CT SATURATION CALCULATIONS ARE THEY APPLICABLE IN THE MODERN WORLD?

? PART IV: CT SIZING AS PER IEC STANDARDS AND THE BENEFITS OF NON CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS
Copyright Material IEEE Paper No. PCICPierre Bertrand
Schneider Electric Grenoble, France

Dr. Michael Mendik

ABB Inc. Mount Pleasant, PA, USA

Terence Hazel
Senior Member, IEEE Schneider Electric Grenoble France

Pascal Tantin
Chairman, IEC TC38 EDF R&D Paris, France

Abstract The previous parts of this series of papers was dedicated to current transformers (CTs) designed and tested according to ANSI standards. The determination and specification of CTs for applications based on North American practices was also discussed. This part presents many of the same themes as the previous parts including test results, but from the viewpoint of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards and practices outside of North America. Although Ohms law and Maxwells equations are the same everywhere, how CTs are specified and the responsibility of the different actors can be very different. It is important for engineers to be aware of these differences when executing applications in different parts of the world. Index Terms CT saturation, X/R ratio, CT burden, Accuracy class, CT accuracy, Low Power CT, Electronic instrument transformers I. INTRODUCTION

II.

CT SIZING AS PER IEC STANDARDS

Traditional CTs require a magnetic circuit in order to transmit power from the high-voltage conductors where current is to be measured, to the low-voltage devices using these measured values. Magnetic circuits however can saturate resulting in a much different waveform and value of current in the secondary winding than flowing through the primary winding. This often occurs in industrial applications under fault conditions where it is common to have 50kA flowing through a CT having a primary current of 100A or even less. The severe saturation that results must not however, prevent the correct operation of the protection relay, especially when there is a fault condition. As will be seen in the paper, the IEC standards provide no guidelines in the correct choice of CTs for protection functions it is the responsibility of the protection engineer to make this determination. The paper will describe what IEC standards say about CTs and what the authors recommend regarding the correct selection of the CTs for protection. Test results are given to show the correct operation even during severe CT saturation. The last section of the paper provides information on new technology that is being developed under IEC standards. The new technology will provide solutions to the CT saturation problems and will change the way protection engineers do their business in the years to come.

IEC Technical committee 38 has the responsibility to prepare the instrument transformer standards. Since 1996, instrument transformers standards are collected in the IEC series 60044-X. IEC standards are in general bilingual (English and French). This series is also published in Spanish. Free access to the first pages, including the scope of IEC publications is possible in the IEC web store. Table 1 at the end of this paper gives the list of the different parts. Different accuracy classes are defined. These accuracy classes could be spilt in two main functions: measurement and protection functions. Measurement classes define high accuracy for a restricted variation range of the primary current or voltage. Protection classes define the accuracy for a large variation of the primary current or voltage. Due to the limitation of the classical technology of CTs, it is not possible in general to achieve both accuracy requirements with the same magnetic core. As a consequence different cores are often needed to achieve the different types of functions. New technologies of instrument transformers are able to fulfill both functions. They are described below. Measurement classes specify the amplitude error and the phase error. The manufacturer verifies these errors with a bridge. This is a routine test. Protective classes specify amplitude and phase error for the rated values of current and are also tested with a bridge as a routine test. To test the current transformer (CT) for the higher current, up to the rated accuracy limit primary current, a bridge system measurement could not be used, as the duration of the test has to be less than 1 second (maximum duration of mechanical and thermal withstand test). For this reason, IEC has defined for current transformers the concept of composite error. Composite error takes into account amplitude and phase error in the same error value. It is measured with a special set-up test circuit including a reference CT. To cover the different types of applications IEC has split the specifications of current transformer protective classes in two parts. The first is the IEC 60044-1 in which the specification and the tests are made in steady state conditions; the second is the IEC 60044-6 dedicated to the requirements for transient performance CTs.

A.

