IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 54, NO.

3, MARCH 2018 7203904

Transient Behavior of Large Transformer Windings Taking

Capacitances and Eddy Currents Into Account
Kurt Preis1 , Werner Renhart 1, Alexander Rabel2 , and Oszkár Bíró 1

1 IGTE, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria

2 Transformers Weiz, Siemens Inc., 8160 Weiz, Austria

Transformer windings, as resonant systems, respond to impulse excitation by oscillating voltages and currents. In this paper, a
detailed transient circuit analysis of an auto-transformer exposed to a full and a chopped standard lightning impulse has been
performed, taking into account each single turn of the two windings. The corresponding inductance and capacitance matrices used
in the circuit analysis are obtained by finite-element method (FEM)-calculations. To get the resistances of the turns, eddy currents
have to be considered. Since the turns (continuously transposed conductors) consist of a certain number of single strands to keep the
eddy current losses low, an appropriate eddy current calculation by FEM has to be performed, taking account of each single strand
of the turns. The resulting resistances of the turns are typically several hundred times higher than the respective dc resistances.
This has a significant influence on the damping behavior of the high-frequency oscillations of the system.
Index Terms— Continuous transposed conductors, eddy currents, transformer windings, transient behaviour.

I. I NTRODUCTION

T HE study of very fast transient phenomena in transformer

windings is important in the design of large transform-
ers [1], [2] for several reasons. In order to get a sufficiently
high frequency resolution, each single turn of the transformer
has to be modeled by finite-element method (FEM) to get
the inductance and capacitance matrices for a detailed circuit
analysis [1]. The turns are assumed to be electrically short,
so there are no distributed parameters along the turns. This
will be referred to as the single-turn approach. The scheme of
the analyzed auto-transformer with 2 × 360 turns (each turn
is a 19 strand continuously transposed conductors) is shown
in Fig. 1. A standard lightning impulse (LI) (1.2 μs/50 μs,
100 kV, [3]), defined in (2) and shown as the black curve
in Fig. 10, is applied at the high-voltage front-end (turn 361,
center of winding two, see Fig. 1). The inner winding is Fig. 1. Scheme of the analyzed auto-transformer consisting of two windings
grounded at each end. The diameters are: core: 994 mm; inner with 2 × 60 disks and 2 × 6 × 60 turns with a total number of 13680 single
winding: 1102/1258 mm; and outer winding: 1468/1634 mm. strands.
The height of the windings is 1200 mm, and the distances
time instant t0 when the arrester starts to work). In addition,
of the windings to the yokes are 150 mm. The modeled
the undershoot effect is simulated by adding a damped sine
structure can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4. The cross-section of a
oscillation. The front time of chopping is typically taken
single strand (copper) is 1.2 mm × 7.5 mm. The arrangement
as 0.12 μs [3], unless gas isolated components are used when
(slightly simplified) of the 19 strands within a turn is shown
it is smaller. The chopped waveform is defined in (3) and
in the right-hand side of Fig. 5.
plotted as the thick gray curve in Fig. 10.
Since transformers are extremely important and, especially
large power transformers, also very expensive components in II. C IRCUIT M ODEL
power grids, they are protected by external arresters. To cover In the circuit model for the auto-transformer, the turn
this fact, in addition to the standard LI, chopped waves are currents and voltages are used as state variables as shown in
also applied in simulations. Numerically, chopping is realized Fig. 2 for a similar problem consisting of three turns only [1].
by adding a negative full wave at the chopping time (the Equation (1) describes the appropriate ordinary differential
equations system for this small problem. The full model com-
Manuscript received June 27, 2017; revised August 28, 2017; accepted
September 6, 2017. Date of publication November 28, 2017; date of current prises 720 turns and therefore 1440 state variables. The num-
version February 21, 2018. Corresponding author: O. Bíró (e-mail: bering of the turns in Fig. 1 corresponds to the numbering in
biro@tugraz.at). the circuit model. The 720 ×720 capacitances and inductances
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. have been computed using axisymmetric FEM models [1], [5].
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2017.2766761 The equation system is solved by time stepping using the
0018-9464 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7203904 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 54, NO. 3, MARCH 2018

