IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO.

2, APRIL 2002 537

A Power Electronic-Based Distribution Transformer

Edward R. Ronan, Member, IEEE, Scott D. Sudhoff, Member, IEEE, Steven F. Glover, and
Dudley L. Galloway, Member, IEEE

Abstract—The distribution transformer has been in use by util-

ities throughout the twentieth century. Until now, it has consisted
of a configuration of iron or steel cores and copper/aluminum
coils, with mineral oil serving as both coolant and dielectric
medium. Inherent in this type of construction are regulation,
significant weight, losses, environmental concerns, and power
quality issues. For the 21st century, a new kind of distribution
transformer is proposed; one that can be made self-regulating,
oil-free, and able to correct power quality problems. A power
electronic transformer has been analyzed, simulated, prototyped,
and tested. Results of this effort as well as the novel features of
this new type of transformer are discussed herein.
Index Terms—Converters, power conversion, power electronics, Fig. 1. AC/ac buck converter.
transformers.

be economical in the future, particularly in view of its enhanced

I. INTRODUCTION capabilities versus the traditional transformer.

D ISTRIBUTION transformers are fundamental compo-

nents of the power distribution system and are relatively
inexpensive, highly reliable, and fairly efficient. However,
they possess some undesirable properties including sensitivity
to harmonics, voltage drop under load, (required) protection
from system disruptions and overload, protection of the system
from problems arising at or beyond the transformer, envi-
ronmental concerns regarding mineral oil, and performance
under dc-offset load unbalances [1]. These disadvantages are
becoming increasingly important as power quality becomes
more of a concern. This paper introduces the architecture of
a power-electronics based transformer that is insensitive to
harmonics, keeps user-induced harmonics from propagating
into the power system, keeps system harmonics from prop-
agating to the user, performs input power factor correction,
has zero regulation, prevents user faults from affecting the
power distribution system, can supply loads with dc offsets,
and does not utilize mineral oil or other liquid dielectrics. This
architecture was used in the design of a 10-kVA, 7.2-kV to
240/120-V distribution transformer. The performance of the
design is established using computer simulation and has been
validated in hardware. Although the design is considerably
more expensive than a conventional distribution transformer
and currently less efficient, falling costs and improved perfor-
mance of switching semiconductors will enable the design to
II. BACKGROUND
The idea of a “solid-state transformer” has been discussed for
some time. Nearly 20 years ago, Navy researchers [2] proposed
a power-electronic transformer that consisted of an ac/ac buck
converter shown in Fig. 1 to reduce the input voltage to a lower
one. This was followed in 1995 by a similar EPRI sponsored
effort [3]. Both of these efforts yielded working prototypes, but
they operated at power and primary voltage levels that were or-
ders of magnitude below utility distribution levels.
The ac/ac buck converter is perhaps the most direct approach
to single phase ac power conversion. In this arrangement,
switches and are bidirectional. Turning a switch on
permits it to conduct current in either direction. Conversely,
turning it off can block voltage of either polarity. In Fig. 1,
the two devices tied in series indicate an arrangement of some
number of semiconductors that would be needed to achieve the
desired voltage ratings. (The number of devices required would
be a function of voltage level and the type of semiconductor).
The bidirectional switches and are alternately turned
on at a high frequency relative to the fundamental component
of the voltage and current waveforms. Under these conditions,
it can be shown that
(1)

Manuscript received November 15, 1999; revised September 25, 2001. This
work was supported by ABB.
E. R. Ronan is with the University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City,
MO 64110 USA.
S. D. Sudhoff and S. F. Glover are with the Department of Electrical Engi-
neering and Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
USA.
D. L. Galloway was with ABB, Inc, Jefferson City, MO 65101 USA.
He is now at Galloway Transformer Technology, LLC, Jefferson City, MO
65110-5946 USA (e-mail: gallowaytt@aol.com).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8977(02)02713-9.
0885–8977/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
where is the duty cycle (the time the upper switch is on rel-
ative to the switching period) and “ ” designates the phasor
representation of the fundamental component.
