1

Considerations for Using Harmonic Blocking

and Harmonic Restraint Techniques on
Transformer Differential Relays
Ken Behrendt, Normann Fischer, and Casper Labuschagne
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

Abstract—The terms “harmonic restraint” and “harmonic duced the idea of harmonic blocking instead of restraining [9]
blocking” are sometimes used interchangeably when talking with a relay that used only the second harmonic to block.
about transformer differential protection. This paper explores Many modern transformer differential relays employ either
the meanings of these terms and how these techniques are indi-
vidually applied in modern transformer differential relays, in-
harmonic restraint or blocking methods. These methods en-
cluding how these techniques affect the speed and security of sure relay security for a very high percentage of inrush cases.
transformer differential protection. The paper further compares However, these methods do not work in all cases, especially
these techniques using examples to show their response to several with very low harmonic content in the inrush current on one or
transformer inrush examples. two phases. Common harmonic restraint or blocking, intro-
Editorial Note—Guzman, Benmouyal, Zocholl, and Altuve duced by Einval and Linders [10], increased relay security for
prepared and presented a paper titled “Performance Analysis of
inrush but could delay operation for internal faults combined
Traditional and Improved Transformer Differential Protective
Relays” [1] that provides a thorough discussion about percentage with inrush in the nonfaulted phases.
restraint current differential relays and the history and back- Transformer overexcitation is another possible cause of dif-
ground surrounding the use of harmonics in these relays. Por- ferential relay undesired operation. Einval and Linders pro-
tions of that paper covering selected historical and fundamental posed the use of an additional fifth-harmonic restraint to pre-
background issues are used in this paper to reintroduce this sub- vent such operations [10]. Others have proposed several
ject for the reader’s convenience.
methods based on waveshape recognition to distinguish faults
from inrush and have applied these methods in transformer
I. INTRODUCTION
relays [11] [12] [13] [14]. However, these techniques gener-
Transformer differential relays are prone to undesired op- ally do not identify transformer overexcitation conditions.
eration in the presence of transformer inrush currents. Trans- Guzman, Benmouyal, Zocholl, and Altuve proposed a new
former energization is a typical cause of inrush currents, but approach for transformer differential protection using current-
any transient in the transformer circuit may generate these only inputs that combine harmonic restraint and blocking
currents. Other causes include voltage recovery after the methods with a waveshape recognition technique [1]. This
clearance of an external fault or the energization of a trans- method uses even harmonics for restraint and also blocks op-
former in parallel with a transformer that is already in service. eration using the dc component and the fifth harmonic.
Inrush currents result from transients in transformer mag-
netic flux before the flux reaches its steady-state value. Early II. TRANSFORMER DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION
attempts to prevent differential relay operations caused by
Percentage restraint differential protective relays have been
inrush include the following:
in service for many years. Fig. 1 shows a typical differential
• Introducing an intentional time delay in the differen-
relay connection diagram. Differential relays sum the currents
tial relay [2] [3].
on each source or outlet associated with the device to deter-
• Desensitizing the relay for a given time to override the mine the difference between the current entering and leaving
inrush condition [3] [4]. the device. A substantial difference indicates a fault in the
• Adding a voltage signal to restrain [2] or to supervise device or between the current transformers (CTs) located
the differential relay [5]. around the device. A simple overcurrent relay element could
Ultimately, researchers recognized that the harmonic con- provide basic differential protection, provided the CTs could
tent of the inrush current provided information that helped be sized and connected to perfectly match the secondary cur-
differentiate internal faults from inrush conditions. Kennedy rent presented to the relay. Complexities associated with trans-
and Hayward proposed a differential relay with only harmonic former differential protection, such as tap changers, power
restraint for bus protection [6]. Hayward [7] and Mathews [8] transformer phase shift, and mismatched CT ratios, make it
further developed this method by adding percentage differen- nearly impossible to perfectly balance the CT secondary cur-
tial restraint for transformer protection. These early relays rents into the relay. For this reason, transformer differential
used all the harmonics to restrain. Sharp and Glassburn intro- relays use a percentage restraint characteristic that compares
an operating current with a restraining current. The operating
 2

current (also called differential current), IOP, can be obtained IWDG1 1

Transformer/
CT Connection
as the phasor sum of the currents entering the protected ele- (A) TAP1
Compensation
IOP
ment: Σ I1W1F1C + I1W2F1 (Multiples
of TAP)
r r IWDG2 1
Transformer/
IOP = IW1 + IW 2 (1) (A) TAP 2
CT Connection
Compensation

IOP is proportional to the fault current for internal faults and IW1 IW2
ideally approaches zero for any other operating conditions, IW1 + IW2 IRT
(Multiples
provided the “tap” settings for the relay current inputs are 2 of TAP)
properly selected to match the relative current measured by
Fig. 2. Percentage Current Differential Operate and Restraint Current Meas-
the relay on each current input for the normal, nonfault condi- urements
tion.
Equations (3) and (4) offer the advantage of being applica-
IW1 CT1 CT2 IW2 ble to differential relays with more than two restraint ele-
Power Transformer ments. The differential relay generates a tripping signal if the
operating current, IOP, is greater than a percentage, defined by
a slope setting, SLP, of the restraining current, IRT, as ex-
pressed by the following equation:
IOP > SLP ⋅ I RT (5)
Differential Relay
Another way to express this is:
IOP/ IRT > SLP
Fig. 1. Typical Differential Relay Connection Diagram
Fig. 3 shows a typical percentage restraint current differen-
Following are the most common ways to obtain the re- tial relay operating characteristic. This characteristic consists
straining current: of a straight line having a slope equal to SLP and a horizontal
r r straight line defining the relay minimum pickup current, IPU.
IRT = k IW1 − IW 2 (2)
The slope setting, SLP, is typically defined as a percentage,
IRT (r r
= k IW1 + IW 2 ) (3) which is the basis for the term “percentage restraint current
differential” relay. The minimum pickup setting, IPU, is typi-
IRT = Max ( rI
W1
r
, IW 2 ) (4) cally defined as per unit of operate current.
While the slope line typically extends to the origin, where
Where: k is a compensation factor usually taken as IOP and IRT are both zero, the minimum pickup current, IPU,
1 or 0.5. secures the relay against tripping for normal transformer exci-
More specifically, operate and restraint quantities are gen- tation current, low magnitude transformer inrush, and any CT
erated in a typical two-winding relay as shown in Fig. 2, performance differences at very low load currents. In addition,
where k = 1/2. the slope characteristic of the percentage differential relay
In Fig. 2, IWDG1 and IWDG2 are CT secondary currents provides further security for high current external faults with
measured by the relay from associated phases on the high and CT saturation. A variable-percentage or dual-slope character-
low side of the transformer. The TAP1 and TAP2 relay set- istic further increases relay security for heavy CT saturation.
tings are used to establish a per unit secondary current in the Fig. 3 shows this characteristic as a dotted line. For single- or
relay, equalized to compensate for the power transformer dual-slope characteristics, the relay operate (trip) region is
winding voltage ratio, and associated high- and low-side CT located above and to the left of the slope characteristic, and
ratios. Transformer/CT Connection Compensation provides the restraint region is below and to the right of the slope char-
the necessary angle and magnitude shift for delta- and wye- acteristic.
connected transformer windings and CTs. The resulting IOP
and IRT values are in multiples of TAP setting so they can be IOP
referenced to either current winding input. Operate Dual-Slope
Three single-phase relays with independent percentage cur- Region Characteristic
rent differential elements can be used to protect a three-phase
e2
p

