1
Effects of GIC on Power Transformers and Power Systems
R. Girgis, Fellow, IEEE, K. Vedante, Senior Member IEEE
ABB Power Transformers
St. Louis, MO, USA
Abstract: There is some misconception in the electric power
industry today that geo – magnetically induced currents (GIC)
have caused, and would cause, significant damage to the majority
of large and medium power transformers installed on power grids
in North America and around the world. The purpose of this
paper is to present, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the true
effect of GIC on power transformers, based on thorough
knowledge of power transformer design and performance. The
paper also provides concise explanation of the cases of
transformer failure / overheating reported in the published
literature to have been caused by GIC currents.
The paper demonstrates that, because of the nature of the GIC
currents, the great majority of power transformers would not
experience much overheating or damage due to even high levels of
GIC. Only some specific transformers could suffer some winding
damage due to high winding circulating currents if exposed to
high levels of GIC. The paper also presents the real issue with
GIC; namely, the narrow pulse of the magnetizing current which
results from part – cycle, semi – saturation of transformer cores
when subjected to high levels of GIC currents. This one current
pulse / cycle could cause relays and capacitive components in
power systems, such as SVC (s), to trip, which may contribute to
grid instability. Also, the current pulse is associated with 2nd and
higher order harmonics. As a result, resonance may occur,
differential relays may operate, and stability of the grid may be
compromised.
Keywords: Power transformers, Power Systems, Geo – magnetically
Induced Currents, GIC, DC.
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to understand the effect of GIC currents on power
transformers and power systems, this paper starts with
presenting the basic theory of the effect of DC on Power
Transformers. This includes presenting the phenomenon of
part – cycle, semi – saturation of transformer cores due to DC,
the resulting magnetizing current pulse, and the effect of this
core semi – saturation on temperature of transformer windings
& structural parts. In the following section, the paper presents
a detailed discussion, supported by measured data, of the
nature of the GIC currents associated with GIC events. This is
followed by deriving the effect of GIC on transformers
considering the nature of the GIC currents. Section IV
provides explanations of transformer failures / overheating
reported in the published literature as caused by GIC currents.
In section V, actual measurements, made on full size power
_____________________________________________
Dr. Ramsis Girgis is presently the R & D manager at the ABB
Power Transformer plant, Saint Louis, MO.
Mr. Kiran Vedante is presently a Senior R &D Engineer at the
ABB Power Transformer plant, Saint Louis, MO.
transformers when subjected to high levels of DC, are
presented. In section VI, a short discussion of the effect of
GIC on power systems is presented.
II. BASICS OF EFFECT OF DC ON POWER TRANSFORMERS
A. Phenomenon of Part – Cycle, Semi – Saturation of
transformer cores when subjected to DC
When a power transformer is subjected to DC, it results in a
unidirectional DC flux in the core. The magnitude of this flux
depends on the magnitude of the DC, number of turns in the
windings carrying the DC current, and reluctance of the path
of this DC flux. The result is that the DC flux adds to the AC
flux in one half – cycle and subtracts from the AC flux in the
other half – cycle; as illustrated in Figure 1 (a) below. When
large enough, or when the design flux density is high, this
leads to core peak flux densities in the magnetic core pre –
saturation range in one half of the cycle. As shown in Figure 1
(b) below, the B – H characteristics of the transformer core
materials is inherently very non-linear. For higher magnitudes
of DC, the core provides a very high reluctance to the DC
Ampere – Turns; resulting in a smaller flux density shift.
Correspondingly, the magnetizing current becomes a short
duration pulse with a high peak. Figure 2 presents the
calculated magnitudes and wave – shapes of the magnetizing
current which results as a consequence of a large 1 – Phase
power transformer being subjected to 3 different levels of DC;
namely, 6, 12, and 40 Amps. As can be seen from the figure,
the magnitudes of the peaks of these magnetizing currents are
5, 11, and 47 percent of the full load current, respectively.
Correspondingly, the magnitude of the percentage magnetizing
current in the absence of DC is a fraction of a percent for this
transformer. Also, the duration of this pulse is only in the
range of 1/10th to 1/12th of the cycle.
Flux Density vs Phase angle
2.5
2.0 Bm, AC
Bm, (AC+DC)
1.5
1.0
Flux Density, Tesla
0.5
0.0
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Phase Angle, Degrees
(a) Flux density shift in the core caused by DC
 2

