1280 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO.

3, JULY 2013

Determination of Geomagnetically Induced

Current Flow in a Transformer From
Reactive Power Absorption
Luis Marti, Member, IEEE, Jonathan Berge, Member, IEEE, and Rajiv K. Varma, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper proposes a technique to estimate geomag-

netically induced currents (GICs) in a transformer by measuring
its absorbed reactive power. GIC is induced in electrical transmis-
sion lines by changes in the earth’s magnetic field typically caused
by solar magnetic disturbances, and flows into transformers
through neutral grounding connections. An assessment of GIC
from readily available reactive power measurements is an attrac-
tive alternative to the installation of dedicated GIC monitoring
equipment on every transformer of an high-voltage transmission
network. This technique is verified with electromagnetic transients
software simulations and shows good agreement with the historical
records captured in Hydro One’s GIC detection network during
the May 15, 2005 geomagnetic disturbance.
Index Terms—Geomagnetism, power system modeling, power
transformers, power transmission meteorological factors.

I. INTRODUCTION Fig. 1. Terminal voltage and magnetizing current for a transformer under half-
cycle saturation.

S OLAR disturbances can release clouds of high energy

plasma into space. If a plasma cloud crosses the earth’s
path, it interacts with the earth’s magnetic field to produce geo-
GMD events, the electroject can extend to latitudes below the
40 parallel. During the Carrington event (1859), which is con-
magnetic disturbances (GMDs). A key feature of geomagnetic
sidered to be the most severe geomagnetic disturbances in re-
disturbances is an increase in the electrojet in boreal and austral
cent recorded history [3], the aurora could be seen in relatively
auroral zones. The electrojet can be visualized as a conductor
low latitudes, such as Florida and Southern California. The fre-
suspended 100 km above the surface of the earth with a width
quency and intensity of GMD events tend to follow the 11-year
of 600 km, and currents up to 2000 kA. During geomagnetic
sunspot cycle [4]. While GMD events are more likely to occur
disturbances, variations in the electroject (in the order of 1 to
during a peak or solar maximum, they are by no means limited
100 mHz) produce magnetic-field variations that induce volt-
to occurring at peak times.
ages in relatively long conductors at the ground level. If these
Power transformers are designed to operate in the linear re-
conductors, for instance, the wires of an HV transmission line,
gion of their magnetizing characteristic. When dc or low-fre-
are grounded through the neutral connection of transformers at
quency currents, such as GIC, flow into a transformer winding,
the ends of the line, a closed loop or return path is formed and
the operating point is shifted and half-cycle saturation takes
currents will circulate. These currents are commonly referred
place, as illustrated in Fig. 1. When a transformer enters into
to as geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) [1], [2].
dc biased or half-cycle saturation, both odd and even harmonics
The electrojet normally resides in regions near the earth’s
are generated. Power apparatus, such as transformers and capac-
magnetic poles. During a GMD, current density of the electrojet
itor banks, are designed to operate with power frequency volt-
increases and its size extends away from the poles. In severe
ages and currents. Harmonic currents superimposed on power
frequency currents can cause a number of undesirable effects,
such as spot heating in power transformers, overloading of ca-
Manuscript received May 25, 2011; revised September 01, 2011; accepted
February 01, 2012. Date of publication April 11, 2013; date of current version pacitor banks, improper operation of certain types of protective
June 20, 2013. This work was supported in part by Hydro One and in part by relays, extraneous losses, and rotating machine overheating, to
NSERC. Paper no. TPWRD-00443-2011.
name a few.
L. Marti is with the Hydro One Networks Inc., Toronto ON M5G 2P5, Canada
(e-mail: luis.marti@hydroone.com). The Québec Blackout of March 13th, 1989 was triggered by
J. Berge and R. K. Varma are with the University of Western Ontario, London, the tripping of capacitor banks of key static var compensators
ON N6A5B9 Canada (e-mail: jeberge@uwo.ca; rkvarma@uwo.ca).
(SVCs) and a cascading series of events that led to the voltage
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. collapse of the 735-kV network [5], [6]. This incident high-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2219885 lighted, in dramatic fashion, how extreme space weather events

