CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 2, NO.
4, DECEMBER 2016
Modeling and Analysis for Practical CT Based on
Transient Test and Parameter Identification
Xianggen Yin, Senior Member CSEE, Member IEEE, Zhe Zhang, Xuanwei Qi, Gan Li,
Wenbin Cao, and Qian Guo
Abstract—In the transient process of power grid faults, the
transferring distortion of current transformer (CT) can seriously
affect relay protection performance. Under these conditions, it
is difficult to analyze the ferromagnetic characteristic of the
magnetizing branch in the transient equivalent circuit of CT. The
Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model (J-A model), which is widely used
in digital simulations, can accurately describe the hysteresis and
saturation process of the core characteristics; however, to acquire
the parameters of the J-A model of current transformers in
practical use is still a challenging problem. In this paper, physical
tests based on a practical CT and parameter identification are
presented to solve the problem. The basic hysteresis loops of P,
PR, and TPY class of practical current transformers are obtained
through physical tests. Thus, the J-A model parameters are
identified using a hybrid genetic/simulated annealing algorithm,
based on which transient simulation models of different class
CTs are constructed. The effectiveness of the proposed method is
verified via dynamic physical simulation tests. A typical accident
is analyzed based on these models.
Index Terms—Current transformer, dynamic physical simula-
tion tests, J-A model, parameter identification, transient test.
I. I NTRODUCTION
W ITH rapid power grid development, the transient pro-
cess of the power grid, in terms of short-circuit cur-
rents in substations [1], inrush currents [2]–[5], sympathetic
inrush [6]–[8], and so on have put higher requirements on the
performance of the protective current transformer. In actual
accidents it has been shown that the saturation of the current
transformer during the transient process is a primary cause for
differential protection mal-operations [9]–[11]. Therefore, to
analyze the influence of current transformer saturation during
the transient process to protection, we must construct simula-
tion CT models that reflect the practical current transformers
core saturation and hysteresis characteristics.
Manuscript received September, 18, 2016; revised October 12, 2016;
accepted October 24, 2016. Date of publication December 30, 2016; date
of current version November 15, 2016. This work was supported by the Key
project of smart grid technology and equipment of national key research and
development plan of China under Grant 2016YFB0900600.
X. Yin, Z. Zhang (corresponding author, e-mail: zz mail2002@163.com),
X. Qi, G. Li, W. Cao, and Q. Guo are with State Key Laboratory of
Advanced Electromagnetic Engineering and Technology, Huazhong University
of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
DOI: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2016.00049
2096-0042
c 2016 CSEE
51
Digital simulation is an important tool for the study of
transient saturation characteristics of a current transformer and
its effect on differential protection. The change in electrical
quantities in accident scenes, reproduced via digital simula-
tion, provides important information for analysis. The premise
of digital simulation is to obtain CT equivalent circuit and
relevant circuit parameters. The CT equivalent circuit provides
most of the parameters, such as winding resistance, leakage
reactance, ratio, and second load, all of which impact the trans-
fer performance of the current transformer. However, because
of complexities in the saturation and hysteresis characteristics
in the core, the parameters of the magnetizing branch are not
easily acquired through direct physical testing. Therefore, an
additional mathematical model is needed that can describe
the hysteresis loop. There are numerous models [12]–[17]
dealing with the hysteresis loop, amongst which the Jiles-
Atherton hysteresis model (J-A model) complies with the
physical nature of hysteresis. Additionally, this model is easy
to implement with less parameters. The J-A theory is widely
used in the field of ferromagnetic material hysteresis modeling
and digital simulation.
Currently, PSCAD/EMTDC, EMTP and other simulation
software are embedded in the equivalent transformer model
based on the J-A theory. However, because of differences in
ferromagnetic material as well as class of current transformers,
the J-A model parameters, which are widely used in simulation
software, are not suitable for the practical current transformers.
These parameters cannot be directly acquired via physical
tests, and moreover, the complex nonlinear mathematical
equations of the J-A model makes it difficult to obtain the
parameters.
To solve the above two problems, physical tests based on
practical current transformers are conducted, and basic hys-
teresis loops are obtained. Then the hybrid genetic/simulated
annealing algorithm (HGSA) is presented. HGSA brings to-
gether the advantages of the genetic algorithm (GA) and the
simulated annealing algorithm (SAA), and thus we are able
to identify the parameters of the J-A model efficiently. The P,
PR, and TPY class of current transformer models are built
using this method. These models are used to analyze the
current transformer transient characteristic and its impact on
relay protection. Dynamic physical simulations and a typical
accident are used to prove the accuracy and the effectiveness
of these models.
52 CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2016
II. H YSTERESIS C HARACTERISTIC M ODEL OF THE
C URRENT T RANSFORMER AND I TS P HYSICAL T EST
A. Hysteresis Characteristic Model
The J-A model, proposed by academicians Jiles and Ather-
ton, is based on the theory of ferromagnetic material phe-
nomenology. The J-A model is considered a classical math-
ematical model and is widely used to describe the excitation
characteristics of ferromagnetic materials. The core excitation
characteristics of the J-A model in most cases are simulated
using nonlinear equations. As such, the model has a clear
physical meaning, and can accurately simulate the excitation
characteristics of a current transformer. This paper constructs
an electromagnetic transient simulation model for a practical
current transformer based on the J-A model.
The relationship between magnetic induction B, magnetic
field intensity H, and magnetization intensity M is shown in
(1):
B = µ0 (H + M ) . (1)
To describe excitation characteristic curve of the core, the
J-A model introduces the concept of effective magnetic field
strength He (no hysteresis):
He = H + αM. (2)
In this equation, α is a parameter representing the inter-
domain coupling.
The relationship of He and the anhysteresis magnetization
Man can be expressed as:
  
