1 Article

2 Turn to Turn Fault Diagnosis on Three-Phase Power Trans-

3 former using Hybrid Detection Algorithm
4 Chien-Hsun Liu 1, Willybrordus H.P.M. 1 and Cheng-Chien Kuo 1*

5 1 Electrical Engineering Department, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology;

6 cckuo@mail.ntust.edu.tw
7 * Correspondence: cckuo@mail.ntust.edu.tw

8 Abstract: A power transformer (PT) in power generation or transmission becomes one of critical
9 thing to maintain continuity of electricity. Fault detection on PT is needed to detect fault, especially
10 incipient faults which are very often caused by Turn to Turn Fault (TTF) before it develops into
11 more severe fault. This paper developed hybrid algorithm between conventional and modern tech-
12 nique to detect incipient fault in PT. The response current signal from negative sequence current
13 directional algorithm, extended park vector algorithm (EPVA), differential negative sequence cur-
14 rent, and EPVA-fuzzy system is combined to distinguish the possibility of TTF occurred. Those sub-
15 algorithms are combined by using hybrid detection algorithm to distinguish faults. The simulated
16 model used 10 MVA 3-phase power transformer with Δ-Y configuration 150/300 KV. The result
17 shows that by combined those sub-algorithms, several limitations can be distinguished the TTF and
18 also the accuracy could increase slightly.

19 Keywords: power transformer protection; turn to turn fault; negative sequence current;
20

21 1. Introduction
22 The power transformers are very important to maintain for the stable operation of
Citation: Chien-Hsun Liu.; Muda,
23 power grid. There is a huge case of transformers in service, and there will be internal
Willybrordus; Kuo, Cheng-Chien.
24 faults in the long-term aging process [1]. However, conducting a maintenance outage or
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x.
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
25 assessment of the transformer means to consider the expenditure and time due to produc-
26 tion loss. The energize levels 765 kV and even at 400 kV can generates inrush currents,
Academic Editor: Firstname Last- 27 which has potential to cause an internal power transformer damage. So that, there are
name 28 several protection scheme is required to do an effective discrimination between internal
Received: date 29 fault and inrush [2].
Accepted: date 30 The fault components need to be fixed quickly, if not it can cause serious damage,
Published: date 31 loss, and power stability problems. Outages resulted because of fault in power trans-
32 former gives a significant loss of revenue and also affect the service to the consumers.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
33 Therefore, power transformer online monitoring is needed to avoid these outages. If the
tral with regard to jurisdictional
34 faults are not detected, they will develop into more serious faults even. Thus, detection
claims in published maps and institu-
35 for inter-turn fault became a concern in power system [3, 4]. The result of a transformer
tional affiliations.
36 failure survey based on the investigation of 750 massive transformer failures from 1996 to
37 2010 confirms the importance of short-circuit strength: Almost half of the failures have
38 been correlated to winding and the insulating system [5, 6]. Accounting for transformer
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
39 winding connections is required to implement differential protection principle to power
40
Submitted for possible open access transformers, with reference to transformers of standard winding connections, these pro-
41
publication under the terms and con- tection rules are commonly referred to ratio matching, vector group compensation, and
42
ditions of the Creative Commons At- zero-sequence removal. Standard protection method is differential protection current be-
43
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- tween line to line. The protection is used for protecting power transformer of 10 MVA and
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 44 above [7].

