PRD in Power Transformer

Sudden Pressure Protection for Transformers
A report to the
Substation Protection Subcommittee of the
Power System Relaying Committee of
the IEEE Power and Energy Society
Prepared by the K6 Working Group
December 2014
Assignment: To complete a technical report to the Substation Protection

Subcommittee on the application of sudden pressure relaying in power
transformers.
Members of the Working Group:
Randy Crellin (Chair)
Don Lukach (Vice Chair)
Pat Carroll
Steve Conrad
Bill Gordon
James Platt
Greg Sessler
Mark Carpenter
Dominick Fontana
Gene Henneberg
Elmo Price
Charles Sufana
Arvind Chaudhary
Rafael Garcia
Barry Jackson
Mark Schroeder
Don Ware
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
2.0
Types of Transformers ............................................................................................. 3
3.0
Types of Sudden Pressure Relays ............................................................................ 4
3.1
Pressure Sensing ................................................................................................... 4
3.2
Flow Sensing ........................................................................................................ 6
4.0
Sudden Pressure Relay Applications ....................................................................... 7
4.1
Factors for Considering SPR Use......................................................................... 7
4.2
Limits to Sudden Pressure Relay Application...................................................... 9
4.3
Through Fault Issues .......................................................................................... 10
4.4
Seismic Activity ................................................................................................. 11
5.0
Maintenance and Testing Practices ........................................................................ 13
5.1
Misoperations due to Maintenance Practices ..................................................... 13
5.2
SPR Testing ........................................................................................................ 13
6.0
Turn-to-Turn Fault Detection with Negative Sequence......................................... 14
6.1
Negative Sequence Differential Protection ........................................................ 15
6.2
Negative Sequence Sensitivity ........................................................................... 16
7.0
Summary of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices ............................... 17
7.1
SPR Applications ............................................................................................... 17
7.2
Trip Verses Alarm .............................................................................................. 19
7.3
SPR Type............................................................................................................ 19
7.4
SPR Maintenance ............................................................................................... 19
7.5
Diagnostics Following SPR Operation .............................................................. 20
7.6
SPR Operation .................................................................................................... 20
8.0
References .............................................................................................................. 22
Appendix A - A History of Transformer Pressure Relay Applications ............................ 24

Appendix B - Survey of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices ........................ 34
1.0
Introduction
The use of sudden pressure relays (SPRs) has been a subject of great debate ever since
their introduction in the 1950s as a possible component of a transformer protection
system. This type of device is also commonly referred to as a fault pressure relay (FPR)
and rapid pressure rise relay (RPR). This document proposes to clarify the issues
associated with SPRs and to give the reader the information needed to make an informed
decision on SPR applications.
Sudden pressure relays are somewhat unique in that they utilize mechanical quantities
(sudden changes in internal transformer pressure) to sense low level internal faults that
are often not able to be identified by other relays that utilize electrical quantities. Sudden
pressure relays are designed to not operate for steady state or non-fault changes in these
quantities, but to operate quickly and with an inverse time characteristic, for changes in
these quantities due to internal faults. The nature of these devices is such that they are
sometimes prone to operation due to external faults and other non-fault events, making
their application considerations a trade off between dependability for internal transformer
faults and security against other events.
This report provides an overview of sudden pressure relay types, their applications and
considerations. A brief history of transformer pressure relay applications is also included
in Appendix A and a survey of North American utility practices was performed and the
results are included in Appendix B.
2.0
Types of Transformers
For purposes of sudden pressure relay applications, transformers can be classified into
two general groups, dry type or liquid filled. The dry type transformers are nonventilated and use air, nitrogen, or another inert gas for the insulating and cooling media.
Gas flow may be circulated naturally, forced, or maintained at zero gauge pressure.
Liquid filled transformers use a variety of liquids for the insulating and cooling media.
The liquid is typically mineral oil, but may be synthetic oil or a less flammable fluid such
as the silicon based polydimethyl siloxane. The fluid flow may be circulated naturally or
forced and can be either direct or indirect. Liquid filled transformers typically use
external heat exchangers that are cooled by air or water regardless of circulation methods.
Some liquid filled transformer designs use a combination gas-liquid system.
Gas-liquid systems are classified as either sealed or non-sealed. While both types
maintain liquid volume, only the sealed type maintains gas volume. A single tank
transformer with a nitrogen blanket that is supplied from a gas bottle is an example of a
simple positive pressure sealed system. If an auxiliary tank is added to the transformer,
so as to maintain the complete immersion of the main tank components, the arrangement
is still a sealed system. If the auxiliary tank contains a diaphragm that separates the
liquid from the gas, the configuration is considered to have a conservator.
Transformers may use a load tap changer (LTC) to regulate voltage. The LTC is usually
contained in a separate liquid filled tank. Pressure monitoring of the LTC tank may be
desirable and integrated into the sudden pressure relay scheme.
3.0
Types of Sudden Pressure Relays
There are two main types of sudden pressure relays; pressure sensing and flow sensing.
The basic principles of operation for each are described below:
3.1
Pressure Sensing
One method is where the sudden pressure sensing relay is located on the top of
the transformer such that the sensing connection is located in the gas space of a
pressurized transformer. This is known as an In Gas sudden pressure relay.
The sensing chamber contains a bellows, a micro-switch, and an orifice that
connects the sensing chamber to the reference chamber, as shown in Figure 3-1.
[5, 10] During normal transformer operations, the internal gas pressure will rise
and fall as a function of the transformer temperature. Since this change in
pressure is gradual, the orifice allows sufficient flow to keep the sensing chamber
and the reference chamber at the same pressure. Consequently, the device does
not operate. When an internal arcing transformer fault occurs, the gas pressure in
the tank rises rapidly. This high rate of change of pressure is greater than the
capability of the orifice and the sensing pressure becomes greater than the
reference pressure. Thus, the bellows moves and operates the micro-switch
output contacts. The device reset is a function of the pressure inside the
transformer but will typically reset in less than 90 seconds.
Figure 3-1. Sectional View of a Modern Mechanical Pressure Sensing Sudden Pressure Relay
A second method is where the sudden pressure sensing relay is located on the side
of the transformer below the minimum level of the oil in the tank. The relay
senses conditions in the oil within the main transformer tank. This is known as an
Under Oil sudden pressure relay. This relay type may be applied on any oil
immersed transformer. The sensing chamber contains a bellows, a micro-switch,
and an orifice that connects the sensing chamber to the reference chamber,
functionally similar to the In Gas relay, though specifically designed to operate
using the transformer fluid. This version of the pressure sensing relay is also
illustrated in Figure 3-1. Under both normal and internal fault conditions, the
relay operates very similarly to the In Gas relay.
The most recent version of the pressure sensing relay entered the market in the
mid 1990s. One manufacturer has available a micro processor based relay which
monitors separately for rapid pressure rise, slow (static) pressure rise, provides a
built in seal-in relay, and an analog current loop to provide SCADA or remote
pressure sensing. It may be used for either in gas or under oil applications by
settings adjustments. This device is shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2. Multi-Function Sudden Pressure Relay Control Panel (left) and Relay Housing with
Connecting Control Wires (right).
3.2
Flow Sensing
The flow sensing sudden pressure relay is located between the transformer tank
and an oil conservator and is commonly referred to as the Buchholz relay. This
relay normally utilizes two different detection principles to detect transformer
faults. One method is the accumulation of gasses within a detection chamber.
Once the gas volume is sufficient, normally 100 200 cm3, an output contact is
closed. The second method detects oil flow from the transformer tank to the
conservator. If the speed of the oil flow reaches 0.85 1.15 m/s an output contact
is closed. This device is shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3. Sectional View of a Buchholz Relay
4.0
Sudden Pressure Relay Applications
Sudden pressure relays are employed to detect faults that are not normally seen by current
based (overcurrent or differential) relays. They are applicable to just about any size and
type of liquid filled transformer. The decision to use the sudden pressure relay is often
based on the transformer size, location within the power system, cost, and past operating
experience. The decision to trip and/or alarm has been an ongoing concern since the
early development of this type of relay.
4.1
Factors for Considering SPR Use
Faults that are low in current magnitude that may not be detected by conventional
current based relays and other unusual events include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Turn to turn [12]

High resistance joints [11]
High eddy current between laminations [11]
High resistance faults
Hot spots on the core due to a short circuit of the lamination insulation [4]
Core bolt insulation failure [4, 13]
Faulty joints [4, 13]
Loss of oil due to leakage [4]
Sudden pressure protection could also aid in the protection of grounding

