Magnetizing Inrush Current of Small Power
Transformers used in Electronic Circuitry
Emil CAZACU
Electrical Engineering Department, Polytechnics University of Bucharest
313, Splaiul Independenţei, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
Abstract—The paper presents the evaluation of the
magnetization inrush current of some small power
transformers, widely used in electronic circuitry. A simple
analytical approach is proposed relying on the transient
state equations of the transformer’s energizing process
along with the corresponding Ampère law applied on the
magnetic circuit. Adopting a convenient expression for the
electric steel H-B nonlinear dependency, the inrush current
amplitude and time variations are predicted. A
comparative study over the most common small
transformer core shapes in terms of magnetization inrush
current features is then performed. Additionally, a critical
study concerning the state-of-the-art inrush current
mitigation techniques is also carried out.
Index Terms—Magnetizing inrush current, small power
transformer, mitigation techniques.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE current surged by any electric or electronic
device at the instant of connection to the mains is
known as inrush current.
The main features of this transient current are both the
extreme high amplitude that could be 20 times grater
than the device rated value and its particular waveform,
which exhibits a single polarity until reaches its steady
state value - usually after a few cycles of the main AC
power supply [1-3].
The inrush current characteristics significantly affect
the proper operation of the switched-on devices and may
also determine numerous undesirable effects to the
power supply network. Thus, due to the high pick values
of the inrush current, which could reach the short-circuit
value, thermal and electrodynamical stresses within the
device are generated. Consequently, some components
of the connected equipment may be damaged or may
later malfunction. It is well known that the appliances
failure often occur at their switching instant and less
during their steady-state operation.
Additionally, the protection equipment (breakers or
fuses) could inopportunely trip or blow and thus the
power availability of the installation is seriously affected
(e.g. some critical equipment are hence disconnected).
Devices with low rated current, but high inrush
current amplitude, also limit the number of appliances
connected to the same power source. Supplementarily,
the particular inrush current waveform signature
generates noise and distortion (high-order harmonics)
into the network and therefore influences the power
quality of the entire installation during the switching
process.
Most of the power electronic loads (domestic or
industrial) such as: electronic power supply, power
amplifiers, fluorescent or LED lamps, active power
factor correction equipment, capacitor banks, small
electric motors and transformers and many others, surge
an important current when they are energized [2-4]. The
phenomenon that generates the inrush current is specific
to each electronic load and may fundamentally differ
from one device to another.
Unfortunately, most of the electronic appliances
manufacturers do not indicate any specifications
considering the equipment inrush current features.
Consequently, the predetermination (when possible) of
the inrush current peak-value and its duration becomes
an important data for a proper use and protection of the
installation.
To conclude, the inrush current issues are very
important and require a special treatment in order to
avoid its above-mentioned undesirable consequences.
This paper deals with one of the most common surged
currents that occur when magnetic core transformers are
connected to the AC power supply – the magnetizing
inrush current [5-7]. The proposed computation
technique relies on the solution for the system of
differential equations describing the transformer
transient state and the Ampère’s circuital law applied on
its magnetic circuit. The magnetic nonlinearity of the
transformer electric steel is considered by using a
properly chosen analytical expression for H-B
dependency. The common inrush current mitigation