0885-8977/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
MARTI et al.: DETERMINATION OF GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENT FLOW IN A TRANSFORMER FROM REACTIVE POWER ABSORPTION
and GIC can cause cascading failures, leading to massive dis-
ruption of electrical power service.
1) Simulation of GIC in Power Systems: There is a substan-
tial body of research devoted to the analysis of GIC in HV trans-
mission networks. In general, proposed techniques aim at deter-
mining the electrical-field potential that causes GIC to circu-
late in transmission lines through the neutral grounding points
of transformers [7]. Electric-field potentials at ground level de-
pend on many factors, such as the earth resistivity over large ge-
ographical areas as well as temporal and spatial variation of the
magnetic field during a GMD event. Once the induced poten-
tials on transmission circuits are assessed with varying degrees
of uncertainty and simplifying assumptions, the GIC currents
circulating in transmission lines and transformers are then cal-
culated by modelling the power system as a dc network where
the forcing functions (normally voltage sources) are estimated
from the induced potentials [8].
Once the GIC currents are estimated, their potential effect on
power apparatus has to be assessed. In the case of transformers,
two main areas of concern are the heating effects of harmonics
caused by half-cycle saturation, and the heating caused by stray
flux as the core goes in and out of saturation. These effects de-
pend heavily on the construction and type of transformer. For
instance, banks of single-phase units are more susceptible than
three-phase units, while three-leg core-type units are the least
susceptible [9].
From the point of view of protective relaying, susceptibility
to GIC depends largely on the type and magnitude of harmonic
currents caused by transformer saturation, the type of relay, and
the particular protective scheme. Thus, even if the GIC circu-
lating in the power network could be assessed with reasonable
accuracy, the effect on the performance of the system and poten-
tial damage to equipment remains difficult to assess, especially
in real time.
2) Measurement and Monitoring of GIC: Measuring GIC
directly is a way to get around the difficulties and uncertain-
ties that arise from modeling it from fundamental principles
(i.e., induced potentials at ground level). The generally accepted
practice for measuring GIC on an electrical system is to install
Hall-effect sensors on the neutral conductor of selected trans-
formers. After appropriate filtering and conditioning, a mea-
surement of the dc current in the transformer neutral is ob-
tained [10], [11]. The Sunburst system, developed by the Elec-
tric Power Research Institute (EPRI), uses this technique and
has been implemented in the U.S. (primarily in the Northeast),
Manitoba (on a feeder supplying Minnesota) [5], and in Eng-
land and Wales [12]. The Minnesota power system also uses
dc current measurement directly on a 500-kV phase conductor
[13]. Hydro One has deployed an extensive GIC detection net-
work [14]. In 2005, it had 12 monitoring stations transmitting
real-time data directly to the operations and control center. In
preparation for the peak of the sunspot cycle 24 (2012–2014),
the number of GIC monitoring stations will be increased to 17.
Transformer neutral currents are sometimes used to trigger
alarms and fault recorders in order to facilitate the analysis
of GIC incidents [6], [13], [15]. Parameters that are con-
sidered of interest with regard to the effects of GIC include
system voltages and reactive power consumption as well as
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1281
transformer tank temperature, transformer oil gassing, along
with transformer noise and vibration [13], [15]. The effective
reactive power absorption of a transformer increases when
that transformer’s magnetic core is saturated. This relationship
is almost linear and depends nearly entirely on the saturated
reactance of the transformer [9], [16], [17].
The installation of real-time neutral GIC monitors on every
transformer would be very useful but a rather expensive propo-
sition. On the other hand, knowing the amount of GIC flowing
into the neutral of a transformer does not provide a direct indi-
cation of whether the transformer will enter into half-cycle sat-
uration. For instance, in the case of an autotransformer, it is not
possible to determine the extent of saturation from the neutral
GIC measurements alone.
3) Requirements of the Power System Controlling Authority:
During a GMD event, the power system controlling authority
(i.e., the system operator) needs to assess if any of the potential
problems described earlier are or will be taking place. Since the
problems associated with GIC are caused by transformer satu-
ration and the subsequent generation of harmonics, the notion
of assessing these effects directly, rather than through simula-
tions affected by different levels of uncertainty is quite attrac-
tive. Control room energy-management systems (EMS) or su-
pervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) continuously
measure and monitor real and reactive power in real time with
the existing infrastructure. A reliable relationship between mea-
sured reactive power loss in a transformer, harmonic currents,
and GIC flowing through the windings would directly provide
the information needed to make practical operational decisions
in real time. The decisions could range from taking equipment
at risk out of service to reconfiguring the network to reducing
the GIC impact on vulnerable equipment.
This paper proposes an approach to obtain the relationships
between transformer reactive power loss and GIC from EMS re-
active power measurements. Unlike earlier work that acknowl-
edged the correlation between GIC and reactive power absorp-
tion [9], [16], this paper seeks to define that relationship and
uses it to estimate GIC levels from measured reactive power
loss. Section II presents the proposed concept of employing
transformer reactive power absorption to determine its satu-
ration level and consequently the GIC. Section III shows an
application of the technique on a simulation of a bank of a
single-phase autotransformers modeled in the Electromagnetic
Transients Program EMTDC/PSCAD [18]. In Section IV, the
effect of the path of the flow of GIC through the transformer
windings is examined. Section V presents a case study using
GIC and reactive power measurements of the Hydro One net-
work obtained during a GMD event that took place in May 2005.
Discussions are presented in Section VI, with conclusions in
Section VII.
II. PROPOSED TECHNIQUE
Consider the simplified transformer representation shown in
Fig. 2. This simplified model will be used to illustrate that reac-
tive power losses in a transformer are proportional to dc flux es-
tablished in the core by dc currents flowing through its windings.
1282 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO. 3, JULY 2013