III. E LECTROMAGNETIC A NALYSIS

The FEM is applied to the axisymmetric eddy current
problem with N L = 13 680 single strands, whereby the
current condition is directly implemented in the multipath
formulation [4]. The governing equations are
curlH−J = 0; B = curlA
∂A u̇
E=− + e I ; u̇ . . . source voltage per turn
∂t l
NL
u= u m Ncm . . . time integral of the source voltage
m=1
∂A
curlνcurlA + ξ − ξ u̇eϕ = 0;
∂t
eϕ . . . unit vector in current direction

A = Aeϕ , A = Ak Nk ; Nk = Nk eϕ ;
k∈N

 1 incm
Ncm = Nk =
k∈cm
0 elsewhere.
Fig. 2. Circuit model for three turns. All branches and nodes are coupled
via complete capacitance and inductance matrices. The Galerkin equations are
   
Ak curlNi · vcurlNk d + Ȧk Ni · Nk d
backward Euler procedure. The resistances are updated in k∈N  k∈N 
every time step with their actual values obtained by a finite-

NL 
element eddy current calculation with the currents resulting − u̇ m ξ Ni · Ncm d = 0 i ∈ N
from actual solution of the circuit model. The backward Euler m=1 cm
step is repeated with this resistance. This iteration is continued Ȧk 

until the current converges. The convergence of the iterative − ξ Nk · Ncl d
process is fast, usually only two iteration steps are necessary k∈N cl
for each time step 
NL
⎡ ⎤⎧ di1 ⎫ + ξ Ncm · Ncl d = i l
L 11 L 12 L 13 0 0 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
dt ⎪
u̇ m
⎪ di ⎪
⎢ L 12 L 22 L 13 ⎥⎪ ⎪ 2⎪
⎨ ⎪ cl
dt ⎬
0 0 m=1
⎢ ⎥ di l = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N L
⎢ L 13 L 23 L 33 0 0 ⎥ 3 (4)
⎢ ⎥⎪ dt ⎪
⎣ 0 0 0 C12 +C22 +C23 −C23 ⎦⎪ ⎪ du 2 ⎪
⎪ where N is the set of all nodes and cl is the cross section of
⎪
⎪ dt ⎪ ⎪
0 0 0 −C23 C13 +C23+C33 ⎩ du 3 ⎭ the lth strand with the current i l . These currents are taken
dt
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ from the branch currents of the circuit description divided
R1 0 0 1 0 ⎪ ⎪ i1 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ u1 ⎪
⎪
⎢ 0 ⎥⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪0 ⎪
⎪ by 19. The solution of (4) is used to get the eddy current
⎢ R 2 0 −1 1 ⎥ ⎨ i 3 ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
⎢ ⎥
−1 ⎥ i 3 loss and hence the resistance of each single strand and to
+⎢ 0 0 R3 0 = 0 .
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ update the branch (turn) resistances (the parallel connection of
⎣ −1 1 0 0 0 ⎦⎪ ⎪
⎪ u ⎪ ⎪ C du 1 ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ dt ⎪
2 12
⎩ ⎭ the 19 strand resistances for each turn) in the circuit model in
0 0 −1 0 0 u3 C13 du dt
1
an iterative way as described in Section II. The computational
(1) time for the example presented in Section IV is about 100 s
The approximation of the full standard LI wave shape is per time step on Intel i7 architecture.
done by the superposition of two exponential functions:
t t IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
u(t) = A(e− T − e− R ) (2)
In Figs. 3–5 some distributions of the electric potential
where A = 103.8 kV, T = 68 μs, and R = 0.41 μs. The of the magnetic field and of the eddy current density are
chopped wave case is defined by shown for different time instances. The left-hand side of Fig.
3 shows the potential distribution at the early time instant of
u(t) = A(e− T − e− R ); t ≤ t0
t t