(b) Part – Cycle, Semi – Saturation of Transformer cores

Fig. 1 – Effect of DC on transformer core magnetization
% Magnetizing Current vs Phase Angle
50%
Fig. 3 – Core DC flux path in various core types
45%

40% Figure 4 below presents the percentage magnetizing current

Neutral DC = 6 Amps drawn by two different types of transformers, one is a large 1 –
% Magnetizing Current

35%
Neutral DC = 12 Amps phase power transformer with a 3 – limb core and the other is
30%
Neutral DC = 40 Amps a large 3 – phase power transformer with a 3 – limb core. It
25%
can be seen that the magnetizing current drawn by the 3 –
20% phase, 3 – limb core is much smaller than the magnetizing
15% current drawn by the 1 – phase transformer for the same values
10% of DC currents flowing through the windings of these
5%
transformers.
% Magnetizing Current vs DC Current
0%
8
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Phase Angle, Degrees
7
Fig. 2 – Magnetizing current pulse due to DC current 3-Phase, 3-Limb Transformer
6
B. Factors affecting how much DC causes Semi – saturation 1-Phase Transformer
% M ag n e tizin g C u rre n t

5
Core – type, core geometry, and core design
As mentioned earlier, the magnitude of the DC flux shift in 4
the core depends on the magnetic reluctance of the DC flux
path. Thus, the DC flux shift in a 3 – phase, 3 – limb core form 3

transformers would be the lowest of all core – types. This is

2
because this design offers an order of magnitude higher
magnetic reluctance to the DC Ampere – turns in the Core – 1
Tank magnetic circuit, refer to Figure 3 below. The DC flux
has to pass through the very high reluctance path from the core 0
top yoke to the tank cover, through the tank walls, and return 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
DC Current/Phase
to the bottom yoke through, again, the high reluctance path
from the tank bottom. All other core – types offer much less
reluctance to the DC Ampere – turns because the path of this Fig. 4 – Peak magnetizing current for 2 different core – types
DC flux is through the core; which has orders of magnitudes C. Harmonic content of the magnetizing current pulse
higher permeability, see Figure 3 below. Core material and Typically, 3 – phase transformers with 3 – limb cores will
type of core joint have some influence. However this influence have narrower magnetizing current pulses under the effect of
is small and depends on the core – type and the operating flux DC compared to corresponding magnetizing current pulses of
density in the core. This influence decreases even further for transformers with other core – types. Figure 5 compares the %
high magnitudes of DC.
 3

harmonic content for these two types of transformers. The Winding Hot Spot Temperature vs Time, 1-Phase Transformer
130
magnetizing current pulse in the 3 – phase transformer has
120
higher amplitudes of the lower order harmonics and much 110

Wdg Hot Spot Tempt, Degree C

lower amplitudes of the high order harmonics. For other core 100

– types, represented by the 1 – phase transformer data in 90

Figure 5, the magnetizing current pulse has much more 80

70 Idc = 20 Amps
uniform amplitudes among low and high order harmonics. Idc = 30 Amps
60
Therefore, these transformers would have a significant content 50 Idc = 50 Amps

of higher order harmonics. Another observation from Figure 5 40

is that transformers, with other than the 3 – phase, 3 – limb, 30

core – type, have a much lower % of the 2nd order harmonic. 20

10
This is significant as lower levels of 2nd order harmonics 0
associated with the total primary current of the transformer 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, Minutes
could give an erroneous message to the differential relay set at
a low value of 2nd harmonic content to differentiate between Fig. 6 – Winding Hot spot temperatures under DC
Inrush current events and a fault condition.
E. Calculation of hot spot temperature of structural parts
Harmonics Spectrum of Magnetizing Current under DC Conditions
16% The magnitude of this temperature rise depends on the core
construction, the operating / design flux density, and
14%
3 - Phase, 3 - Limb Transformer magnitude of DC current flowing through the windings. Once
12% 1 - Phase Transformer the core flux density reaches close to the saturation flux
density level of the core steel, there will be spillage of the core
% Harmonics Amplitude