solutions are also discussed.
II. MAGNETIZING INRUSH CURRENT GENERATION
The high-value magnetizing inrush current surged by
a no-loaded transformer at the energizing instant is
mainly caused by the H-B nonlinear characteristic of the
transformer magnetic core [8, 9].
Under normal operating conditions of the transformer,
the core magnetic flux density value lies around the
“knee” point of the electrical steel magnetization curve..
Immediately after the transformer is powered on, due to
the transient process and the laminations remanent
induction, the core magnetic flux may reach more than
twice its rated value [10-14]. Consequently, a current of
extremely high amplitude will flow through the
transformer’s primary winding. The so generated
transformer core overfluxing decays rapidly and the investigated transformer surged current.
steady-state no-load current (magnetizing current)
A. E-I type core transformer
becomes just one percent of the transformer rated
current. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the E-I type
The main features of this magnetizing inrush current transformer with the corresponding notations of each
(amplitude and duration) are influenced by the following length parameter [23]. We apply Ampere’s circuital law
factors [6, 15, 16]: along the dotted closed path in Fig. 1, by taking into
 point-on voltage wave (switching angle of account the symmetry of the device. We get
commutation);
 amplitude and polarity of the core remanent flux H E (t )l E  H I (t )l I  H 0 (t )  N 1i (t ) ,
before the energizing moment; (2)
 magnetic core characteristics;
 ohmic resistance of the primary winding circuit; where lE, lI and δ are the lengths of the mean path in the
 geometry of the transformer core. E- and I-shaped pieces, and air gap, respectively.
The latter will be the object of our following study. Correspondingly, HE(t), HI(t) and H0(t) are the magnetic
A classical power source used in electronic circuits field strengths in these sections. Similarly, notations
contains a small transformer with the secondary winding BE(t), BI(t) and B0(t) will be used for the flux densities of
connected to a rectifier followed by filter capacitors. In the same sections. In the right-hand side of (2) is the
this case, at the switching moment the capacitors will total current of the N1- primary coil carrying current i(t).
practically “short-circuit” the transformer output and
thus favoring the appearance of an even greater inrush h
current. But in this case, the inrush current amplitude is
lI
independent of the voltage switching angle and will c
mainly be determined by the filtering capacitors
δ
values [4].
The predicted magnetizing inrush current time
variation might be an excellent indicator concerning the
most effective mitigations techniques that should be used
c g f e
for a given particular case [17-20]. b
III. THEORETICAL PROCEDURE FOR MAGNETIZING INRUSH
CURRENT EVALUATION
lE c
We aim our study toward three types of relatively
small power transformers designed for electronics
applications [21-23]. Their rated power is quite similar a
Fig. 1. Geometry of the E-I type transformer core and the corresponding
being manufactured with three different magnetic core notations for its length parameters.
shapes: E-I type, M-type and toroidal, respectively. For
better comparison reasons they all use the same Taking into account the flux leakage between the E-
magnetic material for laminations. Inrush current and I-pieces (factor σ) and the stacking factor fFe, we
determination method relies on the analysis of the obtain
transient state appearing immediately after the 1
connection moment occurs. More specifically, the B E ( t )  B0 ( t ) . (3)
differential equations that will appear are going to be f Fe (1  )
coupled with a properly chosen analytical model of the
H-B relation for the magnetic core materials, and the With (3) we can rewrite (1) as
geometrical parameters of each transformer.
Faraday’s induction law applied on a closed path f Fe 1   
comprising the purely sinusoidal voltage of effective H E ( t )l E  H I ( t ) l I  B E ( t )   N 1i ( t )
0
value U angular frequency ω and initial phase α, applied
to the primary and along the winding turns gives , (4)

