. Thus, the inrush phenomenon involves
transformers which are already energized as well as the transformer being energized. And
this complicates the situation which impacts the operation of the protection system. When
parallel transformer banks, having individual breakers are located some distance away from
any generating station, a possibly troublesome magnetizing-current-inrush problem may
arise. If one bank is already energized and then a second bank is energized, magnetizing-
current inrush will occur not only to the bank being energized but also to the bank that is
already energized. Moreover, the inrush current to both banks will decay at a much slower
rate than when a single bank is energized with no other banks in parallel. The magnitude of
the inrush to the bank already connected will not be as high as that in the bank being
switched, but it can easily exceed twice the full-load current rating of the bank; the
presence of load on the bank will slightly reduce its inrush and increase its rate of decay.
Figure 2 shows the circuits involved and the magnetizing-current components in each
circuit.

Figure 2: Prolonged inrush currents with parallel transformers.

In view of the foregoing, it is imperative to consider the two important characteristics of

magnetizing inrush current while designing the protection system for transformer.
a) Magnetizing inrush currents contain substantial harmonics, particularly the second
harmonic. These harmonics are not always present in high quantities in all the
phases.
b) There is always a time during each cycle when the current magnitude is almost
zero. This time is always greater than a quarter cycle. A typical magnetizing inrush
current waveform is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Typical Magnetizing Inrush Current Wave1

3. Parameters Affecting Magnetizing Inrush Current:

Indicated below are some of the parameters that affect the magnetizing inrush current shape, magnitude, duration &
% harmonic components.

Page 2 of 8
 A] Transformer Design Parameters
a) Transformer Size f) Core Joint type
b) Magnetic properties of the core material g) Core geometry
c) Residual magnetism in the core h) Load type and power factor
(Remnant flux and polarity) i) Winding configuration (1-phase vs. 3-phase)
d) Air core inductance j) Winging connection (Star vs. Delta)
e) Design flux density k) Grounded vs. ungrounded star winding

B] Power System Parameters

 System Impedance from which a transformer is energized
 Instance when a transformer is switched in
 Way (i.e. proximity of winding w.r.t. core) a transformer is switched in
 Impedance and short-circuit capacity of the system
 Distance between bus of the substation and the power transformer

4. Differential Protection Applied to Power Transformers:

The differential protection, which is based on the principle of current circulation, is most
commonly used for transformers as this responds not only to inter-turn fault but also
provides protection against phase-to-phase faults. Fault currents in the installation cause
differential currents, which operate the relay.

Although, differential protection is relatively simple to apply but the problem of

differential relay operating on transformer magnetizing current inrush is well known. This
is mainly a consideration during bank energization, although magnetizing inrush can also
occur during an over-voltage or over-excitation condition. Depending on the impedance of
the magnetizing branch, which can be low, the resulting inrush current can be in
multiples of rated current. This current appears on only one input to the differential from
the side of energization and hence signaling presence of an internal winding fault.

As described earlier, magnetizing inrush current is a transient phenomenon and not avoidable. Since it is of short
duration, generally there are no adverse effects on the transformers. Nevertheless, the protective devices
provided for overloads and internal winding faults may falsely operate and disconnect the transformer and force
unplanned outages. The occasional tripping because of inrush during transformer energization
is undesirable as it delays putting the transformer into service. One may not know, but
tripping could also be due to fault in transformer. Therefore, after every tripping, and
before re-energizing the transformer, as a practice, inspection and necessary tests are
performed to locate the trouble, if any, and this takes considerable time.

Undesired tripping can be controlled to some extent by desensitizing or time delay

settings in protection relays. Percentage differential relays operating with time delay of
about 0.2 second or more will often ride over the inrush period without operating.
However, where high-speed relays are required, it is generally necessary to use relay
equipment that is especially designed to avoid undesired tripping on the inrush current.

To avoid spurious tripping, following conditions must be fulfilled.

a) The protection must not respond to the inrush current when the transformer is
switched on; the relay must be blocked for this case without preventing it from
operating on any kind of transformer faults.
b) The relay must not respond to differential currents of current transformers which
are unavoidable with transformers having Tapchangers.

The following techniques have been found to be most suited to meet the above conditions and are used for
prevention of operation on inrush.
a) Harmonic Current Restraint – normally 2nd and 5th harmonic restraint
b) Inrush Detection Blocking (Gap detection technique) – The feature is used in blocking the differential
relay.

5. Differential Protection Stabilization during Magnetizing Inrush Conditions:

From protection perspective, occurrence of magnetizing inrush current is a phenomenon
that causes the violation of the basic principle of differential relaying because the

Page 3 of 8
magnetizing inrush current flows from the source to the primary winding of the transformer
which has no equivalent on the other windings. The whole of the inrush current appears
therefore as unbalance and the differential protection is unable to distinguish it from an
internal fault.

Desensitizing scheme or temporary increase in the protection time setting to a value that is
effective only when a transformer is being energized is not an adequate countermeasure to
spurious tripping. Rather, the increase in bias setting aimed at avoiding spurious operation
would be risky and undesirable. Therefore, methods of delaying, restraining or blocking of
the differential element must be preferred to prevent mal-operation of the protection. These
are briefly described below.