Although this is the most straightforward approach to ac–ac
power conversion, it is problematic in several respects. First,
each switch must be able to block full primary voltage and also
be capable of conducting full secondary current. The fact that
both the blocking voltage and peak current are large implies that
538
Fig. 2. High-frequency modulated AC/ac transformer.
this design would be very costly. A convenient way of quanti-
fying this is by the stress factor defined by Kassakian [4]. In
the case of the ac/ac buck converter applied to a 7200-V pri-
mary distribution line, the stress factor would be very high, in
the range of 120 (VA of semiconductor product per VA of output
power). This disadvantage could be partially mitigated by per-
forming the power conversion in several stages, although such
a tactic complicates the design.
Other drawbacks of this approach include the use of series-
tied devices, which are often difficult to control, the lack of
magnetic isolation, inability to correct load power factor, and
inability to prevent load harmonics from propagating into the
primary-voltage system. In view of these disadvantages, the
ac/ac buck converter is not practical for distribution transformer
applications.
Another attempt at high-power ac/ac conversion has been
recently proposed in [5]. For that topology, shown in Fig. 2,
the incoming ac waveform is modulated by a power-electronic
converter to a high-frequency square wave and passed through
a small high-frequency transformer. Another converter, syn-
chronous with the high-voltage side but at a lower voltage,
demodulates it. This scheme has the benefit of reducing the
transformer size and weight and the stress factor is more
reasonable, but it does not provide any benefits in terms of
control or power-factor improvement.
III. PROPOSED TOPOLOGY
The transformer design proposed herein is shown in block
diagram form in Fig. 3. As can be seen, this is a three-part design
that utilizes an input stage, an isolation stage, and an output
stage. Furthermore, the input and isolation stages are themselves
divided into several input and isolation modules.
In the input stage, the primary voltage is divided equally be-
tween the input stage modules. Each module’s voltage is rec-
tified using a unity-power factor rectifier. Each isolation stage
module generates a high-frequency square wave from the in-
coming dc, transforms and isolates it, and re-rectifies the trans-
former output. The bipolar dc outputs can then be connected in
parallel to supply the output stage. The series to parallel con-
nection provides the bulk of the voltage reduction.
The output state converts the resulting bipolar low-voltage dc
into single-phase ac with a groundable mid-tap.
The three-stage topology described herein has many at-
tractive features. First, series-tied semiconductor devices are
avoided because the voltage on the individual modules is
reduced to the point where series tying of devices is unnec-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2002
Fig. 3. Three-stage solid state transformer.
essary. Second, because of the three-stage topology and the
unique capabilities of each stage, the total stress factor is much
lower than it would be for the ac/ac chopper. In particular,
input-stage devices see high voltage but low current, while
output-stage devices see high current but low voltage. For a
7200-V transformer, a typical stress-factor value would be
17.5; about fifteen percent of the stress factor for a comparable
ac/ac buck converter. Third, the plurality of input stage modules
can be used to achieve an effective switching frequency that
is many times the actual switching frequency—an effect that
can be used to make the switching losses of the input stage
nearly inconsequential. Similarly, the frequency as well as the
duty cycle of the isolation stage can be varied to minimize
losses of this stage as a function of load. Fourth, unlike some
solid-state transformer designs, magnetic isolation is achieved
between the primary and secondary. In addition, although not
incorporated into this design, the low voltage dc bus would
be an excellent point to add energy storage to enhance the
ride-through capability of the power electronic transformer.
Finally, it is evident that the same general design could be used
to deliver three-phase power from a single-phase source.
Advantages of this solid-state transformer over its more tra-
ditional counterpart include the fact that the output voltages are
sinusoidal regardless of the input power quality or the output
current waveshape. This is because the controls on the output
stage actively suppress output voltage harmonics. Conversely,
by suitable control of the input stage the input current is sinu-
soidal and of unity power factor, regardless of the output current
waveshape. In addition, current limiting at the output and input
stages is readily used to prevent secondary faults from propa-
gating through the transformer.
For a sample design in which the input voltage was 7.2 kV
and the output voltage was 240/120 V, both typical of utility dis-
tribution systems in the U.S., 12 input/isolation modules were
utilized. The dc connection between each input and isolation
module pair was designed to operate at 1000 V and the output
of each isolation stage would be set at 550 V. At this point, the
design of each of the stages of this design will be considered
separately.
