Achieving Excellence

A Fingerprint Even Sherlock Holmes

Wouldn’t Recognize

A
current transformer (CT) has unique characteristics similar to a
fingerprint. In the world of criminal investigation, the fingerprint
is used to identify the suspect because that fingerprint can be
by Rod Olinger
matched to the very person who left the print. Just as in the criminal Electro-Test, Inc.
investigation, the CT fingerprint can be critical in understanding the per-
formance of electrical equipment.
This article discusses current transformers used for circuit protection.
Having identified the suspect in our investigation (the CT) we must first
determine what a CT fingerprint looks like. (meaning the ratio must be deter-
mined by test). This letter designa-
What Is a CT Fingerprint? tion is followed by the voltage re-
Let us start by reviewing CT ratings and typical tests performed to quired to drive 20 times the rated
“fingerprint” the CT. From this information a picture of the fingerprint secondary current, through a con-
can be formed. CTs are rated according to several parameters: BIL, sys- nected burden, with a ratio error
tem voltage, frequency, primary and secondary current, accuracy class, that does not exceed ten percent.
continuous thermal current, and short-time mechanical/thermal current. The saturation test is the typical
This information is found on the manufacturer’s literature and on the test performed to fingerprint a CT.
data plate of the CT. The saturation point of the CT is
The rated primary and secondary current is given as a ratio — i.e., determined by applying a voltage
800:5, where 800 amperes on the primary produces five amperes on the to the secondary terminals of the
secondary. The accuracy for metering CTs is given as the percent accu- CT (with the primary winding
racy at a given burden. For metering CTs, burden designations include open-circuited) and measuring the
B-0.1, B-0.2, B-0.5, B-0.9, and B-1.8. For relaying CTs burden designations current flow as the voltage is in-
include B-1, B-2, B-4, and B-8. These designations represent the CTs’ abil- creased. When the voltage versus
ity to drive rated current through the impedance of the secondary cir- current data is collected at suffi-
cuit. As an example, the designation B-0.1 indicates that the CT will pro- cient points to plot an accurate
duce the rated secondary current within the stated accuracy. curve, the outline of the fingerprint
For metering CTs the accuracy, given as a percent, is listed for all the can be determined.
design burdens of that CT. An example would be 0.3B-0.1, 0.3B-0.2, 0.6B-
0.5, 1.2B0.9, and 2.4B-1.8 for a single model of CT. For a relaying CT the
accuracy rating is given as C (meaning the ratio can be calculated) or T

Fall 2002 1

Figure 1
Please note in Figure 1 the position of the applied
(excitation) voltage on the vertical axis and the mea-
sured (excitation) current on the horizontal axis. The
data is plotted log-log and the graph shows that the
current rises together linearly with the voltage until it
reaches a nonlinear point, after which the current sig-
nificantly rises with only a slight increase of applied
voltage. The knee of the graph represents the satura-
tion of the CT core. In application, this means that the
saturation voltage determined in the test is the maxi-
mum voltage the CT can deliver to drive current
through the secondary circuit while maintaining a
specified accuracy.
Understanding the Fingerprint
Now that we have an outline of the fingerprint we
need the details necessary to uniquely identify all of
its characteristics. To identify those details, we must
understand all the information that may be gained
through reading the graph, as well as the performance
properties that may change the shape of the curve.
One important performance quality that can be mea-
sured by a CT fingerprint and the above test is the
point at which the error is expected to exceed the
nameplate rating of the CT. Error is the difference be-
tween the actual measured ratio and the nameplate
ratio. This difference can occur within normal operat-
ing levels or at overcurrent levels.
Figure 3 shows four methods for determining the
point at which any increase in excitation voltage will
cause a ratio error greater than the CT nameplate rat-
ing. The first method, described by IEEE/ANSI
C57.13, is to determine the maximum secondary volt-
age that can be produced within the rated ratio error
(2.5 percent in our example above) at 20 times the rated
2 NETA WORLD
Figure 2
secondary current. The rated secondary current is typi-
cally five amperes. So 20 times five amperes is 100
amperes. The second method described by IEEE/
ANSI C57.13 establishes the maximum excitation volt-
age by plotting the excitation curve and then estab-
lishing the point at which a 45° line intersects the knee
of the curve. The maximum excitation voltage would
then be indicated on the vertical axis of the graph.
The third method is to draw extending lines from the
unsaturated slope and saturated curve. The maximum
excitation voltage would then be indicated on the ver-
tical axis of the graph. The fourth method involves
testing. The excitation voltage is raised until a ten per-
cent increase in the excitation voltage produces a 50
percent increase in the excitation current.
Why is it important to know the point at which the
voltage and current relationship becomes nonlinear?
The answer is accuracy. Accuracy will be affected if
the burden (the voltamperes of output required by the
secondary circuit) is too high. It should not be more
than five percent of the maximum volt-amperes,
which the CT can drive while retaining a linear rela-
tionship between excitation voltage and current. Oth-
erwise, under fault conditions the CT will operate in
the nonlinear area and the secondary will have a
greater than acceptable error. Breakers may not trip
when they should.
With an understanding of details contained within
the saturation curve and the CT rating, a real finger-
print emerges. With this fingerprint the operational
condition of a CT over time can be analyzed. The CT
fingerprint is particularly valuable in trending CT
performance, since it allows a careful comparison from
one test to the next. Additionally, the suitability of a
CT can be analyzed.
 To fully describe the characteristics of the CT, other
tests — such as polarity, ratio, and insulation resis-
tance — should also be performed. The results of ex-
citation and insulation resistance tests can be trended.
Fully understanding CTs will help us develop excel-
lence in the operation and maintenance of power dis-
tribution equipment and systems.

Rod Olinger is the Manager of Training Services for Electro-

Test, Inc. and is focused on providing custom training to clients.
Rod has been working in field service and training in the power
industry for over twenty years. He is a NETA Certified Sr. Techni-
cian, Level IV.

Figure 3

The following case study demonstrates the

importance of CT fingerprinting:
An engineer supervising the installation of medium
voltage switchgear questioned the ability of the CTs
installed to be able to drive the electromechanical re-
lays connected to the secondaries. A power system
studies engineer reviewed the performance specifi-
cations of the CTs and calculated the connected bur-
den. Electromechanical relays have a relatively high
burden with the exact burden dependent upon the
tap setting. Calculating the relay settings is the first
step. With the relay burden values plus the resistance
of the interconnecting wiring, the total burden of the
secondary circuit was calculated. It was found that
many of the installed CTs could not provide sufficient
voltamperes to provide for 20 times the nominal cur-
rent (five amperes) output or 100 amperes. However,
the available fault current, based on the fault study,
was below 20 times the nominal current. As it turned
out, most of the relays were capable of providing the
voltamperes necessary to provide accurate secondary
fault current at the maximum available fault current.
Only one of the CTs had to be replaced to ensure there
would be sufficient voltamperes. (See Figure 3)

Fall 2002 3