where μ0 is the free space permeability.

d B(t )
U 2 sin(t  )  R1i (t )  N 1 AFe , For the considered sheets, a well-suited analytical
dt approximation of the H-B characteristic for soft
(1) magnetic materials is provided by the Ollendorff formula
[24]. With (2) and (3) we get:
where R1 is primary loss resistance, N1 the primary
number of turns, AFe is the cross-sectional area of the
H E (t )  mB E (t )  n sinh pBE (t ) (5)
core, B(t) its interior the flux density and i(t) the
 In the absence of the gap, Ampère’s law simplifies to
and
H Fe (t )l Fe  N 1i (t ) , (10)
H I (t )  m 1    B E (t )  n sinh p 1    B E (t ),
(6) where lFe is the length of the mean path inside the
magnetic core. An expression similar to (9) indicates the
where constants m, n and p are to be evaluated for any dependency between magnetic field strength and flux
type of electrical steel core by a simple fitting procedure density inside the toroidal core transformer.
(i. e. constraining the expression graph to pass through at h
least three of the H-B characteristic given points).
B. M type core transformer
Geometry of the M-type transformer core [23] is
depicted in Fig. 2.
h
lFe
c
δ

ID
a c g f e OD
Fig. 3. Geometry of the toroidal transformer core.

IV. COMPUTATION RESULTS

c In order to quantitatively analyze the inrush current

lFe
b parameters are indicated in Appendix section (Table I
Fig. 2. Geometry of the M-type transformer core and the corresponding
notations for its length parameters.
Similar to the previous subsection, Ampère’s circuital
law gives
H Fe (t )l Fe  H 0 (t )  N 1i (t ) , (7)
main characteristics, rated power values of around
150 VA for the three investigated transformers were
selected. Their core geometrical data and technical
and Table II, respectively [21, 22]).
All type of magnetic cores laminations are made of
0.5 mm thick SiFe M 400-50-A sheets with a remanent
flux density of 0.95 T. The electrical steel stacking
factor was considered 0.96, while the flux leakage for
the E-I and M type transformer was taken, according to
their air gap, 3 % and 10 %, respectively [21-23].

where lFe is the length of the path inside the magnetic

core. Taking into account the leakage and staking factors
σ and fFe, respectively, (7) becomes

f Fe 1   
H Fe (t )l Fe  B Fe (t )   N 1i (t ) ,
0
(8)

In this case, the Ollendorff formula takes the following

form:

H Fe (t )  mB Fe (t )  n sinh pB Fe (t ) .
(9)