Fig. 2. Simplified transformer model.

Fig. 4. Flux linkages versus the current nonlinear characteristic with dc flux
offset.

The effective linear inductance that approximates the

currents when rms is at the terminals of the nonlinear reactor
is

(4)
Fig. 3. Flux linkages versus the current nonlinear characteristic.
since rms currents are practically zero during half a cycle.
The effective reactive power loss is given by
Core saturation effects can be approximated with a nonlinear
inductor in many types of transformer construction with dif- (5)
ferent degrees of accuracy [19]. Let us consider a single-phase
transformer. Core and eddy current losses are ignored. The non- Introducing (3) and (4) into (5)
linear characteristic in terms of flux linkages as a function of
current is shown in Fig. 3. The rms voltage at the terminals
of the nonlinear inductance is assumed to be sinusoidal. Since
losses are ignored
(6)
(1)
where is constant for a given terminal voltage
and the relationship between applied voltage and instantaneous
flux is
(7)

(2) and can be approximated by

is the rms value of the applied sinusoidal voltage and is (8)

the angular frequency at the power frequency.
Under normal steady-state conditions, the operating point is
centered around the zero flux point of the characteristic and the
peak ac flux lies just under the knee point of the nonlinear char-
acteristic. If a dc current, such as GIC, establishes a dc flux in
the core of the transformer, the operating point is shifted and
the transformer enters into half-cycle saturation as shown in
Fig. 4. For a positive , only the parts of the positive sinu-
soidal flux enter the saturated region and generate the distinc-
tive “inrush” current signature (illustrated in Fig. 1 albeit with
a negative sign).
If the effect of is ignored since , the
equivalent linear inductance defined by the operating point
is given by
(3)
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(9)
where
(10)
It should be noted that as the operating voltage changes, so
does the slope of the versus relationship in (9). There-
fore, different values of and should be used for different op-
erating voltages. In a production environment implementation,
lookup tables for different operating voltages can be generated
and linear interpolation used to estimate either GIC from mea-
sured reactive power loss or predicted reactive power loss from
GIC estimates assessed by other means. In addition, the lookup
tables can be generated ahead of time with a transients anal-
ysis program, such as PSCAD/EMTCD, by measuring as
a function of , as shown in Section III-B. The advantage
MARTI et al.: DETERMINATION OF GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENT FLOW IN A TRANSFORMER FROM REACTIVE POWER ABSORPTION
Fig. 5. Technique for determining GIC with transformer power flows.
of generating lookup tables this way is that the accuracy of the
one-to-one relationship between and will be as good
as the accuracy of the transients analysis model used to generate
them.
Transients analysis simulations have been used to estimate
the sensitivity and validity of some of the assumptions made in
the derivation of (9). For instance, taking hysteresis into account
does not seem to influence the relationship between and
, nor does the assumption of ignoring winding and eddy
current losses or the assumption that in (3).
Through existing EMS-based data acquisition (DAQ), the
transformer loading and its reactive power absorption are typ-
ically known. From this information, it is possible to deter-
mine the magnitude of GIC using the proposed technique il-
lustrated in Fig. 5, as follows. The difference between the re-
active power flow into the transformer and the reactive
power flow out of the transformer is taken to be the re-
active power absorbed by the transformer . The load cur-
rent of the transformer is used along with a model of the
transformer under unsaturated conditions to determine the ex-
pected reactive power absorbed by the transformer . The
difference between the expected and actual reactive power ab-
sorption is attributed to GIC . Finally, a predetermined
characteristic or lookup table is used to calculate (the mag-
nitude of GIC). In this paper, the predetermined characteristic
has been taken based on nameplate values of the air-core re-
actance of a 500/230-kV 750-MVA autotransformer. For the
case of new units, it would be better to carry out measurements
of the magnetizing characteristic during transformer precom-
missioning testing from which the needed characteristic can be
derived.
III. CASE STUDY 1: SIMULATION OF A SINGLE-PHASE
AUTOTRANSFORMER BANK
A. Study System
The study system is shown in Fig. 6. This is a theoretical study
system designed to examine the performance of the transformer
in isolation. The transformer of interest is a three-phase bank
that consists of three single-phase autotransformers. This trans-