transformers and transformers with complicated circuits like phase shifting and
phase regulating [11]. The sudden pressure type of relay is insensitive to the
exact location of the winding fault [6]. Sudden pressure relays may also be used
in the tap changer mechanism compartment [11].
The types of faults listed above may result in current magnitudes that are well
below the sensitivity of the overcurrent or differential relay. Given enough time,
these conditions will eventually evolve into a more significant fault, but perhaps
at the expense of considerable damage. Thus the ability to detect the condition
sooner and to initiate tripping could prevent extensive transformer damage.
The decision to use a sudden pressure relay may be based on the following
factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cost. The more expensive the transformer, the more protection that can be
justified. The decision to use the protection on less expensive
transformers is another matter. The true cost may not be just that of the
transformer directly, but that of the labor, the downtime for replacement,
and the loss of revenue from the customers fed by the transformer.
Transformer MVA size. The larger the transformer, the more protection
that can be justified as the larger size implies a more expensive
transformer, higher levels of load and often more customers.
Location within the power system. If the transformer is in a location
where it is critical to maintaining service to customers, i.e. a radial system;
then perhaps the expense of incorporating a sudden pressure relay is
justified. Small transformers that are in a substation with several others
may not have the sudden pressure relay since the loads can be switched to
alternative sources. Transformers feeding high impact customers, i.e.
hospitals, may warrant the installation of sudden pressure relays at any
cost.
Past operating experience. Many utilities have incorporated sudden
pressure relaying for tripping, but later removed or converted the relay to
alarm only due to misoperations of the scheme. Such changes more
commonly occurred on older, less secure schemes. Newer relays and
designs have reduced misoperations and may warrant reconsideration for
those utilities that changed their designs to alarm only or removed the trip.
Once the decision has been made to incorporate a sudden pressure relay, several
other issues need to be addressed, namely the type of sudden pressure relay and
whether to trip or alarm.
Proper circuit design is essential for reducing the likelihood of a false operation
due to electrical transients. Appendix A provides a history of the development of
the control circuitry associated with sudden pressure relays. Sudden pressure
relays that have vibration reduction designs are helpful in high seismic areas and
some industrial applications. Relay designs that have two or more sensitivity
settings can be considered. The use of Form C auxiliary contacts reduce the
chance of false tripping for contact bounce. However, SPR inhibiting schemes,
where overcurrent relays supervise the trip logic of the sudden pressure relay can
be considered to reduce the risk of operation for external high current faults [5, 6,
9, 11, 12] and potentially in seismic areas.
To avoid possible operation during cooling pump starts and stops, a brief
intentional time delay might be included in the relay scheme [4].
During maintenance, the sudden pressure relay can have the trip disabled or put
into alarm only. The surges in pressure during these operations may be enough to
operate the relay [4].
4.2
Limits to Sudden Pressure Relay Application
Some utilities have elected to alarm only for fear of a possible false operation.
Older circuit designs seemed to have more issues and more modern designs
appear to have reduced problems.
Objections to using sudden pressure relays include [13]:
1.
2.
3.
Additional transformer construction may be required.

The cost to inspect a transformer following a SPR operation in
conjunction with a through fault or a seismic event to verify that the
transformer was not damaged by the event that caused the SPR operation.
Difficult to maintain the relay.
Most utilities have adopted reliable circuitry and installed or are moving toward
newer, more secure types of SPR relays. However, the utility industry still
experiences a level of misoperations at least sometimes perceived to be higher
than for most electrically operated protection systems.
One large North American utility defeated most of their sudden pressure relays
from tripping when an analysis of their operational history showed that the sudden
pressure relays often experienced false trips and transformer modeling analysis
indicated that differential or overcurrent relays could reliably detect turn-to-turn
faults. [1] Though the sample size was relatively small, this utilitys records
indicated that their sudden pressure relays experienced a misoperation rate of over
80%. There were very few faults inside the main transformer tank for which the
differential or overcurrent relays did not trip. Transformer modeling indicated
that even turn-to-turn faults would generally result in changes in current at the
transformer bushings detectable by differential or overcurrent relays, and that

these relays are generally faster than sudden pressure relays.
4.3
Through Fault Issues
Sudden pressure relays on power transformers have been reported to operate

during through fault conditions, although the data is not very specific as to age or
fault history of the transformer. [3]
Transformers are designed and tested to industry standards. The windings are
clamped in some manner to prevent movement during shipment and operation.
During a through fault, the windings move. While the distances may be small due
to the clamping, the movement is very fast, and with much force. This movement
of the windings produces shock waves in the transformer oil. The more winding
movement the larger the shock wave and the more likely it is for a sudden
pressure relay to operate.
Possible reasons for through fault SPR operations could be higher magnitudes of
fault current or cumulative effects of aging. As the transformer ages, the
clamping forces relax, thus allowing a greater susceptibility to increased pressure
waves. The more faults and the greater severity of a fault has an adverse
cumulative effect on the clamping. Many other factors influence the degradation
of the blocking or clamping within a transformer. The insulation can change in
both thickness and elasticity over time due to the effect of moisture, temperature,
and chemical aging. This degradation is supported by the probabilistic based
damage curves that are published in IEEE literature for frequent and infrequent
faults.
When the SPR operates a transformer is usually taken out of service, is inspected,
and tested. The process takes time, can be costly, and impacts system operation.
Catastrophic failures are easily seen. However, degraded clamping may be
difficult to identify and actually may have been the cause of the operation. Thus,
a condition exists to easily believe that the SPR false operated or is a nuisance
alarm. Some utilities do not use the SPR in trip circuits and some users apply
overcurrent blocking of the SPR to specifically prevent tripping for through fault
conditions. While these actions allow the transformer to remain in service,
accumulating problems can go undetected until a more severe event occurs.
The SPR can be used as a diagnostic tool in assessing the overall health of a
transformer, especially if a transformers operational history, including fault data,
is known. Proactive analysis of through faults and SPR operations can be used in
conjunction with the typical age, temperature, and oil analysis to determine
inspection frequency and the testing required to verify transformer health. Thus,
the reoccurring operation of the SPR could be indicative of a near future failure
and not using the data as such, could be a missed opportunity and costly mistake.
10
Also, the clamping pressure in a transformer can be restored. This process may
require the transporting of the transformer to a repair facility but in some cases it
can done in the substation. Regardless, it is likely more economical to fix the
blocking than to replace a failed transformer.
4.4
Seismic Activity
Seismic activity poses a significant concern for applying sudden pressure

protection. Misoperations during an earthquake could result in many transformers
tripping simultaneously, potentially initiating a large scale system collapse.
One utility experienced four seismic events within a period of less than 20 years.
Although none of the events were a major earthquake, each resulted in the false
tripping of several transformers by way of the sudden pressure protection. One
event resulted in a system separation, while another could have initiated a major
system collapse had the system loads been greater. To mitigate the extent of
simultaneous trips for future events, this utility decided to defeat the sudden
pressure tripping for all transformers having, at least, one set of high speed
differential relays [1].
Another major North American utility recently experienced a 5.8 magnitude
seismic event which was centered slightly over ten miles from one of its nuclear
power plants. Both units were safely shut down, while overall damage was
minimal; there was no damage to any of the safety systems. A complete
assessment found the greatest physical damage was to eight 500 kV bushings;
each had compromised seals and were leaking oil. These bushings were on the six
in service transformers forming the main transformer banks (GSUs) for the two
units, and the two spares for these banks. The most significant ramification of the
event was the actuation of several sudden pressure relays, which resulted in the
tripping of sixteen plant transformers. The smaller transformers that tripped had a
single sudden pressure relay applied, while the larger transformers all had three
relays mounted at different locations in the tank wall, with the relays in a two-outof-three voting scheme. Among the transformers taken out of service by these
trips were: the main transformers (GSUs) for Units 1 and 2, the station service
transformer (SST) for Unit 1, and four transformers of the reserve station service
system providing off site power for the plant. The loss of the reserve station
service transformers prevented the transmission network from providing power to
the plant for approximately three hours; during this time, the on site diesel
generators were the only sources available for supplying the critical unit
functions. This loss of off site power was, by far, the most serious consequence
of the event.
Initial investigations revealed that none of the sudden pressure trips were due to
short circuit faults, internal or external to any of the transformers. After quickly
verifying this for each of the reserve station service transformers (RSSTs) that
tripped, they were put back in service, so as to restore the off site power. In
11
reference to the perceived safety value of the sudden pressure relaying in

preventing low magnitude fault events internal to the transformer tank from
escalating into more dangerous situations, the decision was made to keep the
sudden pressure tripping enabled on all plant transformers, except for a select few.
For three of the transformers in the reserve station service system (one 500-34.5
kV and its associated ground bank, and one 34.5-4.16 kV) the sudden pressure
relaying was set to alarm only. These particular transformers were selected to
ensure that the preferred source of off site power was secure from being lost
under future earth movements.
A task team was formed to study the event and consider possible scheme
solutions that would provide an acceptable degree of protection for electrical
faults, yet have a low probability of misoperation under seismic activity. Any
recommended solutions were to be considered only for the transformers of the
plants reserve station service system. Initially, the team had seismic tests
performed on similar sudden pressure relays and - associated auxiliary seal-in
package assemblies-. Testing indicated that the operations were due to pressure
waves in the transformer tank, during the earthquake, and not contact vibration
within the sudden pressure relay, itself, or within the auxiliary package. The
teams ultimate recommendation was divided into two alternatives:
A transformer protection scheme with the sudden pressure coverage

provided in a non tripping alarm mode. Under this alternative, the tripping
of the sudden pressure relaying would normally be disabled, while its
alarm and event capture features would always be in service. Gas
monitoring with an associated alarm would also be included. The
transformer protection would be provided by dual differential protection
packages, each supplied from separate, dedicated CT circuits. In addition
to the normal percentage differential protection, each package will also
have negative sequence differential and restricted earth fault features
enabled. In the absence of sudden pressure protection, this is an attempt to
provide as much coverage as possible for internal faults that are below the
sensitivity of the normal differential protection. Even with these
protective enhancements, the lowest magnitude tank events will have to be
detected by the sudden pressure alarming, with the transformer not
automatically removed from service. In addition, a switching arrangement
would allow the sudden pressure relaying to be put into a tripping mode in
situations where the protection is deemed necessary. For example,
differential relay protection may not be available during commissioning
operations when relay current circuits are not yet proven. In such
situations, sudden pressure may be providing the only backup, or in some
cases, the only transformer protection.
A transformer protection scheme with the sudden pressure coverage

provided in a tripping mode with a seismic detection device supervising its
operation. This alternative has the sudden pressure protection set in the
12
traditional tripping and alarming mode, but also introduces a seismic

detection device (SDD) for blocking the sudden pressure relay tripping. A
separate SDD will provide an alarm function. The SDD functionality is
based on an observed relationship between the strong motion seismology
of earthquakes and the response curves of sudden pressure relays.
Research and operational experience has shown that earthquakes can be
detected seconds before the ground motion reaches the level that can
potentially cause unintended sudden pressure relay operations, which
provides a sufficient time for blocking. With an SDD having picked up,
upon the ceasing of actuating seismic activity, there is a relatively lengthy
dropout time ranging from 30 to 60 seconds. There will, of course, be no
sudden pressure coverage for internal transformer faults during this period.
Since the sudden pressure protective coverage will be in service for this
alternative plan, the additional protective features of negative sequence
differential and restricted earth fault are not a requirement. Change out of
the existing electromechanical or solid state electronic transformer
protection for digital packages providing these functions is, therefore, not
required. Ultimately, installing dual transformer packages, with the extra
functions prescribed in the first alternative, would be preferred, in addition
to the supervised sudden pressure protection.
5.0
Maintenance and Testing Practices