Protective classes in steady state conditions As mentioned above, the other definition often used by relay engineers for differential protection is class PX. Class PX CTs are defined based on a knee-point voltage such that Ek=Kn(Rct+Rb)Isn where: Ek = knee-point voltage Kn = dimensioning factor Rct = resistance of secondary winding Rb = rated resistive burden Isn = rated secondary current. The knee-point is defined as the point where the voltage increases only 10% for a 50% increase in the magnetizing current. As the knee-point voltage of a class PX CT is very close to the saturation voltage of a class P CT, it is perfectly possible for the equipment supplier to replace a class PX CT by a class P CT, provided that the internal resistance of the CT is known and the equivalence is clearly demonstrated by a calculation note taking into account the burden of the CT. B. Application to Protection Relays

Three different classes are defined in the IEC 60044-1, the classical class P, and the additional classes PR and PX. In this naming, "P" means Protection. Class P is a very common class, well known and used since years in classical protective applications. The use of this class is described below in this paragraph. In addition to class P specifications, class PR defined the remanent flux after saturation has occurred. The class PR is used for specific differential applications for instance for line or busbar differential protection of high voltage electrical networks. It assumes that all the dynamic measurements permitted by the size of the core are always available. For such behavior the magnetic core has to be designed with an air gap. IEC Class PX was originally defined in British standards. This class gives the possibility to define the size of the core for given applications with other parameters as the concept of knee point. As class PX CTs do not require an air gap, they are less expensive than class PR and their use is more common in industrial networks, for differential protection mainly. The most common class P CTs are 5P and 10P in which the numbers "5" and "10" are the highest permissible percentage error at the rated accuracy limit primary current. This accuracy limit primary current is defined in multiples of rated primary current and the standard values used are 5 10 15 20 and 30. For example a 5P20 CT will have an accuracy of at least 5% at 20 times the rated primary current. In addition to the winding ratio defined as primary current/secondary current, the rated output in VA must be defined. Standard values of rated output (equivalent to the rated burden) are 2.5 5 10 15 and 30 VA, with a power factor of 0.8 inductive for all values except for 2.5 VA where a power factor of 1 is assumed. By definition a 5P20 CT will begin to saturate at 20 times its rated secondary current when loaded at its rated burden. This is shown as point P in Fig. 4 below. At this point the CT accuracy is 5%. At rated burden the rated accuracy limit factor Kn is thus 20. At the rated burden, Vn = Kn(In)(Rct + Rn) where Rn is the resistance of the secondary circuit such as to obtain the rated burden, Rct being the internal resistance of the CT secondary wiring, and Vn being the point on the saturation curve where the maximum error is equal to 5%. Very often however, the CT has a much smaller load than its rated burden and therefore will operate much farther from the saturation point. At this smaller burden, the real rated accuracy limit factor Kr will be much higher than the rated factor Kn. At this burden, Vn = Kn(In)(Rct + Rn) where Rr is the actual burden of the secondary circuit. This fact is often used in the selection of the correct CT for the protection application. From the 2 equations it is seen that

From the above 2 important points can be observed: the real accuracy limit factor increases as CT burden decreases the internal resistance of the CT and the real burden must be known, at least approximately. Thus to demonstrate the adequacy of the selected CT the protection engineer must know the impedance of the secondary load and the internal resistance of the CTs that he is considering to use.

Kr Rct + Rn = . Kn Rct + Rr

We can roughly consider two kinds of protection functions involved in heavy short-circuit detection: overcurrent protection and differential protection. For overcurrent protection, the important factor to be considered is the maximum value of the current which has to be measured accurately. When definite time characteristic is used, this value is the trip setting of the protection. When time-dependant characteristic is used, this value is 20 times the trip setting, since the tripping time of the protection is constant when the current is above this value. For relays which include a countermeasure to overcome the saturation of the CTs, the authors estimate that the following rule applies: The saturation current of the CTs must be higher than 1.5x the maximum value of the current which has to be measured accurately. As a practical example, when the overcurrent protection includes a definite time high-set below 10x the CT rated current, then a P15 rated CT is suitable. Of course, this general rule has to be confirmed by the relay manufacturer and it is up to the protection engineer to validate the suitability of the CT for the selected protection relay. It can be determined by specific simulation studies or high-current testing, as described in this paper. For other types of protection functions, including differential protection, the CT sizing rule may differ from one relay to the other. It is then a key point to follow the CT sizing rule defined by the relay manufacturer. Most of the time, the CT sizing rule refers to a class PX CT due to its inherent more precise definition. As explained above, the IEC standards related to CTs are well adapted to the specification needs of protection relays but it is up to the equipment supplier to validate the choice of the CTs to be used. IEC standards do not provide recommendations for this as is done in North American practice. C. Transient performances of magnetic current transformers