He a
 and the secondary current can be solved by uniting (1) and
Man = f (He ) = Ms coth − . (3)
a He
In this equation, Ms is the saturation magnetization, f (He )
is a function named Langevin, and a is a parameter to adjust
the shape of the function.
Equation (3) is modified in [17] as:
a1 He + Heb
Man = Ms . (4)
a3 + a2 He + Heb
In this equation, a1 , a2 , a3 and b are parameters of the
fraction.
In the J-A model, magnetization intensity M is divided into
reversible component Mrev and irreversible component Mirr .
Their relationship is shown in (5):
( frequency voltage is applied to the current transformer core,
M = Mrev + Mirr
(5)
Mrev = c (Man − M ) .
In this equation, c is the reversible susceptibility.
Equation (6) shows the relationship between irreversible
magnetization Mirr and the magnetic field intensity strength
H.
dMirr Man − Mirr
= (6)
dH δk
− α (Man − Mirr )
µ0
Here, k is the loss coefficient; δ is the direction function
of the change in magnetic field strength H. When dH/dt is
larger than 0, it takes 1. Otherwise, it takes −1.
By considering (5) and (6), we obtain (7):
dMan Man − M
c +
dH δk α (Man − M )
−
dM µ0 1−c
= . (7)
dH dMan
1 − αc
dH
For the transformer core, according to Ampere’s rules, (8)
can be obtained:
Np Ns
∆H = ∆Ip − ∆Is (8)
l l
where, Np is the number of turns in the primary; Ns is the
number of turns in the secondary; l is the length of the flux
path, ∆H is the change in magnetic field intensity, ∆Ip is the
change in primary current, and ∆Is is the change in secondary
current. Equation (9) is obtained by equating the rate of change
of flux linkage to the sum of voltage drops in the secondary
circuit.
 