C. Toroidal transformer
The inner and outer diameters of the toroidal
transformer core ID and OD, respectively, are shown in
Fig. 4. Transformer core magnetization curve (red marker) and the
Fig. 3, where the thickness of the ferromagnetic structure corresponding Ollendorff H-B function representation (blue curve).
is also denoted by h, as in Figs. 1 and 2.
 The magnetization curve indicated by a finite number
of measured pair of points in shown in Fig. 4, along with
the corresponding Ollendorff H-B function variation
graph (covering the entire core operating area during the
transient process) is represented.
In order to consider the worst case scenario, in terms
of the inrush current amplitude, the following
assumptions have been made: at the switching instant the
applied voltage crosses zero line (α = 0) and the
electrical steel remanet flux density has its maximum
positive value (Br = 0.95 T). Consequently, Figs. 5, 6
and 7 illustrate the inrush current variation during a
period of 0.1 s immediately after the beginning of the
energizing process, for each investigated transformer
type.
The Runge-Kutta computation method [25] was
selected for solving the corresponding initial-value
differential-algebraic equations deriving from (1) to (10).
The computed inrush current first peak values for the
three investigated transformers exceeds 23 A. The
toroidal transformer surge the highest inrush current
peak value –25 A.
Fig. 5. Computed magnetizing inrush current variation immediately after
the beginning of the energizing process for the E-I core shape type
transformer.
Fig. 6. Computed magnetizing inrush current variation immediately
after the beginning of the energizing process for the M-core shape type
transformer.
Fig. 7. Computed magnetizing inrush current variation immediately
after the beginning of the energizing process for the toroidal core shape
type transformer.
These are extreme values considering the
transformers’ rated value of only around 0.65 A. It is
also useful to recall that the no-load steady-state current
(magnetizing current) only reaches 6.5 mA.
V. INRUSH CURRENT MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
In order to minimize all the inrush current effects
reported in the previous section, different inrush current
mitigation techniques are adopted. The most simple and
low-cost method is to insert an additional ohmic
resistance to the transformer primary winding. This is
usually made by adding just a few wire wounds, which
are sufficient in most of the cases. The resistance value
needs to be properly chosen in order to ensure two
conflicting objectives during the commutation process:
important absorbed current limitation, but no significant
voltage drop and power dissipation in normal operating
condition of the transformer.
Unfortunately, some electronics switch main power
supply (SMPS), that also contains transformers, are very
sensitive to the applied voltage and may not operate
properly unless the voltage is not very close to its rated
value [4, 26]. Along with the additional generated heat,
the voltage drop this is the major drawbacks of this
simple mitigation device. However, resistors are the
most common, safe and economic devices used for
inrush current limitation.
Another widely adopted device in small transformer
inrush current protection is the negative temperature
coefficient (NTC) thermistors [27, 28]. The resistance of
this single electronic component is initially very high (in
cold state) and decreases significantly after the current
flows and heats the device (in hot state). In spite of their
large scale usage NTC thermistors have some important
disadvantages. The large tolerance of their operating (hot
state) resistance value causes uncertain voltage drops;
the generated heat limits the electronic circuit
performance and efficiency. NTC thermistors require a
relatively constant operating load current (once the NTC
thermistor is selected, additional circuits are not to be
connected to the transformer secondary winding). Last
but not least, they are not able to ensure protection after
a rapid recovery in the case of accidental power outages
(NTC thermistors need some time to regain their cold-
state high resistance).
Most of the above mentioned disadvantages of these
single inrush current limiters could be overcome if a
bypass system is adopted [4, 26]. This additional
equipment short-circuits the limiter device immediately
after the normal magnetization current is reached. To
conclude, both the resistors and NTC thermistors may be
conveniently used as inrush current protection devices.
Thermistors have the advantage that even the bypass
system activation fails, they can still operate with lower
resistance values.
One of the most efficient protection devices is the
dedicated soft starter or the active inrush current limiter,
also known as Transformer Switching Relay (TSR) [28].
The basic principle of these hybrid devices (containing
both electromechanic and electronic components) is that
the inrush current can be avoided if the transformer is to
be energized at an instant corresponding to a point of the
induction wave which has the same value and polarity as
the remanent flux density [6]. In order to accomplish
this task a patented premagnetization procedure called
unipolar control of magnetization is performed [30, 31].