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

45 However, differential protection gives accurate result in most of the fault cases, it still
46 suffers from problem of inadvertent tripping during external events such as magnetizing
47 inrush condition [8]. So that percentage differential scheme is used which is restrains the
48 second harmonic component and sometimes the fifth harmonics component to avoid in-
49 advertent tripping against magnetizing inrush condition [2, 9]. Another problem using
50 conventional differential protection is still sufferings to detect low-level winding turn-to-
51 turn faults. If this fault happened terminal current is relatively unchanged, but the circu-
52 lating current in short turn area will increase and dangerous. This protection only detects
53 if the differential current exceeds 20 until 25% of the rated current [10].
54 Negative sequence current scheme is applied, to do a fault detection and distinguish
55 between internal (turn to turn fault) and external fault. Negative sequence current is a
56 simple and efficient protection technique to detect minor internal turn-to-turn faults in
57 power transformers. According to [10] and [7], negative sequence is capable to detect turn
58 to turn fault, involving 1% of transformer winding However, using negative sequence
59 current algorithm still cannot distinguish when there are external and internal fault oc-
60 curred together or simultaneously. EPVA method is able to detect and distinguish turn-
61 to-turn winding insulation failures from magnetizing inrush current transients. EPVA
62 also overcome the limitation of negative sequence current algorithm. EPVA algorithm is
63 not affected by the external fault and can detect the turn-to-turn fault accurately.
64 Fuzzy logic was developed to detect turn to turn fault in transformer. Here fuzzy
65 logic is employed not only to monitor the condition of the transformer but also to improve
66 the performance of protection system. Using fuzzy logic overcomes the limitations of the
67 traditional power transformer differential scheme in detecting low level turn to turn fault.
68 The fuzzy based technique is quite simple, robust, and able to detect the incipient faults
69 at an early stage [4] and showed a fast and accurate trip operation [11]. Fuzzy algorithm
70 also very helpful to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and efficiency of transformer
71 maintenance [12]. Combination technique by using fuzzy logic and Clark’s transform is
72 also used to improve the differential protection performance [13].
73 Turn-to-turn faults may still occur even if no current is flowing on one side of the
74 transformer during energization. With no current flowing in the secondary windings of
75 the transformer, negative-sequence current-based algorithms become insensitive.
76 This paper discusses a voting algorithm as a combination from several protection
77 algorithms to make a good decision in fault detection. The algorithms are Negative Se-
78 quence Directional Algorithm, Extended Park Vector Algorithm (EPVA), Differential
79 Negative Sequence Algorithm, Fuzzy Mamdani Algorithm, and Conventional Protective
80 Algorithm. Each algorithm has own result to detect the fault belong to internal or external
81 fault according to simulation. All the result from each algorithm is collected and calcu-
82 lated how many possibilities of internal fault and external fault happened.
83 Section 2 of this paper introduces the turn to turn equivalent circuit and transformer
84 configuration. Section 3 discusses the purpose method to detect and distinguish power
85 transformer’s fault. Section 4 shows the results and discussion of simulation turn to turn
86 fault in power transformer, for 1% turn fault, and followed by external fault. Section 5
87 concludes the research.

88 2. Hybrid Algorithm in TTF Diagnose System

89 The purposed of hybrid algorithm is to do a fault detection in power transformer
90 especially for TTF. This algorithm will combine and collect all results from five sub algo-
91 rithms. Sub-algorithms consist of conventional differential protection, negative sequence
92 directional algorithm, extended park vector algorithm (EPVA), differential negative se-
93 quence, and EPVA-fuzzy algorithm. Each sub algorithm has different role to do a fault
94 diagnosis in PT. Each sub-algorithm is possible to generate different decision (internal
95 fault, external fault, and normal condition). So that, hybrid algorithm collects all decision
96 from sub-algorithm and decide transformer condition based on most decision.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

97 Conventional differential protection can detect fault if the difference value of phase
98 current between primary and secondary winding is higher than threshold value. This kind
99 of protection only detect fault or normal state, incapable to distinguish what kind of fault,
100 either internal or external fault. Negative sequence directional algorithm and fuzzy logic
101 can detect three state of power transformer condition. Both of them can detect the internal
102 fault which in this case caused by TTF, external fault, and normal condition. Differential
103 negative sequence and EPVA algorithm can only detect an internal fault and non-internal
104 fault state. Hybrid algorithm protection can decide internal, external, or normal condition
105 based on the result from each sub-algorithm. The hybrid algorithm chooses the most con-
106 dition which is generated by all sub-algorithm.
107 This method is used to distinguish weakness for each sub-algorithm. Conventional
108 differential protection is un-capable to distinguish fault in the transformer either internal
109 or external fault occurred. This algorithm is not sensitive enough to detect low level turn
110 to turn fault inside transformer [3]. Negative sequence directional algorithm incapable to
111 detect turn to turn fault when there are external and internal fault occurred together or
112 simultaneously [10]. Differential negative sequence and extended park vector algorithm
113 only detect internal fault and non-internal fault condition. So, when there is external fault
114 occurred, this algorithm still detects as a non-internal fault same as in normal condition.
115 Internal fault will be decided if there are more than or equal 2 internal fault state (nif)
116 which declared by sub algorithm this also applies to external fault state (nef) case. External
117 fault will be declared if there are more than 2 external fault status. Non-internal fault in
118 differential negative sequence protection and EPVA could be indicate as external fault or
119 normal condition. Normal condition will be decided if all sub-algorithm also declare nor-
120 mal condition and non-internal fault condition for differential negative sequence protec-
121 tion and EPVA. The rule for hybrid detection algorithm can be expressed in equation (1).
122 Principally hybrid detection algorithm declared a transformer condition based on vote on
123 sub-algorithm result. The interface from hybrid algorithm detection shown in figure 1.
124