At the end of the sixties, short-circuit currents on interconnected HV networks have reached higher and higher values. To avoid bad consequences of long faults it was decided to open the breakers in shorter time (2 or 3 cycles). New relays were developed using static components and new

instruments transformers able to insure an accurate transient response were designed. IEC started at that time the development of a new standard for CTs. The IEC 60044-6: requirements for protective current transformers for transient performance, is the result of this work. Different classes are specified and designed by TPS, TPX, TPY and TPZ. For instance, TPY classes assume that the CT is able to measure the asymmetric cycles of fault current during an event on an HV network with no saturation of the core. This requires an increase in the size of the core with a factor related to the primary time constant and to design small distributed air gaps. For a primary time constant of 120 ms the size of the core could be 20 times bigger. Using bigger distributed air gaps, TPZ core is a linear CT. In case of asymmetric cycles, these TPZ CTs give a good measurement at industrial frequencies. The asymmetric component is filtered and does not induce saturation. However, the phase error, due to the presence of large air gaps, is higher compare to TPY CT. For more details on these transient CTs, it is suggested to refer to this IEC standard. D. Voltage transformers

For CT sizing, it was considered that the maximum value of the current which has to be measured accurately is 24xCT rated current, which is the highest setting of the overcurrent protection of the relay used for the tests. Under the conditions of use of the CTs, the real accuracy limit factor Kr is

Up to now, the industrial measurements of the voltage are made with magnetic voltage transformers (VTs) up to 150-170 kV. For higher voltage capacitive voltage transformers (CVT) are often used in electrical networks. This arrangement of a capacitive divider with an inductance and a medium voltage magnetic transformer is less expensive compared to magnetic design. CVTs are also used with line traps for PLC data transmission. Compared to magnetic VTs, the CVT is a resonant circuit and transient performances are limited. In general, it is not required to define transient performances for VTs and IEC 60044-2 gives only steady state condition tests for protective classes. In IEC 60044-5 transient performances are specified for CVTs. These classes are only used in HV electrical networks. II. BEHAVIOR OF CTS & RELAYS DURING SHORT CIRCUITS

corresponding with the rated burden), and Kn = 20 (rated accuracy limit factor corresponding with the rated burden). The resulting value for Kr is 140 from the equation above. Since Kr is above 1.5x the maximum value of the current which has to be measured accurately, the CT characteristics match the needs of the overcurrent protection relay. This theoretical conclusion was then validated by primary injection testing, simulation of CT saturation, and simulation of the relay algorithm used for signal processing of the severely distorted CT secondary current waveform. The tests were carried out in a high-power laboratory in France. A 3-phase, 50kA r.m.s. current was injected through the set of 3 CTs for duration of 100ms. The overcurrent protection function of the microprocessor-based relay was set to 1200 A primary current, 50 ms definite time, typical for the short-circuit high-set protection of feeder circuits.

Kr Rct + Rn = with Rn = 2.5 ohms (rated load resistance Kn Rct + Rr

The tests described in this section were recently performed on microprocessor-based protection relays connected to magnetic core CTs as per IEC60044-1, commonly used in Oil & Gas applications. The CTs used in the testing have the following characteristics: Turns ratio: 50A:1A Rated burden: 2.5 VA Accuracy class: 5P Accuracy limit: 20 Winding resistance, Rct: 0.276 Ohms Load resistance: 0.120 Ohms The maximum short-circuit current is 50kA. This is typical of an industrial application where it is common to have smaller sized feeders supplied from the same main switchboard used to supply the majority of the load. This results in a worst-case scenario for the CT low primary current rating and very high primary current during fault conditions. CT saturation will occur very quickly under these conditions.