transformer, or a single three-phase relay can be used. The

Slo

advantages in using a three-phase relay are 1) wye-connected

Single-Slope
CTs may be used, and the relay performs the necessary delta Characteristic
current simulation on wye-wye and wye-delta transformers, p e1
Slo
and 2) the percentage current differential calculations can be Restraint
performed independently, or they may be interrelated, which IPU
Region
offers some unique advantages. The latter concept will be dis-
cussed later in the paper. IRT

Fig. 3. Differential Relay With Dual-Slope Characteristic

 3

Fig. 4 shows the logic used to derive the dual-slope charac- criminate inrush and overexcitation conditions from internal
teristic shown in Fig. 3. faults. However, this discrimination can be complicated by
other sources of distortion, such as CT saturation, nonlinear
IOPn + fault resistance, or system resonant conditions.
_ AND Trip
IRTn • f (SLP1, SLP2)
A. Inrush Currents
+ The study of transformer magnetization inrush phenomena
IPU _
has spanned many years. Magnetizing inrush occurs in a trans-
former whenever the polarity and magnitude of the residual
Fig. 4. Simplified Percentage Current Differential Decision Logic
flux do not agree with the polarity and magnitude of the ideal
Differential relays perform well for external faults as long instantaneous value of steady-state flux. Transformer energi-
as the CTs reproduce the primary currents correctly. When zation is a typical cause of inrush currents, but any transient in
one of the CTs saturates, or if both CTs saturate at different the transformer circuit may generate these currents. Other
levels, false operating current appears in the differential relay causes include voltage recovery after the clearance of an ex-
and could cause an undesired relay operation. Some differen- ternal fault or the energization of a transformer in parallel with
tial relays use the harmonics caused by CT saturation for a transformer that is already in service. The magnitudes and
added restraint and to avoid operations [6]. CT saturation is waveforms of inrush currents depend on a multitude of factors
only one of the causes of false operating current in differential and are almost impossible to predict [16]. The following
relays. In the case of power transformer applications, other summarizes the main characteristics of inrush currents:
possible sources of error are as follows: • Generally contain dc offset, odd harmonics, and even
• Mismatch between the CT and power transformer harmonics [15] [16].
ratios are not properly compensated by the relay TAP • Typically composed of unipolar or bipolar pulses
settings. separated by intervals of very low current values [15]
• Variable ratio of the power transformer caused by a [16].
tap changer. • Peak values of unipolar inrush current pulses decrease
• Phase shift between the power transformer primary very slowly. Their time constant is typically much
and secondary currents for delta-wye connections. greater than that of the exponentially decaying dc
• Magnetizing inrush currents created by transformer offset of fault currents.
transients because of energization, voltage recovery • Second-harmonic content starts with a low value and
after the clearance of an external fault, or energization increases as the inrush current decreases.
of a parallel transformer. • Delta currents (a delta winding is encountered in
• High exciting currents caused by transformer either the power transformer or CT connections or is
overexcitation. simulated in the relay) modify the inrush because
The relay percentage restraint characteristic typically currents of adjacent windings are subtracted, and:
solves the first two problems. Proper connection of the CTs or − DC components are subtracted.
emulation of such a connection in a digital relay (auxiliary − Fundamental components are added at 60 degrees.
CTs historically provided this function) addresses the phase- − Second harmonics are added at 120 degrees.
shift problem. A very complex problem is that of discriminat- − Third harmonics are added at 180 degrees (they
ing internal fault currents from the false differential currents cancel out), and so forth.
caused by magnetizing inrush and transformer overexcitation. Sonnemann, Wagner, and Rockefeller initially claimed that
The vast majority of percentage restraint current differential the second-harmonic content of the inrush current was never
relays employ some form of harmonic detection to discern this less than 16 percent to 17 percent of the fundamental [15].
difference. However, transformer energization with reduced voltages and
variations in point-on-wave initiation may generate inrush
III. HARMONIC SOURCES: MAGNETIZING INRUSH, currents with second-harmonic content considerably less than
OVEREXCITATION, AND CT SATURATION 10 percent, as exhibited later in this paper.
Inrush or overexcitation conditions of a power transformer
produce false differential currents that could cause undesired
relay operation. Both conditions produce distorted currents
because they are related to transformer core saturation. The
distorted waveforms provide information that helps to dis-
 4

