This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Transients and Its Applications
Sami G. Abdulsalam, Student member, IEEE and Wilsun Xu, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract This paper presents an improved design method
for a novel transformer inrush current reduction scheme. The
scheme energizes each phase of a transformer in sequence and
uses a neutral resistor to limit the inrush current. Although
experiment and simulation results have demonstrated the
effectiveness of the scheme, the problem of how to select the
neutral resistor for optimal performance has not been fully
solved. In this paper, an analytical method that is based on the
nonlinear circuit transient analysis is developed to solve this
problem. The method models transformer nonlinearity using two
linear circuits and derives a set of analytical equations for the
waveform of the inrush current. In addition to establishing a set
of formulas for optimal resistor determination, the results also
reveal useful information regarding the inrush behavior of a
transformer and the characteristics of the sequential energization
scheme.
Keywords: Power Quality, Transformer, Inrush Current.
I. INTRODUCTION
NRUSH currents from transformer and reactor energization
have always been a concern in power industry. Pre
insertion of series resistors and synchronous closing of circuit
breakers are examples of the available mitigation techniques
[1][3].
A neutral resistor based scheme for mitigating inrush currents
was proposed by the authors in [4] and [5]. The scheme
utilizes an optimally sized neutral resistor together with
sequential energization each phase of the transformer. In [5], a
design methodology for the neutral resistor size was
developed based on steady state analysis. It was found that a
neutral resistor size that is 8.5% of the unsaturated
magnetizing reactance would lead 80% to 90% reductions on
the inrush currents. However, the method did not analyze the
resistor sizing issue from the perspective of switching
transients due to technical difficulties.
Further study of the scheme revealed that a much lower
resistor size could be equally effective. It was also found that
the first phase energization leads to the highest inrush current
among the three phases. If we can understand the transient
characteristics of the first phase energization, it may be
This work is supported by the Alberta Energy Research Institute.
W. Xu and Sami G. Abdulsalam are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, T6G 2V4, Edmonton, Canada
(email: wxu@ece.ualberta.ca).
Presented at the International Conference on Power Systems
Transients (IPST’05) in Montreal, Canada on June 1923, 2005
Paper No. IPST05  140
possible to refine the resistor sizing formula. With the help of
nonlinear circuit theory [6], we managed to complete such
analytical work. This paper will present the technique we used
and the resultant findings.
The proposed method models transformer nonlinearity using
two linear circuits presenting energized phase in saturated and
unsaturated modes respectively. The significance of this
work is that it is a rigorous analytical study of the transformer
energization phenomenon. The results further reveal useful
information regarding to the inrush behavior of transformers
and the characteristics of the sequential energization scheme.
II. THE SEQUENTIAL PHASE ENERGIZATION
INRUSH MITIGATION SCHEME
The neutral resistor based inrush mitigation scheme shown in
Fig. 1, adopts sequential phase energization together with an
optimally sized neutral resistor, R
n
. In view of the fact that the
inrush currents are always unbalanced among three phases, a
neutral resistor could provide some damping to the currents.
This is the basis of the proposed idea. The idea was further
improved by introducing delayed energization of each phase
of the transformer. This improvement has made the proposed
scheme almost as effective as the preinsertion resistor
scheme. The performance and characteristics of the method
have been investigated using simulations and experiments in
[4] and [5].
Fig. 1 The sequential phase energization inrush mitigation technique.
Since the scheme adopts sequential switching, each switching
stage can be discussed separately. For first phase switching,
the scheme performance is straightforward. The neutral
resistor is in series with the energized phase and its effect will
be similar to a preinsertion resistor. When the third phase is
energized, the voltage across the breaker to be closed is
essentially zero due to the existence of delta secondary or
I
Yg
Supply
System
R
n
Simple
switching
logic
∆ or Y
threelegged core. So there are no switching transients for
when the 3
rd
phase is energized [4] and [5].
The 2
nd
phase energization is the one most difficult to analyze.