 Internal fault, n if  2

PT Fault Condition  External fault, n ef  2 (1)
 Normal, n
 fault  0
125

126
127 Figure 1 User interface from hybrid detection algorithm.

128 2.1. Conventional differential protection

129 First sub-algorithm is conventional differential protection. This protection did a con-
130 ventional method, measured differential current between primary and secondary side for
131 each phase. This protection is a unit-type protection for a specified zone or piece of equip-
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

132 ment. It is based on the fact that it is only in the case of faults to the zone that the differ-
133 ential current (difference between input and output currents) will be high [15]. Differential
134 protection schemes are mainly used for protection against phase-to-phase fault and phase
135 to earth faults. Normally, the operating coil carries no current as the current are balanced
136 on both the side of the power transformers. When the fault occurs in the power trans-
137 former windings, the balanced is disturbed and the operating coils of the differential relay
138 carry current corresponding to the difference of the current among the two sides of the
139 transformers. Thus, the relay trips the main circuit breakers on both sides of the power
140 transformers. So that, first sub-algorithm mainly used to distinguish between normal con-
141 dition and external fault condition in PT.

142 2.2. Negative sequence directional algorithm

143 Second sub-algorithm is negative sequence directional algorithm. This algorithm
144 uses asymmetrical component from 3 phase current principle to detect fault, especially
145 turn to turn fault. when there is fault either internal or external fault, the current phase
146 will not be symmetric anymore or become unbalanced phasors. This unbalanced phasor
147 generates positive (I1), negative (I2), and zero (I0) sequence components which is member
148 of balance set. Three phase current from primary and secondary side are extracted by Dis-
149 crete Fourier Transform (DFT) algorithm and the symmetrical components determined by
150 applying the Fortescue transformation refer to equation (3). The unbalance current can be
151 expressed as the sum of their components refer to (2).
152
I a  I 0  I1  I 2
I b  I 0  a 2 I1  aI 2 (2)
I c  I 0  aI1  a 2 I 2
153
154 A phase rotation operator “a” is defined to rotate a phasor vector. Phases are rotated
155 forward by 120 degrees. Conversely, the sequence components which are generated from
156 the phase currents can be written as equation (2) [14].
157

I0 
1
I a  I b  I c 
3
I1 
1
3

I a  aI b  a 2 I c  (3)

I2 
1
3

I a  a 2 I b  aI c 
158
159 Negative sequence current (I2) will increase if there is an unbalanced phasor or fault.
160 If the value exceeds a pre-defined threshold which typical default is 4% of the rated cur-
161 rent the angle between them is compare. When different angle (∆ϕ2TH) is between a pre-
162 defined directional limit, typically from +60o to +85o [10] the internal fault is detected, the
163 otherwise is belongs to external fault (see figure 2). Hence, this second sub-algorithm used
164 for distinguish between internal and external fault, and also normal condition.