This technique magnetizes the transformer core by a
series of short positive voltage impulses (duration of a
few miliseconds) until the magnetic induction reaches its
operating value. Then, the full supply voltage waveform
is applied to the transformer at the next zero crossing
moment (the applied flux will thus have a counter
polarity with respect to the corresponding core remanent
value).
The main drawback of this method is the high
distorted voltage waveform appearing during the
energizing process (DC pulses) and the relatively slow
starting process that may last from 0.5 to 1.5 s,
depending on the transformer’s type and rated power.
It is important to mention that many other new inrush
current mitigation techniques are under development
[26, 32]. They aim to integrally solve the inrush current
issues (reducing its amplitude, decreasing the switching
process duration along with a simultaneous minimization
of the associated power quality problems).
In order to perform an optimal design of any of the
aforementioned inrush current mitigation devices, the
inrush current characteristics (especially the peak-value)
should be accurately predicted. Consequently, the simple
analytical method suggested in the previous sections
tries to address the difficult task of inrush current
parameter prediction solely relying on the data provided
by transformer datasheets.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The problem of small power transformer magnetizing
inrush current was both qualitatively and quantitatively
treated. The inrush current time variation was predicted
as the solution of the differential equations which model
the transient energizing process and the Ampère’s
circuital law applied to the transformer magnetic circuit.
The nonlinear magnetic characteristic of the transformer
laminations was approximated using an analytical
expression describing the magnetic material heavy
saturation area. The proposed computation method also
considers the transformers flux leakage and the electrical
steels stacking factor.
Three small power transformers with different core
geometry, but the same magnetic core material and
similar rated power, were investigated in terms of their
inrush current amplitude. Due to its simplicity the
presented computation procedure can be easily extended
to any other transformer core geometry. Its major
drawback consist in the rather numerous transformer
parameters required (both technical and geometrical),
which are not always provided by manufacturers.
Finally, a critical overview over the most common
inrush current mitigation techniques was carried out.
This study revealed the performances and also the
restraints of different current limiting devices. The main
inrush current feature predetermination can prove its
usefulness in designing or selecting the most appropriate
mitigation equipments for a certain practical application.
Some improvements of the inrush current computation
accuracy could be achieved if the hysteresis loop of the
laminations is considered, instead of their magnetization
curve. Additionally, a quantitative investigation over the
inrush current wave signature is demanded in order to
better estimate the generated power quality issues that
occur at the energizing instant.
APPENDIX
Geometry of the core for the E-I and M type
transformers is described by the parameters contained in
Table I and depicted in Figs. 1- 3.
TABLE I
GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS OF THE E-I AND M TYPE TRANSFORMERS
Paramete
E-I 106 core M 102 core
r (mm)
a 106 106
b 77 102
c 19.5 17
e 57.25 68
f 29 34
g 19.5 17
h 35 35
The toroidal core transformer has its outer and inner
diameters OD = 130 mm and ID = 35 mm, respectively
and a core thickness of h = 55 mm.
Other datasheet specifications for the three
transformers are organized in Table II.
TABLE II
TECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF THE E-I, M TYPE AND TOROIDAL
TRANSFORMERS
Paramete M Toroidal
Description E-I core
r core core
Sn (VA) rated power 151 154 150
U1n (V) rated primary 230 230 230
 voltage [13] Y. Wang, S. G. Abdulsalam, and W. Xu, “Analytical formula to
rated primary estimate the maximum inrush current,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
U2n (V) 24 24 24
voltage vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1266-1268, Nov. 2008.
operating [14] S. G. Abdulsalam and W. Xu, “Analytical Study of Transformer
f (Hz) 50 50 50
frequency Inrush Current Transients and Its Applications”, Proc. 6th
primary loss International Conference on Power Systems Transients, Paper No.
R1(Ω) 13.67 12.64 12.63
resistance IPST05 – 140, Montreal, 2005.
number of turns [15] C. E. Lin, C. L. Cheng, C. L. Huang, and J. C. Yeh, “Investigation
N1 807 664 501 of magnetizing inrush current in transformers. I. Numerical
in primary
magnetic core simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 246–254,
AFe(cm2) 8.5 11 14.35 1993.
area
steady-state [16] C. E. Lin, C. L. Cheng, C. L. Huang, and J. C. Yeh, “Investigation
of magnetizing inrush current in transformers. II. Harmonic
B̂ (T) peak flux 1.51 1.42 1.45
analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 255–263,.
density
magnetic path 231.5 1993.
lFe(mm) length in the l I  58.5 273 219 [17] D. I. Taylor, J. D. Law, B. K. Johnson, and N. Fischer, “Single-