ΦT
2
ΦI
Flux and Voltage

v
ΦR 1

ΦSS
0
Magnetizing
Current

-1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Time in Cycles

Fig. 5. Voltage, Flux, and Current During Transformer Energization

Fig. 5 shows the voltage, flux, and current during a mag- following an external fault or after transformer testing proce-
netizing inrush where the transformer is energized at zero on dures, such as dc continuity tests performed on the transformer
the voltage wave. V is the voltage waveform, ΦSS is the windings. If the initial residual flux has the same relative
steady-state flux, ΦI is the initial flux at voltage energization, value as the first half cycle of energizing voltage waveform,
ΦR is the residual flux, and ΦT is the total flux (ΦI + ΦR) at the peak inrush current on that phase can be several times the
voltage energization. The associated magnetizing (exciting) full load current.
characteristic shows the nonlinear relationship between the Switching at other points on the voltage wave produces
magnetizing current and the flux in an iron-core transformer. other, less severe values of inrush current. If the point-on-
The magnetizing current increases significantly when the total wave happens to coincide with the residual flux that is correct
flux exceeds the saturation density point. for that instant under steady-state conditions, then no transient
When switching at a voltage zero, the full flux change is will occur. This nontransient condition is very rare, especially
required during the first half cycle, but with the flux initially with three-phase transformers.
zero, the maximum flux developed will be nearly twice the Three-phase transformers generally produce a mix of tran-
normal peak value (ΦI). In a linear inductor, such as an air- sient inrush conditions because the point-on-wave differs for
core inductor, twice the normal peak flux will produce twice each phase that is energized. Also, interphase coupling occurs
the normal steady-state value current. However, in nonlinear because of the common core design in most three-phase trans-
iron-core transformers where the normal peak flux is close to formers. This interphase coupling produces distortion in the
the saturation point, an increase in flux to twice the steady- current on a phase with point-on-wave energization that, by
state value causes the magnetizing (inrush) current to rise to a itself, would produce no offset. Fig. 6 shows a fairly typical
very high value, possibly even exceeding the rated full load transient inrush waveform for the energization of a three-
current value. phase transformer. As seen, IB and IC are fully offset in oppo-
When the transformer core, prior to energization, contains a site directions, and IA is more symmetrical, but definitely
relatively high residual flux (ΦR), the inrush current can in- nonsinusoidal.
crease still further. Residual (remanent) flux can be quite high
 5

60
5
IA
0
40
-5

Primary Current (A)

20
A Secondary

5
IB 0 0
-5
-20
5
-40
IC 0
-5 -60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Cycles Cycles

Fig. 7. Exciting Current of an Overexcited Transformer; Overvoltage of 150

Fig. 6. Typical Three-Phase Transformer Magnetizing Inrush Current Percent Applied to a Single-Phase Transformer
B. Transformer Overexcitation TABLE I HARMONIC CONTENT OF THE CURRENT SIGNAL
SHOWN IN FIG. 7
The magnetic flux inside the transformer core is directly
proportional to the applied voltage and inversely proportional Frequency Magnitude Percentage of
to the system frequency. Overvoltage and/or underfrequency Component Primary A Fundamental
conditions can produce flux levels that saturate the trans- Fundamental 22.5 100.0%
former core. These abnormal operating conditions can exist in
Third 11.1 49.2%
any part of the power system, so any transformer may be ex-
posed to overexcitation. Fifth 4.9 21.7%
Transformer overexcitation causes transformer heating and Seventh 1.8 8.1%
increases exciting current, noise, and vibration. A severely
overexcited transformer should be disconnected to avoid Einval and Linders [10] were first to propose using the fifth
transformer damage. Because it is difficult, with differential harmonic to restrain the transformer differential relay. They
protection, to control the amount of overexcitation that a trans- recommended setting this restraint function at 35 percent of
former can tolerate, transformer differential protection trip- the fifth harmonic with respect to the fundamental. Fig. 8 [18]
ping for an overexcitation condition is not desirable. Separate shows the harmonic content of the excitation current of a
transformer overexcitation protection should be used instead, power transformer as a function of the applied voltage. As the
and the differential element should not trip for this condition. voltage increases, saturation eventually occurs and the excit-
One alternative is a V/Hz relay that responds to the volt- ing current increases. The odd harmonics, expressed as a per-
age/frequency ratio. centage of the fundamental, first increase and then begin to
Overexcitation of a power transformer is a typical case of decrease at overvoltages on the order of 115 percent to 120
ac saturation of the core that produces odd harmonics in the percent. Setting the differential relay fifth-harmonic restraint
exciting current. Fig. 7 shows the exciting current recorded to 35 percent ensures security for overvoltage conditions less
during a real test of a small, unloaded, single-phase laboratory than 140 percent. For greater overvoltages, which could de-
transformer. The current corresponds to an overvoltage condi- stroy the transformer in a few seconds, it is desirable to have
tion of 150 percent at nominal frequency. For comparison the differential relay fast tripping added to that of the trans-
purposes, the peak value of the exciting current (57.3 A) is former overexcitation relay.
nearly the same as the transformer nominal full load current of
61.5 A.
Table I shows the most significant harmonics of the current
signal depicted in Fig. 7.
Harmonics are expressed as a percentage of the fundamen-
tal component. The third harmonic is the most suitable for
detecting overexcitation conditions, but either the delta con-
nection of the CTs or the delta connection compensation of the
differential relay filters out this harmonic. The fifth harmonic,
however, is still a reliable quantity for detecting overexcitation
conditions.
 6

100 Secondary Current

I1(% of Im) 200
90
100

Secondary A
80
and Its Harmonic Components

I3(% of I1)
0
Magnetizing Current (Im)

70

60 -100

50 -200
Im(% of In) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Cycles
40
I5(% of I1) Harmonic Percent
30 50
40