former bank is supplied by an ideal voltage source behind a
delta-connected ideal transformer which serves to block dc
currents from the source . A dc current source injects cur-
rent in each primary phase to simulate GIC, and a second source
may be used to inject GIC in the secondary windings, in both
directions. The LV side of the transformer supplies a con-
stant power load of 100 MW (the transformer’s rated capacity).
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1283
Fig. 6. Single-phase transformer study system.
Fig. 7. Transformer reactive power consumption with a variation in dc current
injection (bank of single-phase autotransformers rated 500/230 kV, 100 MW).
This load is isolated from the flow of low-frequency current
again with a delta-connected ideal transformer . The current
at the ground terminal of the transformer bank is mon-
itored, as are the input and output real and reactive power. The
transformer input power and output power
are measured directly.
B. GIC Flow From HV Terminal to Ground
This case considers the flow of saturating current from the
HV terminal of the autotransformer into the ground. This would
be the case of a transformer whose LV terminal is supplying an
ungrounded system with little or no GIC flow. To examine the
effects of saturation caused by the injection of a dc current, 100
A per phase of GIC is selected. Although this is at the high end
of GIC values typically observed in HV networks, it is used to
illustrate the effect of GIC on the transformer. One of the ef-
fects of the saturation of the transformer is the increased trans-
former reactive power consumption. In this case, three-phase re-
active power draw increases more than tenfold from ap-
proximately 10 to nearly 120 Mvar. Fig. 7 shows the average
three-phase reactive power consumption with increasing GIC
levels.
IV. EFFECT OF THE GIC FLOW PATH IN AN AUTOTRANSFORMER
The previous section considered an autotransformer where
the GIC flow was set from the HV terminal to ground with
no GIC flowing out of the LV terminal. However, in a system
where the LV network is grounded, the distribution of dc cur-
rent through HV, LV, and neutral terminals depends on a number
of factors, such as orientation of lines connected to HV and LV
buses, orientation of the induced electric field, and other circuit
parameters such as line and neutral grounding resistances. The
1284
Fig. 8. GIC current distribution in an autotransformer.
level of saturation in an autotransformer depends on the net dc
flux in the core which, in turn, depends on the current in the HV
and common windings. Since GIC monitors normally measure
neutral current, GIC measurements in an autotransformer only
reflect directly the flux contribution from the common winding.
Consider the case where LV GIC currents are zero
(11)
where and are the LV, and neutral GIC currents, respec-
tively, as shown in Fig. 8. , and are the number of turns of
the HV and LV windings, respectively. In a 500-kV /230-kV au-
totransformer, is proportional to (500–230) and is pro-
portional to 230. is the total number of dc ampere-turns ex-
citing the core.
If GIC flows through the LV terminal then
(12)
Normalizing with respect to the total number of turns pro-
duces the normalized effective dc excitation
(13)
The -axis in Fig. 7 is actually the normalized dc excitation
described in (13).
V. CASE STUDY 2: HYDRO ONE ESSA TS TRANSFORMER,
MAY 15, 2005 GMD EVENT
On May 15, 2005, the Hydro One GIC detection network
recorded the effects of a relatively mild GMD event. During this
event, there was no interruption of service, protective equipment
malfunction, or nuisance equipment tripping. GIC monitored
in the neutral of a 500-kV/230-kV/28-kV, 750-MVA autotrans-
former at Essa TS reached 30 A (10 A per phase). The trans-
former bank consists of three-single-phase units. The analysis
presented in this section is based on Hydro One’s EMS historical
records from the GIC monitoring stations. The technique pro-
posed here takes instrument calibration drift into consideration.
A. Modified Technique
1) Nomenclature: This nomenclature is used exclusively for
this case study to describe a modified technique needed to con-
dition the real system data.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO. 3, JULY 2013
Measured transformer neutral current.
Mean transformer neutral current (taken
during a period with no GIC activity).
Measured transformer neutral current with
instrument drift error corrected.
Measured transformer primary winding
reactive power.
Measured transformer secondary winding
reactive power.
Measured transformer reactive power
absorption.
Measured transformer reactive power
absorption with instrument drift error
corrected.
State-estimated transformer primary
winding reactive power.
State-estimated transformer secondary
winding reactive power.
State-estimated transformer reactive power