5.1
Misoperations due to Maintenance Practices
Misoperation of a SPR on a generator step-up unit (GSU) led to the detection of a

unique failure mode [2]. Investigation revealed that the bellows that are integral
to the pressure sensing were permanently distorted and that, depending on the
exact damage, could result in either permanently closing the trip contacts or
blocking the contacts from operating entirely. The root cause of the failure was
that the valve on which the relay was mounted had been closed during
maintenance. Heat from the sun caused oil pressure to increase to a damaging
level because the oil in the relay could not flow back to the transformer tank. At
least one working group members company has experienced a similar case of
relay damage, discovered during maintenance, which would have prevented the
relay from tripping.
Single tank transformers with a nitrogen blanket supplied from a gas bottle may
also experience SPR misoperations. Changing an empty nitrogen bottle for a full
one can result in pressure transients that trip the relay unless it is defeated during
the maintenance procedure. Both in gas and under oil SPR relays are
potentially susceptible to this cause of misoperation.
5.2
SPR Testing
An appropriate SPR test program, analogous to testing electrically operated

relays, should be used to ensure that sudden pressure relays will work correctly
13
when subject to internal transformer faults. Sudden pressure relay tests can be
performed using a simple pressure (GO - NO GO) test within specific pressure
ranges. Testing should be performed at installation and at least during the
transformers normal maintenance cycle.
The necessary test instrument is a pressure tester (available from the SPR
manufacturer or easily made from a manual blood pressure kit). With the kit
including the gauge, hand squeeze bulb, and tubing. If the blood pressure kit is
used, the conversion from mm Hg to psi is accomplished by dividing the mm Hg
by 51.5, 760 mm / 14.7 psi. Pipe fittings to connect to the SPR are also needed.
Refer to the manufacturers instructions for the procedure and operating pressures
expected, but the test procedure will generally include the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Remove the SPR from the control circuit by removing the cable.
Connect an ohm meter across the relay contacts.
Pump up the pressure to the upper end of the range and hold constant for
30 seconds.
Suddenly release the pressure. The relay should operate (GO test).
Pump the pressure to just below the lower end of the operate range and
hold constant for 30 seconds.
Suddenly release the pressure. The relay should not operate (NO GO test).
The test procedure steps 3 6 may be repeated to gain confidence in the

consistency of the relay operation and identify the specific GO - NO GO pressure.
If the SPR does not test within the manufacturers specifications the SPR must be
either re-calibrated or replaced.
6.0
Turn-to-Turn Fault Detection with Negative Sequence
Protection for turn-to-turn faults is normally provided by sudden pressure relays because
conventional differential protection cannot be relied upon to detect these faults. SPRs
operate from the sudden change in gas pressure generated by arcing in insulation oil
produced by the turn-to-turn fault. This is a relatively slow mechanism of operation when
compared to normal phase differential protection.
Turn-to-turn faults usually occur as a result of winding insulation breakdown during
overvoltage stress conditions. Very high currents occur in the shorted windings that are
not measurable with conventional differential protection particularly during heavy load
conditions. The single phase transformer of Figure 6-1 illustrates the effect of a turn-toturn fault. The primary winding turns, np, has a shorted winding section, ntt. The
secondary winding turns is ns. With the polarity as indicated, the amp-turns equation is
as shown in Equation 6-1. The turn-to-turn fault current, Itt, is determined with Equation
6-2. It is readily observed that with only a few shorted turns where ntt is small that Itt can
be very large. This is particularly true where there are hundreds of turns on the primary
winding.
14
Figure 6-1. Single Phase Transformer with Turn-to-Turn Fault.
For ntt 0:
1
6.1
(6-1)
(6-2)
Negative Sequence Differential Protection
As described above when a turn-to-turn fault occurs, the phase currents of the
transformer windings do not change significantly and may not dependably detect
the fault condition. However, the transformer winding symmetry is disturbed and
results in negative sequence current in all transformer windings. The negative
sequence currents are balanced and appear in terminal currents regardless of delta
or wye winding connections. They can easily be expressed (represented) on one
windings base accounting for phase shift and turns ratio. This suggests the use of
negative sequence to detect turn-to-turn faults.
As with any fault on the power system, the source of negative sequence voltage is
at the point of the fault or other system unbalance. This negative sequence
voltage produces negative sequence current that flows from the negative sequence
source voltage into the system. This is illustrated in Figure 6-2 where E2f is the
negative sequence voltage at the fault location and I2S1 and I2S2 are the negative
sequence currents flowing to the system 1 and system 2 source impedances Z2S1
and Z2S2, respectively.
15
Figure 6-2. Negative Sequence Currents During External (a) and Internal (b)
Transformer Faults.
6.2
Negative Sequence Sensitivity
Figure 6-2 shows that a negative sequence current differential may detect turn-toturn faults, provided sufficient negative sequence currents are produced in the
turn-to-turn unbalance for detection. But how sensitive is the negative sequence
differential relative to the SPR for detecting turn-to-turn faults in transformers,
and can this function reliably replace the SPR application?
References 15 and 16 add to the validation for the use of negative sequence
differential. Reference 15 evaluates a transformer fault record playback into a
transformer relay of a fault record initiated with a SPR trip. The transformer was a
300 MVA, 400/110 kV autotransformer that experienced a turn-to-turn fault in the
neutral end of the Phase C common winding. The play back test results show that
negative sequence differential resulted in very fast detection of the turn-to-turn
fault in 12 milliseconds with tripping in 27 milliseconds.
Reference 16 discusses tests performed at the University of Idaho on a 50 kVA,
240/240/24 V, three phase transformer designed specifically for testing the
sensitivity of a negative sequence differential function for turn-to-turn faults. The
shorted turns ranged from 10% down to 2% (1 turn). The test results showed the
reduced capability to detect turn-to-turn faults with conventional phase current
16
differential, especially when masked by load current, and the effectiveness of

negative sequence differential for detecting turn-to-turn faults down to 2% of the
winding shorted.
Additional references regarding the use of negative sequence differential
protection on power transformers can be found in References 17, 18, and 19.
7.0
Summary of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices
The IEEE Power System Relaying Committee Sudden Pressure Relay survey compiled as
part of this PSRC Working Group assignment offers some insight into the present
practices of North American utilities with respect to using sudden pressure relays.
The detailed survey is included as Appendix B to this paper. The survey is based on
numbers of utilities that responded, rather than numbers of transformers or sudden
pressure relays owned and operated by the utilities.
In general, sudden pressure relays are widely, though not universally used to trip,
depending on the particular equipment being protected and the portion of the system at
which the equipment is applied (generation/transmission/distribution). More than 90% of
respondents use sudden pressure relays to trip for some purpose, and over half (60%) also
use them to alarm. Alarms are often used when tripping is not, although some utilities use
both the trip and alarm functions. For distribution applications, roughly 60% use the
sudden pressure relay to trip while 40% alarm. For transmission applications, roughly
75% of utilities trip and 45% alarm. For generation facilities nearly 70% will trip and
40% will alarm for generator step up transformer applications.
7.1
SPR Applications
All utilities responding to this survey use sudden pressure relays for at least some
applications.
A large percentage of utilities use sudden pressure relays for power transformers,
phase shifters, or shunt reactors, however only about three of five companies trip
distribution transformers using a sudden pressure relay.
A greater percentage of respondents use sudden pressure relays for transmission
and generator step up transformers, compared to distribution transformers. This is
most likely due to the larger percentage of distribution transformers being
protected with transformer fuses as compared to the transmission and generation
transformers which limits the opportunities for tripping a fault interruptive device.
Additionally, sudden pressure relays used on generator auxiliary transformers are
used at a somewhat lower level than that for distribution transformers.
Respondents apply sudden pressure relays in transformer LTC compartments
about 40% of the time. Most utilities apply sudden pressure relays on transformer
17
main tanks and on LTCs using similar application philosophies. However, a few
utilities specify the LTC sudden pressure relays to be either more sensitive or less
secure than what would be used for the main tank.
The utility respondents apply sudden pressure relays in shunt reactor installations
approximately 60% of the time.
Sudden pressure relays are used by utilities at a lower rate on phase shifting
transformers than for all the rest of the equipment identified, however the number
of respondents indicating they have phase shifting transformers was also lower
than for any other category of equipment. This may be the reason for the lower
usage rate.
For those respondents that indicated they use transformer size as a factor of when
to apply sudden pressure relays, few use sudden pressure relays below 10 MVA
but the usage of fuses for transformers of this size may have been a factor. .
Approximately half of the respondents apply sudden pressure relays for
transformers that are above 10 MVA.
Respondents indicated that a single sudden pressure relay is installed slightly
more often than multiple sudden pressure relays. Multiple sudden pressure relay
applications include main tank and LTC applications. When a single sudden
pressure relay is used, the manufacturer typically specifies its location about twice
as often as the utility. When more than one sudden pressure relay is used, the
relays are generally located on the main tank and LTC compartment, or on
opposite sides of the main tank.
Only about a quarter of sudden pressure relay users also use voting schemes.
Nearly half of voting scheme users implement a 1 of 2 scheme, which is
really redundancy rather than for voting.
About 40% of utilities that apply sudden pressure relays use Form c logic,
which requires that the 63a contact closes and the 63b contact opens to allow
tripping. In addition, approximately three fourths of the users employ a separate
seal-in auxiliary relay, and the vast majority (>80%) locally annunciate sudden
pressure relay operation.
A small number of sudden pressure relay users (<10%) include some type of
current supervision for sudden pressure relay operation to minimize misoperation
for through faults. For those few users that apply current supervision, most use
overcurrent supervision. A few of the sudden pressure relay users that apply
current supervision use undercurrent supervision, and a few apply directional
current supervision. Three users indicated that current supervision is applied to
prevent sudden pressure relay misoperation during seismic events.
18
7.2
Trip Verses Alarm
A majority of utility respondents use a sudden pressure relay as a protective trip