Ns · Area ∆Is Ls
· ∆B = Rs Isold + + ∆Is (9)
∆t 2 ∆t
where Area is the cross section area of the core of the CT; ∆t
is the integration time step; ∆B is the change in flux density
in the core; Rs is the sum of secondary winding and burden
resistances (including the lead resistance); Ls is the sum of
secondary winding leakage and burden inductance (including
the lead inductance); and Isold is the secondary current during
the previous time step.
If the primary side current and the structure parameters of
the current transformer are known, the transformer core flux
(9) with a numerical solution.
Although the J-A model conforms to the physical nature of
hysteresis characteristics, its mathematical form of expression
is too complex due to highly non-linear characteristics, which
makes Ms , β, α, c, k, a1 , a2 , a3 , b and other parameters
difficult to obtain. These parameters are determined by the
saturation characteristics of core.
B. Current Transformer Basic Parameter Tests
Existing transformer testers used in actual projects cannot
support the measurement of the transformer core hysteresis
loops. This measurement is obtained by the voltage integration
method with the help of physical tests. As Fig. 1 shows, power
and the excitation current and voltage is measured by the
memory oscilloscope. Then the voltage is integrated offline to
get the core characteristic curve (Φ − i), which is equivalent to
the hysteresis loop. Since the supply voltage in the laboratory
is limited, we need to apply AC voltage to the transformer
primary winding during the test, and then open the secondary
winding to ensure good insulation.
The test results of different classes of CT hysteresis loops
are shown in Fig. 2. An analysis of the results shows that the
remanence coefficient of P-class transformers is higher, while
PR class and TPY class have a low remanence coefficient
because of its gap; we cannot measure the voltage inflection
point of TPY class current transformer due to its high satura-
tion voltage.
YIN et al.: MODELING AND ANALYSIS FOR PRACTICAL CT BASED ON TRANSIENT TEST AND PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION 53

The primary winding The secondary winding 2 0.4

Current Current
1 transformer 0.2 transformer
220 V

Flux (Wb)
Flux (Wb)
tester tester
0 0

R 1 Voltage 0.2 Voltage

integration integration
2 0.4
CH 1 CH 2 20 10 0 10 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
Excitation Current (A) Excitation Current (A)
The memory oscilloscope
(a) (b)
0.4
Computer 0.3 Current
transformer
0.2 tester

Flux (Wb)
Fig. 1. The circuit for measuring the hysteresis loop of CTs. 0.1 Voltage
0 integration
1.5 0.4 0.1
1 0.2
0.2
Flux (Wb)

Flux (Wb)

0.5 0.3
0 0 0.4
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
0.5 Excitation Current (A)
0.2
1 (c)
1.5 0.4
15 10 5 0 5 10 15 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
Excitation Current (A) Excitation Current (A) Fig. 3. The test results for the hysteresis loop of CTs from dynamic tests.
(a) (b) (a) Class TPY. (b) Class PR. (c) Class P.
0.4
0.3 capacity, is used to eliminate local convergence problems and
0.2
improve the search span and accuracy. HGSA brings together
Flux (Wb)

0.1
0 the advantages of GA and SAA. The combination of the two
0.1 algorithms overcomes their own deficiencies while providing
0.2
0.3 good performance.
0.4 Due to the excellent performance of HGSA, in this paper,
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Excitation Current (A) according to the physical test results, HGSA is used to identify
(c) the parameters of the J-A model.

Fig. 2. The test results for the hysteresis loop of CTs from dynamic tests.
(a) Class TPY. (b) Class PR. (c) Class P.
To further validate the accuracy of the hysteresis loop mea-
surement, we use the above-mentioned method to measure the
hysteresis loop based on an existing current transformer tester
platform. Measurement results using the dynamic simulation
method are compared in Fig. 3. A comparison shows that the
saturation regions of the hysteresis loops obtained by different
measurements are in accordance. However, the hysteresis
loops area varies widely. The hysteresis loop area obtained
by the current transformer tester is smaller. This is because
the current transformer tester measures the transformer core
saturation characteristic using low frequency, which means that
reducing the frequency of the excitation voltage generates a
larger core flux. In this case, the core loss is small, so the
corresponding hysteresis loop is also narrow.
III. PARAMETER I DENTIFICATION BASED ON HGSA
A. Hybrid Genetic/Simulated Annealing Algorithm (HGSA)
By combining traditional genetic algorithm (GA) and the
simulated annealing algorithm (SAA), hybrid genetic/sim-
ulated annealing algorithm (HGSA) is presented to identify
the J-A model parameter. GA, which has fast convergence,
is used to control the optimization direction and to speed up
the search process; SAA, which has good global searching
B. Methods of Parameter Identification
The basic operation steps of parameter identification by
HGSA are as below:
Step 1: Import original system data acquired by physical
test results and control parameters including initial
temperature T0 , final temperature Te , coefficient
of temperature drop r, and the largest number of
cooling Lmax .
Step 2: Produce initial population S1 (the nine J-A param-
eters to be identified) satisfying constraints using
initial parameters and let the number of cooling ac-
cumulated L = 0, algebraic operation accumulated
n = 0.
Step 3: Set initial value of control temperature T = T0 .
Step 4: Based on steps 1 to 3, a new scheme S2 is pro-
duced by gene manipulation. B-H curve is obtained
by simulation. Calculate evaluation function value
f (S), and then make choices using the Metropolis
criterion. New solutions S2 are accepted to replace
S1 with probability P (S2 ).
Step 5: Let n = n + 1, and decrease control temperature
T = T · r.
Step 6: Determine whether to reach the termination temper-
ature Te . If so, then follow step 7; otherwise follow
step 4.
Step 7: Amend the number of cooling, L = L + 1.
54 CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2016