Fortunately, we discovered from numerous experimental and
simulation studies that the inrush current produced from 2
nd
phase energization is smaller than that produced from 1
st
phase energization (when R
n
is relatively small). This
phenomenon is shown next and will be discussed in Section
IV. The important conclusion at present is that the first phase
energization should be the focus point for developing the
optimal R
n
formula. Experimental and simulation results of the
I
max
R
n
curves, representing the impact of R
n
on the maximum
inrush current of all phases, are shown in Fig. 2 and 3
respectively for a laboratory transformer 30kVA, 208/208, 3
limb, with Yg∆ connection.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Neutral Resistor [Ohm]
I
n
r
u
s
h
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
[
A
m
p
]
Imax_1st
Imax_2nd
Imax_3rd
Fig. 2 Magnitude of inrush current as affected by the neutral resistor for a
30kVA, 208/208, Yg∆, 3 limb transformer. (Expiremental)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Neutral Resistor [Ohm]
I
n
r
u
s
h
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
[
A
m
p
]
Imax_1st
Imax_2nd
Imax_3rd
Fig. 3 Maximum inrush current as affected by the neutral resistor for a
30kVA, 208/208, YgD, 3 Limb transformer. (Simulation)
It can be seen that the maximum inrush current associated
with the second phase energization is lower than that of the
first phase energization for the same value of R
n
. This is true
for the region where the inrush current of the first phase is
decreasing rapidly as R
n
increases. As a result, we should
focus on analyzing the first phase energization to develop a
more precise selection method for the neutral resistor.
III. ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION FOR INRUSH CURRENT
An accurate analytical expression for inrush currents will lead
to a solid design methodology for the neutral resistor size and
more understanding of the scheme transient performance. The
analytical expression will also eliminate the requirement of
computer simulation for neutral resistor sizing on a caseby
case basis. Very few investigations in this field have been
made and some formulas were given to predict the general
wave shape, harmonic content or the maximum peak current
[1], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. In most cases, the series impedance
with the energized transformer ‘resistive and reactive’ has
been neglected. For the presented application, it was required
that the expression can accurately present the inrush current
waveform taking into account system impedance, residual flux
value and of course the neutral resistor itself.
The transformer behavior during first phase energization can
be modeled through the simplified equivalent electric circuit
shown in Fig. 4 together with an approximate twoslope
saturation curve.
(a)
λ
i
m
i
s
λ
s
L
s
L
m
(b)
Fig. 4 (a) Transformer electrical equivalent circuit (perphase) referred to the
primary side. (b) Simplified, two sloped saturation curve.
As shown in Fig.4(a), r
p
and l
p
present primary resistance and
leakage reactance. L
m
(i) represents the nonlinear inductance of
the iron core as function of the magnetizing current.
Secondary side resistance r
sp
and leakage reactance l
sp
as
referred to primary side are also shown. V
p
and V
s
represent
the primary and secondary phase to ground terminal voltages
respectively. During first phase energization, the differential
equation describing the behavior of the saturable iron core
transformer can be written as follows;
dt
d
dt
di
l t i R r t v
p n p p
λ
+ ⋅ + ⋅ + = ) ( ) ( ) (
dt
di
di
d
dt
di
l t i R r t v
p n p p
λ
+ ⋅ + ⋅ + = ) ( ) ( ) (
(4)
The rate of change of flux linkages with magnetizing current
di dλ can be represented as an inductance equal to the slope
of the λi curve. Eqn. (4) can be rewritten as follows;
dt
di
L
dt
di
l t i R r t v
core p n p p
⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + = ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( λ
(5)
The general solution of the differential equation (5) can be
found through presenting the core nonlinear inductor in
Fig.4.a as a linear inductor in unsaturated ‘L
m
’ and saturated
‘L
s
’ modes of operation, Fig 4.b.
Transformer performance during energization in unsaturated
mode ‘for each phase’ will determine the time at which each
phase will reach saturation first, depending on the switching
angle and the amount of initial flux linkages λ
o
. Generally, the
initial ‘or residual’ flux will be below the saturation flux level
and accordingly, the apparent magnetizing impedance will be
very high compared to other linear elements in the series
circuit. As a result, when the transformer is energized and λ
o
is below λ
s
, the total supply voltage will be mainly distributed
across the magnetizing branch until saturation is reached. The
saturation time ‘t
s
’ can be calculated as time required for the
integral of the supply voltage added to the initial flux ‘λ
o
’ to
reach the saturation flux λ
s
. Hysteresis effect ‘usually
presented as a resistance in parallel with the magnetizing
reactance’ will not affect estimation of the saturation time t
s
.
( )
o
t
m s
s
dt t sin V λ ω λ + ⋅ ⋅ =
∫
0
(6)
( ) ( ) ( )
n o s o s
cos t λ λ λ
ω
λ − − ⋅ =
−
1
1
1
(7)
Where: λ
n
nominal peak flux linkages.
ω angular frequency.
V
m
nominal peak supply voltage.
After saturation is reached at t=t
s
, the core inductance will be
switchedin to equal the saturation inductance L
s
with an
initial saturation current i
s
.
