CIGRÉ-529 2014 CIGRÉ Canada Conference

21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS International Center

http : //www.cigre.org Toronto, Ontario, September 22-24, 2014

R&D and innovation Project: using a controlled switching device for a power
transformer application in Red Eléctrica de España

Ramón Cano-González1 Pierre Taillefer2 Gabriel Alvarez-Cordero3

Seville University Vizimax REE
Spain Canada Spain

Alfonso Bachiller-Soler Aziz Ijdir Cristina Gómez-Simón Jose Antonio Rosendo-Macías

Seville University Vizimax REE Seville University
Spain Canada Spain Spain

SUMMARY

The primary objective of Red Eléctica de España (REE, Spanish Transmission System
Operator) for the Mallorca Island project was to do field validation of power transformer
energization control switching strategies. These strategies involve the mitigation of the inrush
current during power transformer energization to safe and acceptable levels for the HV
equipment such as transformers and switchgear.
Uncontrolled energization of power transformers can produce excessive inrush currents as a
result of the asymmetrical magnetic flux and core saturation. One of the most critical effects
is voltage dips maintained over time, which in some cases harms the electrical system
stability. In addition, high inrush current produces thermal problem, increased vibration and
mechanical stress and can result in protection relays malfunctioning. For these reasons, a
study of the different parameters impacting the inrush current was first conducted. Stochastic
studies, with EMTP-ATP (over 10 000 cases) used to determine the worst case inrush current
have been tested with a RTDS (Real Time Digital Simulator) to analyze mitigation strategies.
Further to these studies, it was decided to proceed with the controlled switching approach
with the residual flux measurement for the reduction of the inrush current. Basically, the
inrush current can be mitigated by controlling the instant the transformer is energized based
on the magnitude of the residual flux in the transformer core. Compared to traditional CSD
technique that controls both the C/B opening and closing at fixed angles, the advantage of
measuring the residual flux is that the inrush current is mitigated even if the transformer de-
energization is uncontrolled (protection trip for example).
After doing a market study, REE has procured and installed a CSD relay to control the
energization of a 160 MVA, 230/70.9/24 kV, YNyn0d11 power transformer. The site is

1 ramoncano@us.es
2 ptaillefer@vizimax.com
3 galvarez@ree.es
located in Mallorca Island (Spain) where a large inrush current could result in excessive
voltage drops in the supply system. The transformer was installed in a substation with a one
and a half circuit breaker scheme and energized by an independent pole-operated SF6 gas
circuit breaker.
As a first commissioning step, closing time of the circuit breaker has been measured during a
no-load test to determine its average value, mechanical scatter and RDDS value (Rate of
Decrease of Dielectric Strength). The parameters are of a great importance for the optimum
control of the inrush current since the optimum closing moment is variable in accordance to
the residual flux, the network frequency and voltage magnitude.
In the next steps, energized bus bar tests performed over several open-close operations
allowed readjustments in the operating time and RDDS to achieve CSD optimum
performance. The commissioning technique allowed the control of the inrush current event if
all the parameters were to be still measured. As a result, the inrush current was progressively
totally eliminated during power transformer energization, even if the transformer de-
energization was uncontrolled. The Mallorca Island project is a success story.

KEYWORDS

Inrush Current, Power Transformer, Circuit Breaker, Closing Time, Rate of Decrease of Dielectric
Strength, Controlled Switching Device.

1 ramoncano@us.es
2 ptaillefer@vizimax.com
3 galvarez@ree.es
1. INTRODUCTION

When a transformer is energized by an utility, it can produce a high inrush current from
transients in the transformer magnetic flux. It can also produce a large voltage drop, so there
is a risk for the Electrical System associated with a false tripping of the protective relays. In
addition, other phenomena can appear like mechanical stress and heat in the coils of the
transformer, sympathetic inrush in neighbor transformers, etc.