5.1 Harmonic Current Restraint14

The principle of ‘harmonic current restraint’ makes a differential relay self-desensitizing
during the magnetizing current inrush period, but the relay is not desensitized, if a short
circuit should occur in the transformer during this period. However, the relay is able to
distinguish the difference between magnetizing inrush current and an internal fault by the
difference in wave shape.

Magnetizing inrush current is characterized by large harmonic components that are not
noticeably present in short-circuit current. In practice, the second harmonic is
predominantly present in all inrush waveforms. The proportion of second harmonic may vary
somewhat with the degree of saturation of the core, but is always present as long as the
unidirectional component of flux exists. The amount varies according to factors in the
transformer design. Normal fault currents do not contain second or other even harmonics,
nor do distorted currents flow in saturated iron-cored coils under steady state conditions.
The second harmonic is therefore an attractive basis for a stabilizing bias against inrush
effects. Fig. 4 shows arrangement of relay to take advantage of the harmonic content of
current wave to be selective between the fault current and the magnetizing inrush current.

Fig. 4: Illustrating the advantage of a three-winding relay with a three-winding transformer

5.2 Inrush Detection Blocking – Gap Detection Technique 14

Another feature that characterizes an inrush current can be seen from Figure 5 where the
two waveforms (a) and (b) have zero-current periods in the cycle. The minimum duration of
this zero period is theoretically one quarter of the cycle and is easily detected by a simple
Timer-1 that is set to time t1 = 1/4f seconds. Block diagram of the circuit is shown in Figure
6.
Timer-1 produces an output only if the current is zero for a time exceeding 1/4f seconds. It is
reset when the instantaneous value of the differential current exceeds the setting reference.

Page 4 of 8
 (a) Typical inrush current (b) Inrush without offset, due to yoke
saturation
Figure 5: Transformer magnetizing inrush14

Figure 6: Block diagram to show waveform gap-detecting principle 14

As the zero in the inrush current occurs towards the end of the cycle, it is necessary to delay
operation of the differential relay by time t2 = 1/f seconds to ensure that the zero condition
can be detected, if present. This is achieved by using a second Timer-2 that is held reset by
an output from Timer-1.

When no current is flowing for a time exceeding 1/4f seconds, Timer-2 is held reset and the
differential relay that may be controlled by these timers is blocked. When a differential
current exceeding the setting of the relay flows, Timer-1 is reset and Timer-2 times out to
give a trip signal in 1/ f seconds. If the differential current is characteristic of transformer
inrush, the timer Timer-2 will be reset on each cycle and the trip signal is blocked.

Some numerical relays may use a combination of the harmonic restraint and gap detection
techniques for magnetizing inrush detection.

6. Case Study:
At a 132kV substation, a 50 MVA, 132 / 33 kV, 218.7/874.8 A, Star/Star connected transformer was reported to
have tripped on earth fault while charging from 132kV side. This resulted in islanding of Combined Cycle Power
Plant (CCPP). At the time of tripping, various feeders were loaded as shown in single line diagram in Fig. 7.

Brief details of the power system where the transformer under investigation was connected are as given below.
 CCPP was running at 75 MW in synchronism with imported power of 37 MW from 132 kV grid. It was
connected with 132 kV U-PR-2 line.
 50 MVA autotransformers TR-2 & TR-3 were running on load.
 32 kV Bus was in split condition (bus coupler off) with 30 MVA TR-4 loaded for 12 MW.
 Due to inrush on charging of 50 MVA TR-5, 132 kV U-PR-2 Line tripped on earth fault and differential
protection. This resulted in extra burden of 25 MW on CCPP.
 GTG-1 load shot up from 24 MW to 37 MW; GTG-2 from 23 MW to 32 MW and STG from 27 MW to
32.94 MW.
 This resulted in GTG-1 exhaust temperature shoot up to tripping value and GTG-1 tripped on “Exhaust
over temperature”
 CCPP frequency dropped drastically to the tripping value. This resulted in tripping of STG and GTG-2
came on “House Load”

Page 5 of 8
 Fig.7: Single line diagram of Power System

Parameters were recorded as shown in Fig. 8 during subsequent energizing cycle through Clamp-on CT, using
Power Quality Analyzer Fluke 434 with low current measuring probes.

Post-tripping parameters recorded were as indicated below.

