XVI Simposio Iberoamericano Sobre Protección de Sistemas Eléctricos de Potencia (2024) 1–4

Verifying line differential protection with time synchronised, primary end-

to-end testing using a standard secondary injection test equipment
Andrea Bonettia , Mauro Borriellib , Ali Hussainc , Niclas Wetterstrandd
a
Megger Sweden AB Stockholm, Sweden
b
Megger Dallas, TX - USA
c
Megger Middle East Manama, Bahrain
d
Megger Group Stockholm, Sweden

A B S T R A C T

Line differential protection offers advantages over line distance protection, including simpler setting calculations. However, it relies on a
communication channel between devices and cannot act as a remote backup. In protection systems, line differential protection is often used
as the main protection for power lines, while line distance protection serves as a backup, especially on lower voltage levels where local
redundancy is not affordable.
A new method for verifying line differential protection is presented in this paper. Unlike traditional secondary injection-based tests, this
approach ensures a more complete check of the protection scheme, including CTs connection, polarity, and related relay settings. It offers a
simple and comprehensive way to validate the overall protection scheme, specifically for the line differential protection. Commissioning
engineers can use standard relay test sets for primary injection testing, providing confidence in the protection scheme’s integrity and
functionality.

© 2024 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. All rights reserved

Keywords: IED, GPS, state sequencer, line differential protection, relay testing, current transformer, primary injection tests, time
synchronisation

1. Introduction

In a ground-breaking initiative, a power utility in the Middle East

has introduced a mandatory requirement to verify the entire line
protection scheme, including relay connections with the CTs, during
the commissioning stage prior to energizing a transmission line. This
verification process involves conducting a time-synchronized primary
injection test on the primary side of the CTs. The requirement is to Fig. 1. Simultaneous secondary injection started by a trigger signal
inject a certain current on the primary side of the CT at both ends of generated by two GNSS equipment in the two substations.
the line to simulate a normal load condition in the line. This means
that the two instruments will inject the same current with 180◦ phase
shift if the injection is done in accordance with Fig. 1. Due to the
• Correct measurement of injected currents by both protection
duration of the test, the two test devices at both line ends need to be
devices in terms of module and phase angle.
effectively time synchronized [1–4] .
• Measurement of a negligible differential current (ideally zero).
This simulation enables the verification of the following:
Once the through load simulation is verified, a phase rotation of
Emails: [email protected] (Andrea Bonetti), 180◦ is generated by one test set to simulate an internal fault. During
[email protected] (Mauro Borrielli), this phase, the following aspects are verified:
[email protected] (Ali Hussain),
• The protection devices measure a significant increase in the
[email protected] (Niclas Wetterstrand)
differential current, potentially leading to relay tripping based
© 2024 UANL. All rights reserved. on relay settings, without a significant change in the restraining
2 Andrea Bonetti et al.: Verifying line differential protection with time synchronised, primary end-to-end testing using a . . .

current (bias current, if this information is available at the relay frequency) would be generated, and this phase shift would generated
HMI). a “false differential current,” in case of through load simulation, for
• The protection devices will show a phase shift of the phase example. To overcome this problem, a trigger signal’s accuracy to be
current 180 degrees compared to the previous injection and in the range of a few microseconds is used.
measure the same phase currents in module. As the duration of this test is in general very short, in the order of
Due to the complexity of the test setup, the minimum requirements few hundred of milliseconds, it is not required that the two internal
are: clocks of the two test instruments are time synchronized to each-
• Single phase injection of I ≥ 150 A.
others: the drift generated by the different clock accuracies of the
• Minimum test duration 30 minutes, to allow the test engineers
two test equipment creates a negligible phase shift within the testing
located at the two substations, to comfortably carry all the time.
necessary measurement from the relay’s HMISs, take notes etc. Currently, there are several methods in use, with the traditional
one being the Go-NoGo test. This test involves a sequence of 3 states
for each test set:
2. Motivations for the test • Waiting for the trigger signal.
• Pre-fault state: In this state, the currents remain the same, but
The Middle East’s electrical infrastructure is rapidly expanding
the angles are opposite (Figure 2, upper part) and the protection
due to population growth, economic development, urbanization,
relay is not expected to operate.
increased electricity consumption, renewable energy initiatives, re-
• Fault state: Here, the angle at one end is rotated by 180◦ (see
gional connections, and government investments. This surge in
Fig. 2, bottom part). The protection relay is expected to operate.
demand requires contractors to expand power generation and trans-
mission capabilities, leading to time constraints during project exe- These tests involve calculating the magnitude and phase angles
cution. Meeting tight schedules can impact work quality and project of secondary currents, which accurately reflect the primary currents
success. One common issue during installation and commissioning depicted in Fig. 2. To achieve this, the test engineer must take into
is wiring errors or mistakes in relay settings, particularly related to account various factors, including the CT connections, their polarity
line differential protection. The goal is to identify errors made at any (earthling points), CT ratios, and the relay settings associated with
stage, including with CTs, in a relatively straightforward manner. relay analog inputs. However, it is important to acknowledge that
this task can be challenging and requires careful attention.