Percentage
20 Third Harmonic
30 Fifth Harmonic
10
20
0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 10
Voltage (Percent of Nominal Voltage) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
In: Rated Current
Cycles
Im: Magnetizing Current
I1, I3, I5: Fundamental and Higher Harmonic Components of Im Fig. 9. Typical Secondary Current for Symmetrical CT Saturation and the
Harmonic Content It Contains
Fig. 8. Harmonic Content of Transformer Exciting Current as a Function of
the Applied Voltage [18]
IV. METHODS FOR DISCRIMINATING INTERNAL FAULTS FROM
C. CT Saturation INRUSH AND OVEREXCITATION CONDITIONS
CT saturation during faults and the effect of CT saturation Early transformer differential relay designs used time delay
on protective relays have received considerable attention [19] or a temporary desensitization of the relay to override the in-
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In the case of transformer differential rush current. Other designs used an additional voltage signal
protection, the effect of CT saturation is double edged. For to restrain or to supervise (block) the differential relay. All of
external faults, the resulting false differential current may pro- these concepts struggled with the conflict between providing
duce relay misoperation. In some cases, the percentage re- reliable and fast internal fault detection versus providing secu-
straint in the relay addresses this false differential current, rity against tripping for external faults, magnetizing inrush,
particularly with variable-slope or dual-slope percentage re- and overexcitation.
straint characteristics. For internal faults, the harmonics result- Modern percentage current differential relays address this
ing from CT saturation could delay the operation of differen- conflict in one of two ways: using harmonics to restrain or
tial relays having harmonic restraint or blocking. block or using waveshape identification. This paper discusses
The main characteristics of CT saturation are as follows: and focuses on the harmonic-based methods.
• CTs faithfully reproduce the primary current for a We can use the harmonic content of the differential current
given time after fault inception [23]. The time to CT to restrain or block the relay, providing ways to differentiate
saturation depends on several factors but is typically between internal faults and inrush or overexcitation condi-
one cycle or longer. tions. Historically, the technical literature on this topic has not
• The worst CT saturation is produced by the dc clearly identified the differences between harmonic restraint
component of the primary current. During this dc and harmonic blocking, sometimes using the two inter-
saturation period, the secondary current may contain changeably. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the differ-
dc offset and odd and even harmonics [11] [21]. ence between the two techniques and put forth some applica-
• When the dc offset dies out, the CT has only ac tion guidelines for using the two techniques.
saturation, characterized by the presence of odd
harmonics in the secondary current [10] [11] [19]. A. Harmonic Restraint
Fig. 9 shows a typical secondary-current waveform for The original harmonic-restrained differential relays used all
computer-simulated ac symmetrical CT saturation. This figure harmonics to provide the restraint function. The resulting high
also depicts the harmonic content of this current and confirms level of harmonic restraint provided security for inrush condi-
the presence of odd harmonics and the absence of even har- tions at the expense of operating speed and dependability for
monics in the secondary current. Generally speaking, symmet- internal faults with CT saturation. This concept has been car-
rical nonsinusoidal waveforms contain predominately odd ried forward in modern relays, with subtle changes, to provide
harmonics, and asymmetrical waveforms contain predomi- restraint using selected harmonics instead of all harmonics.
nately even harmonics.
Asymmetrical CT saturation caused by dc offset is one
source of even harmonics that can adversely affect perform-
ance of percentage restraint current differential relays that use
even harmonics for harmonic blocking or harmonic restraint.
 7

The harmonic restraint principle leverages the percentage

current restraint concept by creating additional current differ- IOP Operate Region
lOP > IRT • f (SLP1, SLP2)

nt
ential restraint from the selected harmonic content of the mul-

i
tra
+ Harmonic Restraint

es
tiple winding current inputs. This concept is expressed in the

R
ic
following equation:

on
rm
Ha
I OP > I RT • f (SLP1, SLP 2) + (K h1I h1 + K h 2 I h 2 + K h 3I h 3 K + K hx I hx ) (6)

+
2)
LP
where Khx is a settable constant for each harmonic x, Ihx is the Restraint Region

,S
lOP < IRT • f (SLP1, SLP2)
measured xth harmonic content in the operate current, IOP,

P1
+ Harmonic Restraint

L
(S
keeping in mind that the operate current is the phasor sum of

•f
T
winding currents. This equation can be represented in logic

IR
=
P
form as follows:

lO
IPU

IRT • f (SLP1, SLP2)

IRT • f (SLP1, SLP2) + Harmonic Restraint
IOP +
_ TRIP
Ih1 • Kh1 Σ Fig. 12. Alternate Harmonic Restraint, Percentage Restraint Characteristic

• The factor “K” in the harmonic restraint element is typi-

• Σ cally based on the inverse of the percent harmonic setting,
• where the percent value is entered as a setting for each se-
Ihx • Khx lected harmonic. For example, a setting of 10 percent for the
second-harmonic restraint means that 10 times the second-
Fig. 10. Logic Diagram for Harmonic Restrained Percentage Current Re- harmonic component will be added to the fundamental re-
straint Differential Function
straint current. Likewise, a setting of 20 percent means that 5
The resulting differential characteristic, as shown in times the harmonic component will be added to the restraint
Fig. 11, increases the restraint region and decreases the oper- current. The lower the percent setting, the greater the restraint.
ate region by effectively pushing the characteristic slope line For a relay that uses even harmonic restraint, namely the
up by the amount of additional restraint generated by harmon- second and fourth harmonics, (6) becomes:
ics.
IOP > IRT • f (SLP1, SLP2) + [(100 / PCT 2) • Ih 2 + (100 / PCT 4) • I h 4 ] (7)

IOP Operate Region B. Harmonic Blocking

Fig. 13 depicts a simplified logic diagram of the trans-
former differential relay with harmonic blocking. This relay is
simpler in concept than the harmonic restraint relay. Each
int selected harmonic blocks the output of the differential element
e stra
cR if its magnitude is greater than a percentage, specified by a
oni
rm settable constant K, of the operate current.
Ha
1+
lo pe 1
S pe Second-Harmonic Blocking
Slo IHB2 +
• K2 _ OR 87BL
IPU Restraint Region •
•
•
•
IRT •
•
IHBx +
Fig. 11. Percentage Current Differential Harmonic Restraint Characteristic
• Kx _
xth-Harmonic Blocking
The problem with this representation is that the harmonic
IOP +
content typically changes throughout a disturbance, therefore, _ AND
AND TRIP
IRT • f (SLP1,SLP2)
the operate/restraint area represented in Fig. 11 changes con- 87R
tinuously, making evaluation of this characteristic difficult. +
IPU _
Fig. 12 takes this into account by plotting the operate current
against the sum of the restraint current plus harmonic restraint Fig. 13. Simplified Logic Diagram for Percentage Current Restraint Differ-
component. ential With Harmonic Blocking

Typically, transformer differential relays use second-

harmonic blocking logic to prevent undesired operation during
transformer energization. Additional even harmonic blocking,
such as fourth-harmonic blocking, may also be used. The
blocking logics run in parallel, so when either harmonic, sec-
ond or fourth, exceeds its respective threshold setting, the re-
lay blocks the percentage restraint current differential output.
 8

Differential relays may also use fifth-harmonic blocking to (A) Independent Harmonic Blocking (B) Common Harmonic Blocking
prevent undesired operation during overexcitation. Fig. 14 87R1
AND
87BL1
shows a logic diagram of a differential element having sec- 87BL1
87BL2 OR
ond- and fifth-harmonic blocking. A tripping signal requires 87BL3 AND TRIP
87R2
fulfillment of (6), without fulfillment of the following block- 87BL2
AND OR TRIP 87R1
87R2 OR
ing conditions (8) and (9): 87R3