TABLE I
Step 8: Judge whether to attain cooling time limits. If so, I DENTIFICATION R ESULTS OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE C LASS P, PR,
then proceed to step 9; otherwise follow step 3. AND TPY C URRENT T RANSFORMER BASED ON THE J-A M ODEL
Step 9: Derive optimal J-A model parameters.
Parameters Class P Class PR Class TPY
The evaluation function f (S) characterizes the degree of c 0.1 0.1 0
the merits of the identified parameters, i.e., the fit degree of k 10×10−5 20×10−5 0
simulation resulting in B-H curves to the original B-H curve; β 0.96 0.96 1
α 1.325×10−5 5×10−5 1.15×10−5
its analytical expression is given by (10). The smaller f (S) Ms 1.70×106 1.575×106 1.62×106
is, the higher the degree of fit it is. a1 1.63×104 1.03×107 6.88×1014
s a2 1.87×104 9.84×107 6.88×1014
1X 2 a3 2.60×105 4.66×109 1.73×1018
f (S) = (Hmeasured − Hsimulated ) (10) b 1.8557 3.7719 5.61
n n

The Metropolis criterion describes the probability of accept- 3

Simulation result 2 Simulation
2
ing the new solution S2 generated using GA, which is given Test result
1
result
1 Test
by Equation (11).

B (T)

B (T)
0 0 result
1
(
1 f (S2 ) < f (S1 ) 1
P (S2 ) = f (S2 )−f (S1 ) (11) 2
e − T f (S2 ) ≥ f (S1 ) 3 2
1 0.5 0 0.5 1 5000 0 5000
If the new solution S2 is better than S1 , S2 is certainly H (A/m) ×104 H (A/m)
accepted. Otherwise, there is only a certain probability to (a) (b)
accept S2 . The guidelines not only retain the excellent parent 2
Simulation
gene, but also accept the “deterioration” solution on a certain result
1
probability, so that the algorithm has the ability to jump out Test

B (T)
of local minima area, thereby obtaining the global optimal result
0
solution or progressive global optimal solution.
1
The entire process of HGSA is based on SAA, with the
idea of GA only reflected in the process wherein the parent 2
800 400 0 400 800
solutions S1 generate new offspring solutions S2 , which is key H (A/m)
to speed up the search speed of SAA. (c)
In GA, the parent chromosomes pair off, and each generates
two random numbers r1 and r2 , which fulfill 1 ≤ r1 ≤ 9, 1 ≤ Fig. 4. Comparison of the hysteresis loop obtained from simulation and
dynamic test. (a) Class TPY. (b) Class PR. (c) Class P.
r2 ≤ 9, r1 6= r2 . Then exchange genes in each group at the
position (r1 , r2 ) corresponding to the two parent chromosomes
obtain new individuals. Finally, we need to determine whether saturation in order to simulate short circuit faults in primary
to accept the new individuals as new solution according systems, inrush currents and other occurrences. The primary
to Metropolis criterion, by which to ensure the solution is current of practical CT is tested via high-precision optical CT
optimum. and the test results are taken as the primary input current of CT
In SAA, the temperature is decreased from the initial value simulation models. The accuracy of the CT simulation models
to the final value to look for a better solution. By repeating is verified by comparing the secondary current tests of CT with
this process for Lmax times, the solution tends to be a constant the secondary output current of CT simulation models.
value, which is the global optimal solution. Tests results of the steady-state and the transient saturation
of the P-class CT are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. This analysis
shows that the secondary current waveform obtained through
C. Parameter Identification Results
the dynamic simulation test is very consistent.
Based on the measured hysteresis loop of P, PR, and TPY
class practical CTs, which is introduced in Section II-B, 20
The Primary
Current (A)