Figure 1: disturbance record of the relay - phA current and 50ms DT trip signal Fig. 1 shows the disturbance record of the protection relay. The relay input signal is sampled with a dynamic of 402 times the rated current, and the tripping occurs correctly, Since the secondary current of the CTs was recorded, it is possible to compare the real secondary current with the calculated one. For simulation purpose, a Matlab model of the CT has been used, based on the manufacturing characteristics of the CT (number of primary and secondary winding turns, length and section of the magnetic core, magnetizing characteristic of the iron core). Fig. 2 compares measured and calculated values. There is quite a big difference between the two curves, which shows that the air inductance of the CT (the value of the magnetizing inductance when the core is fully saturated) is under-estimated in the model. The behavior of the protection relay has been simulated from the real CT output signal and also from the simulated CT output. In both cases, the simulations resulted in the correct

tripping of the relay. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the current internally calculated by the relay is higher in the case of the real CT secondary current compared to the simulation CT secondary current, as shown in Fig. 3. This means that the CT model is a good basis for demonstrating that the relay operates because it brings higher constraints than those that actually occur.

III. SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE IEC AND ANSI WORLDS A CT/relay software analysis tool has been provided by the IEEE PSRC in order to check the compatibility between CT and relays [2]. The calculation methods used apply correctly to CTs from the IEC world. The tool has been adapted by G. Swift to CTs defined as per IEC60044-1. This tool is more general than the original PSRC one. The frequency can be set to 50 or 60Hz and the secondary current can be 1A or 5A.
100

10

1 0.01

0.1

10

Figure 2: Accuracy of CT saturation models A : measured CT secondary current B: manufacturer's Matlab CT model C: PSRC saturation calculator

Figure 4: CT saturation curve The saturation curve of the 50A:1A CT used for the highpower tests is shown in Fig. 4. It is described in the PSRC saturation calculator by A slope S = 31.5 A saturation voltage Vs = 62V at Is = 1A As a default value for the saturation voltage, it is suggested to choose for Is the rated value of the secondary current (here, 1Amp) and for Vs the result of the above calculation: Vs = (VAn / In) x Kn, where Van is the rated burden, In the rated value of the secondary current and Kn the accuracy limit. In our example, the default value for Vs would be 50V, leading to an underestimation of the secondary current. Fig. 2 compares the output of the PSRC saturation calculator with the recorded CT secondary current. As explained in II, the output of the Matlab CT model is also shown. Both models seem to deliver similar results. Nevertheless, the "Rogowski effect", that is the output of the CT when the iron core is fully saturated, is heavily underestimated by the PSRC saturation calculator. The "Rogowski effect" has a major impact on the behavior of the protection relay. This can be noticed on Fig. 3: The magnitude of the current estimated by the relay is much higher when processed from the true CT secondary current than from the output of the PSRC saturation calculator. As a conclusion, we consider that 1- an accurate simulation of CT saturation is difficult to achieve and requires detailed CT manufacturing data. 2- simplified CT simulation as provided by PSRC or relay manufacturers systematically under-estimate the CT secondary current and can be used to prove the good behavior of the protection relay, in both the ANSI and the IEC worlds.

Figure 3: Magnitude of the fault current processed by the relay A : from CT secondary current B: from manufacturer's Matlab CT model output C: from PSRC saturation calculator output Dotted line: O/C threshold As a conclusion, the authors consider that it is perfectly valid to use simulation models, even though not perfectly accurate, to ensure the proper operation of a protection relay on a specific set of CTs under heavy short-circuit currents. This has been validated by the tests described above. This provides the protection engineer with the tools needed to validate the selection of CTs for his particular application.