10% flux outside the core. This results into additional flux linkages
to the structural parts, such as tie plates, yoke clamps, tank
8% walls, tank cover, tank bottom, etc. This adds to the existing
leakage flux due to load current and the high peak magnetizing
6%
current pulse. The result is an additional increase in
4% temperature of these parts. Figure 7 below presents the
calculated hot spot temperature of a tie – plate for different
2% values of DC applied continuously for 120 minutes.
The figure shows that the hot spot temperature reached
0%
60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660
close to a final value within about 20 minutes from the
Harmonic Frequency, Hz application of the DC. This corresponds to the typical range of
Fig. 5 – Harmonic content of magnetizing current of transformers time constant of the metallic structural parts of transformers.
subjected to DC The increase in the hot spot temperature is still not significant
even after being subjected to a 50 Amps DC for 120 minutes
D. Calculation of increase in winding hot spot temperatures
continuously (32 C). Under actual GIC, however, this
The much higher magnetizing current, and the nature of its temperature rise will be much lower than shown below due to
wave – shape, produce correspondingly higher magnitudes of the very short duration nature of GIC (1 – 2 minutes). This is
leakage flux that is also rich in harmonics. This results in demonstrated in the following section of this paper.
appreciably higher eddy and circulating current losses in the Flitch-Plate Temperature vs Time
windings as well as the structural parts of the transformer but a 160

small increase in the total load losses of the transformer. 140

In Figure 6 below, calculated temperatures of the hot spot
Flitch-Plate Tempt, Degree C

120
in the windings of a 1 – Phase large power transformer are
presented when the transformer is subjected to 20, 30, and 50 100
Idc = 20 Amps
Amps / phase DC currents for a 30 minute duration, while
80 Idc = 30 Amps
fully loaded. The figure shows that the hot spot temperature Idc = 50 Amps
reached close to a final value within about 5 minutes from the 60

application of the DC. This corresponds to the typical range of

40
the time constant of transformer windings. The increase in the
hot spot temperature is still not significant even after being 20

subjected to a continuous 50 Amps DC for 30 minutes. This 0

increase is only 12 º C. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time, Minutes