RONAN et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC-BASED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER
Fig. 4. Input stage module.
Fig. 5. Input stage control overview.
A. Input Stage Design
Each input stage module consists of a unity power factor ac-
tive rectifier [6] shown in Fig. 4. By control of the active switch
in the boost converter portion, current entering the rectifier can
be shaped into a sinusoid while the output voltage is regulated.
An overview of the control system for the input stage is shown
in Fig. 5.
In the voltage regulator, the output dc voltage is compared
with the required level and used to formulate the input cur-
rent magnitude command , which is in turn passed to the
current command synthesizer. In parallel with this process, the
voltage observer extracts the shape of the fundamental compo-
nent of the input voltage waveform. There are three signals as-
sociated with the voltage observer; the estimated instantaneous
value of the waveform obtained as the absolute value of the
fundamental component of the input voltage, an estimate of the
time derivative of , designated , and the peak value of
over a cycle . cycle of the square-wave voltage so as to achieve the desired
The current command synthesizer utilizes , , and
to formulate an instantaneous current command , as well as
an estimate for the derivative of this command . The current
command and its derivative are calculated as
(2)
(3)
The current command , its time derivative , and are
inputs to a duty cycle synthesizer which formulates the duty-
cycle command to control the relative amount of time each of
the modules is “on” to insure that the rectifier current is equal
to the commanded current.
One of the features of the input stage is that the switching
of input-stage modules is staggered so the effective switching
539
Fig. 6. Isolation stage module.
Fig. 7. Isolation stage control.
frequency is times the actual switching frequency, where
is the number of modules in the stage. As a result, switching
losses in the input stage are minimal. Voltage division is aided
by varistors placed across the input of each module. These de-
vices are only active during significant imbalances that might
occur, for example, during startup.
B. Isolation Stage Design
Direct current from each input module is fed to a full bridge
converter in the isolation stage module, shown in Fig. 6. This
converter provides a high-frequency square wave to a small air-
cooled transformer that reduces the voltage approximately in
half while providing the needed isolation. The high frequency
transformer’s secondary (which is center tapped) is then recti-
fied to form a bipolar dc supply. The series to parallel connection
of the isolation stage provides the bulk of the voltage reduction
without a large transformer turns ratio.
The isolation stage converter control has two distinct parts as
shown in Fig. 7. First, the duty cycle control regulates the duty
output voltage . Second, the switching frequency control
slowly varies the switching frequency as a function of load to
optimize isolation stage efficiency.
One subtlety of the control is that, since the isolation stage
control is based on regulating , the individual dc voltages
are not regulated. However, by proper choice of the voltage set
point, a significant imbalance of the individual rail voltages (as
would occur if the output stage supplied a 120-V half-wave rec-
tifier) can be tolerated without adverse effects.
C. Output Stage Design
The paralleled bipolar dc output from the isolation modules
is fed into a single-module output stage, shown in Fig. 8. As
can be seen, this stage consists of two halves to produce
and , respectively. The two converter halves, as well as
their controls, operate independently. The ground, or mid-tap, is
540
Fig. 8. Output stage.
Fig. 9. Output stage control.
carried from the midpoint of the isolation modules and is used
in the control system for each of the output legs.
Control of the output stage is by means of a load current feed
forward, proportional voltage error feedback algorithm shown
in Fig. 9. (There are identical controls for each leg). Therein, “ ”
can be replaced by “ ” or “ ,” as appropriate. Although
only proportional feedback is used, the presence of feedforward
compensation of the load current causes the error in the voltage
waveform to be minimal. The current command is also limited
to prevent overcurrents. The final output of this algorithm is the
current command to a hysteresis current control. The cur-
rent control, which has hysteresis level of Amperes, forces
the actual current to be very close to the commanded level. The
commanded voltage output is synthesized using a waveform
generator, and can be phase locked to the input voltage for syn-
chronization.