the corresponding J-A model parameters are identified using 0

HGSA. Parameter identification results are shown in Table I.
20
A comparative hysteresis loop is shown in Fig. 4. Analysis
shows that the hysteresis loop of the current transformer 40
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
simulation model based on the J-A model and the practical
20
The Secondary

current transformers are very consistent.

Current (A)

10
0
IV. DYNAMIC P HYSICAL T EST V ERIFICATION OF CT 10 Simulation result
Test result
M ODELS 20
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
In the dynamic simulation laboratories of Huazhong Uni- Time (s)
versity of Science and Technology (HUST), we are able
to conduct dynamic simulation tests of current transformer Fig. 5. Test results of the steady-state saturation of the current transformer.
YIN et al.: MODELING AND ANALYSIS FOR PRACTICAL CT BASED ON TRANSIENT TEST AND PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION 55

20
The above tests show that the CT simulation model can
The Primary
Current (A)
10 simulate the saturation characteristic of CT accurately during
0 the transient process of power grid faults.
10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
V. T YPICAL P OWER G RID FAULT A NALYSIS U SING THE
20
The Secondary
Current (A)

Simulation result CT S IMULATION M ODEL

10
0
10
0 0.05
Time (s)
Fig. 6. Test results of the transient saturation of the current transformer.
When P class current transformers are installed on both
sides of the line, as shown in Fig. 7, the CT load on the
53QF side is 20 Ω and CT load on the 54QF side is 0 Ω.
(53QF and 67XL are the mean equipment numbers.) When
the transformer on one side of the line is energized, the
inrush current flows through this line. A comparison of the
results of the dynamic simulation experiment and simulation
are shown in Fig. 8. An analysis of these results yields the
waveform of the transformer’s secondary current, obtained
by dynamic simulation experiment and simulation are also
consistent. When the inrush current is about to appear, the
differential current is small as the transformer on both sides
of the line are unsaturated. About 0.15 s after the inrush
current appears, because of the effect of the DC component
of the inrush current, the current transformer on the 53QF
side is transient saturated and the differential current starts to
increase.
53QF 54QF
70XL
22 W
ΔY
#6 transformer
Fig. 7. Diagram of primary system in the dynamic test.
The Primary Current
of CT at 54QF (A)
Test result
The field wiring of a typical power grid is shown in Fig. 9.
After the test of main transformer #1 has been accomplished,
the high voltage side switch is closed to send power. Then,
0.1 0.15
the zero-sequence differential protection of the 220 kV line
operates and the switch trips. The following analysis is the
action of zero-sequence differential protection based on the
CT simulation model presented in this paper.
220 kV 220 kV
bus I bus II
#1 main transform
220 kV line
#2 main transform
Fig. 9. Diagram of the actual site.
According to the parameters of the primary system shown
in Fig. 9, a consistent primary system model is constructed to
reproduce the accident by the CT simulation model.
The output current of bus I and bus II, the simulation wave-
form, and the protection recording data of differential/restraint
75XL 67XL current are shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 11, and Fig. 12. In spite of
the limited capacity of the protective device, the recording
data in 0.1–0.2 s is missing. But the missing data can be
reproduced by digital simulation accurately, which provides
favorable conditions for the analysis of the cause of the mal-
operation. In this case, the results of the simulation are in good

agreement with the actual recording data, which can reproduce

10
Simulation result the missing data.
5 Test result
0
Phase A (kA)

2
Current of

Recorded data Simulation result

5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0

2
The Differential The Primary Current
of CT at 53QF (A)

0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

10
Phase B (kA)

Simulation result 5
5
Current of

Test result
0 0
5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 5
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Phase C (kA)