( )
( ) ( )
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
> − ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ +
≤ − ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅
=
−
s
/τ t t 
s
s
t/τ
t t t sin B e A i
t t t sin B e A
t i
s
2 2
) (
2
1 1 1
2
1
) (
θ ω
θ ω
(8)
Where:
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
1
p m n p
m
l L R r
V
B
+ ⋅ + +
=
ω
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
2
p s n p
m
l L R r
V
B
+ ⋅ + +
=
ω
( )
1 1 1
sin θ ⋅ = B A
( )
s
t B A ⋅ − ⋅ = ω θ
2 2 2
sin
( )


.

\

+
+ ⋅
=
−
n p
p m
R r
l L ω
θ
1
1
tan
( )


.

\

+
+ ⋅
=
−
n p
p s
R r
l L ω
θ
1
2
tan
Figure 5 shows the first cycle, analytical and simulation
waveform for the 30kVA transformer using neutral resistor
values of 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 [Ohm] respectively and a residual
flux of 0.75 [p.u.]. Analytical and simulation results were
obtained using the transformer data given in the appendix.
100
100
300
500
700
900
1100
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Time [sec.]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
[
A
m
p
]
Rn = 0.1 [Ohm] (Analytical)
Rn = 0.1 [Ohm] (Simulation)
Rn = 0.5 [Ohm] (Analytical)
Rn = 0.5 [Ohm] (Simulation)
Rn = 1.0 [Ohm] (Analytical)
Rn = 1.0 [Ohm] (Simulation)
Fig. 5 Analytical and simulation inrush current waveforms (first cycle) for
30kVA Yg∆ transformer.
Equation (8) can be further simplified to find the most severe
inrush current peak as function of neutral resistor value during
first phase switching. A switching angle of zero with a
maximum residual flux of the same polarity as the applied
sinusoidal will result in the maximum inrush current. The
saturation current ‘i
s
’ will be very small as compared to inrush
current peak and can be neglected. It can also be assumed that
the inrush peak value will exist during saturation when the
sinusoidal term peaks. This assumption is valid since the time
constant during saturation,τ
2
(R
n
), is small as R
n
increases
which will introduce a small shift in the peak current to appear
slightly before the sinusoidal peak value. The peak time can
be expressed as;
( ) ( ) ( ) 2
2
π R θ R t ω
n n peak
= ⋅
( )
( )
ω
R θ π
R t
n
n peak
2
2 +
=
(9)
The simplified inrush current peak during first phase
energization as function of R
n
can be expressed as follows.
( )
2
) (
2
2
B e A R I
/τ t t 
n peak
s peak
+ ⋅ =
−
(10)
Equation (10) was found to be very accurate as compared to
simulation results. The I
peak
(R
n
) ‘analytical’ and the I
max
R
n
curves for the 30kVA lab transformer are shown in Fig. 6. It is
clear that the I
peak
(R
n
) equation can accurately determine the
maximum inrush peak current for a given residual level and
using only the simplified two slope saturation curve.
( )
s o s s
o
i i λ λ
λ
− ⋅ =
=
1
0
n p
p m
R r
l L
+
+
=
1
τ
n p
p s
R r
l L
+
+
=
2
τ
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 2 4 6 8 10
Neutral Resistor, Rn [Ohm]
M
a
x
im
u
m
I
n
r
u
s
h
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
[
A
m
p
Imax1
Ipk(Rn)
Fig. 6. I
peak
(R
n
) compared to the simulation peak current for 30 kVA, 208/208
Yg∆, three limb transformer.
Sizing the neutral resistor based on Eqn. (10) and close to the
knee of the I
max
(R
n
) curve will insure a reduction of 8090% of
inrush current in all three phases as compared to the inrush
magnitude with a solidly grounded connection, R
n
=0.
IV. SECOND PHASE SWITCHING
Transformer behaviour during second phase switching was
observed through simulation to vary with respect to
connection and core structure type. Transformers with delta
connected secondary or having multi limb structure have
different behaviour during the second phase switching from
that of single phase units without a delta winding. However, a
general behaviour trend exists during the second switching
stage for all transformer connections and core types for low
neutral resistor values. In this section, the performance of the
proposed inrush mitigation scheme during second stage
switching will be discussed for small values of R
n
.
A. Three Single Phase Units Connected in YgY
For this condition, the transformer behavior can be modeled
using two saturable inductor circuits representing each phase.