absorption.
Calibration factor for transformer reactive
power absorption.
Transformer reactive power absorption
attributed to GIC.
2) Measurement of GIC: Hydro One GIC monitoring
stations consist of a Hall Effect sensor located on the neu-
tral-to-ground connection of the transformer’s wye windings
[11]. The analog signals from these sensors are digitized and
filtered to remove power frequency and higher frequency com-
ponents. Hence, this signal is expected to correspond to GIC
only. The most prevalent error in this signal is an offset caused
by calibration drift of the sensor’s dc offset. This error can be
corrected by calculating a calibration factor during a period
where there is no GIC activity, as shown:
(14)
Fig. 9 shows the measured neutral terminal GIC over the du-
ration of the GMD event. In all figures in this section, the time
axis is labeled in minutes from midnight May 13, 2005. The data
are presented for May 14th and 15th (minutes 0 to 2879).
3) Calculation of Transformer Reactive Power Absorption:
Through the use of bus capacitive voltage transducers (CVTs)
and transformer bushing current transformers (CTs), the real and
reactive power flows through each transformer are recorded. In
the case of Essa T4, since no load or reactive compensation is
connected to the tertiary winding, the net transformer reactive
power absorption is calculated as the difference between the
reactive power flows in the primary and secondary terminals:
(15)
Any possible measurement or calibration error in the mea-
sured quantities will also be seen in the calculated ,
and will need to be compensated for.
MARTI et al.: DETERMINATION OF GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENT FLOW IN A TRANSFORMER FROM REACTIVE POWER ABSORPTION
Fig. 9. Measured transformer neutral current with error corrected.
The Hydro One EMS system also uses a state estimator
[20]–[23]. When modelling the operation of a transformer,
the state estimator takes into account only the series winding
reactance of the transformer, neglecting the core reactance.
By taking the difference between the estimated reactive power
flows, the reactive power absorption due to the series element
(calculated by the winding currents) can be determined as
(16)
When no GIC is present, and should be
equal except for the small amounts of reactive power absorbed
by the unsaturated transformer magnetizing current. So long as
the terminal voltage of the transformer remains constant, the
magnitude of this current remains constant. Also, if there is an
error in the measured transformer reactive power levels, that
error will contribute to the difference in these quantities. A cal-
ibration error-correction factor is taken during a period without
the GIC present. This gives an error corrected value
(17)
Taking the calibration error correction into account, any dif-
ference between the estimated and measured reactive power
levels is attributed to GIC
(18)
Fig. 10 shows the error-corrected reactive power absorp-
tion , the state estimated reactive power absorption
, and the transformer neutral current . A clear
correlation between the magnitude of GIC and the difference
between the measured and error-corrected transformer reactive
power absorption is seen.
4) Calculation of the Magnitude of GIC: As indicated in
Section IV, the GIC current measured in the neutral of an au-
totransformer is not indicative of the total GIC excitation but
rather the fraction that flows through the common winding as
shown in Fig. 8. In order to make a direct comparison between
the GIC estimated from reactive power loss and the GIC mea-
sured in the neutral, the dc current distribution in the windings
must be estimated from (11).
The relationship between and —the nor-
malized dc excitation current (A) for this transformer is shown
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1285
Fig. 10. Transformer reactive power absorption and measured neutral GIC.
Fig. 11. Absolute value of the measured neutral GIC and estimated neutral GIC
assuming 0.
in Fig. 7. It can be calculated or measured by leaving the LV
terminal open. The average slope of this curve is
0.367 (19)
Ideally, this relationship should be obtained via measure-
ments. When measurements are not possible or practical, the
“slope” for a single-phase autotransformer can be estimated
from the air-core reactance.
The comparison between the measured neutral GIC and the
value estimated from (19) is shown in Fig. 11. Clearly, this is
overestimated because is not zero. To make a direct compar-
ison between the measured neutral GIC and the value calculated
from reactive power loss, the dc current distribution in the ter-
minals of the autotransformer must be known.
The dc current distribution in an autotransformer depends on
the orientation of the induced electric field and on the relative
values of the transformer winding, grounding (delta windings