I OP ⋅ K 2 < I 2 (8) 87R3

AND
87BL3
I OP ⋅ K 5 < I 5 (9)
Fig. 15. Three-Phase Differential Relay With: (A) Independent Harmonic
Second-Harmonic Blocking Blocking and (B) Common Harmonic Blocking
IHB2 +
• K2 _ OR 87BL
V. HARMONIC RESTRAINT VS. HARMONIC BLOCKING
In the harmonic restraint element, the operating current,
IOP, must overcome the combined effects of the restraining
IHB5 +
current, IRT, and the harmonics of the operating current for the
• K5 _ element to assert a trip output. Any measurable harmonic con-
Fifth-Harmonic Blocking tent provides some benefit toward the goal of preventing dif-
IOP +
AND TRIP ferential relay operation during inrush conditions.
IRT • f (SLP1,SLP2) _ AND
On the other hand, in the harmonic blocking element, the
87R
+ operating current is independently compared with the restraint
IPU _ current and those selected harmonics when the harmonic con-
tent is above a specified threshold. When the harmonic content
Fig. 14. Percentage Current Differential Logic With Second- and Fifth-
Harmonic Blocking
is below the specified threshold, the harmonic blocking has no
effect.
The factor “K” is typically set as a percentage of funda- The selection of harmonics, and the variables used to com-
mental frequency operate current. For example, setting K2 pare harmonics with the operate current in either a harmonic
equal to 12 percent means that the second-harmonic blocking blocking or harmonic restraint relay, are crucial to the success-
element will assert when the second-harmonic content of the ful operation of either type of scheme. “Successful” is the op-
operate current equals or exceeds 12 percent of the fundamen- erative word, however. How do we judge the success of either
tal frequency component of the operate current. Likewise, scheme? Generally, harmonic blocking or harmonic restraint
setting K5 equal to 35 percent would require the fifth- elements are successful if they fulfill all of the following re-
harmonic content of the operate current to equal or exceed 35 quirements:
percent of the operate current fundamental frequency compo- • Permit fast tripping for all internal transformer faults
nent to assert the fifth-harmonic blocking element. with minimal delay when energizing a faulted
Single-phase differential relays can only monitor the oper- transformer
ate, restraint, and harmonic currents on an individual phase • Prevent transformer differential relay operation during
basis. In a harmonic blocking relay, this is considered “inde- transformer overexcitation
pendent harmonic blocking.” During an inrush condition, if • Prevent differential element operation during
the harmonic content in one of the phases falls below the se- transformer energization and during voltage recovery
lected percentage of operate current on that phase, the relay following a power system fault
will trip. In a three-phase percentage current differential relay, Previous experience and literature suggests that these goals
harmonic blocking can be made more secure by implementing are best met using even harmonic blocking or harmonic re-
“common harmonic blocking.” In common harmonic block- straint. The second harmonic, most prevalent in transformer
ing, as long as the harmonic content is above the selected per- inrush, is a key component in their operation. Fourth-
centage of operate current on one phase, the relay blocks all harmonic measurement provides additional benefit in har-
three phases. Fig. 15 shows the three-phase versions of the monic restraint but has questionable value in a harmonic
transformer differential relay with independent and common blocking scheme because of its generally lower percentage
harmonic blocking. The relay is composed of three differential magnitude compared with the second-harmonic component.
elements of the types shown in Fig. 15. In both cases, a trip- Odd harmonics, particularly third harmonics, which are
ping signal results when any one of the relay elements asserts. prevalent in symmetrical CT saturation, are not desirable be-
cause they could delay or prevent differential relay operation
during internal transformer faults if used in harmonic restraint
or blocking. Fifth harmonic, on the other hand, is preferred to
detect overexcitation and is, therefore, desirable to use in a
blocking mode, provided the threshold settings permit its op-
eration for overexcitation conditions but not for symmetrical
CT saturation.
 9

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF HARMONIC RESTRAINT AND BLOCKING METHODS

EVEN INDEPENDENT COMMON

HARMONIC HARMONIC HARMONIC
GOAL REMARKS
RESTRAINT BLOCKING BLOCKING
(HR) (IHB) (CHB)
HR always uses harmonics from asymmetrical CT saturation
for additional restraint. IHB and CHB block if the even
Security for harmonic content is sufficiently high. Odd harmonics from
High Low Moderate
external faults symmetrical CT saturation have no effect; therefore, CTs
should be sized to avoid symmetrical CT saturation for
external faults.
HR adds to the effectiveness of percentage differential, even if
harmonic content is low. IHB and CHB only block if the
Security for inrush High Moderate Highest
harmonic content is sufficiently high. CHB blocks if the
harmonic content is sufficiently high on at least one phase.
Even harmonic blocking and restraint schemes are ineffective
Security for for preventing differential relay operation on overexcitation.
Low Low Low
overexcitation However, adding fifth-harmonic blocking to any scheme
greatly increases security.
Even harmonics from asymmetrical CT saturation reduce the
Dependability for
High High High sensitivity of HR for internal faults and cause IHB and CHB
internal faults
to delay tripping.
Dependability for
Even harmonics from inrush on unfaulted phases may cause
internal faults High High Moderate
CHB to delay tripping more than with HR and IHB.
during inrush
Percentage differential and harmonic blocking run in parallel
Speed for internal
Lower Higher Higher in IHB and CHB, allowing the differential to respond faster
faults
when blocking drops out.
Slope Harmonic IHB and CHB slope characteristics are independent from
Well defined Well defined
characteristic dependent harmonics. HR performance evaluation is more complex.
Results depend IHB and CHB permit simple tests with direct harmonic
Testing Straight forward Straight forward
on harmonics variation. HR testing is more complex.