0.5 5
Current of
Current (A)

Simulation result
Test result 0
0
The transient saturation
5
0.5 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig. 10. Comparison of the current on the bus I of the transmission line
Fig. 8. Test results of the current transformer saturation during inrush current. from the simulation and the field recorded data.
56 CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2016

Phase A (kA)
2
model. The improved model based on the proposed method
Current of
Recorded data Simulation result
0 can be directly used for engineering design and accident
2 analysis. P, PR, and TPY class current transformers in practical
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
use are chosen as objects in physical tests, from which basic
Phase B (kA)

5 hysteresis loops are obtained. A new method, termed HGSA,

Current of

0 is put forward to identify the parameters of the J-A model

combined with the physical test results. The method solves the
5
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 parameter identifying problem of the complicated nonlinear J-
A model. Thus, different transient simulation models of P, PR,
Phase C (kA)

5
Current of

and TPY class CTs are constructed.

0
A physical simulation test for a typical power grid and
5 a no-distortion measurement system is constructed at State
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s) Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Engineering
and Technology, HUST, which has the capability to simulate
Fig. 11. Comparison of the current on the bus II of the transmission line different short circuit faults. The excellent performance of the
from the simulation and the field recorded data.
CT models in this paper is verified by comparing physical
3
Recorded data Simulation result simulation test result and measurement system result. A typical
Zero Differential

2 accidental mal-operation of a transmission line zero-sequence

Current (kA)

1
differential protection, caused by neighboring transformer en-
ergization, is analyzed using these models.
0

1 R EFERENCES
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
[1] Q. Li, B. Zhang, Y. K. Jiang, and L. S. Xiao, “Transient process of short-
4 circuit current in substations and its influential factors,” High Voltage
Engineering, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1986–1993, Jul. 2014 (in Chinese).
Zero Restraint