relay and most use a sudden pressure relay to alarm in addition to the tripping.
Most respondents that do not trip with a sudden pressure relay do provide an
alarm from the sudden pressure relay.
If the utility respondent uses transformer overcurrent protection, just over half trip
the differential lockout with overcurrent protection. The remainder of the
respondents indicated that overcurrent protection either trips a dedicated lockout
or a shared overcurrent/sudden pressure lockout.
Approximately half of the respondents indicated that a single lockout relay is used
for all transformer trips (differential, sudden pressure, overcurrent). Other
respondents indicated that three separate lockouts are applied, one for each
protective function (differential, sudden pressure, overcurrent), or two lockouts
are used, one of which is tripped by the differential protection and the second that
is tripped by both the sudden pressure relay and overcurrent protection.
7.3
SPR Type
Respondents indicated that both in gas and under oil sudden pressure relays
are applied on all types of equipment, though a greater percentage apply under
oil sudden pressure relays.
Multifunction sudden pressure relays are currently available from a single
manufacturer, and have been available only recently. Due to these factors,
multifunction sudden pressure relays are rarely applied and have only a small
market penetration to date.
Buchholz relays are used less frequently than under oil and in gas sudden
pressure relays.
For single sudden pressure relay installations, most utility owners use an under
oil or in gas application, with only a few using a Buchholz relay.
Very few respondents have noticed any difference in performance between in
gas and under oil sudden pressure relays.
7.4
SPR Maintenance
A significant majority of utility respondents indicated that they expect the sudden
pressure relay to last until the transformer is replaced or the sudden pressure relay
fails (no routine replacement).
The survey results indicate that most utility respondents apply a test switch to
provide sudden pressure trip isolation for maintenance and testing. Some utilities
also use sliding link terminal blocks to provide testing isolation, and
19
approximately 20% of the respondents indicated that no form of trip isolation is

installed for sudden pressure relay maintenance.
Most utilities either perform sudden pressure relay maintenance during
transformer maintenance activities or use an interval between two and five years.
For those that perform some form of regular relay testing, approximately two
thirds indicated that the sudden pressure relay is pressurized to verify operation,
whereas about one third simply test the trip output contact.
7.5
Diagnostics Following SPR Operation
A high percentage of utility respondents indicated that multiple diagnostic tests

are performed following a transformer event in which a sudden pressure relay
operates to trip the transformer. The most common tests include dissolved gas in
oil (DGA), power factor (Doble), insulation (Megger) and transformer turns ratio
(TTR). However, significantly fewer utilities performed the same tests if the
sudden pressure relay is used for alarming only.
About half of respondents have experienced accidental sudden pressure relay trips
during routine maintenance.
Approximately half of the utility respondents indicated that they have experienced
sudden pressure relay operations due to high current external faults. Most of
these operations were attributed to under oil sudden pressure relays; however,
the responses seem to be consistent with the larger population of under oil
sudden pressure relay users.
Most sudden pressure relay misoperations not attributed to an external fault were
associated with under oil sudden pressure relays. However, the population of
under oil sudden pressure relay users was large.
Other causes of sudden pressure relay misoperations reported by the respondents
included moisture related corrosion, maintenance activity and damaged relays.
Utility users indicated that there is no clear difference in sudden pressure relay
misoperations for transformer designs (core or shell), nor is there a clear
difference in the quantity of misoperations for various transformer winding
configurations.
7.6
SPR Operation
About 40% of respondents have experienced at least one transformer event that
was detected by a sudden pressure relay and not by another protective relay. The
types of events that the sudden pressure relay detected that another protective
relay did not include bushing to tank fault, LTC fault, winding movement, and
closing out of synchronism.
20
The utility respondents offered divided opinions on whether differential

protection is sensitive enough to detect turn-to-turn faults. The sensitivity issue
has historically been one of the common reasons for application of sudden
pressure relay tripping.
Most utilities have experienced transformer failures due to turn-to-turn faults.
The respondents indicated that sudden pressure relays provided detection of this
type of fault in a majority of the cases. However, even when the sudden pressure
relay detected the fault and operated correctly, most utilities dont claim that the
sudden pressure relay operation reduced transformer damage or operated faster
than other protective relays.
21
8.0
References
1.
R.P. Barone and G.H. Young, Sudden Pressure Relaying Revisited, 30th Annual
Western Protective Relay Conference (October 21-23, 2003).
2.
H.M. Shuh and S.L. Short, An Investigation of Sudden Pressure Relay Failures,
52nd Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relay Conference (May 6-8, 1998).
3.
J. Buchert, Transformer Fault Pressure Relay Survey-ECAR Protection Panel

1984, Georgia Tech Protective Relay Conference (April 30-May 2, 1986).
4.
GEC Alsthom T&D, Protective Relays Application Guide, 3rd ed., (1995), sec.
16.13 Oil and Gas Devices, pp. 296-297.
5.
ABB Power T&D Company, Protective Relaying Theory and Applications,

(Marcel Dekker,1994), sec. 5.6 Sudden-Pressure Relay (SPR), pp. 165-166.
6.
S.H. Horowitz and A.G. Phadke, Power System Relaying, 2nd ed., (Research
Studies Press Ltd., 1996), sec. 8.8 Non-Electrical Protection, pp. 223-224.
7.
L.J. Blackburn, Protective Relaying Principles and Applications, 2nd ed., (Marcel
Dekker, 1998), sec. 9.15.2 Sudden Pressure, p. 300.
8.
M.A. Anthony, Electric Power System Protection and Coordination, (McGrawHill Inc., 1995), sec. 9.2.3 Supply Transformer Primary Protection: Group C,
pp. 317-318.
9.
Basler Electric, Transformer Protection Application Guide, (revised 5/99), sec. 6

Sudden-Pressure Relays (63), p. 14.
10.
R.L. Bean and H.L. Cole, A Sudden Gas Pressure Relay for Transformer
Protection, Protective Relaying for Power Systems edited by Stanley H. Horowitz,
(IEEE Press, 1980), p. 297-300.
11.
IEEE Guide for Protecting Power Transformers, (IEEE C37.91-2008,), sec. 9

Mechanical Detection of Faults, p. 44-47.
12.
WSCC Relay Work Group, Transformer Protection Sudden Pressure Relays,

(October 21, 1991).
13.
AIEE Relay Subcommittee, Protective Relaying for Power Systems, Relay

Protection of Power Transformers, (IEEE Press reprint of AIEE Trans. Vol 66,
1947), pp. 911-915.
22
14.
R.L. Bean and H.L. Cole, A Sudden Gas Pressure Relay for Transformer
Protection, (IEEE Press reprint of AIEE Trans. Part III, Vol 72, 1953). pp. 480483.
15.
Z. Gajic, F. Mekic, and I. Ivankovic, Sensitive Turn-to-turn Fault Protection for

Power Transformers, 32nd Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers,
(October 2005).
16.
J. Marz, J. Pomeranz, and J. Law, Limits of Sensitivity for Detecting Inter-Turn

Faults on an Energized Power Transformer, 34th Annual Conference for
Protective Relay Engineers, (October 2007).
17.
A. Guzmn, N. Fischer, and C. Labuschagne, Schweitzer Engineering

Laboratories, Improvements in Transformer Protection and Control.
18.
B. Kasztenny, M. Thompson, and N. Fischer, Schweitzer Engineering

Laboratories, Fundamentals of Short-Circuit Protection For Transformers.
19.
M. Thompson, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Protection System for

Phase-Shifting Transformers Improves Simplicity, Dependability, and Security.
23
Appendix A - A History of Transformer Pressure Relay Applications