and ungrounded wye windings present an open circuit to dc cur-
rents), and line resistances. If the magnitude of the induced elec-
tric field is constant for all of the lines connected to the trans-
former, then for a given electric-field orientation, the ratio be-
tween , , and is constant. The current distribution be-
tween windings can be easily obtained by using well-established
GIC calculation methods [8], [24] if the dc resistance of the lines
and their geographical orientation with respect to the average
1286
Fig. 12. Major HV transmission circuits connected to Essa TS.
orientation of electric field during a GMD event are known. In
this case, the Electromagnetic Transients Program (EMTP) was
used to solve the relatively simple dc network shown in Fig. 12.
The voltages induced on the 12 circuits feeding into the Essa
transformer were scaled according to the direction of the elec-
tric field. The direction of the electric field in the time frame
shown in Fig. 10 was estimated from the magnetic-field mea-
surements of the event obtained from the Ottawa geomagnetic
observatory, operated by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).
From the EMTP simulation, 0.65 was obtained for
this particular time frame. From (11–13)
(20)
Therefore, the values obtained from (19) have to be scaled
by 0.74 to calculate the neutral current for a better compar-
ison with the neutral GIC measurements. The comparison be-
tween the measured GIC currents and GIC currents after taking
into account their distribution in the autotransformer windings
is shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
VI. DISCUSSION
While the example presented in this paper was based on an
autotransformer and, therefore, complicated by the current dis-
tribution between the terminals, it should be noted that in the
case of two winding transformers, there is only a single GIC
flow path in each winding. In this case, the comparison with
the measured neutral GIC is very simple since one winding is
typically ungrounded and, therefore, immune to GIC. Even in
the case of autotransformers, the net dc flux is easily observed
with the presented technique. It is ultimately the net dc flux that
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO. 3, JULY 2013
Fig. 13. Absolute value of measured neutral GIC and estimated neutral GIC
when is not zero.
Fig. 14. Absolute value of measured and estimated neutral GIC; closeup of
1620 to 1680 min.
causes half-cycle saturation and undesirable effects (as opposed
to only the contribution seen by neutral GIC measurements).
Identifying the current distribution among the windings is only
necessary if a comparison with the measurements of a neutral
GIC monitor is desired. A similar problem is encountered in
Y-Y transformers where both windings are grounded; however,
this configuration is not common in HV transmission.
If the GIC flowing through every transformer is known, it
is relatively simple to estimate the flows in transmission lines.
This would, in turn, enable the estimation of the induced electric
field spatially as well as temporally in portions of the system
without autotransformers. This information would be valuable
in the validation and improvement of traditional field-based GIC
estimation techniques.
This paper states that the distribution ratios of GIC current
in the windings of an autotransformer can assumed to be con-
stant within a given time frame if the induced geoelectric field
is assumed to be uniform in the aforementioned time frame.
While it is true that the induced geoelectric field depends on the
earth model assumptions, and the actual GIC currents depend
on the assumed station grounding resistance, and relative values
of resistances of lines, transformer windings, etc., such factors
affect the accuracy of the current calculation engine used to
find the current distribution factors. This paper is not proposing
MARTI et al.: DETERMINATION OF GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENT FLOW IN A TRANSFORMER FROM REACTIVE POWER ABSORPTION
a method to estimate the current distribution, but rather indi-
cates that if the current distribution is known within the accu-
The authors would like to thank Dr. A. Rezaei-Zare for his
racy of the means used to assess it, then it is possible to obtain
support in validating some of the results in this paper and his
good agreement between calculated and measured neutral GIC
invaluable insight into the analysis of nonlinear systems.
currents.
It is emphasized that increased consumption of reactive
power contains a large amount of distortion. However, strictly
speaking, the concept of reactive power is only applicable to
linear systems and at one frequency only. Therefore, the notion
of effective reactive power has been used. It is noted that
some EMS systems will filter inputs so that they are reporting
fundamental frequency values (depending on how the teleme-