IV. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT? In the IEC business world, it is most common that it be the responsibility of the switchgear and controlgear manufacturer (called switchgear vendor hereafter) to select the CTs required to ensure correct operation of the complete protection function. The complete protection function includes the circuit-breaker, auxiliary power supply, the protection relay(s), wiring and the instrument transformers. The selection of the CTs and VTs for each project should be documented by the switchgear vendor. For some projects the client will require submission by the switchgear vendor of this document for review and/or approval. The selection of the CTs by the switchgear vendor will be determined by the type of protection relay used. The characteristics of the CT must meet the requirements stated by the protection relay manufacturer for the particular application. As explained in the previous section, the IEC standards are well adapted for the protection relay manufacturer to express CT sizing rules. It is common practice that the switchgear vendor also chooses the relay since the switchgear vendor best knows how to choose the CT that will meet the protection relay requirements for the application, and at the same time will meet all installation constraints applicable for his gear. It is assumed that the switchgear vendor will use relays from a reputable manufacturer and will know how best to implement them for ensuring correct operation of the protection function as a whole (CT, relay, circuit-breaker). When the switchgear vendor selects all components for use in the complete protection function, it is clearly his responsibility alone to ensure that all components (relay, CTs, VTs, power supply) have been chosen to ensure correct operation. Should the client require the use of a particular component such as a different relay than proposed by the switchgear vendor, then it can be assumed that the client has validated the selection of the relay with respect to the other components chosen by the switchgear vendor. In such cases the responsibility for the correct operation of the protection function as a whole is no longer the sole responsibility of the switchgear vendor, but split between the switchgear vendor and the client. In the case when the switchgear vendor wants to use CTs outside the relay manufacturers specification, he should ask the latter to demonstrate the proper operation of the relay which could, in specific cases, require simulation of the complete protection chain (CTs and relay). This is not an easy exercise. The switchgear manufacturer has many constraints for the installation of CTs within the switchgear, size being one of the main ones. It is easy for a relay manufacturer to specify minimum CT requirements in order to eliminate any risk of incorrect operation without any additional calculations or simulations. It often occurs that these CTs are over designed and simply will not fit within commercially available switchgear. It is under such circumstances that it is necessary to take additional steps to ensure the correct match between relay and CTs. V. THE FUTURE OF ELECTRONIC SENSORS

for this evolution. A. Current standardization work

IEC has developed two standards to cover this evolution: IEC 60044-7 dedicated to electronic voltage transformers and IEC 60044-8 dedicated to electronic current transformers. Electronic instrument transformers (EITs) - generic term which covers current and/or voltage sensors - can use electronic components or not. As examples a resistive divider with a low voltage output, a Rogowsky coil with or without passive or active integrator are considered as EITs as well as optical sensors based on Faraday or Pockels effects. It is possible, due to the low dynamic range of the voltage variations, to use an electronic amplifier with a voltage sensor to produce an output compatible with IEC 60044-2. This is however, not possible for current measurements. For this reason, only low voltage outputs are defined in IEC 60044-8 for current measurements. This is also in accordance with the technologies used. Low power current transformers, which include an internal shunt resistor, are able to deliver only a low voltage output. Similarly for Rogowsky coils. It is also the case of optical sensors, associated with primary or secondary converters to provide the desired output. In addition, IEC 60044-8 standardizes also a digital output for electronic voltage and current transformers. This solution was established before the edition of IEC 61850 published by the IEC TC 57. It was clearly a short-term solution waiting for the publication of the relevant parts 9-1 and 9-2 of IEC 61850. Close collaboration between the working groups in charge of both technical committees has insured that the voltage and current data set of part 9-1 is compatible with IEC 60044-8. Only the protocol for the communication is different. The physical layer for communication could be copper or optical fiber. However, these two solutions were not implemented by protective relay manufacturers. IEC 61850-9-2, which is an Ethernet field bus solution gives more possibilities and was preferred by the relay community. As interoperability in not insured with this alternative solution, the user group UCA which is officially linked with the IEC working group 10 in charge of IEC 61850 (called D Liaison in IEC wording) has published a dedicated specification based on part 9-2, taking into account the interoperability aspect as was done for part 9-1 and IEC 60044-8. This specification is known as UCA 9-2 LE (LE for Light Edition). This specification is the basis for the revision of the IEC 60044-8 by TC 38. B. Optical Current Transformers

For many reasons, manufacturers have been looking at new technologies for voltage and current measurements. The development of electronic components, laser, digital technologies, synthetic insulation, but also the development of digital relays which present a much smaller give an opportunity

Optical current transformers have been used by several utilities in high and medium voltage transmission grids since the mid 90s in North America and Europe. The main value for utilities was seen in revenue metering due to the availability of 1A current outputs interfacing commercially available revenue meters. Reasons for using optical CTs range from wide accuracy specifications, non-conventional mounting possibilities and elimination of insulating oil. As a result of continuous improvements in sensing technology, such as insensitivity to any mechanical vibrations, digital or analogue outputs, optical current transducers have made their way into protective relaying applications.