165 2.3. Extended Park Vector Algorithm (EPVA)

166 Third sub-algorithm is EPVA, this algorithm based on space vector transformation.
167 Space vector transformation can describe behavior of three phase system and has been
168 applied to power transformer differential protection. The EPVA is based on the spectral
169 analysis of the AC level of the differential current Park's Vector modulus. Using the ABC-
170 dq transformation the three phase quantities are transformed into a synchronous rotating
171 reference frame [16]. Direct and quadrature (DQ) current form Park’s vector components
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

172 (ID, IQ) are obtained by Park transformation using equation (5) [10], ida, idb, idc denotes dif-
173 ferential current for each phase. This current is used as inputs for calculate ID and IQ.
174

175
176 Figure 2 Negative sequence directional degree classification

177
i dA  i LA   1 0  1 i La 
i   i   Ns  1 1 0  i 
 dB   LB  N    Lb  (4)
i dC  i LC  p
 0  1 1  i Lc 
178
 23  1   i dA 
1
I D   6
 i 
6
I   (5)
  12   
dB
 Q  0
1
2  i dC 

i EPVA  i D  i Q  i 2D  i Q2 (6)
179
180 The DC level from i EPVA is obtained by using equation (6). EPVA current is propor-
181 tional to magnitude of the balanced three phase current system. The presence of an incip-
182 ient winding fault leads to an increment in the magnitude of the differential current of the
183 affected phase, as compared to a healthy situation, which results in an unbalanced three-
184 phase currents system. Under these conditions the differential current Park's Vector mod-
185 ulus will contain a DC level as well as an AC level, at twice the supply frequency (2f) [17].
186 So that, the sub-algorithm EPVA technique in this research is mainly used to distinguish
187 between internal fault and normal condition.

188 2.4. Differential negative sequence protection

189 The fourth sub algorithm is differential negative sequence protection. The applica-
190 tion of the negative sequence algorithm for protection of power transformers has attracted
191 great attention in the last years and several variants of the method have been proposed.
192 This algorithm measures the difference value of negative sequence current along finite
193 time. During internal fault, the negative current sequence will generate current and the
194 differential current (3) will increase. So that, differential current and negative sequence
195 current can be fused. This algorithm uses differential current refer to equation (4) to get a
196 negative sequence component using equation (3). The inputs from equation (3) is substi-
197 tuted by differential current value for each phase. The differential negative sequence can
198 be expressed as equation (7).
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

199

I d2 
1
2

I da  a 2 I db  aI dc  (7)

200 2.5. EPVA – Fuzzy algorithm

201 Fuzzy inference system is a process that decides in parallel, because of this property,
202 there is no data loss during the process. So final fault detection will be far more precise
203 than that of conventional relaying techniques [14]. Using differential current and EPVA
204 current as inputs to fuzzy system (see figure 3). Those two inputs will be processed inside
205 fuzzy logic system to generate crisp value or output score for each fault (internal and ex-
206 ternal fault). This score system can indicate which fault is occurred inside PT.
207 Inside fuzzy logic system there are 3 part, fuzzification, inference system, and de-
208 fuzzification. Fuzzification is used to convert the measured quantities from the process
209 (voltages, velocities, temperatures, etc.) into fuzzy sets to be used by the inference stage.
210 Each input either EPVA current and differential current using trapezoidal form as its func-
211 tion with three level: LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH. Membership function for output value
212 (internal and external fault) uses a Gaussian bell function with three level value: IF (Incip-
213 ient Fault), MF (Medium Fault), SF (Severe Fault). Inference System is a process to deter-
214 mine the degree of firing of each rule in the rule base. The second function of the inference
215 stage is to determine the degree to which each rule’ s recommendation is to be weighted
216 in arriving at the final decision and to determine an implied fuzzy set corresponding to
217 each rule. Number of fuzzy inference rules for the purposed system is 15, like shown in
218 figure 4. De-fuzzification, is a stage to convert the collection of recommendations of all
219 rules into a crisp output. Centroid is used as a method in de-fuzzification stage, refer to
220 equation (8). DV means De-fuzzification Value, xi and μ(xi) are inputs and membership
221 function value. If DV Value from Internal fault is more than external fault so the decision
222 will be generated as an internal fault and If DV Value from Internal fault is less than ex-
223 ternal fault so the decision will be generated as an external fault [18].
224
n

 x μ(x )
i 0
i i
DV  n
(8)
 μ(x )
i 0
i

225

226
227 Figure 3 Fuzzy logic system flow

INTERNAL FAULT
Differential Current
None Low Medium High
None
Low IF IF MF
EPVA
Medium SF MF SF SF
High SF SF SF SF
(a)
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