Fig. 7 – Tie – plate hot spot temperature under DC


III. EFFECTS OF GIC ON POWER TRANSFORMERS
In order to accurately determine the capability of a transformer
to GIC, one needs to consider the nature of the signature of the
GIC current as well as magnitudes and time duration involved
with a GIC event.
Typical signature of GIC Currents
Figs. 8 & 9, below, present two different examples of GIC
signatures; one is estimated [1] based on the original measured
VAR consumption at the PSE&G Salem Generating station
during the K9 GIC event on March 13, 1989. The other is a
recent signature obtained at a generating station in southern
Manitoba, Canada during a GIC event in February, 2011.
Fig. 8 – GIC current at Salem Generating station in 1989
Fig. 9 – Measured GIC at a Generating station in
Southern Manitoba, Canada in February 2011
As it is demonstrated in these two figures, a Solar magnetic
event is associated with GIC which is quasi DC characterized
by high levels of DC as well as a few much higher peaks that
have very short time duration. For example, in Fig. 8 above,
the GIC signature shows mainly several consecutive narrow (a
few minutes duration) peaks of 20 amps magnitude over a
period of 90 minutes along with two high peaks of 80 & 100
Amps of about 2 minute duration each. Similarly in Fig. 9, the
GIC event is characterized by a number of narrow peaks of < 5
amps magnitude for a total accumulative duration of 5 minutes
and one 8 amps peak of < 1 minute duration.
4
Calculation of the effect of GIC currents
Due to the short duration of the high peaks of GIC (1 – 2
minutes) and the fact that the duration of the resulting
magnetizing current pulse is only in the range of 1/10th to
1/12th of a cycle, the actual duration of the resulting core part –
cycle, semi – saturation, and associated high peak pulses of the
core magnetizing current, is only a few seconds. Hence, the
increase in temperature rises in the transformer windings due
to GIC would be expected to be at least an order of magnitude
lower than that estimated based on continuous duration DC
currents. The same is true for temperature rises in the core and
structural parts. This is because the thermal time constants of
windings and metallic structural parts are much higher than the
application time of the current pulse and associated leakage
flux in the transformer.
In order to illustrate the above, a profile of GIC per Figure
10 (a) below was assumed and winding hot spot temperature
was calculated for a fully loaded large 1 – phase power
transformer when subjected to this assumed GIC current
profile. The assumed GIC profile is a base level of 100 Amps /
phase (300 Amps for a 3 – phase bank) followed by 2 minute
duration very high level GIC pulses of 400 Amps / phase
(1200 Amps for a 3 – phase bank) every 30 minutes. This GIC
profile / magnitudes is almost 5 times that experience at the
Salem Generating Station caused by the K9 GIC event of
March 13, 1989.
The calculated winding temperatures due to the GIC profile
of Figure 10 (a) are presented in Figure 10 (b) below. It can be
seen from the figure that:
1. The temperature rise of the winding hot – spot due to
the base 100 Amps is about 7º C; which when added to
the winding hot spot temperature of 110 º C at full load
results in a total hot spot temperature of 118 º C.
2. The temperature of the winding hot – spot, due to the 2
minute duration of 400 Amps / phase of GIC, increases
by about 35 C; resulting in a hot spot total temperature
of about 152 C. The temperatures will be much lower
when the transformer is not fully loaded and / or
ambient temperature is lower than 30 C. Such winding
hot spot temperatures for such a short duration would
not cause any appreciable damage of the windings,
structural parts, or loss of insulation life of the
transformer. In fact. Industry Standards allow much
higher winding hot spot temperature levels for much
longer times under emergency loading conditions.
3. After the 2 – minute duration, the hot spot temperature
of the windings goes back down to the original
temperature existing before that pulse of GIC. In fact,
it takes only about 3 minutes for this to happen as the
time constant of the windings is only several minutes.
4. The duration of that pulse of winding temperature rise
is only a few minutes; which would not result in any
damage to the windings of this transformer anyway.

The same is true for structural parts, except that the
temperature rise will be even smaller for these structural parts
as their time constant is higher than that of the windings.
(a) Simulated GIC current
Winding Hot Spot Temperature vs Time
160
140
Winding Hot Spot Tempt, Degree C
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, Minutes
(b) Calculated Winding Hot Spot Temperature
Fig. 10 – Winding Hot Spot Temperature for GIC profile above
IV. REPORTED TRANSFORMER DAMAGE / OVER – HEATING
CONTRIBUTED TO GIC
Reference [1] reports several of those cases. Figure 11 below
shows a picture of the one shell form transformer that
experienced significant overheating of the windings of a GSU
transformer at a PSE&G Generating power station at Salem,
NJ during the March 13, 1989 K9 GIC event that injected
extremely high GIC currents shown in Figure 8 of this paper.
The transformer did not actually fail but was taken out of
service a week later because of significant gassing.
Fig. 11 – Winding series – connection overheating in PSE&G
Transformer caused by the March 13, 1989 GIC Event
5
This is an old Shell form transformer that had an old
winding design that made it susceptible to overheating caused
by high circulating current when subjected to high levels of
GIC currents. This winding design was originally optimized
for the leakage flux pattern typically associated with normal
loading and operating conditions. During this high GIC event,
the high GIC current caused part – cycle, semi – saturation of
the core; during which the leakage flux pattern changed and
resulted in very high circulating currents in the series
[2, 3]
connection of the LV windings of this transformer . Same
design transformers at PSE&G experienced similar
overheating, although to a lesser degree. This old generic
design of the LV winding was already changed since the early
seventies. The newer design minimizes circulating currents in
this winding in general as well as under the conditions of core
semi – saturation associated with high levels of GIC.
Another case reported in Reference [1] is a Shell – form
Transformer that had tank wall heating during the same GIC
event. In the construction of such shell – form transformers,
wood slabs are placed between the core and tank walls. These
areas of the tank walls are, therefore, cooled by air only on one
side. Under GIC conditions, when the core goes through the
short periods of semi – saturation, part of the main flux in the
core and the windings leakage flux travel to the tank wall
causing localized eddy losses in the tank. Being blanketed by
the wood slabs these regions of the tank start to overheat.
60 70 80 Additionally, it should be noted that this temperature increase
had not resulted into any real consequences to transformer
except discoloration of the tank paint at the tank regions
[4]
opposite to the wood slabs on the inside of the tank walls .
Improvements made to this type of construction allow better
cooling of the tank walls.
Another case of overheating damage reported to have been
caused by GIC is the case of several EHV core form power
transformers in South Africa; where overheating of the HV
leads was observed. At that time, the manufacturer of these
transformers investigated the cause of the lead overheating and
it was realized at the time that these leads were over –
insulated which did not allow proper oil flow in these leads
resulting in the overheating. The high pulses of magnetizing
current that these transformers experienced during the very
high GIC event there could have contributed some to the
overheating. It was concluded that overheating could have also
been already there before the GIC event.
Also, Reference [1] included a statement that within 2 years
of the 1989 GIC event, 11 nuclear plants experienced failures
of several Generator Step – Up transformers (GSUs) but no
details were given. During that period, a number of GSU
failures have been studied in detail and were found to be
caused by back – feed mode operation. In this mode of
operation, the generator step – up transformers are not
sufficiently protected from switching and lightning surges.
Also, the generator is not connected and, hence, the electrical
damping in the electric circuit is very low making it vulnerable
to electrical circuit and winding resonances.