Two distinctive technologies have emerged based on the same physical phenomenon, the Faraday effect: The polarimetric and interferometric principle of detection. The Faraday effect describes the twist of the angle of the plane of polarized light in the presence of magnetic induction as = V x H x l where V denotes the Verdet constant, a material property, H the magnetic induction and l the distance of light travel. The tilt of the plane polarization is proportional to the applied magnetic induction and thus the primary current. This electro-magnetic physical effect results in three major benefits for installations in high voltage networks: Linearity with respect to current, lack of magnetic saturation Constant sensitivity over a broad range Lack of need for insulating oil; the information is passed through an optical fiber from line to ground which is in itself an insulating dielectricum. In the case of polarimetric sensing technology the light is guided through a 200m multimode fiber and a polarizer into a sensing glass body which encompasses the current carrying conductor, makes one turn and exits the sensor through an analyzer (see Fig. 5). Pending on the tilt of polarization more or less light reaches a diode mounted in the sensing electronics.

substation bus. The sensor head assembly is bolted on a support insulator which is designed to withstand electrodynamic and seismic forces. Fig. 7 depicts a phase of an optical CT rated 550kV.

Figure 7: One phase of a 550kV rated optical CT configured for both protective relaying and revenue metering. The output of the sensing electronics feeding a microprocessor controlled protective relays can be either analog or linear, depending on choice of the manufacturer. As an example, the 200mV rated analog output is defined in IEC60044-8 and IEEE PC37.92/D14 (Standards for Analog Inputs to Protective Relays from Electronic Voltage and Current Transducers).

Figure 5: Linearly polarized light forms one turn around a current carrying conductor and experiences the Faraday effect; changes in polarization translate into intensity changes detected by a diode thus indicating the magnitude of the primary current I1. The optical component can be of either fused Silica (SiO2) or any other optically active material. The sensing optics is mounted in a waterproof enclosure (see Fig. 6), and connected through several fibers embedded in a light polymeric insulator.

Figure 6: The housing for a magneto optical sensor can be used for various kV ratings and primary currents. The sensor head assembly is usually completely oil or SF6 free. NEMA pads for a desired rated current are the interface to the

Figure 8: The linearity of the sensing electronics output is shown as a function of various values of primary rated currents, such as 500A, 1000A and 2000A. Shown is 40X, however 63X can be reached as well leading to a higher output of the amplifying electronics. In contrast to conventional inductive CTs, there are no knee points that need to be considered.

Fig. 8 shows the linearity of the outputs for various values of rated primary currents, which correspond to 200mV outputs. Shown is a maximum output of 8V corresponding to 40X. In case higher requirements on linearity are required the nominal output can be set to 100mV. In industrial applications, where very high fault levels are present, the optical CTs can be calibrated to reach almost any desirable set points for relays. Fig. 9 shows the output of an optical CT compared to the output of a high precision shunt mounted on the same high current bus. The red line shows the output of the optical CT, whereas the green line plots the signal from the resistive shunt and both are perfectly superimposed. The peak of the generated short circuit current was 38kA. There was no injected synthetic transient overvoltage required. The signal from the optical CT was within 0.5% accuracy during the whole signal duration and completely saturation free.

and resistive dividers for voltage measurements. A Rogowski coil is wired around a non-magnetic core. It provides a voltage output related to the derivative of the primary current which thus needs to be electronically integrated before used. It is absolutely saturation-free. The LPCT is manufactured as a standard magnetic-core CT. Its winding is closed by a shunt resistor and the voltage across the resistor is processed by the protection relay. Due to a low resistive load, it is possible to manufacture LPCTs having simultaneously a high saturation current and a metering class accuracy at low current at a cost lower than or equal to a class P CT. Fig. 10 gives an example of such a CT which can be used with a metering class 0.5 between 100A and 1250A and a protection class between 5A and 40kA