3. Line differential protection is increasing its popularity

5. The primary end to end tests
In medium voltage networks, often the preferred main line pro-
tection relay is often the numerical line differential protection due The secondary injection end-to-end test excludes the CT circuits, as
to its easy settings, reliability, and sensitivity. For backup, the line explained implicitly in the previous paragraph. With an end-to-end
distance protection is activated if the communication link fails. This primary injection test on the CTs at the two line ends as shown in
protection requires more expertise in setting calculations but offers Fig. 3.
the advantage of “remote backup” to control the local circuit breaker When simulating a through load condition, it is possible to verify
in case a remote breaker should not operate for any reason. Certain that the two protection devices:
zones like underreaching and instantaneous zone 1 remain blocked
during line differential protection, while time-delayed overreaching
backup zones can still be active. If the communication link fails, the
instantaneous underreaching zone 1 is released, providing reasonable
protection for the line. This example shows the importance of line
differential protection and its increasing popularity. Consequently,
it becomes crucial to provide user-friendly and reliable tools and
methods to commissioning engineers, thereby expediting the com-
missioning process and reducing the burden on them.
Fig. 2. Primary currents for the pre-fault and fault states for secondary
injection.
4. Line differential protection scheme with secondary injection
tests

To test the line differential protection scheme, the relays placed at

both ends of the line must receive currents from two separate test kits
through secondary injection tests. However, since the instruments do
not share the same phase angle reference, the so-called end-to-end
test can be performed if two things are ensured:
• Both instruments can control the phase angle at the start of the
test.
• They initiate the current injection simultaneously.

To achieve this simultaneity, a trigger signal with a highly accurate

GNSS time source, accurate to within microseconds, is generally used
Fig. 3. Set-up and connections for the primary injection tests at both line
(see Fig. 1). If the two test sets starts within a relative delay of 1 ends.
millisecond, a phase shift of 18 degrees (at the 50 Hz power system
 XVI Simposio Iberoamericano Sobre Protección de Sistemas Eléctricos de Potencia (2024) 1–4 3