Other cases were reported in Reference [5] of significant
winding overheating in a number of large core form power
transformers in S. Africa during the period between 2003 and
2004. These incidents were found to coincide with failures
caused by the phenomenon of the conducting Copper Sulphide
forming and causing failures of transformers world – wide;
related to the Sulphur content in the mineral oil used in these
transformers. It is believed that higher temperatures in the
windings, caused by GIC, could have accelerated the
formation of Copper Sulphide in these transformers; which
would have contributed to the experienced winding damage.
However, the magnitudes of the GIC reported to have been
associated with these incidents do not seem to be high enough
to cause much winding overheating.
One transformer in New Zealand that was reported in
Reference [6] as having failed one minute after a GIC event is
believed to have been caused by System instability associated
with the GIC event. Similarly, it was reported by HQ in
reference [6] that two large power core form transformers were
subjected to external faults during the GIC event and are
believed to have been caused by over – voltages due to System
instability. Also, Reference [7] reports on two transformer
failures in National Grid in Britain after a GIC event but no
details were given to ascertain that claim. Finally, in Reference
[8], account is given of a number of 400 kV large power core
form transformers in southern Sweden that were subjected to
high levels of GIC in the October 2003 GIC event. No
transformer damage was reported; including a 3 – Phase
transformer that was subjected to an estimated peak of 330
Amps of GIC in the neutral. The authors of this paper reported
that a 20 – 50 minute black out occurred in the Malmo area
which was caused by the tripping of a 130 kV line resulting
from the operation of a relay that had a higher sensitivity to the
rd
3 harmonic than to the fundamental frequency.
It is to be noted here that, as in the case of the Salem shell
form transformer, core and shell form transformers with
special winding arrangements and construction could
experience large levels of circulating current and suffer some
winding damage if these transformers are subjected to very
high levels of GIC that would cause core part – cycle, semi –
saturation. These types of transformers will need to be
investigated and identified on an individual basis.
V. ACTUAL MEASUREMSNTS OF EFFECT OF DC / GIC
Two full size experiments were performed by Hydro
[9] [10]
Quebec and FIN Power where very large 1 – phase and
3 – phase power transformers were injected with high levels of
DC (75 Amps for 20 minutes and up to 200 Amps for 30
minute intervals; respectively). Temperature rises were
measured in windings and structural parts of the transformers.
It was found that the temperature rises were in a reasonable
range in spite of the high levels of DC applied continuously for
long durations. As concluded by these studies, even high levels
of GIC currents should not cause transformer damage.
6
An earlier experimental study of the effect of DC on power
transformers was conducted by Tokyo Electric Power
Corporation, in collaboration with Toshiba, Hitachi, and
[11]
Mitsubishi . The study tested several small scale models of
core form as well as shell form transformers with different
core – types. Based on the measurements performed on these
models, measurements were made on two large – Scale models
of 1 – phase, 3 – limb 1000 MVA / 550 KV core form and
shell form transformers. These transformers were tested with
DC levels of up to 66 Amps; which corresponds to 400 – 600
Amps / phase for the corresponding full size transformers. The
DC was applied for up to 30 minutes continuous. The leakage
flux and temperatures were measured in windings and
structural parts of these transformers. The maximum
temperature rise measured after 30 minutes of applying such
large magnitudes of DC continuously was approximately 110
C in both the Tie – plate for the core form transformer and the
core support in the shell form transformer. As suggested in the
paper, these temperature rises would have been 1/10th of these
values if the Tie plates and the core support were made of non
– magnetic steel. Also, the very short duration of GIC would
not allow hot spot temperatures to rise to a fraction of these
temperatures. The study, again, concluded that because of the
short duration of these temperatures, the transformer life
would not be appreciably affected.
It is very important to note here that all testing performed
on full size transformers or scale models, applied DC current
continuously for 20 minutes and up to 2 hrs. The measured
temperature rises were still in a very reasonable range. Also, as
demonstrated in section III above, a high amplitude GIC
duration of 1 – 2 minutes and the time constants of windings &
structural parts being in the range of 5 – 15 minutes,
respectively, winding and structural parts temperatures would
not increase to any significant levels. Also, as Reference [10]
suggested, because of the short duration of these temperatures,
transformer insulation life would not be appreciably affected.
VI. EFFECT OF GIC ON POWER SYSTEMS
As presented earlier in this paper, part – cycle, core semi –
saturation is associated with a high magnitude narrow
magnetizing current pulse once per cycle. This represents high
levels of VAR pulse requirement on the power system causing
system voltage distortions. Also, the narrow current pulse
causes capacitive components on the system, such as static
VAR compensators, etc. to increase their currents and may
become overloaded and trip, which may contribute to grid
instability. Moreover, the magnetizing current pulse is
associated with high harmonics, and as a result, resonance may
occur and stability of the grid may be compromised due to the
creation of virtual zero at some point and opening of lines.
Also, as observed from Figure 5 of this paper, transformers
with other than the 3 – phase, 3 – limb core – type have a
much lower % of the 2nd order harmonic. This is significant as
lower levels of 2nd order harmonics associated with the total
primary current of the transformer could give an erroneous
message to the differential relays set at a low value of the %