IV. SIMULATED PERFORMANCE
To evaluate the expected performance of the power-electronic
based transformer, or solid state transformer (SST), the design
was simulated to predict steady state and transient performance.
The simulation language used was ACSL [7], which is a gen-
eral purpose state-variable based simulator. All switches and
diodes as well as all passive devices were included in the sim-
ulation. The resulting model constitutes a 103rd order system.
Descriptions and values of the principal parameters are set forth
in Table I.
Fig. 10 depicts the simulated steady state output voltage and
current for nominal input voltage when both output phases are
connected to loads of rated complex power and 0.8 power
factor (lagging). The voltage waveform has a small ripple due
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2002
TABLE I
PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS
Fig. 10. Simulated full load operation, output.
to the hysteresis switching; because of the load inductance the
load current is nearly a perfect sinusoid. Because of the type
of control chosen, a range of higher-order harmonics is evident
in the figure. The hysteresis band could be set smaller to reduce
the voltage ripple, but at the cost of a higher hysteresis switching
frequency and consequent higher switching losses.
Fig. 11 illustrates the input voltage and current for the same
conditions. Although the output current clearly lags the voltage,
the input current is approximately in phase. This steady-state
simulation demonstrates that the input current for this power
electronics based transformer is sinusoidal and in phase with the
input voltage, regardless of load power factor. The input current
waveform has some visible switching noise as a result of the
waveform-shaping topology selected, but all of the frequency
components are well above the fundamental.
Fig. 12 depicts the performance of the system during a step
change in load. Initially, the load draws 25% of rated current. At
t=0.5s, the load is doubled. As can be seen the output voltage is
essentially unaffected.
Figs. 13 and 14 demonstrate performance of the transformer
during a fault at the output. In this study, the system fed a bal-
RONAN et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC-BASED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER
Fig. 11. Simulated full load operation, input.
Fig. 12. Suddenly applied load (output), simulated.
Fig. 13. Simulated fault performance, output.
Fig. 14. Simulated fault performance, input.
541
anced load in steady state. A fault was applied to both legs of the
secondary, then cleared after 0.15 s. The fault was represented as
a very low resistance for convenience. As can be seen in Fig. 13,
the output stage control has effectively limited the fault current
(lower trace) to a level that can be tolerated by the semiconduc-
tors. Corresponding input traces are shown in Fig. 14. These
demonstrate that the input current and power during this event
are quite small. The current flowing supplies the power being
dissipated by the low-impedance fault as well as system losses.
There is no current surge on the primary, typical of a fault on
a conventional distribution transformer, so the feeder voltage
would not be affected by this fault event. New protective algo-
rithms would be required to recognize and isolate the fault in an
appropriate manner.
In regard to efficiency of the design, simulation studies have
shown that the input stage efficiency should be very high (99%)
and that the efficiency of this stage will be relatively flat with
power level. The isolation stage efficiency is somewhat lower,
on the order of 97% at one-quarter load and approximately 98%
at full load. The output stage is the least efficient; just over
96% at full load. The combined efficiency of the SST described
herein should be able to exceed 90%. To achieve greater effi-
ciencies in a SST, soft switching could be employed to reduce
switching losses in the isolation and output stages. The use of
(new) high-voltage silicon-carbide (SiC) Shottkey diodes would
also significantly reduce switching losses.
The initial design and prototype were set at 10 kVA, but exten-
sion to the entire range of single-phase distribution transformer
ratings is possible with the general topology chosen. For higher
voltages, more input-stage modules (or higher-voltage semi-
conductors) would be used. For higher capacity, larger devices
could be employed within the same topology. Eventually, par-
alleled devices would be necessary—particularly for the output
stage. Until higher efficiencies can be achieved, supplemental
cooling would be needed at higher ratings. As capacity is in-
creased, the overall system efficiency should rise since controls
and other overhead would consume a decreasing proportion of
the input power.
V. MEASURED PERFORMANCE
Fig. 15 illustrates a prototype constructed to demonstrate the
solid-state transformer system. In this prototype, the layout was
spread out to facilitate design modifications and to allow ex-
tensive measurements. The transformer has been operated as an
integrated unit at one-half rated voltage. The presence of high
levels of electro-magnetic interference (EMI) precluded opera-
tion of this early prototype at full voltage, although all compo-
nents were individually tested to that level.