Red Eléctrica de España (REE), as the TSO1 of the

Spanish electricity system, has the mission to ensure the
continuity and security of the electricity supply and the
correct coordination of the power generation and
transmission system. Additionally, it transports electricity
and builds, maintains and operates the transmission
facilities.
Figure 1. Spanish Transmission grid

The peninsular transmission grid (interconnected with the rest of Europe) has not had inrush
current problems. Planning studies for the insular transmission grid have found, in some
future substations, a probability of risk associated with inrush currents (under certain
topological configurations of the transmission grid and generation). For this reason, REE is
analyzing solutions like using low inrush current transformers or switching strategies like the
controlled switching devices (CSD). The switching strategies are the purpose of this
experience. Other alternatives like energizing with ramp up generation, pre-insertion resistors,
install multiple smaller transformers, etc. were not considered.

For this reason, REE decided acquire real experience with the controlled switching devices in
an island substation, with three power transformers 160 MVA 230/70.9/24 kV, YNyn0d11
and GIS circuit breakers. The steps followed were:

1. Theoretical study of the switching strategies (IEEE, CIGRÉ, IEC, etc.)

2. Analysis of different controlled switching device manufacturers.
3. Functional analysis of the CSD with statistical studies in EMTP-ATP
4. Functional analysis of the real CSD in the REE RTSD2 laboratory
5. Field tests. The purpose was that the CSD measured the residual flux, after opening, and
decided the optimum point on the voltage wave to close.

2. CHOOSING THE CONTROLLED SWITCHING DEVICE TECHNOLOGY

Over the last decades, several methods have been proposed to remove transformer inrush
currents. The main techniques for suppression of magnetizing inrush currents include
insertion of resistance, series compensator [1], removal of residual flux, sequential phase
energization with a grounding resistor [2] and controlled switching [3],[4].
Controlled switching of circuit-breakers, which is already commonly applied for applications
such as switching of capacitor banks and shunt reactors, is one of these solutions that can
provide several technical and economical benefits.

1
Transmission System Operator
2
Real Time Digital Simulator

3
The magnitude of the transient inrush current depends basically on two factors: the point on
the voltage wave at the instant in which the transformer is energized and the value and sign of
the residual flux in the transformer core [4].
Recently, advanced controllers taking into account the residual flux in a transformer core has
been installed and has demonstrated good performance in the field. This controller can
significantly suppress inrush currents in case of transformer energization.
The characteristics of circuit breakers such as the rate of decrease of dielectric strength
(RDDS), the mechanical scatter of the operating times and the idle time dependence are
essential to the success of controlled switching. Therefore, Controlled Switching Devices
must be able to compensate these operating time variations due to ambient temperature
changes, variations in auxiliary voltage for the circuit breaker coils and idle time.

3. CONDUCTING THE SIMULATION STUDIES AND PREDICTING THE

RESULTS

A wide simulation study has been conducted comparing the benefits of using CSDs versus
non controlled transformer energization. The effect of changes in the closing time and in the
RDDS has also been studied.
The simulations have been carried out using EMTP-ATP [5], where besides the power
transformer, the network, the circuit breaker, and the CSD algorithm have been modeled.

The test system used in the simulations, figure 2, is Voltage signals CSD
open/close commands

composed by a 220 kV, 50Hz source voltage and a 160

MVA, 230/70.9/24 kV, YNyn0d11, three-legged-core 220 kV
160 MVA
230/70.9/24 kV
V

V
transformer. 50Hz
I Y Y
XFMR

Figure 2. EMTP-ATP model

The transformer has been modeled using a hybrid model transformer, whose parameters have
been obtained from standard test data provided by manufacturer. Hybrid model can retain a
residual flux value after de-energization and can give an accurate representation of the
transformer core [6],[7].
In the circuit breaker model, the two main parameters affecting the operation: the closing time
and the RDDS. In the simulations carried out, both parameters have been modeled with
uniform distributions around their nominal values, within a ±3% interval in case of the closing
time, and ±20% in case of RDDS.