Figure 10: Example of LPCT delivering metering-class accuracy and high saturation current for protection Resistive dividers can replace traditional VTs with a similar accuracy, a much smaller size and lower cost, which allows systematic installation of voltage sensors in each cubicle. This makes the solution easier and safer. Users are more and more interested in the advantages of these technologies. Several thousands of such low power instrument transformers are installed each year, with an impressive growth rate. D. Application to industrial networks

Figure 9: Transient recording of an asymmetrical short circuit current recorded by both an optical CT (analog output) and a resistive high precision shunt. In the case of the example mentioned in chapter II with 50kA fault level and feeder current of 50A, which corresponds to the rated primary current, linearity could be achieved up to 2000 A (40X) or 3150 A (63X). In this case the output signal of the sensing electronics would be 200mV at 50A rated primary current. However, if higher ratios are required the output voltage can be set below 200mV. Higher relays setting points allow minimizing unwanted relay operations in the presence of transient disturbances such as high inrush currents. The benefits of optical current CTs become obvious in grids where high fault level currents exist, such as industrial networks, where saturation free operation is desired. The freedom of setting calibrations allows substation design and relaying engineers to tune optical CTs according to their needs. Also, when specifying the relaying performance for optical CTs, the designers do not have to consider CT saturation effects, burden and length of signaling cables; Optical fibers do not add any errors to the system. C. Other kinds of low power instrument transformers

In addition to optical CTs, which are mainly used today in HV systems, other technologies are becoming more widely used in MV, also referring to the same standards. These are Rogowski coils and low power CTs (LPCTs) for current measurements

Low power stand alone current sensors, voltage sensors and combined ones give definite advantages when applied to industrial networks No or reduced saturation effects, which removes any concern about CT sizing; Large range of rated currents covered by only one sensor, making standardization, storage and short lead times possible Good accuracy: the same sensor can be used for both protection and metering Better safety: no dangerous voltage on secondaries Lower manufacturing cost Many customers have now a very positive experience with low power sensors from different manufacturers, which proves that the technology is mature and well adapted to distribution networks. As this technology is now supported by efficient standardization work, we believe it will be possible in a short future to mix sensors from one manufacturer with protection relays from another one.

IV. CONCLUSIONS CTs have the same electrical characteristics and are subjected to the same constraints no matter how they are specified. It is important however, to know how to specify them correctly in order to be sure that the selected CTs will operate correctly with the protection relays to which they are connected. The IEC standards provide the information necessary for correctly specifying CTs in an unambiguous manner. They do not however, provide any guidance as the characteristics that are required for particular protection applications. This is the responsibility of the protection engineer. It is thus very important for protection engineers to know how to select the correct CT characteristics, and once this has been done, to specify the CT accordingly. This paper provides many of the guidelines required for ensuring that the complete protection function operates satisfactorily under all fault conditions. In the near future, electronic instrument transformers will provide accurate, saturation-free signals more appropriate to protection relays and meters than traditional ones. This will open new possibilities, such as the merging together of metering, power monitoring, power quality and protection. This is actively supported by the IEC standardization committees in order to guarantee compatibility between instrument transformers and protection relays and make the life of protection engineers easier. VII. [1] REFERENCES

R. Coss, D. Dunn and R. Speiwak, CT Saturation Calculations Are They Applicable in the Modern World? Part I, The Question, in IEEE PCIC Conference Record, 2005 [2] R. Coss, D. Dunn, R. Speiwak, S. Zocholl, T. Hazel, D. Rollay CT Saturation Calculations Are They Applicable in the Modern World? Part II, Proposed Responsibilities, in IEEE PCIC Conference Record, 2007 [3] R. Coss, D. Dunn, R. Speiwak, J. Bowen CT Saturation Calculations Are They Applicable in the Modern World? Part III, Low-Ratio, High-Current CT/Microprocessor Relay Comparisons at a High-Current Testing Laboratory, in IEEE PCIC Conference Record, 2008 [4] T. Hazel, J. Tastet, N. Quillon and B. Lusson Implementing Backup Protection Using Microprocessor Based Protection Relays, in IEEE PCIC Conference Record, 2001 VIII. VITAE