• Accurate measurement of the injected currents. Table 2. Power needed to inject 150 A into various cable lengths and
• Measurement of identical (or similar) restraining currents. cross-sections.
• Measurement of negligible (if not zero) differential current. The
relay is expected not to operate. Cross R Burden Required
R
section 2 × 40 m at 150 A voltage
Subsequently, the test proceeds by reversing (180 degrees phase (Ω/km)
(mm2 ) (mΩ) (W) (V)
shift) the current generated at one line end to simulate an internal
fault. During this phase, the line differential protection devices will 16 1.15 92.0 2070 13.8
measure the following:
25 0.727 58.2 1309 8.7
• Accurate measurement of the injected currents.
• Measurement of identical (or similar) restraining currents.
35 0.524 41.9 943 6.3
• Measurement of a higher differential current, and depending on 50 0.387 31.0 697 4.6
the relay settings, the protection relay may operate. 70 0.268 21.4 482 3.2
This comprehensive testing procedure allows an instant verification
of the correctness of the CT connection, CT polarities, CT ratios, and
relay settings related to analog inputs for the line differential protec- instruments’ frequencies are not exactly the same due to crystal
tion. In essence, it ensures that the calculations and tests conducted differences, even with high accuracy. Assuming a 2 ppm accuracy,
with secondary injection tests are reliable from the perspective of line a 50 Hz frequency corresponds to ±100 µHz. With errors in the
differential protection. same direction, the frequency difference is negligible, but in opposite
As far as the measurement is concerned, the goal is to directions, it can be up to 200 µHz. Assuming a 50 µHz difference,
• Inject enough current in the CT primary side. there will be a phase angle drift over time of 0.018◦ /s. If both
• Have full control of the relative phase angles between the cur- instruments generate the frequency for 30 minutes, the relative
rents injected at the two line-ends. phase angle will drift by 32.4◦ , leading to inconclusive test results.
• Keep the current injection long enough to allow the personnel The small 50 µHz frequency difference makes simultaneous starting
to perform the necessary measurements. with unsynchronized clocks unsuitable. The solution is continuous
To execute this test, a few important details should be noted: synchronization with a reference clock. After achieving 1 microsec-
• The protection scheme should provide accurate measurements ond accuracy in time synchronization, the phase shift caused by
from 10% of the nominal line current, equivalent to about 10% long-time injection remains constant. Any drift, like temperature-
of the CT primary ratings. For lines with a rated current around induced, is corrected through continuous time synchronization with
2000 A, a test current of approximately 200 A is sufficient. the reference clock, which generates an accurate 1-pps signal every
• The power utility requesting this test method deems 150 A second, ensuring a sufficient 1 µs time accuracy for our work. This
injected on the primary side of the CT at both line ends to be precision aligns with modern test instruments, particularly those
more than adequate for their needs. capable of generating IEC 61850 Sampled Values, where precise
• The test duration should be a minimum of 30 minutes for con- clock synchronization within microseconds for protection functions
ducting onsite measurements. This allows the operator enough utilizing phase angles are necessary.
time to move around the installation and verify that all devices When the test instruments meet the latest requirements, the test
are correctly measuring the expected currents. becomes straightforward:
The main challenges for these tests are the test set’s power genera- • Connect the time source to both instruments.
tion and the continuous time synchronization. • Set the desired current for each line-side, for example:
The test current must be injected through a relatively long test lead, Side 1: 150 A @ 0◦ and Side 2: 150 A @ 180◦ .
typically ranging from 20 to 40 meters, to reach the CT terminals. • Start the injection at one end: the relay may operate since the
Therefore, the instrument used for the test must have sufficient power other end is still at zero (dependent on relay settings).
to push the current through this test lead. There are units that can • Start the injection at the other end, and the relay –if operated-
provide the following output characteristics (see Table 1). will reset the operation.
Regular literature offers typical cable resistance values based on • Continue the injection until all required measuring activities are
their cross-sections. Table 2 summarizes the power needed to inject completed.
150 A into various cable lengths and cross-sections. To achieve this • Stop the test at both ends.
current level, the test lead’s cross-section, which carries most of the All previously described tests can be performed with ease.
burden, must be larger than 35 mm2 , indicated in green. Instruments
with higher compliance voltage can push the current over longer
distances. 6. Field experience
Regarding time synchronization, starting the injection simultane-
ously based on instrument frequency accuracy poses an issue. The With reference to the simulation of a through load, each individual
current source is connected to a copper bar (see Fig. 4(a)), which is
then connected to a thick cable leading to the primary side of the CT.
Table 1. Instrument output characteristics. The connections to the CT are shown in Fig. 4(b).
The current injected exceeded 180 A with a max output voltage
Max current Compliance voltage
of a few volts, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The field test was conducted
(A) (V)
on a compact GIS substation, which did not need lengthy test leads.
6 × 32/200 VA As a result, the instrument’s burden was minimized, leading to a low
6.67 output voltage. Fig. 5(b) shows the measurements that were done
1 × 192/1200 VA
from the relay HMIs. The measurements were successful even when
4 Andrea Bonetti et al.: Verifying line differential protection with time synchronised, primary end-to-end testing using a . . .

connections to the relay based on the drawings, particularly important

for multifunction relays that may share CT connections for other
protection functions.

References
[1] Keith Lee, Dale Finney, Normann Fischer, and Bogdan Kasztenny “Testing
Considerations for Line Current Differential Schemes”.
[2] Mauro Borrielli and Ali Hussain, Megger Middle East: Application note
“Line Differential Protection, GPS-synchronized primary injection test -
The Megger approach”.
(a) [3] Mauro Borrielli and Ali Hussain, Megger Middle East: Application note
“Line Differential Protection - GPS-synchronized primary injection test
using a standard secondary injection test kit - Test procedure”.
[4] Dhanabal Mani, Megger Dallas: “End to End Testing Using Satellite
Synchronization Signals in RTMS”.

(b)
Fig. 4. Connections from the test set to the field: (a) source side and (b)
CT side. (a)

performing the test for the other phases and when simulating internal
fault scenarios. This confirms that the CT connections and all related
wiring were executed perfectly, resulting in a successful test field and
a satisfied end user.

7. Conclusions

Including CTs in the line differential test enhances confidence in

the protection circuit’s proper functioning. Test systems can deliver a
current of up to 5% of the nominal current (minimum 150 A) with (b)
the required compliance voltage through suitable test leads. This
Fig. 5. Current injection: (a) injected current and (b) related voltage and
test serves as a final and complementary step to other secondary and measurements from relay HMIs.
primary injection tests, which verify CT polarity, CT ratio, and CT