The CSD algorithm considers a Delayed Control Strategy which can be summarizing as
follows:
1. The residual fluxes are obtained by integrating the corresponding phase voltages.
2. The phase with the highest absolute value of the residual flux is closed first when the
residual flux is equal to the prospective flux. The prospective flux is the flux which would
be created if the supply source was connected to the transformer at the steady state
condition.
3. The two remaining phases are closed after a programmable number of half-cycles after the
nearest zero-crossing of the phase that closes first. For these simulations, the number of
half-cycles is set to 9.
Using the test system described above, 10 000 simulations have been carried out. In each of
them, the circuit breaker is randomly opened in order to generate residual flux conditions.
After that, the case values for RDDS and closing time are randomly taken within their

4
respective intervals, as stated above and the energization process is started using the Delayed
Transformer Strategy. At each simulation, the maximum current in the energization process is
registered.

For comparison purposes, another set of 10 000 simulations have been carried out without the
use of any CSD, just using a three-pole circuit 1.4
Uncontrolled energization
breaker in which all the three poles are closed 1.2
Controlled energization

simultaneously at a random time instant.

The RDDS and the mechanical scatter of the 1

Current peak [pu]

operating times have significant effect on the 0.8

performance of controlled switching. However,

0.6
even in the cases with larger deviations in these
parameters, the registered maximum inrush 0.4

currents are much smaller than in the case of 0.2

uncontrolled energization, as seen in figure 3,
where both sets of simulations are ordered for 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Simulations
decreasing maximum currents.
Figure 3. Inrush current distribution

4. DESIGNING THE CONTROLLED SWITCHING DEVICE INTEGRATION

The CSD integration engineering was done by the REE personal with the implication of the
CSD manufacturer for the verification of the drawings. The following diagram shows the
CSD interfaces with the substation equipment [8].

Figure 4. CSD in its operating environment

Since the CSD was retrofitted in an existing C/B installation, the implication of the REE
personal had several objectives:
 Improve the general knowledge of the CSD device by having an implication in the project
 Since they had the best knowledge of the substation, they could optimize the installation
cost by best choosing the installation and cabling strategy.
It was decided to do the CSD installation in the substation control room since all the CSD
required interface signals were already wired to the protection & measurement relays.
By a choosing a CSD with residual flux measurement capabilities, there was no significant
benefit of controlling the opening of the C/B. However, the delayed control strategy used by
the CSD sets the requirements for specific C/B characteristics:
 The C/B must be operated pole by pole (IPO: independent pole operated)
 Its RDDS (Rate of Decrease of Dielectric Strength) must be greater than 0.8 PU
 Its mechanical scatter (3 x standard deviation) must be less than ±1.2ms

5
The delayed closing strategy is the most field-proven one in terms of eliminating inrush
currents during large power transformer energization. It is based on the accurate measurement
of the transformer core residual flux resulting of its de-energization. The residual flux is
calculated from the transformer voltage being continuously monitored by the CSDs. When
closing the C/B, the phase with the highest residual flux is closed first at an angle that would
produce the same prospective flux.
An important aspect of the CSD installation was its integration into the REE communication
network for remote access support from the mainland, including CSD, C/B and load events
reporting and CSD configuration. The access to the CSD is granted using a secured internal
web interface available only for REE authorized users. In order to enhance the cyber security
of the installation, the CSD secured web interface do not support remote C/B operations.

5. CSD INITIAL COMMISSIONING STEPS

After the CSD was installed wired and powered, the first commissioning step was the system
configuration done by downloading the CSD configuration that was prepared in advance but
that had to be modified according to the in situ C/B timing measurements (see figure 5).
Although the 3 poles of the circuit breaker are identical, the operating time of each pole may
differ slightly and must be processed individually based on the measured performance of the
C/B. Since a precise closing is desired, the performance was measured over 20 de energized
operations, including:
 The mechanical closing time of each pole
 The 52a auxiliary contact change relative to the close command
These tests are also used to evaluate the mechanical stability
of the C/B to confirm its suitability for the application. The
52a contact is used as a C/B diagnostic tool and for the
automatic adjustment of the next C/B operation based on the
timing measurement error resulting from the previous
operations (adaptive control).
Figure 5. Relation between main
chamber and auxiliary contact

Once the CSD configuration has been completed, few operations were executed with the C/B
unloaded to verify that it was driven correctly from the CSD.