0.2 μs (the maximal value of the exciting LI is 100 kV at

u(t) = A(e− T − e− R )
t t
t = 2 μs) and the right plot depicts the potential at a later
t−t0 t−t0
− − time instant of 10 μs. In Fig. 4, the magnetic flux density is
−A(e T1 −e R1 ) − A S e f ( t −t0) ln D
plotted at 0.25 μs (left) and 10 μs (right). On the left-hand
sin(2π f (t − t0 )); t > t0 (3)
side of Fig. 5, the magnetic field in the vicinity of the
with T1 = 71.67 μs, R1 = 0.038 μs, t0 = 2 μs A S = 20 kV, excitation point is shown at 0.25 μs. One can observe that the
f = 1 MHz, and D = 0.5. interior of the strands is more or less free of magnetic field.
PREIS et al.: TRANSIENT BEHAVIOR OF LARGE TRANSFORMER WINDINGS
Fig. 3. Potential distribution at t = 0.2 μs (left) and t = 10 μs (right).
Fig. 4. Magnetic field at t = 0.25 μs (left) and at t = 10 μs (right).
Fig. 5. Magnetic field in the region of excitation at t = 0.25 μs (left). Eddy
current distribution in turn 372 (19 strands, geometry slightly simplified) at
t = 10 μs (right).
The right-hand side of Fig. 5 shows a typical eddy current
density distribution in turn 372 (see its position in Fig. 1)
at 10 μs for all 19 single strands. The eddy current distribution
is rather extreme, requiring an appropriately fine finite-element
mesh, especially near the surface of the strands. At earlier
time instances, the eddy current distribution is even more
extreme.
In Fig. 6, the eddy current resistances of turn 1 and turn 361
(see their positions in Fig. 1) versus time are shown. The
resistances are several hundred times higher than the respective
direct current (dc) resistances. Therefore, their influence on
currents and voltages is significant. This can be seen in Fig. 7,
where the voltage at turn 12 (black curve, see its position
in Fig. 1) taking eddy currents into account is compared with
7203904
Fig. 6. Eddy current resistances Reddy of turn 1 (Rdc = 0.3483 m, black
curve) and of turn 361 (excitation point, Rdc = 0.503 m, gray curve)
Fig. 7. Voltage at turn 12 with eddy currents (black curve) and without eddy
currents (gray curve).
Fig. 8. Comparison of the voltage at turn 12 for three different time steps: 1 ns
(thin black curve), 2.5 ns (gray curve), and 5 ns (thick black curve).
the voltage in the case with the dc resistance of turn 12 consid-
ered only (gray curve). In the first few microseconds, the two
curves are almost identical since the capacitances dominate
initially.
It is known that the simple backward Euler method is
not energy conserving potentially resulting in non-physical
numerical damping if the time step is not small enough.
To illustrate that numerical damping is not present in the
computations, the voltage at turn 12 is shown in Fig. 8 between
20 and 30 μs for three different time steps: 1, 2.5, and 5 ns.
The magnitude of the three amplitudes is quite similar, and
the numerical damping is negligible. The different waveforms
result from the fact that smaller time steps are capable of
representing higher frequency oscillations.
In Fig. 9, the time dependence of the potential of turn 12
can be seen for different values of time steps (5 ns: thin
black curve, 20 ns: thin gray curve, and 100 ns: thick
black curve). The position of the turn is indicated in Fig. 1.
As reference solution (100 ns: thick gray curve), the results
of a lumped parameter model are used [2], [6]. In this
7203904
Fig. 9. Time variation of u12 for three different time steps (5, 20, and 100 ns).
The reference solution (thick gray curve) is taken from a lumped model.
Fig. 10. Voltages at turn 361 (excitatation point, full wave: thick black curve;
chopped wave: thick gray curve) and at turn 372 (full wave: thin black curve;
chopped wave: thin gray curve). Time step: 2 ns.
lumped model, the inductances and capacitances of all 12 turns
of two neighboring disks are lumped to one value. Such a
double disk lumping is quite usual for similar applications.
Hence, the first accessible potential value in the lumped model,
i.e., the one at turn 12 of our model, has been chosen as