Pierre Bertrand graduated as an engineer from the Institut National Polytechnique, Grenoble, France, in 1979. After few years with Michelin, as project engineer, he joined Schneider Electric (formerly Merlin Gerin) in 1983, in the department in charge of electrical network studies. In 1988, he started to work in the protection relaying field, as a project manager. He then founded and led a team in charge of electrical network simulations, protection algorithm studies and relay testing. Since 2002, he acts as marketing manager for Schneider Electric protection relays. Pierre Bertrand has co-authored papers in the field of protection relays. He participated in IEC TC95 concerning protection

relays during several years. pierre.bertrand@fr.schneider-electric.com Michael Mendik joined Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) Switzerland in 1995 in product development. After having acted as project manager on different assignments in the Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) and Generator Circuit Breaker (GCB) divisions he became R&D Manager for the North American Power Products Division in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania in 2001 and established a new R&D team. His focus was product development of high voltage dead tank breakers, advanced monitoring and synchronous switching electronics. From 2007 until 2008 he acted as the Business Development Manager for the High Voltage BU North America, completed the planning phase of a new HV production facility in North America and investigated market opportunities for various HV businesses along with establishing strategies. In April 2008 he became the manager of the Optical Sensors and Systems (OSS) business unit in Youngwood, Pennsylvania. He is an active member of the IEEE working group Applications Guide for Optical Instrument Transformers at IEEE PSRC. Michael Mendik holds a MS and Ph.D. in Physics from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland and a MBA from the Robert Morris University, Pittsburgh. michael.mendik@us.abb.com Terry Hazel graduated from the University of Manitoba Canada with a BScEE in 1970. He worked for one year as a power coordination engineer in Perth Australia and for several years in Frankfurt Germany as a consulting engineer for construction and renovation of industrial power distribution systems. Since 1980 he has worked for Schneider Electric (formerly Merlin Gerin) in Grenoble France in their projects group where he has provided team leadership for several major international projects involving process control and power distribution. His main interests are in power quality and the reliability of electrical distribution systems. Mr. Hazel is a senior member of IEEE and is Secretary and Technical Chair of the Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee Europe. He has co-authored and presented several papers and tutorials at technical conferences. terence.hazel@fr.schneider-electric.com Pascal Tantin graduated as an engineer from Ecole Nationale Suprieure d'Arts et Mtiers, France, in 1980. He started to work in 1982 for the Research and Development Department of EDF as an "instrument transformers" research engineer. In 1991 he joined the Transmission Grid Department (RTE) and managed in 1995 the team in charge of the RTE specifications in the field of switchgear and controlgear, GIS, instrument transformers and line traps. Since 2000, he is working in the Standardization Service of EDF. He is in charge of activities concerned by the following Technical Committees of IEC: TC 38, 57, 13, 95 and 65, the ISO TC184 and the CENELEC TC 13. Pascal Tantin is a member of the French Association of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (SEE) and of the CIGRE Association. He took part in or led several technical studies in CIGRE and IEC working groups in the field of instrument transformers, switchgear and protection relays. pascal.tantin@edf.fr

Appendix I GENERAL REQUIREMENT STANDARDS PRODUCT STANDARDS 60044-1 Current transformers [61869-2] 60044-2 Inductive voltage transformers [61869-3] 60044-3 Combined transformers [61869-4] 60044-5 Capacitive voltage transformers [61869-5] 60044-6 Current transformers [61869-6] for transient performances 60044-7 Electronic voltage transformers [61869-7] 60044-7 Low power stand alone [61869-11] voltage sensors 60044-8 Electronic current transformers [61869-8] 60044-8 Low power stand alone [61869-10] current sensors Combines electronic instrument [61869-12] transformers or combined stand alone sensors Stand alone [61869-9-3] merging unit

61869-1 General requirements for instrument transformers

[61869-9-1] Additional requirements for electronic instrument transformers and low power stand alone sensors [61869-9-2] Digital interface for instrument transformers

Table 1: Overview of present and future [between brackets] IEC standards about Instrument Transformers