Fig. 16 illustrates the output waveforms of the initial pro-
totype at one-half rated voltage, 0.4 per-unit load power and
0.89 pf. The output waveforms are comparable to those pre-
dicted, with a small ripple evident on both current and voltage
due to the switching of the output-stage converter.
The input voltage and current are displayed in Fig. 17. The
input current and particularly the voltage contain much more
ripple than is predicted by the simulation. The cause of this is
that, in the experimental set-up, the transformer was supplied
542
Fig. 15. Prototype solid state transformer.
Fig. 16. Measured output at 1/2 rated voltage.
Fig. 17. Measured input at 1/2 rated voltage.
by a very high impedance source comprised of the nominal
impedance looking into the utility, a variac with a very high
leakage inductance, a step up transformer, and a series resistor.
Elimination of these elements from the test procedure will be
possible once the prototype can reach full operating voltage.
The input voltage and current traces, despite the presence of
noise, show that the power factor seen at the output is not re-
flected to the input and that the current waveform is (in this
case, roughly) sinusoidal. The low-frequency ripple in the cur-
rent waveform is partially a result of the source-voltage drop
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2002
Fig. 18. Sudden application of load at 1/2 rated voltage.
Fig. 19. Unbalanced load output at 1/2 rated voltage.
mentioned above, partially due to EMI present in the experi-
mental set-up that caused switching errors. These problems are
results of the way the prototype was constructed. Solutions of
all of these problems have been identified and are being incor-
porated into a second-generation prototype.
Despite these difficulties, tests of the prototype where load
was suddenly applied or removed showed that the power elec-
tronic transformer could eliminate detrimental results such as
voltage dips and flicker. Fig. 18 shows the output waveforms for
a load that was suddenly increased from 25% to 50% at one-half
rated voltage and unity power factor. There is no visible change
in the output voltage in either test. The ability to mitigate flicker
and other side-effects of stepped loads is limited only by the
ability of the current modulator to track rapidly-changing cur-
rent commands. In general, this ability is quite good, so the re-
sponse of the voltage control is excellent.
The prototype was further tested under unbalanced load con-
ditions. A load at 0.8 pf that drew 50% of rated current was
placed on the positive side (rail to neutral) of the output, while
the other side was given only a very small load (less than one
percent). Fig. 19 shows output voltages and currents for this
loading. As can be seen, voltage on the positive and negative
rails remained equal, despite the extreme imbalance.
The input voltage and current were essentially unaffected
by the unbalance on the output, thanks to the presence of the
RONAN et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC-BASED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER
two intermediate dc buses and the isolation-stage control de-
scribed earlier. Experiments also confirmed that the prototype
performed well under loads with extreme dc offsets, such as
would be encountered with half-wave rectifiers.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Detailed simulations as well as a working prototype have
confirmed that the power electronic transformer described
herein could provide desirable features that are currently not
available in distribution transformers. Among these features
are self-protection, excellent power quality at both input
and output, power-factor correction, and elimination of oil
as a dielectric and coolant. Currently, the construction of a
second-generation EMI-hardened design is being pursued.
Improvements in printed-circuit-board layout and elimination
of most of the original design’s analog control circuitry should
yield significant improvement. Interesting future questions that
remain include investigating ways to increase efficiency (partic-
ularly in the output stage, for which techniques are available).
As the design matures, one interesting concern is whether the
high-bandwidth constant power nature of the load could lead
to negative impedance instabilities such are commonly seen in
dc systems [8], and occasionally in power-electronics based ac
systems [9]. These types of instabilities are often best studied
using admittance space techniques [10]. If this does prove
problematic, it should be possible to eliminate the instability
using the techniques set forth in [11].
REFERENCES
[1] Blue-Sky Workshop, Raleigh, NC, Dec. 1996.
[2] J. L. Brooks, “Solid state transformer concept development,” in Naval
Material Command. Port Hueneme, CA: Civil Eng. Lab., Naval Con-
struction Battalion Center, 1980.