EXTERNAL FAULT
Differential Current
None Low Medium High
None IF MF SF
Low IF MF
EPVA
Medium IF MF
High IF SF
(b)
Figure 4 Fuzzy rules for internal and external fault classification

228 3. Simulation Setup

229 In this paper, we developed a turn to turn fault simulation on 10 MVA, 3-phase
230 power transformer with Δ-Y configuration 150/300 KV. This simulation used simscape
231 module on MATLAB. In developing turn to turn fault simulation, shorting resistor is used
232 to simulate the sort turn in primary winding on phase A. The short-circuited turns act as
233 an auto transformer load on the winding, where Rsh represents the fault impedance [3].
234 Configuration model is shown in figure 5 and equivalent circuit for short turn shown
235 in figure 6. The distribution of the magnetic flux is fundamentally altered for the trans-
236 former with an internal turn-to-turn fault. To produce the magnetic flux in the core, the
237 exciting current is required. The exciting current flows in the primary winding where it
238 establishes an altering flux in the magnetic circuit. When an internal turn-to-turn fault
239 occurs, the situation is more complex [14].

240
241 Figure 5. Turn to turn fault in 3 phase power transformer model.

Fault subwinding
Healthy subwinding turns Turn ( Nf )

iy R1
R
ix

242
Rsh
243 Figure 6. Equivalent circuit for short turn in primary winding phase A.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

244

245 4. Simulation and comparative analysis

246 The following figures show the simulation result of the turn to turn fault, external
247 fault, and normal scheme. Differential current and line current signal is collected from
248 simulation data. Those signals became an input for all sub-algorithm, while hybrid detec-
249 tion algorithm will decide final condition based on sub-algorithm result.

250 4.1. Turn to turn fault scheme

251 Turn to turn fault did not make any difference to current and voltage either in pri-
252 mary or secondary side like shown in figure 7. Therefore, conventional differential pro-
253 tection algorithm failed to detect this kind of fault. Shown that in early stage of short turn
254 level, conventional algorithm is un-capable to detect the fault because the differential cur-
255 rent is too small and did not exceed the pre-defined threshold value. The conventional
256 algorithm is also un-capable to distinguish fault which caused by internal or external fault.
257 In this scheme the fault happened at t = 3s. The number of short turns on primary
258 winding vary between 0.8% until 16% from total winding turn. Turn to turn fault cause
259 iepva and differential negative sequence current increase significantly as shown in figure 8
260 and 10. When fault occurred, current signal from iepva raised until 104.8 A and differential
261 negative sequence current raised until 85.55 A. In result table also for EPVA and differen-
262 tial negative sequence algorithm showed correct result to decide the fault. However, these
263 algorithms are incapable to distinguish between normal and external fault conditions dis-
264 cussed in the external scheme.
265 Negative sequence directional algorithm can give a correct decision when turn to
266 turn fault occurred. When turn to turn fault occurred negative sequence current in pri-
267 mary side (Ip2) increased significantly and on the secondary side (Is2) increased slightly.
268 Phase difference between negative sequence current in primary and secondary side de-
269 crease between +60o to +85o degree, see figure 9. For comparison result, in result table
270 shown that in early stage turn to turn fault with 0.8 and 1.6 % short turns level EPVA and
271 differential negative sequence current is more sensitive to detect the fault. Fuzzy algo-
272 rithm showed that internal fault crisp value is bigger than external fault, see figure 12.
273 Internal fault crisp value is 1559 and external fault crisp value is 53.42. Based on that result
274 fuzzy algorithm declared an internal fault state at 1.6 turn to turns short level.
275 Based on that result, 3 sub-algorithms declared as an internal fault and another de-
276 clared as a normal condition at 1.6% short turns level and at 0.8% short turns level 2 sub-
277 algorithm declared as an internal fault and another declared as a normal condition, hence
278 hybrid detection algorithm sets an internal fault as the final decision for both levels. Four
279 sub-algorithms declared as an internal fault when turn to turn level reached 2.4%. Hybrid
280 detection algorithm decided to set an internal fault as a final result. Summary of result for
281 experiment is shown in figure 14. In this case hybrid detection can overcome wrong deci-
282 sion from several sub-algorithm and give a correct result for all turn to turn short level.
283 Internal fault condition is declared as the final result by hybrid detection algorithm based
284 on sub-algorithm result (see figure 13).
285
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 7 Fundamental component under 2.4% TTF condition.