The coupling between both switched phases is introduced only
through the neutral resistor. For any energized phase j, the
flux φ
j
as function of the primary phase voltage v
pj
and the
neutral voltage v
n
can be given by;
( ) ( )
0 =
+ ⋅ − ⋅ =
∫ ∫
t n pj j
dt t v dt t v φ φ (11)
During second phase switching, the maximum inrush current
can either exist on phase A or B. However, with phase A
already in steady state, a disturbance in the flux equal to the
difference between the rated and saturation flux values is
required for phase A to reach saturation. For power
transformers, the saturation flux is usually 1.25 p.u. of the
rated flux or higher. Conservatively assuming that the
reduction in flux in Phase B will result in an increase of the
same amount of flux in phase A, it will be possible to increase
R
n
to achieve at least 25% reduction in its flux before phase A
even reaches saturation. As R
n
is increased further, more
inrush current reduction can be achieved in phase B until both
phases reach the same saturation level for a specific value of
R
n
. Actually, due to the phase difference in the supply voltage,
the amount of disturbance in phase A flux will be less than the
reduction in flux achievable in the switched phase B. Also, as
the difference between the saturation and rated flux value
increases, more reduction in phase B current can be achieved.
The same conditions also apply during third switching stage.
B. Transformers with delta winding and/or 3Limb structures
For transformers of this type, the performance during
sequential switching will be quite different than the single
phase YgY transformers for the following reasons:
 Dynamic Flux will exist in unenergized phases.
 Inrush current can exist in one phase due to external
saturation in unenergized phase (return path of the flux).
The existence of the dynamic flux will make the initial flux in
the switched phase dependent on the instant of switching. It
was found that the maximum inrush condition exists when
switching at an angle of 30
o
of the sinusoidal voltage
waveform, which corresponds to zero initial flux in the
switched phase B and in phase A at instant of switching. This
finding clarifies that second phase I
max
R
n
curve should be
below the first switching curve for zero and small resistor
values due to the absence of residual flux. With 30
o
switching
angle, the flux in phases A and B will be both positive and
determined by the terminal voltage integral of both phases.
This will lead phase C which represents the return path of
both fluxes to saturate before any of the fluxes in phase A or
B reach saturation values, Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Simulation of the 30kVA transformer during second phase switching
condition showing the phase fluxes and effect of Delta winding current for
small values of R
n
= 0.1 [Ohm].
The saturation of phase C will drive a delta winding current
equal to the magnetizing current of phase C under saturation.
As shown in Fig. 8, this current will be reflected as zero
sequence current of the same magnitude flowing through
phases A and B and a neutral current equal to twice the delta
current. For phase B, both the integrals of the terminal and the
neutral voltages have the same polarity and hence the delta
winding will help reducing saturation level in phase B. For
phase A, the supply voltage waveform will have opposite
polarity to the neutral voltage, however, due to the difference
between the saturation and rated flux values, the disturbance
in phase a will be less than that observed in the switched
phase B.
Fig. 8 Modeling the delta winding during saturation condition of phase C.
In case of delta winding absence in multi limb transformers,
the behavior during second and third switching stages will
depend on the number of core limbs. For 3Limb
transformers, the flux in the two energized limbs will add up
into the third limb. As the third limb saturates, the return flux
path of phase A and B will experience saturation and as a
result a neutral current equals twice the phase current will
flow. This will result in a similar effect to that from a delta
winding. In the other hand, for transformers with 4 or 5 limbs
the return path of the flux from phases A and B will always be
unsaturated and the performance of the scheme will be
similar to that of three single phase units connected in YgY.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an improved design methodology for a
novel transformer inrush current reduction scheme. The main
contributions are:
• An analytical methodology to analyze transformers during
sequential energization has been presented. Effect of
system impedance, neutral resistor and residual flux can
also be taken into account.
• An accurate formula for the 1
st
phase maximum inrush
current as function of neutral resistor value was derived.
• It was shown that the second phase switching condition
could be analyzed considering separate nonlinear circuits
for each energized phase, taking into account the core
structure and the delta winding if it exists.
Experimental and simulation results revealed that the
maximum inrush current magnitude due to 1
st
phase switching
is always higher than that due to switching of the second and
third phase. This finding made it possible to precisely size the
neutral resistor based on the developed inrush current formula.
VI. APPENDIX
Laboratory transformer data:
208/208 [V], 30 [kVA], YgD 3Limb transformer.
r
p
= 0.01 [Ω], l
p
= 0.03291 [mH], λ
s
= 1.4 [p.u.],
i
s
= 45 [amp], L
s
= 0.0807 [mH], N
p
= 60 turns.
System impedance:
r
system
= 0.12 [Ω], l
system
= 0.12 [mH].
VII. REFERENCES
[1] B. Holmgrem, R.S. Jenkins and J. Riubrugent, “Transformer Inrush
Current”, Cigre paper 1203, Cigre, Paris, pp. 113, 1968.
[2] Cigre working group A3.07, “Controlled switching of HVAC circuit
breakers; Benefits and economic aspects”, Cigre, Paris, 2004.