Table II summarizes the results of a qualitative comparison bination of the harmonics. Although the same harmonics are
of the harmonic restraint and blocking methods for trans- available for both harmonic blocking and harmonic restraint,
former differential protection and suggests the following: the specific harmonic combination produces a different result
• All harmonic restraint and blocking techniques have in the element performance. Equation (6) shows that in the
advantages and disadvantages. harmonic restraint differential element, the harmonics are
• Although subjective, a good combination includes summed (series combination). When the harmonics are
even harmonic restraint and fifth-harmonic blocking summed, all harmonics included in the equation contribute to
to provide a good balance of security and increase the restraint quantity. This total harmonic contribu-
dependability. tion significantly enhances the security of the differential ele-
Guzman, Benmouyal, Zocholl, and Altuve established that ment.
some supplemental waveform detection techniques may be In microprocessor-based relays, the relays calculate the
required to improve security for unique combinations of fault harmonics by means of digital filters. In essence, these digital
and inrush conditions [1]. filters are integrators, summing a number of sampled current
Common harmonic blocking logic provides high security values over a specified time period. Therefore, a large numeric
but sacrifices some dependability. Energization of a faulted value remains in the digital filter for the total specified time
transformer could result in harmonics from the inrush currents period. Because the relay uses these filtered values directly in
of the nonfaulted phases, and these harmonics could delay calculating the restraint quantity, a filter that includes large
relay operation. numeric values causes delayed tripping. Depending on the
numeric value, this delayed tripping can be up to one power
A. Speed and Security system cycle.
As with all protection element evaluations, speed and secu- Fig. 14 shows that the harmonics are evaluated independ-
rity are contradictory requirements. The two factors that influ- ently in the harmonic blocking differential element, i.e., the
ence the speed and security of the harmonic elements are the values of the harmonics are not summed (parallel combina-
harmonic “combination” and the digital filtering. In this re- tion). Because the element is less secure when evaluating the
gard, harmonic combination refers to the series/parallel com- harmonics independently, the use of common harmonic block-
 10

ing increases the element security (see Fig. 15). However,

because one phase blocks all three differential elements,
common harmonic blocking can significantly delay tripping if
the harmonic content of the unfaulted phase(s) remains high
during an internal transformer fault. This is of particular con-
cern when selecting differential protection for single-phase
transformers.
Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to either
application. However, in general, harmonic restraint elements
are more secure than harmonic blocking elements, but har-
monic restraint elements are slower in operation.
B. Selection of Harmonics and Thresholds
There is general agreement that the second harmonic is the
preferred harmonic for use in both harmonic blocking and
harmonic restraint in transformer percentage current differen-
tial relays. The second-harmonic component is by far the most
prevalent in virtually all inrush waveforms and does not ap-
pear in any significant quantity in symmetrical CT saturation.
The fourth harmonic is the “next best” harmonic to supple-
ment the second harmonic toward the goal of preventing per-
centage restraint current differential relay operation during
transformer inrush.
Fig. 16 shows a very typical set of transformer inrush
waveforms captured during the energization of the 115 kV
side of a 30 MVA (OA), 115 kV wye/27.6 kV delta trans-
former. IB and IC are fully offset, and IA shows the typical
effects of interphase coupling, with some symmetry about the Fig. 17. Harmonic Analysis for Phase A
horizontal axis but still highly nonsinusoidal.

Fig. 16. Typical Set of Transformer Inrush Waveforms

Closer examination of these waveforms, with harmonic

analysis, shows that all of these waveforms have a strong sec-
ond-harmonic component, with a fourth-harmonic component,
the next most prevalent harmonic, in two out of the three
phases. The third harmonic, the second strongest in one out of
the three phases, is considered a poor choice for blocking and
restraint because of its presence in symmetrical CT saturation
and zero-sequence current for ground faults. The fifth har-
monic is present but in a relatively low percentage.

Fig. 18. Harmonic Analysis for Phase B

 11

Fig. 21. Phase A Differential and Harmonic Components

Fig. 19. Harmonic Analysis for Phase C

The initial inrush waveform from the previous example is

shown in Fig. 20. Fig. 22. Phase B Differential and Harmonic Components

Fig. 20. Inrush Waveform

Analysis of the initial inrush waveform capture in the time

domain, shown in Figs. 21, 22, and 23, confirms that the sec-
ond harmonic is substantial on all three phases for the duration
of this waveform capture, well above the 12 percent PCT2 Fig. 23. Phase C Differential and Harmonic Components
threshold on the graph. Note that in Figs. 21, 22, and 23, oper-
The fundamental component of operate current on Phases
ating current, IOP, is in per unit of TAP setting, and the har-
B and C of this example is above the operate current pickup
monics are plotted in per unit of IOP.
threshold (O87P on each figure), so the differential element
could have operated. Without harmonic blocking or harmonic
restraint, the differential relay would have misoperated. Figs.
24 through 29 show this for both the traditional percentage
restraint current differential characteristic (Figs. 24, 26, and
28) associated with harmonic blocking relays and for the
modified percentage restraint current differential characteristic
(Figs. 25, 27, and 29) associated with the harmonic restraint
function.
 12

Fig. 24. Phase A Traditional Percentage Restraint Current Differential Plot

Fig. 27. Phase B Harmonic Restraint Differential Plot

Fig. 25. Phase A Harmonic Restraint Differential Plot

Fig. 28. Phase C Traditional Percentage Restraint Current Differential Plot

Fig. 26. Phase B Traditional Percentage Restraint Current Differential Plot

Fig. 29. Phase C Harmonic Restraint Differential Plot
 13

Next, we analyze another inrush waveform capture from

the same transformer as in the example above. Fig. 30 shows
the unfiltered waveform.

Fig. 30. Three-Phase Unfiltered Current Inrush Waveform

Fig. 33. Phase C Differential Currents and Harmonic Components
As before, we will examine the differential currents from
each phase (see Figs. 31 through 33): Examination of Figs. 31, 32, and 33 shows that the funda-
mental component of operate current, IOP, is above the mini-
mum pickup threshold on all three phases. Therefore, it is
critical that some form of restraint or blocking be used to pre-
vent the current differential relay from misoperating on the
false differential current. It is also notable that both the sec-
ond- and fourth-harmonic components are below the 12 per-
cent threshold setting denoted by the PCT2 line on the Phase
C plots during the time that IOP is above the minimum pickup
threshold, O87P. As we will see, this means that independent
harmonic blocking will fail to block the differential relay from
misoperating for this inrush condition. Common harmonic
blocking will effectively block the differential relay from op-
erating because the harmonic content is sufficient on the other
two phases to assert a block output. Further analysis is re-
quired to determine if harmonic restraint can effectively pre-
Fig. 31. Phase A Differential Currents and Harmonic Components
vent the differential relay from operating. Figs. 34, 35, and 36
show the harmonic restraint characteristic plot for Phases A,
B, and C, respectively, for this inrush case.