Figure 8 Negative sequence current from primary and secondary side under 2.4% TTF condition.

Figure 9 Phase difference between Ip2 and Is2 under 2.4% TTF condition.

Figure 10 iepva under 2.4% TTF condition.

Figure 11 Differential negative sequence current under 2.4% TTF condition.

 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure 12 Internal and external crisp value under 1.6 % TTF condition.

Figure 13 Hybrid algorithm result under TTF scheme.

Subalgorithm Decision Description

Conventional Diff Normal Condition TTF level : 0.8 - 6.7%

Protection
Fault Conditon TTF level : 7.5 - 16.3%

Normal Condition
Negative Directional
TTF Level: 0.8 - 1.6%
Algorithm
Intenal fault Conditon TTF Level: 2.4 - 12.3%
External Fault Conditon TTF Level: 13.1 - 16.3%

Differential Negative
Internal Fault Condition TTF Level:0.8 - 16.3%
Sequence
Non-internal Fault Condition _

Extended Park Vector

Internal Fault Condition TTF Level:0.8 - 16.3%
Algorithm
Non-internal Fault Condition _
Normal Condition TTF Level: 0.8%
Fuzzy Intenal fault Conditon TTF Level: 1.6 - 16.3%
External Fault Conditon _
Final Decision

HYBRID Normal Condition

COMBINATION
RESULT Intenal fault Conditon TTF Level:0.8 - 16.3%
External Fault Conditon
Figure 14 Summary result from turn to turn fault scheme with different level short turn.

286 4.2. External Fault Scheme

287 In this scheme external fault happened at t=3s in secondary side phase A. External
288 fault is simulated with short line between line to line and line to ground in secondary side.
289 In simulation, resistor is used to simulated the short circuit, with several value (50, 100,
290 500, 600, 700, 800 ohm). External fault condition creates a huge differential current. Pri-
291 mary and secondary current on terminal voltage (see figure 15) shows a significant differ-
292 ent between before and after fault. Conventional differential protection can detect the ex-
293 ternal fault because differential current between primary and secondary side exceeds the
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

294 limit see figure 16. Shown in figure 21 for conventional differential protection declared
295 fault status under external fault condition.
296 In external fault scheme, negative sequence current from primary (Ip2) and second-
297 ary (Is2) side raised significantly. Followed by phase difference between both sides stabi-
298 lized at 118o (figure 16). Based on that negative sequence directional algorithm declared
299 an external fault condition. Fuzzy algorithm generates external crisp value bigger than
300 internal crisp value. Internal fault and external fault crisp values are 15.26 and 7918 re-
301 spectively. Therefore, fuzzy algorithm generates external fault status.
302 EPVA and differential negative sequence algorithm are un-capable to distinguish be-
303 tween normal and external fault. When external fault happened i epva and differential neg-
304 ative sequence current did not increase exceeding the threshold value. So that, the trans-
305 former condition declared as non-internal fault. However, this condition also occurred at
306 normal condition see figure 18.
307 This limitation can overcome by negative sequence directional algorithm, conven-
308 tional differential protection, and fuzzy algorithm. Based on that, there are 3 sub-algo-
309 rithms which can detect the external fault. Therefore, the hybrid detection algorithm
310 chooses an external fault as the final result. It means that the hybrid detection algorithm
311 generates correct decision about transformer condition in external fault scheme, see figure
312 21. The summary experience result shown either sub-algorithm and hybrid algorithm de-
313 clared external fault status at PT see figure 22.

Figure 15 Fundamental component under external fault.

314

Figure 16 Negative sequence current from primary and secondary side under external fault.

315
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Figure 17 Phase difference between Ip2 and Is2 under external fault

Figure 18 iepva under external fault.