[3] Laszlo Prikler, Gyorgy Banfai, Gabor Ban and Peter Becker, “Reducing
the Magnetizing Inrush current by means of Controlled Energization and
deEnergization of Large Power Transformers,” International
Conference on Power System Transients, IPST 2003.
[4] Y. Cui, S.G. Abdulsalam, S. Chen, and W. Xu, "A Sequential Phase
Energization Method for transformer inrush current reduction, Part I:
Simulation and Experimental Results", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
vol. 20, pp. 943949, April 2005.
[5] W. Xu, S.G. Abdulsalam, Y. Cui, S. and X. Liu, “A Sequential Phase
Energization Method for transformer inrush current reduction, Part II:
Theoretical Analysis and Design Guide", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
vol. 20, pp. 950957, April 2005.
[6] A. Boyajian, “Mathematical Analysis of Nonlinear Circuits”, General
Electric Review (Schenectady, NY), Sept. and Dec. 1931, pp. 531537
and pp. 745751.
[7] Harold A. Peterson, Transients in Power Systems, General Publishing
Company, General Electric, 1951.
[8] L. F. Blume, G. Camilli, S. B. Farnham and H. A. Peterson,
“Transformer magnetizing inrush currents and influence on system
operation” AIEE Transactions Power Apparatus Systems, vol. 63, pp.
366375, Jan 1944.
[9] Paul C. Y. Ling and Amitava Basak, “Investigation of Magnetizing
Inrush Current in a SinglePhase Transformer”, IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics, vol. 24, No. 6, Nov. 1988, pp. 32173222.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Sami G. Abdulsalam (S'03) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in
electrical engineering from ElMansoura University, Egypt in 1997 and 2001
respectively. Since 2001, he has been with Enppi Engineering Company,
Cairo, Egypt. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in electrical and computer
engineering at the University of Alberta. His current research interests are in
electromagnetic transients in power systems and power quality. He can be
reached at sgabr@ece.ualberta.ca.
Wilsun Xu (M'90, SM'95, F’05) received Ph.D. from the University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 1989. He worked in BC Hydro from
1990 to 1996 as an engineer. Dr. Xu is presently a professor at the University
of Alberta. His main research interests are power quality and harmonics. He
can be reached at wxu@ece.ualberta.ca
[8] and [9]. As a result. [6]. 3limb. 2 Magnitude of inrush current as affected by the neutral resistor for a 30kVA. Yg∆. Lm(i) represents the nonlinear inductance of the iron core as function of the magnetizing current. ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION FOR INRUSH CURRENT An accurate analytical expression for inrush currents will lead to a solid design methodology for the neutral resistor size and more understanding of the scheme transient performance. Secondary side resistance rsp and leakage reactance lsp as referred to primary side are also shown. 1000 Imax_1st 800 Imax_2nd Imax_3rd 600 computer simulation for neutral resistor sizing on a casebycase basis. we should focus on analyzing the first phase energization to develop a more precise selection method for the neutral resistor. Fortunately. (Expiremental) 1000 Imax_1st 800 Imax_2nd Imax_3rd 600 Inrush Current [Amp] is 400 im (b) Fig. we discovered from numerous experimental and simulation studies that the inrush current produced from 2nd phase energization is smaller than that produced from 1st phase energization (when Rn is relatively small). two sloped saturation curve. 3 Maximum inrush current as affected by the neutral resistor for a 30kVA. For the presented application. 208/208. In most cases. 208/208. 2 and 3 respectively for a laboratory transformer 30kVA. The important conclusion at present is that the first phase energization should be the focus point for developing the optimal Rn formula. 3 Limb transformer. [7]. the differential equation describing the behavior of the saturable iron core transformer can be written as follows. rp and lp present primary resistance and leakage reactance. (b) Simplified. The 2nd phase energization is the one most difficult to analyze. representing the impact of Rn on the maximum inrush current of all phases. v p (t ) = ( r p + R n ) ⋅ i (t ) + l p ⋅ di dλ + dt dt di dλ di v p ( t ) = ( r p + R n ) ⋅ i (t ) + l p ⋅ + dt di dt (4) The rate of change of flux linkages with magnetizing current dλ di can be represented as an inductance equal to the slope . are shown in Fig. Vp and Vs represent the primary and secondary phase to ground terminal voltages respectively. 4 together with an approximate twoslope saturation curve. the series impedance with the energized transformer ‘resistive and reactive’ has been neglected. During first phase energization. 3 limb transformer. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 200 0 Neutral Resistor [Ohm] Fig. residual flux value and of course the neutral resistor itself. This is true for the region where the inrush current of the first phase is decreasing rapidly as Rn increases. Experimental and simulation results of the ImaxRn curves. The analytical expression will also eliminate the requirement of As shown in Fig. Very few investigations in this field have been made and some formulas were given to predict the general wave shape. it was required that the expression can accurately present the inrush current waveform taking into account system impedance. So there are no switching transients for when the 3rd phase is energized [4] and [5].4(a). 208/208. This phenomenon is shown next and will be discussed in Section IV.threelegged core. The transformer behavior during first phase energization can be modeled through the simplified equivalent electric circuit shown in Fig. (Simulation) It can be seen that the maximum inrush current associated with the second phase energization is lower than that of the first phase energization for the same value of Rn. harmonic content or the maximum peak current [1]. with Yg∆ connection. 4 (a) Transformer electrical equivalent circuit (perphase) referred to the primary side. Inrush Current [Amp] 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (a) Neutral Resistor [Ohm] λ λs Lm Ls Fig. III. YgD.