Y-phase current Neutral current

Fig. 8: Current Oscillograms recorded during energizing cycle

R-phase: B-phase:
Peak: 575A; Peak: 50A; Rise time (from 0 to 300 A): 25 ms;
Rise time (from 0 to 575 A) 25 ms; Settling time: 0.1 sec
Settling time from peak to 5A: 0.375 sec

Y-phase: Neutral current

Peak: 300 A; Rise time (from 0 to 300 A): 25 ms; Peak: 1175 A; Rise time (from 0 to 1175 A): 50 ms;
Settling time from peak to 25 A: 0.225 sec Settling time from peak to 25 amp: 0.125 sec

Analysis:
The event was analyzed for tripping during energization of transformer. The air core reactance of transformer was
20.3% and magnitude of inrush current was calculated based on this. It was noticed that the recorded value of
inrush current was much less than the calculated value as shown below.
Parameter Inrush Current Recorded Current Recorded Current
(Calculated) while tripping of CCPP while testing
Magnitude IL (Peak) 2233.9 A 700 A 575 A
Magnitude IN (Peak) Less than 2233.9 A 430 A 1175 A
Max. Time duration -- 1.2 sec 14.4 sec

Page 6 of 8
However, it was observed that even after damping of the transient, the inrush current continued to flow for 14.4s
through the Neutral. As the magnetizing inrush is a single-phase phenomenon, neutral will always carry a vectorial
resultant of line currents. Since IDMT relays were set for earth fault protection, it was creating an earth fault trip.
Also the transformer was energized in no load condition from 132 kV side, only primary current was flowing
without any current in the secondary circuit, the differential protection was also sensing a tripping signal.

Substation equipment layout as shown in single line diagram Fig. 7 was also analyzed. It was noted that besides the
transformer under investigation, two other autotransformers were also connected at the same station. Whenever the
transformer under investigation was switched on, the major portion of dc transient current of this transformer would
tend to return through the other two auto transformers, instead of going through the high resistance path of supply
line circuit feeding the transformers. Thus, there is a dc current component circulating in the loop circuit between
the transformers. The time constant of this trapped dc circulating current, depending only on the constants of the
loop circuit, is much longer than the time constant of the dc component in the transmission line circuit feeding the
transformers. Under this condition, the duration of inrush current was increasing manifold due to combined effect of
transformer & system time constant. Consequently, the attempts to prevent differential relay operation by time delay
setting proved ineffective. It was therefore recommended to protect transformers by separate relays having tripping
suppression or harmonic restraint, to prevent undesired tripping.

8. Conclusion:
Undesired tripping of power system due to magnetizing inrush current in case of non-synchronized switching in of
transformer is well known. The problem gets compounded when two or more transformers are connected in parallel
as this leads to prolongation of inrush current duration (sometimes up to a few minutes), besides large magnitude.
Owing to such complex characteristics of inrush current, techniques like desensitization or time delay settings in
over current and differential protection relay employed by the utilities to prevent undesirable tripping are rendered
ineffective. Under these conditions, spurious tripping of transformer could best be prevented by judicious
deployment of protection schemes which are specifically designed with ‘harmonic current restraint’ and ‘blocking
gap detection’ features.

9. Acknowledgement: The authors are grateful to the EMCO Management for granting
permission to publish this paper.

10. References:
[1] Russell W. Patterson, Walter P. McCannon & Gary L. Kobet, “A Consideration of Inrush
Restraint Methods in Transformer Differential Relays”, 54th Annual Georgia Tech Protective
Relaying Conference, May 3-5, 2000.
[2] IEEE Report, “Guide for protective relay applications to power transformers”, IEEE No.
273, Jan. 1967.
[3] C G A Koreman, “Determination of the magnetizing characteristic of three-phase
transformer in field tests”, IEEE Power transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1989
[4] C E Lin, C L Cheng, C L Huang, J C Yeh, “Investigation of magnetizing inrush current in
transformers”, IEEE Power transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1993
[5] Francisco de Leon, Brian Gladstone & Menno van der veen, “Transformer based solutions
to power quality problems”
[6] Michael Steure & Klaus Frohlich, “The impact of inrush currents on mechanical stress of
high voltage power transformer coils”, IEEE Power transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 17,
No. 1, January 2002
[7] Fahrudin Mekic, Ramsis Girgis, Zoran Gajic & Ed teNyenhuis, “Power Transformer
Characteristics and their effect on Protective Relays”, ABB, Oct 17-19, 2006.
[8] GE Report, “An improved transformer inrush restraint algorithm”

Page 7 of 8
[9] M Sengil, B Alboyanci, S Ozturk, H B Centinkaya, “Case study of symethic interaction
between transformers caused by inrush transients”.
[10] Masahi Kitayama, Miyuki Nakabayashi, “A new approach to fast inrush current
discrimination based on transformer magnetizing characteristic”
[11] Laszlo Prikler, Gyorgy Banfai, Gabor Ban & Peter Becker, “Reducing the magnetizing
inrush current by means of controlled energization and de-energization of large power
transformers”.
[12] Seshanna Panthala, “Inrush current control in transformers”
[13] Prof. S V Kulkarni and Prof. S A Khaparde, “Transformer Engineering-Design and
Practice”, Marcel Dekker, New York 2004.
[14] Areva Handbook, “Transformer and Transformer-feeder Protection”.
[15] Manoj Kumar Khare, R.C. Agarwal & M.L. Jain “Inadvertent tripping of power system due
to magnetizing inrush currents”; Distribution India 2 - Loss Reduction & Performance Quality
Improvement 2007; CBIP, New Delhi

Page 8 of 8