[3] “Proof of the principle of the solid-state transformer and the AC/AC
switchmode regulator,” San Jose State Univ., San Jose, CA, EPRI
TR-105 067, 1995.
[4] J. G. Kassakian, M. F. Schlecht, and G. C. Verghese, Principles of Power
Electronics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.
[5] M. Kang, P. N. Enjeti, and I. J. Pitel, “Analysis and design of electronic
transformers for electric power distribution system,” in Proc. IEEE In-
dustry Applicat. Soc. Annu. Meet., Oct. 1997.
[6] C. P. Henze and N. Mohan, “A digitally controlled AC to DC power con-
ditioner that draws sinusoidal input current,” in Proc. 17th IEEE Power
Electr. Specialists Conf., Piscataway, NJ, 1986, pp. 531–540.
[7] “Advanced continues simulation language,” Aegis Res. Corp.
[8] R. D. Middlebrook, “Input filter considerations in design and application
of switching regulators,” in Proc. IASAM, 1976.
[9] M. Belkyayat and O. Wasynczuk, “Stability analysis of AC power
systems with regulated electronic loads,” SAE Trans., J. Aerosp., pp.
116–123, 1998.
[10] S. D. Sudhoff, D. H. Schmucker, R. A. Youngs, and H. J. Hegner, “Sta-
bility analysis of DC distribution systems using admittance space con-
straints,” in Proc. Inst. Marine Eng., All Electric Ship, London, U.K.,
Sept. 29–30, 1998.
543
[11] S. F. Glover and S. D. Sudhoff, “An experimentally validated nonlinear
stabilizing control for power electronics based power systems,” in Proc
SAE Aerosp. Power Syst. Conf, 1998.
[12] S. D. Sudhoff, “Solid state transformer,” U.S. Patent no. 5 943 229, Aug.
24, 1999.
Edward R. Ronan (M’85) received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from Rice University, Houston, TX, in 1963 and the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Missouri–Rolla, in 2000.
He is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas
City. He had been employed by the Westinghouse Distribution Transformer Di-
vision, Jefferson City, MO, and later with ABB at the same location, for 28 years
in various capacities. His research interests are in the area of utility distribution
systems.
Scott D. Sudhoff (M’88) received the B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. degrees
from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, in 1988, 1989, and 1991, respec-
tively.
From 1991 to 1993 he served as a Half-Time Visiting Faculty at Purdue Uni-
versity. From 1993 to 1997, he served as an Assistant Professor at the University
of Missouri–Rolla. Later in 1997, he joined the Faculty at Purdue University,
where he serves as a Professor in electrical engineering and computer science.
His interests include the analysis, simulation, and design of electric machinery,
drive systems, and finite inertia power systems. He has authored or co-authored
over 40 journal papers in these areas.
Steven F. Glover received the B.S. and M.S.E.E. degrees (honor scholar,
summa cum laude) in electrical engineering from the University of Mis-
souri–Rolla (UMR), in 1995 and 1997, respectively. He is currently pursuing
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
In 1997, he served as an Associate Research Engineer for UMR and Paul C.
Krause and Associates (P.C.K.A.). Since 1998, he has worked as a Research
Engineer for Purdue University and P.C.K.A. His interests include analysis, de-
sign, and control of electromechanical systems, drives, and power systems.
Dudley L. Galloway (S’62–M’66–M’91) received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, and the M.S. degree in
engineering management from the University of Missouri–Rolla, in 1964 and
1977, respectively.
He joined the Westinghouse Transformer Plant in Sharon, PA, in 1965, and
moved to the Jefferson City, MO, plant (now ABB Inc.), in 1972. He holds seven
U.S. Patents related to transformer design and construction. His recent work has
been in fuse application and coordination, thermal loading and design optimiza-
tion, and the effects of harmonic loading on distribution transformers. He has
authored several articles and technical papers on these subjects including the
“distribution transformers” subsection of the Electric Power Engineering Hand-
book (Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press). He is presently an Independent Consultant.
Mr. Galloway is a member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society and the
IEEE Transformers Committee, as well as several ANSI C57 working groups
and the Canadian Electricity Association Distribution Transformer Working
Group.