the initial ‘or residual’ flux will be below the saturation flux level and accordingly. The Ipeak(Rn) ‘analytical’ and the ImaxRn curves for the 30kVA lab transformer are shown in Fig. is = is ⋅ (1 − λ o λ s ) τ1 = Lm + l p rp + Rn τ2 = Ls + l p rp + Rn . 6. A switching angle of zero with a maximum residual flux of the same polarity as the applied sinusoidal will result in the maximum inrush current.008 0. is small as Rn increases which will introduce a small shift in the peak current to appear slightly before the sinusoidal peak value. (ω ⋅ t (R )θ (R )) = π 2 peak n 2 n t peak (Rn ) = π 2 + θ2 (Rn ) ω (9) A1 ⋅ e t/τ1 + B1 ⋅ sin (ω ⋅ t − θ 1 ) i (t ) = .1. 5 Analytical and simulation inrush current waveforms (first cycle) for 30kVA Yg∆ transformer. Generally. Equation (8) can be further simplified to find the most severe inrush current peak as function of neutral resistor value during first phase switching.] Fig. The peak time can be expressed as. As a result.τ2(Rn).]. Eqn.004 0.0 [Ohm] (Simulation) The general solution of the differential equation (5) can be found through presenting the core nonlinear inductor in Fig.0 [Ohm] respectively and a residual flux of 0.of the λi curve.a as a linear inductor in unsaturated ‘Lm’ and saturated ‘Ls’ modes of operation.5 and 1. λs = ∫ Vm ⋅ sin(ω ⋅ t )dt + λo 0 ts (6) (7) t s (λo ) = 1 ω ⋅ cos −1 (1 − (λ s − λo ) λ n ) Where: λn nominal peak flux linkages. The saturation current ‘is’ will be very small as compared to inrush current peak and can be neglected.4. 0.1 [Ohm] (Analytical) Rn = 0. This assumption is valid since the time constant during saturation.002 0. Vm nominal peak supply voltage. v p ( t ) = ( r p + R n ) ⋅ i (t ) + l p ⋅ di di + Lcore (λ ) ⋅ dt dt (5) Figure 5 shows the first cycle. I peak (Rn ) = A2 ⋅ e .1 [Ohm] (Simulation) Rn = 0. depending on the switching angle and the amount of initial flux linkages λo. After saturation is reached at t=ts. when the transformer is energized and λo is below λs. Fig 4.0 [Ohm] (Analytical) Rn = 1.006 0. Hysteresis effect ‘usually presented as a resistance in parallel with the magnetizing reactance’ will not affect estimation of the saturation time ts.5 [Ohm] (Simulation) Rn = 1.5 [Ohm] (Analytical) Rn = 0.( t peak −t s ) /τ 2 + B2 (10) (r p + Rn ) + (ω ⋅ (Lm + l p )) 2 Vm 2 B2 = (r p + Rn ) + (ω ⋅ (Ls + l p )) 2 Vm 2 A1 = B1 ⋅ sin (θ1 ) θ 1 = tan −1 ω ⋅ (Lm + l p ) r p + Rn λo = 0 A2 = B2 ⋅ sin (θ 2 − ω ⋅ t s ) θ 2 = tan −1 ω ⋅ (Ls + l p ) rp + Rn Equation (10) was found to be very accurate as compared to simulation results.( t − t s ) /τ 2 + B2 ⋅ sin (ω ⋅ t − θ 2 ) (i s + A2 ) ⋅ e Where: B1 = t ≤ ts t > ts (8) The simplified inrush current peak during first phase energization as function of Rn can be expressed as follows. ω angular frequency. Current [Amp] 900 700 500 300 100 100 0 0. analytical and simulation waveform for the 30kVA transformer using neutral resistor values of 0. Transformer performance during energization in unsaturated mode ‘for each phase’ will determine the time at which each phase will reach saturation first. (4) can be rewritten as follows. 1100 Rn = 0. It can also be assumed that the inrush peak value will exist during saturation when the sinusoidal term peaks.u. Analytical and simulation results were obtained using the transformer data given in the appendix. the apparent magnetizing impedance will be very high compared to other linear elements in the series circuit.012 Time [sec. It is clear that the Ipeak(Rn) equation can accurately determine the maximum inrush peak current for a given residual level and using only the simplified two slope saturation curve.b. the core inductance will be switchedin to equal the saturation inductance Ls with an initial saturation current is. the total supply voltage will be mainly distributed across the magnetizing branch until saturation is reached. The saturation time ‘ts’ can be calculated as time required for the integral of the supply voltage added to the initial flux ‘λo’ to reach the saturation flux λs.75 [p.01 0.