Loaded operations: dynamic system verifications and RDDS determination

When energizing the power transformer for the first time with the CSD (see figure 6), the
residual flux resulting from the previous de-energization is unknown. In this case, the best
energization technique that minimize the inrush current is to close the first phase at maximum
voltage (phase “4” followed by the simultaneous closing of the two other phases from one to
11 half cycles later (phases “0” and “8”).

Figure 6. Inrush current of the first controlled closing operation with unknown residual fluxes

6
During this first operation, no inrush current resulted from the closing of the first phase, but
slight inrush current appeared upon closing the 2 other phases (-0.27 PU and 0.7 PU). Using
the CSD integrated waveform recording, it was determined that all the C/B poles were closing
about 1.6ms later than expected, due to an under-estimation of the C/B RDDS from 1.2 PU
(manufacturer data ) to 2 PU (measured performance from the first operation).

Figure 7. Closing moments for the first controlled closing operation

After initial adjustment of the RDDS CSD parameter, the C/B was opened, resulting in valid
phases residual flux calculations with an arithmetic sum equal to 0.

Figure 8. CSD Calculated residual fluxes resulting from the first opening

Finalizing the commissioning

Each C/B operation subsequent to the initial transformer energization provided more
information about the C/B behavior, allowing a better tuning of the CSD parameters. The next
table summarize the maximum inrush current resulting from the tests performed over a two
days testing. Besides the first operation resulting in a 0.7 PU inrush current (closing at
maximum voltage), 60% of the operations resulted in an inrush current less than 0.1 PU.

Figure 9. Summary of energized tests

However, events 6 and 14 were showing an excessive and unexpected inrush current during
the closing. A careful examination of the captured waveforms and timing calculations done by
the CSD indicated that for these events, C/B closing occurred over 2 ms faster than expected
(see figure 10). A further investigation revealed that for these 2 cases, the time difference
between the C/B open and close operations (idle time) was less than 1 minute. More tests and
investigation should be done on the C/B drive mechanism to determine the required idle time
compensation for this C/B.
7
 Figure 10. Mechanical deviation of phase 0, closing operation n°14

6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes the process followed to validate the CSD technology in a REE power
transformer.
Of all the operations that were made during the two test days in the 220 kV substation, only
two of them had relative high inrush current (< 1.7 PU), probably due to the fact that the
closing time was over 2 ms faster, we are analyzing the reason for this, but the reason could
be that the time elapsed between operations was very short (< 1 minute), and that is not a real
situation.
In conclusion, the tests were a success, the CSD technology has demonstrated to be mature
and ready to solve the problems associated with high inrush currents. Though it should take
into account that one of the keys is that the circuit breakers have predictable or repetitive
closing times, include the deviations associate with the idle time operation, etc.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project has been possible thanks to a R&D project promoted by REE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] J.-L. Shyu, “A novel control strategy to reduce transformer inrush currents by series compensator,”
in Power Electronics and Drives Systems, 2005. PEDS 2005. International Conference on, vol.
2, 2005, pp. 1283– 1288.
[2] Y. Cui, S. G. Abdulsalam, S. Chen, and W. Xu, “A sequential phase energization technique for
transformer inrush current reduction - part i: Simulation and experimental results,” Power
Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 943–949, 2005.
[3] J. H. Brunke and K. J. Frohlich, “Elimination of transformer inrush currents by controlled
switching. part 1,” Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 276–280, 2001.
[4] J. C. Oliveira, C. E. Tavares, R. Apolonio, A. B. Vasconcellos, and H. S. Bronzeado, “Transformer
controlled switching to eliminate inrush current - part i: Theory and laboratory validation,” in
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition: Latin America, 2006. TDC ’06.
IEEE/PES, 2006, pp. 1–5.
[5] ATP/EMTP Rule Book, Canadian-American EMTP Users Group

[6] N. Chiesa, B. A. Mork, and H. K. Høidalen, “Transformer model for inrush current calculations:
Simulations, measurements and sensitivity analysis,” Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2599–2608, 2010.
[7] B. A. Mork, F. Gonzalez, D. Ishchenko, D. L. Stuehm, and J. Mitra. “Hybrid transformer model
for transient simulation-part i: Development and parameters,” Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 248–255, 2007.
[8] Synchroteq plus, User Manual, v5.5. Vizimax, 2012.