core l E  173 Phase Transformer Inrush Current Reduction Using Prefluxing,”
δ(mm) air gap thickness 0.2 2 0 IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 245- 252, Jan. 2012.
η efficiency 0.85 0.88 0.89 [18] J. H. Brunke, and K. J. Fröhlich, “Elimination of transformer
core power inrush currents by controlled switching - part I: Theoretical
PFe(W) 6.8 8.7 1 considerations,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 16, no. 2,
losses
coil power pp. 276-280, April 2001.
PCu(W) 16.3 14 18 [19] J. H. Brunke, and K. J. Fröhlich, “Elimination of transformer
losses
inrush currents by controlled switching - part II: Application and
performance considerations,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol.
REFERENCES 16, no. 2, pp. 281 - 285, April 2001.
[20] V. Molcrette, J. L. Kotny, J. P. Swan, and J. F. Brudny,
[1] A. S. Kislovski, “Fast active inrush current limiter for boost-based “Reduction of inrush current in single-phase transformer using
resistor emulators,” in Proc. 16th International Conference on virtual air gap technique,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp.
Telecommunications Energy, Vancouver, 1994, pp. 8–16. 1192–1194, July 1998.
[2] G. Mallesham, and K. Anand, “Inrush current control of a DC/DC [21] W. Flanagan, Handbook of Transformer Design and Applications.
converter using MOSFET,” in Proc. International Conference on McGraw-Hill Professional,2nd Edition, 1993, ch. 10.
Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems, New Delhi, 2006, [22] W. T. McLyman, Transformer and Inductor Design Handbook.
pp.1-6. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New-York-Basel, 3rd Edition, 2004, ch. 5.
[3] P. F. Keebler, and R. Gilleskie, In-rush currents of electronic [23] W. Weißgerber, Elektrotechnik für Ingenieure- Band 1. Vieweg-
ballasts and compact fluorescent lamps affect lighting controls” in Teubner Verlag, 8. Auflage, 2009, pp. 255–260, (in german).
Conference Record of the 31 st Industrial Application Society [24] F. Ollendorff, “Zur qualitativen Theorie gesättigter Eisendrosseln,
Annual Meeting, San Diego, 1996, vol. 4, pp. 2201 - 2208. “Archiv für Elektrotechnik, Band XXI, pp. 9-24, 1928. (in german)
[4] R. Elliott, (2011, November 7) “Inrush Current Mitigation,” [25] K. E. Brenan, S. L. Campbell, and L. R. Petzold , "Numerical
[Online], Available http://sound.westhost.com/articles/inrush.htm. Solution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic
[5] R. A. Turner, and K. S. Smith, “Transformer Inrush Currents,” Equations,", SIAM-Society for Industrial and Applied
IEEE Ind Appl Mag., vol. 16, vol. 5, pp. 14-19, 2010. Mathematics, 2nd edition Philadelphia, 2006, ch.6.
[6] P. C. Y. Ling and A. Basak, “Investigation on magnetizing inrush [26] L. Eun-Ju, A. Jung-Hoon, S. Seung-Min, and L. Byoung-Kuk,
current in single-phase transformer,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 24, “Comparative analysis of active inrush current limiter for high-
no. 6, pp. 3217–3222, Nov. 1988. voltage DC power supply system,” in Proc. International
[7] P. C. Y. Ling and A. Basak, “Numerical prediction of magnetising Conference on Vehicle Power and Propulsion, Seoul, 2012, pp.
inrush current in transformers,” Physica Scripta, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1256-1260.
246-249, 1989. [27] A. Nakayama, T. Ishikawa, H. Takagi, and K. Tomono,
[8] S. J. Chapman, Electric Machinery Fundamentals, Mcgraw Hill “Application of lanthanum cobaltite to component for excessive
Higher Education; 4th Edition, 2005, pp. 134-140. inrush current suppression,” in Proc. 18th International
[9] L. Petrescu, “Comparison between frequently used hysteresis Symposium on Electronic Manufacturing Technology, Omiya,
models,” Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.– Électrotechn. et Énerg., 52, 3, p. 1995, pp. 338 – 342.
311–320, Bucarest, 2007. [28] R. A. Dougal, “Current-limiting thermistors for high-power
[10] E. Cazacu, L. Petrescu and V. Ioniţă, “Inrush Current Investigation applications,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 11,
for Single Phase Power Transformers by Means of Magnetic no. 2, pp. 304 – 310, 1996.
Material Core Characteristics, Proc. International Symposium on [29] M. Novak, “Elimination of three-phase transformer inrush current
Theoretical Electrical Engineering, Pilsen, Paper No. I-37, 2013. through core forced magnetization and simultaneous closing,” in
[11] E. Cazacu, V. Ioniţă, and L. Petrescu, “An Improved Method for Proc. International Conference on Applied Electronics, Pilsen,
the Inrush Current Evaluation in Single Phase Power 2010, pp. 1-4.
Transformers,” Proc. on the 8th International Symposium on [30] M. Konstanzer, “Process and device for reducing the inrush
Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering, Paper No. ELMAD 9- current when powering an inductive load,” U.S. Patent 5479086 A,
90, Bucharest, 2013. Dec 26, 1995.
[12] J. Faiz and S. Saffari, “Inrush Current Modeling in a Single-Phase [31] M. Konstanzer, “Method and apparatus for avoiding power-up
Transformer,” IEEE Trans. on Magn., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 578 - 581, current surge,” U.S. Patent 5517380 A, May 14, 1996.
Feb. 2010. [32] T. Ghanbari, and E. Farjah, “Efficient resonant-type transformer
inrush current limiter,” Electric Power Applications, vol. 6, no. 7,
pp. 429 – 436, 2012.