2nd harmonic content to differentiate between Inrush current
events and a fault condition.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
High levels of GIC could cause part – cycle, semi –
saturation of transformer cores. This results in a short
duration, high peak pulse of magnetizing current.
Because of its short duration, in the great majority of the
cases, even high levels of GIC would not cause damaging
overheating of neither windings nor structural parts of
power transformers.
Only transformers, core form or shell form, where part –
cycle, core semi – saturation would cause high winding
circulating currents would be susceptible to significant
winding overheating when the transformer is subjected to
high levels of GIC. The significant overheating of the
series connection of old design shell form transformers at
PSE&G during the 1989 GIC storm was an example of
this group of transformers.
Other cases of significant overheating and winding
damage, reported in the published literature as have been
caused by GIC, were found to have been caused totally, or
partially, by other effects, or by system instability
experienced during a GIC event.
The main impact of GIC is on the system instability it
causes due to high levels of VARS and significant current
harmonics as a result of transformer core part – cycle,
semi – saturation.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge technical
and editorial comments provided by Mr. Juan Castellanos of
GE Prolec, Mr. James McIver of Siemens, and Mr. Mohamed
Diaby of EFACEC. The authors also would like to thank Mr.
Mats Bernesjo for his help during the production and
submission process of this document.
IX. REFERENCES
[1] John Kappenman, “Geomagnetic Storms and Their
Impacts on the U.S. Power Grid”, Report # Meta-R-319
by Metatech Corporation submitted to Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Pages 1-197.
[2] Ramsis Girgis & Chung-Duck KO, “Calculation
Techniques And Results Of Effects Of GIC Currents as
Applied to Two Large Power Transformers”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 2, April
1992, Page 699-705.
[3] Ramsis Girgis, Chung-Duck KO, and Dennis Scott,
“Analysis of Transformer Overheating due to
Geomagnetic ally Induced Currents”, Proceedings of the
American Power Conference, Vol. 153 II, 1992, pp1167.
[4] Phil Gattens and R. M. Waggel; “Investigation of
Transformer overheating due to Solar Magnetic
7
Disturbances”, IEEE Special Panel Session Report, July
12, 1989
[5] C. T Gaunt, G. Coetzee, “Transformer failures in regions
incorrectly considered to have low GIC-risk”, Mat Post
07, 3rd European Conference on MV & HV Substation
Equipment, Nov 15-17, 2007, Lyon, France, Proceedings
of Power Tech, July 15, 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland
[6] Jean Beland, Kevin Small, “Space Weather Effects on
Power Transmission Systems: The Cases of Hydro-
Quebec and Trans power New Zealand Ltd,” Proceedings
of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Effects of
Space Weather on Technology Infrastructure, NATO
Science Series, Vol 176, 2004
[7] A. Erinmez, J. G. Kappenman, W. A. Radasky:
“Management of the geomagnetically induced current
risks on the National Grid Company’s electric power
transmission system,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-
Terrestrial Physics, 64, 2002, p743-756
[8] M. Wik et al, “Space weather events in July 1982 and
October 2003 and the effects of geomagnetically induced
currents on Swedish technical systems”, Annales
Geophysicae, 27, 1775-1787, 2009.
[9] P. Picher, L. Bolduc et al, “Study of the acceptable DC
current limit in core-form Power Transformers”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No. 1, January
1997, Page 257-265.
[10] Matti Lahtinen & Jarmo Elovaara, “GIC Occurrences and
GIC Test for 400 kV System Transformer”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 17, No. 2, April
2002, Page 555-561.
[11] Nobuo Takasu et al, “An experimental analysis of DC
excitation of Transformers by Geo - magnetically Induced
Currents”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9,
No. 2, April 1994, Page 1173-1182.
X. BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Ramsis S. Girgis (F'93) is presently
the Research & Development manger at
the Power Transformer Division of ABB
located in St. Louis, Missouri. He is also
the leader of the global ABB R&D
activities in the area of “Transformer Core
Performance”. Dr. Girgis received his
Ph.D. degree from the University of
Saskatchewan, Canada, in Electrical
Engineering in 1978. He has over 40
years of R&D experience in the area of power, distribution,
and high frequency transformers, rotating machines, and pulse
power components. He has published and presented over 60
scientific papers in IEEE, IEE, CIGRE, and other international
journals. He co-authored chapters in two electrical engineering
handbooks on transformer design and transformer noise. He is
presently the chairman of the IEEE Transformers Standards
 8