2
Current (kA)

[2] H. Y. Li, X. Zhang, and Y. B. Hou, “New method of inrush current

0 vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 500–503, Mar. 2008 (in Chinese).
2
4
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Time (s)
Fig. 12. Comparison of the zero differential and restraint current from the
simulation and the field recorded data.
The analysis shows that, after the cast of #1 main trans-
former at 0 s, the inrush current of the transformer flows
through the 220 kV line immediately. At about 0.08 s, the
CT of the C phase in bus II comes into transient saturation
first, shown in Fig. 10. Meanwhile, zero sequence differential
current begins to increase, which leads to the protection mal-
operation. The current transformer types on both side of the
line are different, so the inconsistent transient saturation when
the inrush current flows through the CT is the reason the pro-
tection mal-operates. It can be seen that the difference of CT
on both side of the line in transient saturation characteristics
will lead to the protection mal-operation.
The analysis result shows that the simulation can simulate
the saturation characteristics of CT correctly in complex
transient process of the power system. The results are in good
agreement with the recorded wave shape, which reproduces the
whole process of the protection action accurately and provides
important reference for the analysis and countermeasures of
the accident.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents a method available for different types
of current transformers to acquire the parameters of the J-A
discrimination based on wavelet transform,” High Voltage Engineering,
[3] B. D. Zhang and S. Zhang, “Identification of transformer inrush current
based on energy components,” Power System Protection and Control,
vol. 40, no. 17, pp. 121–126, Sep. 2012 (in Chinese).
0.2 0.25 0.3 [4] E. S. Jin, X. N. Li, X. G. Song, C. Liu, and D. B. Su, “Study on
adaptive criterion of transformer magnetizing inrush current,” Power
System Protection and Control, vol. 41, no. 20, pp. 41–46, Oct. 2013
(in Chinese).
[5] B. D. Zhang and J. Huang, “Identification of transformer inrush current
based on difference biorthogonal wavelet entropy,” Power System Pro-
tection and Control, vol. 42, no. 18, pp. 9–13, Sep. 2014 (in Chinese).
[6] M. Tan, J. Luo, G. W. Yu, and H. M. Zhu, “An algorithm based on the
fault component to identify traction transformer sympathetic inrush,”
Power System Protection and Control, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 87–92, Jun.
2012 (in Chinese).
[7] W. Gong, J. Y. Liu, X. Q. He, and G. S. Zhang, “Analysis of the
generation mechanism and influencing factors on sympathetic inrush
in initial period of power system restoration,” Power System Protection
and Control, vol. 40, no. 14, pp. 44–50, Jul. 2012 (in Chinese).
[8] M. F. Gong, W. H. Xia, G. L. Li, J. P. Liu, and X. Y. Xu, “New
judgment to identify sympathetic inrush and inrush current,” Power
System Protection and Control, vol. 40, no. 18, pp. 139–143, Sep. 2012
(in Chinese).
[9] S. F. Huang, J. Gu, T. Zheng, and Z. P. Wang, “Mal-operation of
transformer differential protection with inner bridge connection and
countermeasure,” High Voltage Engineering, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 3099–
3106, Dec. 2011 (in Chinese).
[10] Y. Wang, X. W. Qi, H. Luo, X. G. Yin, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhang,
“Complex sympathetic inrush and its influence on current differential
protection,” Automation of Electric Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp.
98–105, Mar. 2014 (in Chinese).
[11] M. L. Jin, X. G. Yin, and D. H. You, “Reason of Differential Protection
Mal-operation Caused by Complex Sympathetic Inrush and Its Coun-
termeasure,” Proceedings of the CSEE, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 86–93, Jan.
2011 (in Chinese).
[12] D. C. Jiles, J. B. Thoelke, and M. K. Devine, “Numerical determination
of hysteresis parameters using the theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis,”
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27–35, Jan. 1992.
[13] U. D. Annakkage, P. G. McLaren, E. Dirks, R. P. Jayasinghe, and A. D.
Parker, “A current transformer model based on the Jiles-Atherton theory
of ferromagnetic hysteresis,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
15, no. 1, pp. 57–61, Jan. 2000.
YIN et al.: MODELING AND ANALYSIS FOR PRACTICAL CT BASED ON TRANSIENT TEST AND PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION
[14] D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton, “Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis,”
Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2115–2120, Mar.1984.
[15] D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton, “Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis,”
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, vol. 61, no. 1–2, pp.
48–60, Sep. 1986.
[16] E. C. Stoner and E. P. Wohlfarth, “A mechanism of magnetic hysteresis
in heterogeneous alloys,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 27, no.
4, pp. 3475–3518, Jul. 1991.
[17] A. Globus, P. Duplex, and M. Guyot, “Determination of initial magneti-
zation curve from crystallites size and effective anisotropy field,” IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 617–622, Sep. 1971.
Xianggen Yin (M’06) received his B.S. degree, M.S.
degree and Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from Huazhong University of Science and Tech-
nology (HUST), Wuhan, China, in 1982, 1985 and
1989. Currently, he is a Professor in the School of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering, HUST. His
major areas include protective relaying and power
system stability control.
Zhe Zhang received his B.S. degree, M.S. degree
and Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
(HUST), Wuhan, China, in 1982, 1985 and 1992.
Now, he is a Professor in the School of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, HUST. His research interest
is protective relaying of power system.
57
Xuanwei Qi received his B.S. degree and Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from Huazhong Uni-
versity of Science and Technology (HUST), Wuhan,
China, in 2011 and 2016. His research interest is
protection and automatic control of power grid.
Wenbin Cao received his B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from North China Electric Power Uni-
versity, Baoding, China, in 2015. Currently, he is a
M.S. student at Huazhong University of Science and
Technology (HUST), Wuhan, China. His research
interest is protective relaying of power system.
Qian Guo received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Huazhong University of Science
and Technology, in 2015. Currently, he is a M.S.
student at Huazhong University of Science and Tech-
nology (HUST), Wuhan, China. His research interest
is protective relaying of power system.