reference. The values for the L- and C-matrices are derived
from analytical approximation methods (for C) and series
expansions (for L). The differences between the reference
curve and the blue curve (where the higher frequencies are
suppressed due the large time step) lies in the inaccurate L- and
C-values as well as in the insufficiently precise consideration
of eddy current losses in the lumped model. At finer time
steps, higher frequencies of up to 8 MHz can be seen. This is
also approximately the limit of the single-turn method.
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of full wave (thick black curve)
and chopped wave (thick gray curve) excitation at turn 361
(excitation point) for a chopping time of 2 μs and a time
step of 2 ns. At turn 372 (see its position in Fig. 1), the
resulting potentials are shown for both excitations (full wave:
thin black curve; chopped wave: thin gray curve). The front
time of chopping is not too high (0.12 μs) and the time step
is rather small so that no additional higher oscillations can
be seen in the chopped case compared with the full wave
excitation.
Finally, a comparison of full wave and chopped wave
excitation with the reference lumped double disk solution
(time step 20 ns for the lumped model) is shown for turn 12
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 54, NO. 3, MARCH 2018
Fig. 11. Voltage at turn 12, chopped wave (thin gray curve) versus full
wave (thin black curve) using a time step of 2 ns. The reference solutions
(full wave: thick black curve; chopped wave: thick gray curve) are taken from
a lumped double disk model with a time step of 20 ns.
in Fig. 11. Again, there are deviations between the single-turn
and lumped-turn model for the same reasons as mentioned
above.
V. C ONCLUSION
The single-turn model used in this paper is the most
detailed “lumped turn” model possible. It is valid as long
as the circumference of one turn is electrically short (less
than one sixth to one tenth of the wavelength). Even for
relatively short front times occurring in the chopped wave case
(often less than 0.12 μs), the method is still valid for large
power transformers. In the case of gas insulated arrangements
(e.g., SF6 ) where times of a few nanoseconds are usual, the
method may fail and transmission line methods have to be
applied for the simulation. In addition, the lumped model
yielding the reference results has the disadvantage that it uses
inaccurate circuit parameters mostly calculated with analytical
and series approximations and also that it is not capable of
taking eddy current losses properly into account.
To the knowledge of the authors, the method presented
in this paper to include the effects of the time varying
resistance due to eddy currents has not been published before.
An alternative way to solve the problem would be to work in
the frequency domain using convolution integrals [5].
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Smajic et al., “Simulation and measurement of lightning-impulse
voltage distributions over transformer windings,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 50, no. 2, Feb. 2014, Art. no. 7013604.
[2] W. Seitlinger, “Transformers at transient excitation,” (in German), e&i,
vol. 108, nos. 7–8, pp. 318–328, 1991.
[3] document IEC 60060-1, ch. 7.
[4] J. Weiss and Z. Cendes, “Efficient finite element solution of multipath
eddy current problems,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-18, no. 6,
pp. 1710–1712, Nov. 1982.
[5] J. Smajic et al., “Computational and experimental investigation of
distribution transformers under differential and common mode tran-
sient conditions,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 53, no. 6, Jun. 2017,
Art. no. 8400404.
[6] S. Okabe, M. Koto, G. Ueta, T. Saida, and S. Yamada, “Development
of high frequency circuit model for oil-immersed power transformers
and its application for lightning surge analysis,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insul., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 541–552, Apr. 2011.