The application of transformer pressure relays prior to 1960 was generally limited to the
General Electric Type E static pressure relay. This relay was quite unreliable and for this
reason was only allowed to alarm.
The sudden pressure relay has proven to be a relatively dependable relay for rapid
detection of electrical faults in oil filled containers; however early installations were not
appropriately secure from false tripping. The DC circuitry involving sudden pressure
relaying has evolved to provide better security against transients that occur during faults
and other voltage abnormalities that occur on the substation DC system.
Early Sudden Pressure Relay Development
In the 1950s, sudden pressure relays based on the rate of rise of pressure principle
were developed which included the Westinghouse Type SPR and the General Electric
Type J relay. Both types of relays are still in service, with the majority being the type
SPR relays.
However, by the early 1990s many of these older relays, especially the Type J, were
being phased out. The Type J was particularly prone to misoperation on vibration and
also was reported as misoperating due to plugged orifices.[12]
Sudden Pressure Relay Control Circuit Development
About 1960 sudden pressure relays then in service began to be used to trip in addition to
alarming. In fact at this time, SPR relays were added to autotransformers and generator
transformers not so equipped. The circuit used was taken from the Westinghouse SPR
instruction booklet I.L. 46-750-IJ and is shown in Figure A-1.
24
POS
SPR
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
SI
SI
63
RESET
SI
SI
I.L.
86
NEG
Figure A-1. Vintage 1960 SPR Relay Application.
In order to use the SPR for tripping, micro-switches with 6 millimeter gaps in some of the
older relays manufactured before 1958 had to be changed out with micro-switches having
20 millimeter gaps. This required cutting open and re-welding the cases.
In this circuit, an operation of the pressure switch would energize the internal auxiliary
relay which would seal itself in, trip, and alarm. Since no relay target was provided, the
alarm was an indicating light used to indicate an operation. A manual reset switch was
provided to break the auxiliary relay seal-in circuit after an operation.
This early design proved to be susceptible to misoperation due to surges on the DC
supply arcing over the 63 normally open micro-switch contact.
The design of the SPR relay was modified by Westinghouse in 1962 by removing the
internal auxiliary relay and providing an external auxiliary relay mounted in the
transformer control cabinet near the reset switch. Still, no target was provided on the
auxiliary relay.
These two applications of the SPR relay were in service until about 1967, when the
scheme was changed to include a General Electric current operated HAA (12HAA15A5)
auxiliary relay instead of the auxiliary relay provided by Westinghouse. The new circuit
is shown in Figure A-2.
25
POS
SPR
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
63X/HAA
63X/HAA
63
63
86
NEG
The reason for using the HAA relay was to gain the target provided on this relay. Other
changes made at this time removed the indicating light and the reset switch, which was
considered a liability in the case where someone would forget to reset the circuit after an
operation.
The circuit was similar to the Type J relay circuit then in use. However, each circuit was
subject to undesirable tripping due to surges on the DC supply arcing the 63 normally
open micro-switch contact. The evolution of both the SPR and the Type J circuits is
similar from this point.
In 1968, General Electric developed a voltage operated HAA (12HAA16B) relay
supplied with a 350 ohm internal resistor and an external resistor whose value depends
upon the supply voltage (650 ohms for 125 VDC). This relay was developed specifically
for use with transformer pressure relays. At this time the scheme suggested by GE, was
modified to include a trip seal-in contact and 63X/HAA coil shorting as shown in Figure
A-3.
26
POS
SPR
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
63X/HAA
63X/HAA
63X/HAA
63
63
86
350OHMINT.
650OHMEXT.
NEG
This scheme offered increased security over the previous schemes. The 63 normally
closed contact prevented operation of 63X relay (and tripping) for arcing of the 63
normally open contact due to DC surges. The 350 ohm resistor prevented shorting the
DC supply should the 63 normally open contact arc over. Also, the HAA introduced a
short time delay (1 cycle) to prevent misoperation should the 63 normally open contact
close momentarily (less than 1 cycle) from a shock or pressure wave.
Theoretically, the 63 normally closed contact prevented operation of the 63X relay on a
surge, as mentioned above. However, field experience and subsequent tests showed that
the voltage across the 63X coil during flashover of the 63 normally open contact could be
of sufficient magnitude to pick up the 63X relay and operate the tripping relay. When the
63 normally open contact arcs over, the current flow in the circuit causes a voltage drop
between the 63 normally closed contact and positive side of the resistors. Often the
resistance of the lead between these terminals was enough that the voltage drop across it
operated the 63X coil. This discovery led to the modification as shown in Figure A-4.
27
SPR
POS
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
63X/HAA
63
63X/HAA
63
63X/HAA
86
FOUR
CONDUCTOR
CABLE
1000OHM
EXT.RES.
NEG
The Figure A-4 shows that the 350 internal resistor and the 650 external resistor
have been replaced by a 1000 external resistor and that the SPR leads have been
rewired. A 12HAA16B with no resistor, but furnished with a 1000 external resistor is
available from G.E.
This circuit prevents operation of the HAA due to a DC surge arcing the 63 normally
open contact. The voltage drop across the HAA coil during the arcing of the 63 normally
open contact is limited to the voltage drop across the 63/N.C, contact and the short length
of conductor to the transformer terminal block. This voltage is considerably less than the
surge voltage developed across the HAA coil in Figure A-3, and probably will not
operate the HAA.
Westinghouse recommended the use of shielded trip leads and the use of a Voltrap
surge suppression device in shunt with the trip contact to prevent false operations due to
surges. However, since the trip leads are not lengthy when the HAA is located in the
relay house, this has often not been necessary. However, it is recommended that a four
conductor cable be used for the four leads between the transformer and the auxiliary relay
circuit. Any surge induced in one conductor will be induced in all four conductors; since
all conductors will be at equal potential, and no circulating currents will flow.
The root cause of the security issues surrounding the DC circuitry of sudden pressure
relay schemes involves the arcing over of the normally opened the 63 contact during
voltage transients. Figures A-5 and Figure A-6 depict SPR trip circuit arrangement that
have provided the most reliable SPR trip circuits in service to date. Both of these circuits
contain four wires between the transformer and the substation control house.
28
SPR
POS
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
63X/HAA
74/TIR
63
63X/HAA
63
63X/HAA
86
RELAYPANEL
TRANSFORMER
1000OHM
EXT.RES.
NEG
Figure A-5. Transformer SPR Circuit with Auxiliary Trip Indication Relay.
SPR
POS
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
86
63X
HAA
86
86X
63X
HAA
63
63X
HAA
86
RELAYPANEL
86X
TDDO
63
TRANSFORMER
86
1000OHM
EXT.RES.
NEG
Figure A-6. Transformer SPR Circuit without Auxiliary Trip Indication Relay.
The scheme shown in Figure A-7 is a reasonably secure scheme that uses a surge arrester
to control the DC surge. This scheme can be used at locations where only three control
wires are available between the control house and the transformer and other factors
prohibit the addition of another control cable. The surge arresters integrity becomes a
very important part of this scheme and is therefore the weak point in the scheme, which
29
makes it less desirable than the schemes shown in Figure A-5 and Figure A-6. Note that
the 63X coil in Figure A-7 is located at the transformer.
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
POS
86
RESET
SW
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
RESET
SW.
63X
63X
74/TIR
43
(IFUSED)
86
86
86
RESET
86
63X
63
SPR
63
SPR
1000OHM
EXT.RES.
NEG
RELAYPANEL
TRANSFORMER
Figure A-7. Transformer SPR Circuit when Three Wires are Available to the Transformer Control Cabinet
[Note: the Surge Arrestor at the Transformer to Control Switching Surges].
Blocking Sudden Pressure Relay Trip Operation for High Through Fault Currents
Some transformers are subject to sudden pressure relay operation due to mechanical
forces on the transformer during system faults when no electrical fault is present inside
the transformer tank. This can be due to winding shift and subsequent oil movement, or it
might be due the location of the SPR on the tank wall. One method to mitigate exposure
to tripping undesirably for high current external through faults is to supervise the sudden
pressure relays with an instantaneous overcurrent relay that will block tripping for
currents that exceed a relatively high threshold, at least the loadability rating or phase
time over current relay pickup (if used) of the transformer.
Figure A-8 shows a typical scheme for current supervision of SPR relays. This figure
shows the use of separate auxiliary relays which could be implemented using internal
logic found in modern digital relays. If this supervision scheme is used, it should be noted
that the reset time of the SPR after a contact closure can vary from a few seconds to
around a minute and a half.
In the scheme shown in Figure A-8, the 62-1 timer is set - to give the overcurrent 50 and
62-2 relay time to pick up for a high current fault. The contacts of the 62-2 relay picks up
with no intentional time delay, and the relay drops out after being energized for 120
30
seconds. This allows adequate time for the SPR to reset. Since this scheme disables the
SPR for all high current faults, it is important that the transformer be adequately
protected (with the appropriate redundancy) by other relays that will detect and operate
for the high current fault conditions.
One obvious deficiency with this scheme occurs when a through fault causes a
transformer to fail between the time the 62-2 relay picks up and drops out; however, this
scheme does offer relatively secure protection for all other contingencies.
SPR
POS
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
OTHER
TRIPPING
RELAYS
621
63X/HAA
74/TIR
50
622
63
63X/HAA
63
63X/HAA
622
622
86
621
RELAYPANEL
TRANSFORMER
1000OHM
EXT.RES.
NEG
Figure A-8. High Current Blocking Supervision Scheme for the SPR Relay.
Recent Control Circuitry for Sudden Pressure Relays

General Electric sold their transformer auxiliary line of business to Qualitrol, including
sudden pressure relays (GEs then latest model was the under oil 900-1). At the time,
GE was still using the HAA relay for targeting, as shown in Figure A-9
31
POS
D.C.CONTROLVOLTAGE
63FP
OTHER
TRIP
SIGNALS
86HR
86HR
ALARM
63FPX
63FPX
63FPX
52a
86HR
63FPX
RES
52TC
86HR
86HR
63FP
NEG
52a
CIRCUITBREAKERAUXILIARY(CLOSEDWHENC.B.ISCLOSED
52TC
CIRCUITBREAKERTRIPCOIL
63FP
FAULTPRESSURERELAY
63FPX
TARGETRELAYTYPE12HGAA16B
63FPX/RESRESISTORSASREQUIRED
86HR
HANDRESETLOCKOUTRELAY
Figure A-9. Recommended Tripping and Alarm Seal-in Circuit for the GE 900-1.
Qualitrol subsequently developed a separate seal-in auxiliary relay that combines the
functions of the HAA relay, a manual reset, and protection against switching surges.
This seal-in relay is typically mounted in the transformer control cabinet. The circuitry
for this seal-in relay is shown in Figure A-10. It may be set up to operate over a wide
range of control voltages. The SPR relay Form C contact sensing is wired externally to
the seal-in relay (dotted lines). The lockout relay operate coil is typically wired to the
surge protected terminals 9-10 and terminals 6-7-8 may be used for an electrically
isolated alarm circuit. Other circuit breaker trips are typically wired in parallel with the
lockout relay tripping contacts. A red LED turns on when the seal-in is latched and turns
off when the seal-in is manually reset.
32
Figure A-10. Seal-in Auxiliary Relay Typically Used with the Qualitrol 900 and 910 Relays.
Securing Sudden Pressure Operation through Contact Logic