A. The existence of the dynamic flux will make the initial flux in the switched phase dependent on the instant of switching.u. Rn=0. Sizing the neutral resistor based on Eqn. For power transformers. However. This finding clarifies that second phase ImaxRn curve should be below the first switching curve for zero and small resistor values due to the absence of residual flux. more reduction in phase B current can be achieved. the flux in phases A and B will be both positive and determined by the terminal voltage integral of both phases. Three Single Phase Units Connected in YgY For this condition.1 [Ohm]. more inrush current reduction can be achieved in phase B until both phases reach the same saturation level for a specific value of Fig. Inrush current can exist in one phase due to external saturation in unenergized phase (return path of the flux). SECOND PHASE SWITCHING Transformer behaviour during second phase switching was observed through simulation to vary with respect to connection and core structure type. of the rated flux or higher. the maximum inrush current can either exist on phase A or B. Fig.25 p. with phase A already in steady state. the amount of disturbance in phase A flux will be less than the reduction in flux achievable in the switched phase B. Rn [Ohm] Imax1 Ipk(Rn) Rn. The saturation of phase C will drive a delta winding current equal to the magnetizing current of phase C under saturation. However. Conservatively assuming that the reduction in flux in Phase B will result in an increase of the same amount of flux in phase A. due to the phase difference in the supply voltage. which corresponds to zero initial flux in the switched phase B and in phase A at instant of switching. a disturbance in the flux equal to the difference between the rated and saturation flux values is required for phase A to reach saturation. In this section. 7 Simulation of the 30kVA transformer during second phase switching condition showing the phase fluxes and effect of Delta winding current for small values of Rn = 0. the flux φj as function of the primary phase voltage vpj and the neutral voltage vn can be given by. Ipeak(Rn) compared to the simulation peak current for 30 kVA. the performance of the proposed inrush mitigation scheme during second stage switching will be discussed for small values of Rn. The same conditions also apply during third switching stage. As Rn is increased further. Also. it will be possible to increase Rn to achieve at least 25% reduction in its flux before phase A even reaches saturation. Transformers with delta connected secondary or having multi limb structure have different behaviour during the second phase switching from that of single phase units without a delta winding. the transformer behavior can be modeled using two saturable inductor circuits representing each phase. It was found that the maximum inrush condition exists when switching at an angle of 30o of the sinusoidal voltage waveform. a general behaviour trend exists during the second switching stage for all transformer connections and core types for low neutral resistor values. Actually. 7. three limb transformer. Transformers with delta winding and/or 3Limb structures For transformers of this type. the saturation flux is usually 1. φ j = ∫ v pj (t ) ⋅ dt − ∫ v n (t ) ⋅ dt + φt =0 (11) During second phase switching. B. With 30o switching angle.500 450 Maximum Inrush Current [Amp 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Neutral Resistor. The coupling between both switched phases is introduced only through the neutral resistor. as the difference between the saturation and rated flux value increases. . (10) and close to the knee of the Imax(Rn) curve will insure a reduction of 8090% of inrush current in all three phases as compared to the inrush magnitude with a solidly grounded connection. For any energized phase j. the performance during sequential switching will be quite different than the single phase YgY transformers for the following reasons: Dynamic Flux will exist in unenergized phases. 208/208 Yg∆. Fig. 6. IV. This will lead phase C which represents the return path of both fluxes to saturate before any of the fluxes in phase A or B reach saturation values.