Fig. 32. Phase B Differential Currents and Harmonic Components

Fig. 34. Phase A Harmonic Restraint Differential Plot

 14

Examination of the relay logical output verifies that the re-

straint output operates for a single-sample processing interval.
Typically, the relay internal logic requires that the output be
high for more than one processing interval for security pur-
poses. Regardless, this shows quite clearly that the harmonic
restraint characteristic is more effective than the harmonic
blocking logic, which has a fixed threshold of operation.

Fig. 35. Phase B Harmonic Restraint Differential Plot

Fig. 38. Differential Relay Logic

The final example we will examine is from a previous pa-

per [1]. In this case, the transformer was energized while
Phase A was faulted and the transformer was not loaded. The
transformer was a three-phase, delta-wye-connected distribu-
tion transformer; the CT connections were wye at both sides
of the transformer.

Y Y

CTR1 = 40 CTR2 = 240

φG 87

Fig. 36. Phase C Harmonic Restraint Differential Characteristic Plot

Fig. 39. Transformer Energization While Phase A Is Faulted
From the harmonic restraint plots, it is clear that Phases A
and B effectively restrain the differential relay from tripping. As before, we present the three-phase unfiltered inrush
Phase C, which has the lowest second- and fourth-harmonic waveform (shown in Fig. 40).
components of the three phases, appears to be effectively re-
strained, except for one or two nonconsecutive samples. This
is also clearly shown in Fig. 37, where we see the restraint
current, supplemented with second and fourth harmonics, fal-
ling just below the operate current on one sample.

Fig. 40. Unfiltered Three-Phase Transformer Inrush Waveform

The waveform only exists for four cycles because the relay
in this case tripped the high-side breaker. As we will see, the
basic second-harmonic blocking technique used by the relay
was not effective in blocking operation of the percentage re-
O87P straint current differential relay.

Fig. 37. Plot of Phase C Harmonic Restraint vs. Operate Current

 15

Figs. 41, 42, and 43 show the individual phase waveform Given this analysis, we expect that independent harmonic
analysis for the final example. blocking cannot effectively prevent differential relay operation
unless the harmonic percent threshold setting is drastically
reduced to 4 percent or below. In this case, common harmonic
blocking would have been successful because both the second-
and fourth-harmonic components exceed the 12 percent har-
monic percentage threshold setting chosen for this analysis.
We next examine the harmonic restraint characteristic per-
formance to see how it performs. Figs. 44, 45, and 46 show
the modified percentage restraint current differential charac-
teristic for Phases A, B, and C using the harmonic restraint
function.

Fig. 41. Phase A Differential and Harmonic Components

Fig. 44. Harmonic Restraint Characteristic Performance on Phase A

Fig. 42. Phase B Differential and Harmonic Components

Fig. 45. Harmonic Restraint Characteristic Performance on Phase B

Analysis of the harmonic restraint characteristic perform-

ance in Fig. 44 shows that the Phase A differential element
would have operated for this inrush condition with the existing
Fig. 43. Phase C Differential and Harmonic Components
12 percent second- and fourth-harmonic threshold settings.
When examining Figs. 41, 42, and 43, we see that the oper- Figs. 45 and 46 clearly show that Phases B and C effectively
ate current exceeds the minimum pickup current, O87P, on all restrained from tripping. As stated previously, common har-
three phases. Therefore, some form of restraint or blocking is monic blocking would have been effective in this case. How-
required to prevent operation of the differential element for ever, concerns that common harmonic blocking may delay
this inrush condition. A close examination of the Phase A plot differential relay tripping when energizing a faulted trans-
in Fig. 41 reveals that both the second- and fourth-harmonic former may discourage this approach. Further analysis of the
components are below the 12 percent harmonic threshold set- harmonic restraint performance indicates that the second- and
ting on the relay. In fact, the harmonic content falls below 5 fourth-harmonic percent settings must both be reduced to 8
percent at their lowest points. percent or less to prevent differential element operation on
Phase A. This may have undesirable consequences, as ex-
 16