On some transformers, multiple sudden pressure relays are used and arranged at different
locations on the transformer in different geometric planes to reduce the likelihood of a
non-internal fault event from operating multiple relays. When this is done, two or more
contacts are arranged in an and circuit configuration. A two relay scheme using this
philosophy could be described as a 2 of 2 voting scheme.
Condensation in Rapid Pressure Rise Relays such as Qualitrol 900 and 910
A number of misoperations of rapid pressure rise relays have been due to moisture or
condensation on the micro-switch within the relays. Condensation develops when
moisture is sucked into the sealed secondary chamber of the relay during a rapid change
in temperature. This is most often noticed in climates such as the southeastern US, where
a rain storm causes moisture to collect on the relay coincident with a rapid decrease in the
air temperature. Over time, more moisture collects and condensation forms on the
contacts of the micro-switch, creating a conductive path across the contacts and resulting
in a relay misoperation. In the mid 1980s, the manufacturer recommended a modification
to make the secondary chamber free breathing by adding a vent to the test plug to
equalize the pressure.
33
Appendix B - Survey of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices

This survey was undertaken by the K6 Working Group of the Power System Relaying
Committee to document current utility industry practices in North America with respect
to sudden pressure relays (SPR).
This survey included responses by 109 individuals from 75 companies. When more than
one person responded from a company, the individuals typically represented different
operating divisions (which may apply different philosophies), of a single, larger
company. These individual responses from separate operating companies were included
in this analysis. Respondents who indicated a desire to receive the results are provided
with a copy of these survey results directly.
Each question includes specific numbers or percentages of use when the respondent
indicated that their company uses the specific category of equipment, function or
configuration. Therefore each question and chart typically is based on a different number
of responses. The usual format used here is to list the question, include a chart of
responses and provide a brief analysis.
Separate bar charts are provided for questions for which this type of data presentation
seemed appropriate. The numbers to the right of each bar are the percentage or number
of affirmative responses for that category. In the lower left of the chart is indicated the
actual number or percentage of respondents to that question.
Q1:
Does your company use sudden pressure relays on power transformers, phase
shifters, or shunt reactors?
Q1:
0
No
100
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% of 109 Respondents
A1:
All utilities responding to this survey use sudden pressure relays for at least some
applications.
34
Questions 2 11
This group of questions identified specific SPR applications for different categories of
equipment. Eight equipment categories included; Distribution, Two Winding
Transmission, Autotransformer Transmission, Generator Stepup Units (GSU), Generation
Auxiliaries, LTC Compartments, Phase Shifting Tranformers (PST), and Shunt Reactors.
Eight applications included; Trip, Alarm, In Gas, In Oil, Multi-function, Bucholz,
Unknown, and Not Applicable.
A respondent who provided a Not Applicable response to specific equipment types
(Shunt Reactor, etc) allowed the analysis to subtract out those responses for each type of
equipment, indicating that specific equipment was not used on the respondents system.
For example, out of 109 survey respondents, 40 indicated that Shunt Reactors were Not
Applicable on their system, leaving 69 indicating some application of this equipment.
This analysis of the response data seems to make sense. However, the survey authors are
not certain that all respondents actually interpreted the Not Applicable response in this
way. The results would seem to result in a higher than expected indication of use of
certain equipment. For example, almost exactly half of respondents indicated that phase
shifters were Not Applicable within their company. Thats OK, but the survey authors
are not necessarily convinced that the other half actually have and use phase shifting
transformes. Nevertheless, these results should still provide useful comparisons for SPR
use among equipment types and applications.
The responses to Questions 2 9 are analyzed in two different ways. The first analysis
varies the equipment type for each SPR function or configuration (presented as Q2E, etc)
and the second analysis varies the function or configuration for each equipment type
(presented as Q2C, etc).
The first analysis of the responses to Questions 2 9 provides separate charts for each
SPR function or configuration (Trip, etc) using the equipment type as the variable within
each chart. These charts show the total number of Responses Received and compares
that to the number of respondents who indicated that their equipment is Tripped by SPR
(#), Alarmed by SPR (#), etc. These charts are scaled in terms of the number of
respondents, rather than percentages.
Since the Not Applicable data is shown on each of the charts Q2E Q8E, there is no
separate Q9E chart representing that data.
Question 11 provided an opportunity for respondents to provide comments on their
applications. Sixty-nine respondents commented. These comments are grouped
corresponding to the Questions 2 9 and are edited to reflect the specific questions where
the comments apply.
35
Q2E: Does your company use sudden pressure relays to Trip the following equipment?
Q2E:
Shunt Reactor
69
34
Phase Shifting Transformer
55
25
Transformer LTC Compartment
86
47
Generator Auxiliary
85
39
Generator Step Up
Transmission Auto Transformers
99
77
2-W Transmission (LV > 35kV)
89
66
Distribution (LV < 35 kV)
ResponsesReceived
91
68
87
53
0
20
40
60
80
100
TrippedbySPR(#)
A2E: Sudden pressure relays are widely used to Trip, though by no means universally.
None of the usage categories exceeded 80% of the companies that have each type of
equipment.
Q11: Summary of applicable comments:
SPR for all units 34 (some qualifications: depends on HV winding &
manufacturer, 1 for power plants)
2 of 3 voting 3 (1 for GSU)
Trip and alarm for main tank - 2
SPR when diff not available - 2
Manufacturer warranty 2 (1 block after warranty expires)
Not used 1 (2 differential)
36
Q3E: Does your company use sudden pressure relays to Alarm for the following
equipment?
Q3E:
Shunt Reactor
69
21
55
17
86
31
Generator Auxiliary
85
29
Generator Step Up
99
47
89
41
ResponsesReceived
91
38
87
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
AlarmedbySPR(#)
A3E: The Alarm application is often used when tripping is not, though some utilities
both Trip and Alarm (see Question 14).
Q11: Summary of comments:
Bucholz for conservators 28 (1 older only, 2 alarm only, 1 at 345 kV)
Alarm only 7 (1 with 2 differentials, 1 trip GSU, 1 if differential available)
LTC alarm only
37
Q4E: Does your company use sudden pressure relays In Gas on the following
equipment?
Q5E: Does your company use sudden pressure relays In Oil on the following
equipment?
Q4E:
Shunt Reactor
69
10
55
86
10
Generator Auxiliary
11
Generator Step Up
85
99
24
27
28
ResponsesReceived
GasOperatedSPR(#)
Q5E:
91
18
20
Shunt Reactor
89
87
40
60
55
19
86
33
Generator Auxiliary
100
69
25
85
32
Generator Step Up
91
47
99
62
89
48
ResponsesReceived
80
87
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
OilOperatedSPR(#)
A4E, A5E: Both In Gas and In Oil applications are used, though somewhat higher
numbers within each equipment category use In Oil. In addition, at least 70% higher
38
number of respondents actually use In Oil within each equipment category except
distribution (only ~40% higher).
Q11: This question provided an opportunity for comments and qualifications to Q2Q10. (69 respondents)
Summary of comments:
SPR for non-conservator 3
LTC alarm only
39
Q6E: Does your company use multi-function sudden pressure relays on the following
equipment?
Q6E:
Shunt Reactor
Generator Auxiliary
69
55
86
85
Generator Step Up
ResponsesReceived
91
99
89
87
20
40
60
80
100
MultiFunctionSPR(#)
A6E: The multi-function sudden pressure is available from only a single manufacturer
and only relatively recently. It has only a small market penetration to date.
40
Q7E: Does your company use Bucholz sudden pressure relays on the following
equipment?
Q7E:
69
Shunt Reactor
10
11
12
Generator Auxiliary
55
86
85
Generator Step Up
91
31
99
36
89
27
87
10
ResponsesReceived
BucholzSPR(#)
20
40
60
80
100
A7E: Bucholz relays are used at a somewhat lower rate than gas and oil applications.
Many Bucholz users commented that these are common (i.e. are only applied) on
conservator type transformers.
41
Q8E: Does your company use sudden pressure relays of Unknown type on the
following equipment?
Q8E:
Shunt Reactor
55
86
Generator Auxiliary
85
16
Generator Step Up
91
ResponsesReceived
69
99
89
87
20
40
60
80
100
UnknownSPRType(#)
A8E: A few respondents didnt know what types of sudden pressure relays their
companies use, though the numbers were relatively small.
42
The second analysis of the responses to Questions 2 9 provided separate charts (Q2C,
etc) for each equipment type (Distribution, etc) using the sudden pressure relay function
or configuration as the variable. The results presented here have subtracted out the
respondents who indicated that the particular equipment for each chart was Not
Applicable by their company and presents only results for the various sudden pressure
relay configurations. These charts are scaled in terms of the percentage, rather than
numbers of respondents.
Q2C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Distribution (LV < 35 kV)
applications?
Q2C:
UNKNOWN
10
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
46
IN OIL
32
IN GAS
38
ALARM
61
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of 87 Respondents
A2C: A large fraction of utilities use sudden pressure relays in some form and for some
function on distribution transformers. Only about 3 of 5 companies trip distribution
transformers using the SPR.
LTC trip 6 (1 when installed by manufacturer)
LTC alarm only
43
Q3C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Two Winding Transmission
(LV > 35kV) applications?
Q4C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Auto-transformer
Transmission applications?
Q3C:
UNKNOWN
27
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
54
IN OIL
30
IN GAS
46
ALARM
74
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of 89 Respondents
Q4C:
UNKNOWN
36
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
63
IN OIL
24
IN GAS
47
ALARM
78
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of 99 Respondents
A3C, A4C: Most functional and configuration categories of SPRs increased for two
winding transmission transformers and again (somewhat) for auto-transformers,
compared to distribution transformers, except for In Gas applications.
44