Figure 19 Differential negative sequence current under external fault.

Figure 20 Internal and external crisp value under external fault.

Figure 21 Hybrid algorithm result in external fault scheme.

 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

Subalgorithm Decision Description

Normal Condition _
Conventional Diff All short location with
Protection variaton of short
Fault Conditon resistant value
Normal Condition _
Intenal fault Conditon _
Negative Directional
Algorithm All short location with
variaton of short
External Fault Conditon resistant value
Internal Fault Condition _

Differential Negative
Sequence All short location with
variaton of short
Non-internal Fault Condition resistant value
Internal Fault Condition _
Extended Park Vector
Algorithm All short location with
variaton of short
Non-internal Fault Condition resistant value
Normal Condition _
Intenal fault Conditon _
Fuzzy All short location with
variaton of short
External Fault Conditon resistant value
Final Decision
Normal Condition _
Intenal fault Conditon _
HYBRID COMBINATION
RESULT All short location with
variaton of short
External Fault Conditon resistant value
Figure 22 Summary result from external fault scheme.

316 4.3. Normal Scheme

317 In this scheme, we simulated a normal transformer condition with variation of load.
318 This scheme aims to ensure the protection algorithm to generate correct result in normal
319 condition. The result (see figure 24) shows that in normal scheme, the hybrid detection
320 algorithm also declared normal state. Using hybrid detection algorithm can increase the
321 accuracy than if using a single algorithm only (figure 25). In case to distinguish between
322 fault and normal condition (Accuracy 1), the highest accuracy of sub-algorithm occurs
323 fuzzy with 98% accuracy. In accuracy 2 distinguishing between internal and non-internal
324 fault, the highest accuracy of sub-algorithm occurs differential negative sequence and
325 EPVA. In accuracy 3 distinguishing between internal, external, and normal condition, the
326 highest accuracy of sub-algorithm occurs on fuzzy algorithm. Using fuzzy seems to be
327 very effective to detect the fault and distinguish between internal or external fault. Using
328 fuzzy algorithm needs experience to design the inference rule and membership function
329 for input or output, and the design can be different for other types of transformers. How-
330 ever, hybrid detection algorithm can overcome the misdetection on fuzzy and increase the
331 accuracy of fault detection.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

Subalgorithm Decision Description

in all normal conditon
Conventional Diff Normal Condition
with variation of load
Protection
Fault Conditon _
in all normal conditon
Normal Condition
Negative Directional with variation of load
Algorithm Intenal fault Conditon _
External Fault Conditon _
Internal Fault Condition _
Differential Negative
in all normal conditon
Sequence
Non-internal Fault Condition with variation of load
Internal Fault Condition
Extended Park Vector
in all normal conditon
Algorithm
Non-internal Fault Condition with variation of load
in all normal conditon
Normal Condition
with variation of load
Fuzzy
Intenal fault Conditon _
External Fault Conditon _
Final Decision
in all normal conditon
Normal Condition
HYBRID COMBINATION with variation of load
RESULT Intenal fault Conditon _
External Fault Conditon _
Figure 23 Summary result from normal scheme

Figure 24 Hybrid algorithm result in normal scheme.

Accuracy 1 Accuracy 2 Accuracy 3

(Fault or (Internal or (Internal,
Normal Non - internal External, and
Condition): Fault): Normal):
Conventional Diff
Protection 84% 84% 84%
Negative Directional
Algorithm 96% 91% 91%
Differential Negative
Sequence
63% 100% 78%
Extended Park Vector
Algorithm 63% 100% 78%
Fuzzy 98% 98% 98%

HYBRID COMBINATION
RESULT
100% 100% 100%
Figure 25 Summary of accuracy result.