pp. Cairo. however. April 2005. S. Cigre. A. Cui. He can be reached at wxu@ece. His current research interests are in electromagnetic transients in power systems and power quality. in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Alberta. IPST 2003. Abdulsalam (S'03) received the B. the behavior during second and third switching stages will depend on the number of core limbs. April 2005. λs = 1. could be analyzed considering separate nonlinear circuits for each energized phase. His main research interests are power quality and harmonics. pp. He worked in BC Hydro from 1990 to 1996 as an engineer. 1988. APPENDIX Laboratory transformer data: 208/208 [V]. F. 63.4 [p. [5] In case of delta winding absence in multi limb transformers. Jenkins and J. this current will be reflected as zero sequence current of the same magnitude flowing through phases A and B and a neutral current equal to twice the delta current. 24. For 3Limb transformers. S. [4] Fig. pp. YgD 3Limb transformer. Transients in Power Systems. “Mathematical Analysis of Nonlinear Circuits”. degrees in electrical engineering from ElMansoura University. Y. Laszlo Prikler. In the other hand.Sc. S. Harold A. the return flux path of phase A and B will experience saturation and as a result a neutral current equals twice the phase current will flow. Abdulsalam. Cui. 8. the flux in the two energized limbs will add up into the third limb. 6. Chen. the supply voltage waveform will have opposite polarity to the neutral voltage.12 [Ω]. Paris. lsystem = 0. IEEE Trans. This will result in a similar effect to that from a delta winding. L. BIOGRAPHIES Sami G. General Electric. Holmgrem. 20. and W. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] B. he has been with Enppi Engineering Company. Egypt in 1997 and 2001 respectively. S. He can be reached at sgabr@ece. W. 2004. Peterson. This finding made it possible to precisely size the neutral resistor based on the developed inrush current formula. Y. Camilli.” International Conference on Power System Transients. Gyorgy Banfai. Y. 366375. and M. the disturbance in phase a will be less than that observed in the switched phase B.D. IEEE Trans. 30 [kVA]. “Investigation of Magnetizing Inrush Current in a SinglePhase Transformer”. G. Nov. 20. Sept. Benefits and economic aspects”. Xu is presently a professor at the University of Alberta. Cigre.G. Experimental and simulation results revealed that the maximum inrush current magnitude due to 1st phase switching is always higher than that due to switching of the second and third phase. Wilsun Xu (M'90. Paul C. vol. As the third limb saturates.D. B. Canada in 1989. IEEE Transaction on Magnetics. Farnham and H. 531537 and pp. V. CONCLUSIONS This paper presented an improved design methodology for a novel transformer inrush current reduction scheme. For phase A. and X. taking into account the core structure and the delta winding if it exists. VII. from the University of British Columbia. neutral resistor and residual flux can also be taken into account. rp = 0. Gabor Ban and Peter Becker. • An accurate formula for the 1st phase maximum inrush current as function of neutral resistor value was derived.12 [mH]. 32173222. pp. Dr. F’05) received Ph. “Transformer Inrush Current”. Power Delivery. The main contributions are: • An analytical methodology to analyze transformers during sequential energization has been presented. Boyajian. Abdulsalam. Part II: Theoretical Analysis and Design Guide". Cigre working group A3. and Dec. Jan 1944. vol. pp. “Controlled switching of HVAC circuit breakers.01 [Ω]. Egypt. Xu. S. lp = 0. is = 45 [amp]. Ling and Amitava Basak. 950957. System impedance: rsystem = 0. 1931.ualberta. vol. SM'95. He is currently pursuing his Ph. Cigre paper 1203. for transformers with 4 or 5 limbs the return path of the flux from phases A and B will always be unsaturated and the performance of the scheme will be similar to that of three single phase units connected in YgY. Peterson. "A Sequential Phase Energization Method for transformer inrush current reduction. For phase B. Liu. Part I: Simulation and Experimental Results". pp.ca . Xu.u. Vancouver.07. NY). both the integrals of the terminal and the neutral voltages have the same polarity and hence the delta winding will help reducing saturation level in phase B. • It was shown that the second phase switching condition [6] [7] [8] [9] VIII. Ls = 0. 1968. Effect of system impedance.0807 [mH]. Paris. Power Delivery.ualberta.G. “A Sequential Phase Energization Method for transformer inrush current reduction. Riubrugent. vol. 1951.ca. No. VI. General Publishing Company. due to the difference between the saturation and rated flux values. 745751. “Reducing the Magnetizing Inrush current by means of Controlled Energization and deEnergization of Large Power Transformers. 8 Modeling the delta winding during saturation condition of phase C.]. R. Blume.S. A.As shown in Fig. “Transformer magnetizing inrush currents and influence on system operation” AIEE Transactions Power Apparatus Systems.03291 [mH]. 943949. Np = 60 turns. General Electric Review (Schenectady. Since 2001. 113.Sc.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.