LTC alarm only
45
Q5C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Generator Step Up
applications?
Q6C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Generator Auxiliary
applications?
Q5C:
UNKNOWN
28
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
47
IN OIL
18
IN GAS
38
ALARM
68
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of 91 Respondents
Q6C:
19
UNKNOWN
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
38
IN OIL
13
IN GAS
34
ALARM
46
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
% of 85 Respondents
A5C, A6C: Sudden pressure relay use for generator step up transformers is about the
same as for transmission transformers. However, SPR relays on the generator auxiliary
transformers are used at a somewhat lower level that for distribution transformers.
46
Q11: This question provided an opportunity for comments and qualifications to Q2Q10. (69 respondents)
LTC alarm only
47
Q7C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Transformer LTC
Compartment applications?
Q7C:
10
UNKNOWN
12
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
38
IN OIL
12
IN GAS
36
ALARM
55
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 86 Respondents
A7C: Utilities use a SPR in the transformer LTC compartment in numbers comparable
to distribution transformers, except that In Gas applications are substantially lower.
LTC alarm only
48
Q8C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Phase Shifting Transformer
applications?
Q8C:
UNKNOWN
11
BUCHOLZ
Multi-FUNCTION
35
IN OIL
13
IN GAS
31
ALARM
45
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
% of 55 Respondents
A8C: Sudden pressure relays are used by utilities at a lower rate on phase shifting
transformers than for all the rest of the equipment identified. The number of respondents
indicating they had phase shifting transformers was also lower than for any other
category of equipment.
LTC alarm only
49
Q9C: Does your company use sudden pressure relays for Shunt Reactor applications?
Q9C:
UNKNOWN
13
BUCHOLZ
13
7
Multi-FUNCTION
45
IN OIL
18
IN GAS
38
ALARM
62
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of 69 Respondents
A9C: Protection of shunt reactors with SPRs is done at rates closer to distribution
equipment than other transmission equipment.
Trip only for shunt reactors
50
Q10: At what self-cooled MVA rating are sudden pressure relays required for your
utility?
Q10:
AllT&D
41
>=50
54
40to<50
47
30to<40
46
20to<30
49
10to<20
40
<10
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A10: For those respondents who use transformer size as an indicator to apply SPRs,
few use SPRs below 10 MVA, but about half apply SPR relays above 10 MVA.
Q11: This question provided an opportunity for comments and qualifications to Q2Q10 (69 respondents). The comments all related to specific SPR applications, rather than
to the transformer or reactor MVA rating.
Trip only for shunt reactors
LTC alarm only
51
Q12: How long does your utility expect a sudden pressure relay to last before
replacement?
Q12:
39
SPR failure
47
Transformer Life
10
> 30
13
20 to 30
10
10 to 20
<= 10
10
20
30
40
50
A12: Only a small fraction of utilities seem to have a specific idea of the expected life
for a sudden pressure relay. The largest numbers of utilities either wait for an SPR
failure or transformer replacement/failure.
Q13:
Does your company use more than one sudden pressure relay per transformer?
Q13:
59
No
41
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
%of97Respondents
A13: Single SPR installations per transformer out number multiple SPRs by about 3 to 2.
52
Q14: Does your utility use a sudden pressure relay for tripping and/or alarming
purposes?
Q14:
61
ALARM
91
TRIP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%of97Respondents
A14: More than 9 of 10 owners use SPRs for tripping and over half also alarm.
Q15: If only one sudden pressure relay is used, where is it most commonly located?
Q15:
Bucholz
38
In Gas
55
Under Oil
10
20
30
40
50
60
%of94Respondents
A15: For single SPR installations, most owners use an under oil or in gas
application, with a few Bucholz. These results are at least qualitatively consistent with
Questions 5E 7E.
Q16:
Who determines the relay location?

Q16:
32
Utility
68
Manufacturer
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%of101Respondents
A16: When a single SPR is used, the manufacturer specifies its location about twice as
often as the utility.
53
Q17: If two or more sudden pressure relays are used in the transformer main tank,
where are the relays located?
Q17:
4
Adjacent SPRs
12
Adjacent Sides
84
Opposite Sides
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%of25Respondents
A17: When more than one SPR is used, the relays are generally located on opposite sides
of the main tank.
Q18: Are one or more sudden pressure relays used in the load tap changer
compartment?
Q18:
59
No
41
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
%of97Respondents
A18: Owners of LTC equipped transformers install a SPR in the LTC compartment
about 40% of the time.
Q19: Provided opportunity to comment on use of SPRs in the LTC compartment (38
respondents).
Comment summary for SPRs in the LTC compartment:
No significant difference between main tank and LTC applications 25
Dont use LTCs or SPRs in the LTC compartment -- 4
LTC must be less sensitive than main tank application 3
LTC application is less secure, alarm only 3
Only a few applications (typically newer transformers or specific LTC types) -- 2
54
Q20: Does your company use SPRs in voting schemes? For applications using two or
more sudden pressure relays in the same compartment, does your company use voting
logic, such as 2 of 2 or 2 of 3?
Q20:
74
NA
Other
3 of 3
2 of 3
2 of 2
12
1 of 2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%of92Respondents
A20: Only about a quarter of SPR users also use voting schemes. Nearly half of voting
scheme users use a 1 of 2 scheme, which is really more redundancy than voting.
Q21: Provided opportunity to comment on use of SPRs in voting schemes (18
respondents).
Comment summary on voting schemes:
Opposite sides (corners) of transformer 3 (4)
Top and side - 2
>= 2 relays trip independently
Per manufacturer 2 (1 of 2)
Only on new nuclear units- 2
So few, no SOP
Location approved by Engineering
2 of 3, 3 transducers at one valve (multi-function SPR)
55
Q22: Does your company use Form c logic? (The 63a closes and the 63b opens to
remove a short around the auxiliary seal-in coil to allow scheme tripping.)
Q22:
39
No
61
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%of96Respondents
A22:
About 3 of 5 utilities use Form c logic.
Q23:
Is operation of the sudden pressure relay sealed in by a separate auxiliary?

Q23:
23
No
77
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%of96Respondents
A23: About three fourths of users use a separate seal-in auxiliary relay.
Q24:
Is the sudden pressure trip function annunciated locally?

Q24:
18
No
82
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of 98 Respondents
A24: More than 4 of 5 SPR users include a local annunciator indication.
56
Q25:
Does your company use current supervision for sudden pressure relay operation?
Q25:
90
No
Yes
0
10
20
Total of 99 Respondents
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
A25: Only a handful of SPR users (9 of 99, <10%) include some type of current
supervision for SPR operation.
Q26:
Is the blocking provided by overcurrent or under current?
Q27: Is the blocking intended to operate during seismic events (block for low current,
enable for high current)?
Q28:
Is the supervision directional?

Q26, 27, 28:
Q28: If your company uses current supervision, is
the supervision directional?
Q27: If your company uses current supervision, is

the blocking intended to operate during seismic
events (block for low current, enable for high
Under current supervision
1
Over current supervision
5
Total of 9 Respondents
A26, 27, 28: For those few users of current supervision, most use overcurrent, followed
by seismic, directional and undercurrent. This graph presents the responses for all three
questions together.
57
Q29:
Are these current supervision schemes secure and dependable?
A29:
Of 8 responses, all said yes.
Q30: Identify the separate lockouts that your company uses for transformer protection.
Q30:
Not Applicable
25
Other LOR
37
Overcurrent LOR
54
Sudden Pressure LOR
81
Differential LOR
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of 95 Respondents
A30: Other LOR for various owners includes a single lockout relay for all trips (9),
breaker failure (2), thermal relays (4)
Q31: If your company uses transformer over current protection, what lockout does the
over current relay trip?
Q31:
27
Separate LORs
19
Sudden Pressure LOR
54
Differential LOR
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 95 Respondents
A31: Just over half of respondents trip the differential lockout with overcurrent
protection.
58
Q32: Solicited comments on use of lockout relay (LOR) arrangements in Questions 30

and 31 (76 respondents).
Comments summarize LOR arrangements:
Single LOR (multiple functions) 41
Differential, SPR, OC separate 17
Differential separate, SPR+OC together - 9
Differential + OC, SPR separate - 3
Differential + SPR together, OC separate - 3
Separate annunciator for source of trip
Only LOR for SPR
Q33:
Does your utility use test switches for lockout relay isolation?
Q34: Does your utility use slide link terminal blocks for sudden pressure relay test
isolation?
Q33, 34:
22
Neither
19
Both
30
Q34: Slide links
83
Q33: Test switches
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%of94Respondents
A33, 34:
This graph presents the responses to both questions together. Since the
questions were asked separately, the survey also identifies utilities that use both test
switches and slide links, or neither.
59
Q35: How often does your utility perform maintenance checks of the sudden pressure
relays?
Q35:
Other
Never
36
Transformer Maintenance
13
> 5 Years
31
2-5 Years
2 Years
1 Year
10
20
30
40
% of 94 Respondents
A35: Most utilities either coordinate SPR maintenance with transformer maintenance or
use an interval between 2 and 5 years.
Summary of comments on maintenance intervals (7 respondents):
3 years or with transformer maintenance
Commissioning tests
At operational test
Company schedules as reported to NERC
Unknown
Every outage or 5 years maximum
Transmission 2 years, distribution 4 years
60
Q36: Does your utility actually pressurize to operate the relay or does your utility test the
trip output contact?
Q36:
23
Neither
14
Both
Trip Output
Contact
36
Pressurize to
Operate
65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A36: The spread sheet data provided separate responses to the pressurize and trip
output questions, also allowing determination of both and neither responses.
Q37: Provided opportunity to comment on testing of SPRs described in Q36 (45

respondents).
Summary of responses:
Manufacturers test kit - 15
Unspecified origin of test kit - 12
Describe pressure test procedure - 10
Utility designed test kit 5
Unknown - 4
61
Q38: If sudden pressure trip is employed, what diagnostics/procedures are used after
a sudden pressure trip event (for example, turns ratio, insulation resistance, gas-in oil)?
Q39: If sudden pressure alarm is employed, what diagnostics/procedures are used
after a sudden pressure alarm event (for example, turns ratio, insulation resistance, gasin oil)?
Q38:
14
No Test Specified
Other
63
Power Factor (Doble)
83
Disolved Gas in Oil
61
Insulation (megger)
67
Transformer Turns Ratio
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of 95 Respondents
Q39:
34
No Test Specified
15
Other
34
Power Factor (Doble)
52
Disolved Gas in Oil
33
Insulation (megger)
38
Transformer Turns Ratio
% of 94 Respondents
10
20
30
40
50
60
A38, A39:
Most utilities perform multiple diagnostic tests following a transformer
trip on a SPR operation (DGA leads the way). However, significantly fewer utilities
performed the same tests if the SPR is used only for alarming.
62
Summary of comments describing Other diagnostic tests in Questions 38 and 39 (24

total responses):
Inspection
Fault study
Impedance
Doble excitation
Gas accumulation relay inspection
Physical damage
Fault, DFR records
Winding resistance
Sweep Frequency Response Study (SFRS)
Leakage reactance test
Combustible gas
Q40: Has your company experienced a sudden pressure device operation/misoperation

during routine transformer maintenance?
Q40:
52
No
48
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 85 Respondents
A40: About half of respondents have experienced accidental SPR trips during routine
maintenance.
63
Q41 What were the causes of accidental trips (35 respondents):