332 5. Conclusions
333 The main objective of this work is to ensure the protective algorithm for power trans-
334 former. Hybrid detection algorithm collected all method result and choose the most fault
335 condition. This algorithm can resolve the limitation from each sub-algorithm. Through
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 16

336 this representation, it will help the user to understand about power transformer condition.
337 The advantage of this method is quite simple to implement and can detect incipient turn
338 to turn fault at 0.8% turn short. Even this method using six algorithms in same time to
339 generate a final fault decision, the computational burden still low. Based on simulation
340 result hybrid detection algorithm can give slightly increased accuracy in turn to turn fault
341 detection.
342

343 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

344 References
345 1. Liu, Y.; Song, B.; Wang, L.; Gao, J.; Xu, R. Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis Based on Dis-
346 solved Gas Analysis by Correlation Coefficient-DBSCAN. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4440.
347 https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134440
348 2. A. M. Shah and B. R. Bhalja, "Fault discrimination scheme for power transformer using ran-
349 dom forest technique," IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1431-
350 1439, 2016.
351 3. L. M. R. Oliveira and A. J. M. Cardoso, "Power transformers behavior under the occurrence of
352 inrush currents and turn-to-turn winding insulation faults," in The XIX International Confer-
353 ence on Electrical Machines - ICEM 2010, 2010, pp. 1-7.
354 4. K. Ramesh and M. Sushama, "Inter-turn fault detection in power transformer using fuzzy
355 logic," in 2014 International Conference on Science Engineering and Management Research
356 (ICSEMR), 2014, pp. 1-5.
357 5. D. Hermann and G. Autor, “Short-Circuit Withstand Capability of Power Transformers,”
358 2015..
359 6. O. E. Gouda, A. Z. E. Dein, and I. Moukhtar, "Turn-to-earth fault modelling of power trans-
360 former based on symmetrical components," IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol.
361 7, no. 7, pp. 709-716, 2013.
362 7. B. Kasztenny, M. Thompson, and N. Fischer, "Fundamentals of short-circuit protection for
363 transformers," in 2010 63rd Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, 2010, pp. 1-13.
364 8. A. M. Shah, B. R. Bhalja, and R. M. Patel, "New protection scheme for power transformer based
365 on superimposed differential current," IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 12,
366 no. 14, pp. 3587-3595, 2018.
367 9. A. Sahebi and H. Samet, "Efficient method for discrimination between inrush current and
368 internal faults in power transformers based on the non-saturation zone," IET Generation,
369 Transmission & Distribution, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1486-1493, 2017.
370 10. L. M. R. Oliveira and A. J. M. Cardoso, "Comparing Power Transformer Turn-to-Turn Faults
371 Protection Methods: Negative Sequence Component Versus Space-Vector Algorithms,"
372 IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 2817-2825, 2017
373 11. S. Myong-Chul, P. Chul-Won, and K. Jong-Hyung, "Fuzzy logic-based relaying for large
374 power transformer protection," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 718-
375 724, 2003.
376 12. L. Zhou and T. Hu, "Multifactorial condition assessment for power transformers," IET Gen-
377 eration, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1607-1615, 2020.
378 13. D. Barbosa, U. C. Netto, D. V. Coury, and M. Oleskovicz, "Power Transformer Differential
379 Protection Based on Clarke's Transform and Fuzzy Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power
380 Delivery, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1212-1220, 2011.
381 14. M. Babiy, R. Gokaraju, and J. C. Garcia, "Turn-to-turn fault detection in transformers using
382 negative sequence currents," in 2011 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference, 2011,
383 pp. 158-163.
384 15. M. F. Elmareimi, R., "Transformer Differential Protection Scheme with Internal Faults De-
385 tection Algorithm Using Second Harmonics Restrain and Fifth Harmonics Blocking Logic,"
386 2007.
387 16. D. Zacharias and R. Gokaraju, "Prototype of a Negative-Sequence Turn-to-Turn Fault Detec-
388 tion Scheme for Transformers," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 1, pp.
389 122-129, 2016.
390 17. M. Guerreiro and V. F. Pires, "A Transformer Differential Relay Based on a Multiple Park
391 Transformation," in 2007 International Conference on Power Engineering, Energy and Elec-
392 trical Drives, 2007, pp. 400-404.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 16

393 18. L. Oliveira and A. J. M. Cardoso, "Extended Park’s vector approach-based differential pro-
394 tection of three-phase power transformers," IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 6, pp. 463-
395 472, 09/01 2012.
396 19. J. H. LILLY, Fuzzy Control and Identification. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., 1949, p. 249.