plained in the next section. If so, then some other form of se- even harmonic blocking because the harmonic restraint
curity, typically a waveform recognition technique such as function benefits from even small quantities of harmonic
proposed by Guzman, Benmouyal, Zocholl, and Altuve [1], is content. However, relays using the harmonic restraint
recommended for further security improvement. technique may operate slightly slower for internal faults
than those using harmonic blocking.
5. Common harmonic blocking increases differential relay
security but could delay relay operation for internal faults
combined with inrush currents in the nonfaulted phases.
6. Harmonic blocking and harmonic restraint techniques
may not be adequate to prevent differential element op-
eration for unique cases with very low harmonic content
in the operating current. Some form of waveshape recog-
nition may be required to ensure security for these unique
conditions without sacrificing fast and dependable opera-
tion when energizing a faulted transformer.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] A. Guzman, G. Benmouyal, S. E. Zocholl, and H. Altuve, “Performance
Analysis of Traditional and Improved Transformer Differential Protec-
Fig. 46. Harmonic Restraint Characteristic Performance on Phase C tive Relays,” 2002 Western Protective Relaying Conference, Spokane,
WA, Oct. 22–24, 2002.
C. Harmonic Sensitivity Settings [2] I. T. Monseth and P. H. Robinson, “Relay Systems: Theory and Appli-
The example cases presented in this paper used a 12 per- cations,” New York: McGraw Hill Co., 1935.
cent second- and fourth-harmonic setting to perform the [3] R. E. Cordray, “Percentage Differential Transformer Protection,” Elec-
trical Engineering, Vol. 50, May 1931, pp. 361–363.
analysis. Better security may be obtained by reducing this
[4] R. E. Cordray, “Preventing False Operation of Differential Relays,”
harmonic sensitivity setting. However, improving security Electrical World, July 25, 1931, pp. 160–161.
against misoperating on transformer inrush may decrease the [5] E. L. Harder and W. E. Marter, “Principles and Practices of Relaying in
relay’s dependability to detect internal faults. Some measure the United States,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 67, Part II, 1948, pp. 1005–
of harmonic content can be expected for internal transformer 1023.
faults because of the nonlinear behavior of iron-core inductive [6] L. F. Kennedy and C. D. Hayward, “Harmonic-Current-Restrained
Relays for Differential Protection,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 57, May
devices. Typical harmonic sensitivity settings in the range of 1938, pp. 262–266.
10 percent to 15 percent are considered reasonable. Settings [7] C. D. Hayward, “Harmonic-Current-Restrained Relays for Transformer
below 10 percent may jeopardize dependable operation of the Differential Protection,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 60, 1941, pp. 377–
differential relay for internal faults. Very little experience is 382.
available in this area because of the relatively few occurrences [8] C. A. Mathews, “An Improved Transformer Differential Relay,” AIEE
of transformer faults. It seems prudent to endure the occa- Transactions, Vol. 73, Part III, June 1954, pp. 645–650.
sional differential relay operation on transformer energization, [9] R. L. Sharp and W. E. Glassburn, “A Transformer Differential Relay
With Second-Harmonic Restraint,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 77, Part III,
or use a supplemental security measure, such as waveshape Dec. 1958, pp. 913–918.
recognition, in order to ensure fast and dependable tripping for [10] C. H. Einval and J. R. Linders, “A Three-Phase Differential Relay for
an internal fault. Transformer Protection,” IEEE Transactions PAS, Vol. PAS-94, No. 6,
Nov/Dec 1975, pp. 1971–1980.
VI. CONCLUSIONS [11] A. M. Dmitrenko, “Semiconductor Pulse-Duration Differential Restraint
Relay,” Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Elektromekhanika,
1. Most transformer differential relays use the harmonic No. 3, March 1970, pp. 335–339 (in Russian).
content of the operating current to distinguish internal [12] G. I. Atabekov, “The Relay Protection of High-Voltage Networks,”
faults from magnetizing inrush conditions using either London: Pergamon Press Ltd., 1960.
harmonic blocking or harmonic restraint techniques. [13] G. D. Rockefeller, “Fault Protection With a Digital Computer,” IEEE
Transactions PAS, Vol. PAS-98, April 1969, pp. 438–464.
2. The harmonic blocking technique uses a fixed harmonic
[14] S. B. Wilkinson, Transformer Differential Relay, U.S. Patent No
threshold, below which the differential element is free to
5627712, May 6, 1997.
operate on its normal percentage-slope characteristic.
[15] W. K. Sonnemann, C. L. Wagner, and G. D. Rockefeller, “Magnetizing
3. The harmonic restraint technique, as described in this Inrush Phenomena in Transformer Banks,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 77,
paper, adds the harmonic component of the operate Part III, October 1958, pp. 884–892.
current to the fundamental component of the restraint cur- [16] J. Berdy, W. Kaufman, and K. Winick, “A Dissertation on Power Trans-
rent, providing dynamic restraint during transformer in- former Excitation and Inrush Characteristics,” Symposium on Trans-
former Excitation and Inrush Characteristics and Their Relationship to
rush. Transformer Protective Relaying, Houston, TX, August 5, 1976.
4. Harmonic restraint and blocking methods ensure relay [17] S. E. Zocholl, A. Guzmán, and D. Hou, “Transformer Modeling as Ap-
security for a very high percentage of transformer inrush plied to Differential Protection,” 22nd Annual Western Protective Relay
cases. Harmonic restraint tends to be more secure than Conference, Spokane, WA, October 24–26, 1995.
 17

[18] Cooper Power Systems, Electric Power System Harmonics: Design

Guide,” October 1990.
[19] J. E. Waldron and S. E. Zocholl, “Design Considerations for a New
Solid-State Transformer Differential Relay With Harmonic Restraint,”
5th Annual Western Protective Relay Conference, Sacramento, CA, Oc-
tober 15–18, 1978.
[20] D. E. Marshall and P. O. Langguth, “Current Transformer Excitation
Under Transient Conditions,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 48, No. 4, Octo-
ber 1929, pp. 1464–1474.
[21] E. C. Wentz and W. K. Sonnemann, “Current Transformers and Relays
for High-Speed Differential Protection With Particular Reference to
Offset Transient Currents,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 59, August 1940,
pp. 481–488.
[22] C. Concordia and F. S. Rothe, “Transient Characteristics of Current
Transformers During Faults,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. 66, 1947, pp.
731–734.
[23] IEEE Power Engineering Society, Transient Response of Current Trans-
formers, IEEE Special Publication 76 CH 1130 4 PWR, January 1976.
[24] IEEE Std C37.110 1996, IEEE Guide for the Application of Current
Transformers Used for Protective Relaying Purposes.
[25] General Electric Co., Transformer Differential Relay With Percentage
and Harmonic Restraint Types BDD 15B, BDD16B, Document GEH-
2057F.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES

Ken Behrendt received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineer-

ing from Michigan Technological University. He was employed at a major
Midwest utility where he worked in Distribution Planning, Substation Engi-
neering, Distribution Protection, and Transmission Planning and Protection
until 1994. From April of 1994 to present he has been employed with
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. as a field application engineer,
located in New Berlin, Wisconsin.
Ken is an IEEE Senior Member and an active member of the IEEE Power
System Relay Committee. He has served as the U.S. representative on CIGRE
Joint Working Group 34/35.11 on Teleprotection, and is a registered Profes-
sional Engineer in the state of Wisconsin. Ken has authored and presented
several papers at major power system and protective relay conferences.

Normann Fischer joined Eskom as a protection technician in 1984. He re-

ceived a Higher Diploma in Technology, with honors, from the Witwatersrand
Technikon, Johannesburg in 1988, a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, with
honors, from the University of Cape Town in 1993, and a M.S.E.E. from the
University of Idaho in 2005. He was a senior design engineer in Eskom’s
Protection Design Department for three years and then joined IST Energy as a
senior design engineer in 1996. In 1999, he joined Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, Inc. as a power engineer in the Research and Development
Division. He was a registered professional engineer in South Africa and a
member of the South Africa Institute of Electrical Engineers.

Casper Labuschagne, P.E., joined Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

in December 1999 as a product engineer in the Substation Equipment Engi-
neering group. He brought 20 years of experience with the South African
utility, Eskom, where he worked in the design department. He earned his
M.D. in 1991 from Vaal Triangle Technicon near Johannesburg. He is regis-
tered as professional technologist with the Engineering Council of South
Africa.

Copyright © SEL 2006

(All rights reserved)
20061019
TP6261-01