“Audible Sound and Vibrations” Working Group. He is the

past Chairman of the IEEE Transformers Standards
“Performance Characteristics” Sub Committee and past
Technical Advisor representing the US National Committee in
the IEC Technical Committee 14.

Mr. Kiran B. Vedante (SM’2006) was

born in India on June 24, 1971. He
completed his Diploma in Electrical
Engineering from Mumbai Technical
Board in 1989, Bachelor of Engineering,
and Master of Engineering degrees in
1989 & 1992; respectively from VJ
Technological Institute (Mumbai
University); all in Electrical Engineering. He worked for
various renowned Transformer companies like Siemens, USA,
Pennsylvania Transformers, USA, and Crompton Greaves
Limited, India for more than 19 years. Kiran has extensive
work experience in Design and Development of EHV Power
Transformers up to 315 MVA, 400 kV and Shunt Reactors up
to 80 MVAR, 420 kV. He was involved in the Development of
Reactive type Load Tap Changer and also in the design of
Specialty Transformers. He also has work experience in the
System Studies and design of Power distribution systems
(Substations design etc.) for various Industrial Plants. In 2008,
Kiran joined the Power Transformers Remanufacturing
department of ABB Inc. in Saint Louis, MO; where he is now
a senior R&D Engineer. His present research work is mainly
focused in the area of - Core performance and Effects of
GIC/DC on Power Transformers. He is an active member of a
number of Working Groups and Task Forces in IEEE
Transformer Standards Committee and a member of IEEE
PES.