Test procedure - 12
Over-pressurized tank / adding nitrogen 3
Seismic / external vibration - 3
Oil sampling 3
Failed to disable trip during maintenance - 2
Opening valve to relay - 2
Pumps re-started after an outage
Over-pressure valve left shut / mislabeled as SPR
Adding/removing oil from main tank
Sampling from gas accumulation device
Oil in device (in-gas SPR)
Improper use of test switches
Moisture in connector
Bad relay
Relay calibration
Inadequate check-out during construction
Q42: Has your company experienced differences in sudden pressure relay operation
and/or performance for the in gas verses in oil applications?
Q42:
91
No
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% of 70 Respondents
A42: Very few respondents have noticed any difference in performance between in
gas and under oil SPRs.
64
Q43: Has your company experienced a sudden pressure relay operation for an internal
transformer fault that no other protective relays operated for, or that operated after the
sudden pressure relay? If so, indicate what relay type.
Q43:
Other
Bucholz
16
Gas Space
20
Under oil
10
15
20
25
% of 94 Respondents
A43: About 40% of respondents have experienced at least one internal transformer fault
that was detected by the SPR, but not some other relay.
Other causes (2 respondents):
Differential
Nothing identified
Q44:
What was the fault type identified in the above Question 43?
Q44:
Other
Unknown
10
Winding to ground
10
18
Turn to turn
10
15
20
% of 94 Respondents
A44: Other fault types (6 respondents) were attributed to bushing to tank (2), nearby
lightning strike (SPR misoperation), LTC, winding movement, and closing out of
synchronism.
65
Q45: Does your company feel that transformer differential protection provides adequate
sensitivity for transformer turn-to-turn faults?
Q45:
12
Unknown
34
No
46
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
% of 85 Respondents
A45: There are divided opinions on whether differential protection is sensitive enough
to detect turn-to-turn faults, with a small plurality saying that differential relays are
sensitive enough.
Q46: Has your company experienced a transformer failure attributed to a turn-turn

fault?
Q46:
27
Unknown
14
No
58
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 85 Respondents
A46:
Most utilities have experienced failures due to turn-to-turn faults.
66
Q47: If you answered Yes to Question 46, did the sudden pressure relay detect the turnto-turn fault?
Q47:
31
Unknown
No
63
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of 48 Respondents
A47: Very few turn-to-turn faults went undetected by SPRs for most utilities that have
experienced such faults, though nearly a third of cases are unknown.
Q48: Did the analysis show that the sudden pressure relay scheme reduced damage due
to the turn-to-turn fault?
Q48:
67
Unknown
19
No
13
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of 48 Respondents
A48: Even when the SPR detected the fault and operated correctly, most utilities dont
claim that the SPR operation reduced transformer damage.
67
Q49: Did the differential protection provide faster or more sensitive protection for the
turn-to-turn fault?
Q49:
54
Unknown
25
No
19
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 94 Respondents
A49: Most utilities also dont know whether the differential or SPR relay operated
faster.
Q50: Has your company experienced a sudden pressure relay misoperation that was
attributed to high fault currents through the transformer for external faults?
Q50:
41
No
51
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of 85 Respondents
A50: About half of utilities have experienced SPR misoperations on external faults due
to high through fault current.
68
Q51: If your company has experienced an improper operation of a transformer sudden

pressure relay attributed to an external fault, what relay types were involved?
Q51:
Other
Bucholz
37
Under Oil
22
In Gas
20
None
10
20
30
40
% of 91 Respondents
A51: Most misoperations on high fault current were attributed to under oil SPRs.
However, the numbers seem to be approximately in line with the existing population of
users (see Questions 4E-7E). The only known other misoperation (2 respondents) in
this category was due to any of the above due to lack of using form Form c contact.
pressure relay attributed to an external fault, what types of transformers were involved?
Q52:
20
Not Applicable
Other
14
Unknown
Y - Delta -Y
Y-Y
23
Delta - Y
24
Auto
Shell form
16
Core form
10
15
20
25
% of 91 Respondents
A52: There is no clear pattern between transformer type and SPR misoperations on
external faults.
69
Q53: Has your company noticed any differences in sudden pressure relay misoperations
for core form verses shell form transformer designs?
Q53:
Shell
Core
2
89
No Difference
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of 91 Respondents
A53: There is no clear advantage on SPR performance between core or shell form
transformer types.
Q54: Has your company noticed differences in sudden pressure relay misoperations
correlated with transformer winding configurations?
Q54:
21
Not Applicable
73
No
Yes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of 94 Respondents
A54: There is no advantage on SPR performance for transformer winding

configuration.
70

pressure relay attributed to causes other than an external fault, what relay types were
involved?
Q55:
Other
Bucholz
25
Under Oil
18
Gas Space
38
Not Applicable
10
20
30
40
% of 91 Respondents
A55: Most SPR misoperations not related to external faults were attributed to under
oil SPRs. However, the numbers seem to represent a lower numbers of users of under
oil relays than other SPR relay types (see Questions 4E-7E).
Other misoperations (4 respondents) were attributed to
auxiliary relay 2
LTC over pressure
Water in the device
71

pressure relay attributed to causes other than an external fault, what were the causes of
the misoperations?
Q56:
Unknown
10
Other
10
23
Maintenance
Seismic Activity
DC Transients
5
9
Wiring problems
27
Moisture-related corrosion
22
Relay damaged
18
Not Applicable
10
20
30
% of 91 Respondents
A56: Moisture-related corrosion, maintenance activity and damaged relays are the
largest causes of SPR misoperations not related to external faults.
Other causes (10 respondents) included:
Vibration related - 3
Cold weather mystery
Moisture and freezing
Auxiliary package
Oil level Bucholz
Manufacturer problem
Calibration
Failed SPR
72

PRD in Power Transformer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRD in Power Transformer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRD in Power Transformer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sudden Pressure Protection for Transformers

Assignment: To complete a technical report to the Substation Protection

Don Lukach (Vice Chair)

Types of Transformers ............................................................................................. 3

Types of Sudden Pressure Relays ............................................................................ 4

Pressure Sensing ................................................................................................... 4

Flow Sensing ........................................................................................................ 6

Sudden Pressure Relay Applications ....................................................................... 7

Factors for Considering SPR Use......................................................................... 7

Limits to Sudden Pressure Relay Application...................................................... 9

Through Fault Issues .......................................................................................... 10

Seismic Activity ................................................................................................. 11

Maintenance and Testing Practices ........................................................................ 13

Misoperations due to Maintenance Practices ..................................................... 13

SPR Testing ........................................................................................................ 13

Turn-to-Turn Fault Detection with Negative Sequence......................................... 14

Negative Sequence Differential Protection ........................................................ 15

Negative Sequence Sensitivity ........................................................................... 16

Summary of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices ............................... 17

SPR Applications ............................................................................................... 17

Trip Verses Alarm .............................................................................................. 19

SPR Maintenance ............................................................................................... 19

Diagnostics Following SPR Operation .............................................................. 20

SPR Operation .................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A - A History of Transformer Pressure Relay Applications ............................ 24

Types of Sudden Pressure Relays

Figure 3-3. Sectional View of a Buchholz Relay

Sudden Pressure Relay Applications

Factors for Considering SPR Use

Turn to turn [12]

Sudden pressure protection could also aid in the protection of grounding

Limits to Sudden Pressure Relay Application

Additional transformer construction may be required.

transformer bushings detectable by differential or overcurrent relays, and that

Through Fault Issues

Sudden pressure relays on power transformers have been reported to operate

Seismic activity poses a significant concern for applying sudden pressure

reference to the perceived safety value of the sudden pressure relaying in

A transformer protection scheme with the sudden pressure coverage

A transformer protection scheme with the sudden pressure coverage

traditional tripping and alarming mode, but also introduces a seismic

Maintenance and Testing Practices

Misoperations due to Maintenance Practices

Misoperation of a SPR on a generator step-up unit (GSU) led to the detection of a

An appropriate SPR test program, analogous to testing electrically operated

The test procedure steps 3 6 may be repeated to gain confidence in the

Turn-to-Turn Fault Detection with Negative Sequence

Figure 6-1. Single Phase Transformer with Turn-to-Turn Fault.

Negative Sequence Differential Protection

Negative Sequence Sensitivity

differential, especially when masked by load current, and the effectiveness of

Summary of North American Utility Industry SPR Practices

Trip Verses Alarm

A majority of utility respondents use a sudden pressure relay as a protective trip

approximately 20% of the respondents indicated that no form of trip isolation is

Diagnostics Following SPR Operation

A high percentage of utility respondents indicated that multiple diagnostic tests

The utility respondents offered divided opinions on whether differential

J. Buchert, Transformer Fault Pressure Relay Survey-ECAR Protection Panel

ABB Power T&D Company, Protective Relaying Theory and Applications,