tered information is acquired). This assumption seems to hold
when considering the field data analyses in Section IV. The
injection of harmonic currents (and corresponding distortion)
varies with the level of GIC. If these were contaminating the
measurements, the correlation shown in (20) would be far less
linear than shown.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper introduces a technique to estimate the flow of GIC
in HV transformers based on measured reactive power absorp-
tion. While previous work [9], [16] has noted a correlation be-
tween reactive power absorption and GIC, this paper not only
defines that relationship, but also proposes its application to es-
timate GIC using an existing monitoring infrastructure to mea-
sure reactive power.
Reactive power flow is monitored in real time by the power
system controlling authority on most modern EMS/SCADA
systems. Therefore, in principle, the GIC flows of every major
transformer in the system due to a GMD event can be estimated
in real time without additional GIC monitoring equipment and
without direct knowledge of the magnetic-field fluctuations or
earth resistivity.
This proposed technique is consistent with simulations
carried out with commercially available EMTDC/PSCAD soft-
ware. Field measurements retrieved from historical records of
the May 2005 GMD event show very good correlation between
calculated GIC and measured values on an autotransformer
with a dedicated neutral GIC monitor. This level of agreement
is very encouraging considering the relatively low GIC cur-
rents measured during the event and the relatively low time
resolution of the historical records.
Validation of the proposed technique with measurements of a
relatively mild GMD event on a single-phase autotransformer
could be considered as a good starting point. As more mea-
surements become available during cycle 24, it will be possible
to obtain data from more GMD events to validate, refine, and
calibrate this technique. The potential accuracy or validity of
this technique when applied to transformers that exhibit more
complex behavior with respect to GIC than single-phase units,
such as three-phase 3-limb and 5-limb core-type construction,
requires further work and validation with field measurements.
Since Hydro One has included GIC monitors in such units, field
data for these units will likely be available for analysis during
cycle 24.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1287
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES
[1] R. Pirjola, “Geomagnetically induced currents during magnetic
storms,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1867–1873, Dec.
2000.
[2] D. H. Boteler, “Geomagnetic hazards to conducting networks,” Nat.
Hazards, vol. 28, pp. 537–561, 2003.
[3] T. E. Bell and T. Phillips, A super solar flare. 2008. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci-
ence-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
[4] L. Trichtchenko and D. H. Boteler, “Response of power systems to the
temporal characteristics of geomagnetic storms,” in Proc. Can. Conf.
Elect. Computer Eng., 2006, p. 4.
[5] L. Bolduc, “GIC observations and studies in the Hydro-Québec power
system,” J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., vol. 64, pp. 1793–1802, 2002.
[6] D. H. Boteler, “Assessment of geomagnetic hazard to power systems
in Canada,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 23, pp. 101–120, 2001.
[7] D. H. Boteler, “Geomagnetically induced currents: Present knowledge
and future research,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50–58,
Jan. 1994.
[8] D. H. Boteler, L. Trichtchenko, R. Pirjola, J. Parmelee, S. Souksaly, A.
Foss, and L. Marti, “Real-time simulation of geomagnetically induced
currents,” in Proc. 7th Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat. Electromagn.
Ecol., Jun. 26–29, 2007, pp. 261–4.
[9] R. A. Walling and A. H. Khan, “Characteristics of transformer exciting-
current during geomagnetic disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1707–1714, Oct. 1991.
[10] R. L. Lesher, J. W. Porter, and R. T. Byerly, “Sunburst—A network
of GIC systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 128–137,
Jan. 1994.
[11] L. Lian-guang, Z. Hao, L. Chun-ming, G. Jian-hui, and G. Qing-xiong,
“Technology of detecting GIC in power grids and its monitoring de-
vice,” presented at the IEEE/Power Eng. Soc. Transm. Distrib. Conf.
Exhibit., Dalian, China, Aug. 15–18, 2005.
[12] I. A. Erinmez, “Managing the impact of geomagnetically induced cur-
rents on the NGC transmission system,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
Winter Meeting, Feb. 1, 2001, p. 337.
[13] D. R. Fagnan, P. R. Gattens, and F. D. Johnson, “Monitoring solar
magnetic disturbances in power systems (a summary),” IEEE Power
Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 4–6, Nov. 1990.
[14] L. Marti and C. Li, “Real-time GIC monitoring in the Ontario HV net-
work,” presented at the North Amer. Transm. Distrib. Conf., Toronto,
ON, Canada, May 2005.
[15] T. H. Breckenridge, T. Cumming, and J. Merron, “Geomagnetic in-
duced current detection and monitoring,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. De-
velop. Power Syst. Protect., Apr. 9–12, 2001, pp. 250–253.
[16] M. Lahtinen and J. Elovaara, “GIC occurrences and GIC test for 400
kV system transformer,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
555–561, Apr. 2002.
[17] P. R. Price, “Geomagnetically induced current effects on trans-
formers,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., vol. 22, no. 6, p. 62, Oct. 2002.
[18] “EMTDC/PSCAD User Manual,” HVDC Res. Ctr., Winnipeg, MB,
Canada, 2003.
[19] H. H. Dommel, EMTP Theory Book, 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC,
Canada: Microtran Power System Analysis, 1992.
[20] F. C. Schweppe and J. Wildes, “Power system static state estimation,
Part I: Exact model,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-89, no.
1, pp. 120–125, Jan. 1970.
[21] F. C. Schweppe, J. Wildes, and D. B. Rom, “Power system static state
estimation, Part II: Estimation algorithm and application,” IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-89, no. 1, pp. 125–130, Jan. 1970.
[22] F. C. Schweppe, “Power system static-state estimation, Part III: Im-
plementation,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-89, no. 1, pp.
130–135, Jan. 1970.
[23] T. V. Cutsem and M. Ribbens Pavela, “Critical survey of heirarchical
methods for state estimation of electric power systems,” IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst,, vol. PAS-102, no. 10, pp. 3415–3424, Oct. 1983.
[24] J. Berge and R. K. Varma, “A software simulator for geomagnetically
induced currents in electrical power systems,” presented at the Can.
Conf. Elect. Comput. Eng., St. John’s, NF, Canada, May 3–6, 2009.
1288
Luis Marti (M’79) received the MA.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from The Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, in
1983 and 1987, respectively.
He joined Ontario Hydro, Toronto, ON, Canada
(now Hydro One Networks), in 1989, where he is
currently responsible for the Special Studies Group.
He is also an Adjunct Professor at Ryerson Univer-
sity, Toronto, ON, Canada, and University of Western
Ontario, London, ON, Canada. His research activities
include the development of models for the family of
Electromagnetic Transients Program programs, geomagnetically induced cur-
rent simulation, grounding, induction coordination, electromotive-force (emf)
issues pertaining to transmission and distribution networks, and connection/op-
erational issues around the connection of renewable generation in distribution
networks.
Dr. Marti has participated in a number of Canadian and international technical
organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association, IEEE, and CIGRE.
Jonathan Berge (M’04) received the B.E.Sc.,
M.E.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering,
environment and sustainability from the University
of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
His research interests include atmospheric
phenomena in electrical power systems and the
interconnection of large wind power generators. He
is currently working on the application of distributed
photovoltaic generation to improve the performance
of distribution systems.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Otago. Downloaded on September 24,2023 at 22:43:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO. 3, JULY 2013
Rajiv K. Varma (SM’09) received the B.Tech. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, Kanpur, India,
in 1980 and 1988, respectively.
Currently, he is an Associate Professor and Hydro
One Chair in Power Systems Engineering at the
University of Western Ontario (UWO), London,
ON, Canada. Prior to this position, he was a faculty
member in the Electrical Engineering Department,
IIT Kanpur, from 1989 to 2001. He has co-authored
a book Thyristor-Based FACTS Controllers for
Electrical Transmission Systems (IEEE/Wiley). His research interests include
FACTS, power systems stability, and grid integration of wind and photovoltaic
solar power systems.
Prof. Varma was awarded the Government of India BOYSCAST Young Sci-
entist Fellowship in 1992–1993 to conduct research on FACTS at UWO. He also
received the Fulbright grant from the U.S. Educational Foundation in India, to
conduct research in FACTS at Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Port-
land, OR, in 1988. He is the Chair of IEEE Working Group on “FACTS and
HVDC Bibliography” and is active on a number of other IEEE working groups.
He has co-delivered several tutorials on SVC sponsored by the IEEE Substations
Committee. He has received many Teaching Excellence awards at the Faculty
of Engineering and university level at UWO.