Calculation of Circuit Parameters of High Frequency

Models for Power Transformers using FEM

Álvaro Portillo1, Luiz Fernando de Oliveira2 and Federico Portillo1
1
Independent Transformer Consultants, Brenda 5920, 11400, Montevideo, Uruguay
2
WEG – Power Transformers, Blumenau, Brazil
E-mail: acport18@gmail.com

Abstract— To study the transient interaction between the transformers and the power system is essential use very accurate
transformer models considering the dependence of damping with frequency. In this work the fundamentals of transformer
parameters calculation for high frequency transients using finite elements method (FEM) are reviewed and a promissory time-
domain equivalent circuit is proposed based in the analysis of transient measurements results obtained by the CIGRE JWG
A2/C4.52 in two transformers manufactured by WEG in Mexico.
Index Terms—Transformer white-box models, parameter calculation, damping in function of frequency, FEM.

I. INTRODUCTION

Transient overvoltages in the power system are one of the root causes of transformer dielectric failures [1]. Such failures
can occur even when the transformer was designed to meet the lightning and switching impulse tests and protected by
surge arresters. One of the reasons for such failure is that the transformer is exposed to overvoltages with different shapes
than found in the lightning and switching impulse tests, e.g. steeper wave fronts and oscillating waveforms. The standard
lightning impulse voltage waves used in transformer factory testing does not properly cover all the overvoltage stresses
that a transformer can experience while in service.
CIGRE formed in 2008 Working Group JWG A2/C4.39 [2] [3] (“Electrical transient interaction between transformers
and the power system”) with the objective to clarify the underlying reason for such failures and if possible, recommend
procedures for avoiding their occurrence. One of the major conclusions from that work is the observation that oscillating
overvoltages of relatively low amplitudes that impinge the transformer terminals, with frequencies close to the natural
frequencies of the transformer, can result in excessive overvoltages inside the transformer’s windings by resonance as has
also been documented in several past studies [4] to [12].
The maximum value of the resonance voltages is highly dependent of the damping effect of the core's and winding's
losses, that are strongly frequency dependent, and therefore, for the determination of the internal transformer voltages
during such resonant transients is essential count with transformer models which can represent the frequency dependence
of transformer impedances in the range of frequencies involved in the transient.
The assessment of internal winding dielectric stresses is in the case of power transformers routinely performed by the
manufacturers using in-house calculation programs called white-box models. The white-box models can be categorized
as lumped parameters circuit models based on a spatial discretization of the windings, or distributed parameters models
based on traveling wave-type approaches. The extraction of the model’s parameters is in all cases based on a detailed
description of the transformer’s geometry and materials properties. From this information, the model’s parameters are
extracted via formulae and/or finite element method (FEM) computations.
Frequency-dependent damping can be obtained using empirical damping factors which are embedded directly in the
applied state-space model [13] [14] or with more sophisticated models using equivalent circuits that are capable to model
with high precision the damping effects consequence of core losses [15] and proximity and skin losses in winding
conductors [16] [17]. All the various modelling approaches have their advantages and disadvantageous regarding
accuracy and computational effort.
CIGRE JWG A2/C4.52 has in 2016 performed an extensive measurement campaign on a single-phase and a three-phase
transformer, manufactured by WEG in Mexico, in order to assess/improve the accuracy of currently applied white-box
models, and to provide input for black-box and grey-box modelling [18]. The measurements involve frequency domain
and time domain measurements at the transformer external terminals and at some internal points [19].
To evaluate the accuracy of the existing white-box models the complete design of both transformers measured in México
was distributed between the members of the working group that have software able to calculate the internal voltage
distribution when applying transient voltages on some of the transformer external terminals.
Comparison with measurements shows that the white-box models need improvements for use in system studies which
includes oscillating overvoltages on the terminals. In the time domain the results demonstrate a quite good agreement in
the prediction of the maximum voltages values that appears in the measured points inside the transformers but a poor
agreement in the temporal wave shapes which are dependent on the natural (resonance) frequencies of the transformer.
Was also calculated, the admittance matrix in the frequency domain for both transformers, to compare with the admittance
matrices measured in the frequency domain in the transformers in México, and the calculated results looks very much
better.
The comparatives shown the importance of take into account in the model the damping variation with frequency to
improve the calculated results and the most promissory calculation approach is lumped parameters models [20] [21] based
 in calculate the transformer impedances using frequency scan with finite elements [22] using the principle of the complex
permittivity [23] [24] followed by vector fitting [25] [26] [27] and finally synthesis in the time domain of an equivalent
constant parameters circuit using magnetic coupled circuits [16] or first order series Foster circuits [17] for each branch
of the transformer. We will present the fundamentals of this calculation approach in this paper.
It is hoped that this paper can provide a basic information level to the reader already familiar with the subject, so that it
is possible for him to analyse in an objective way the quality and accuracy of high-frequency transformer and shunt reactor
models for transient studies. The evaluation of such capability is of fundamental importance during the design review
process of power transformers and shunt reactors.

II. CALCULATION PROCEDURE

The proposed calculation method consists of the following steps:

Step 1: A lumped parameter circuit model will be used, then the transformer windings are divided in 𝑛 elements or
branches. For example, for a disc winding each branch can be a group of discs, a pair of disks, a disk or a turn. The more
branches are used to represent the windings in the transformer’s model, better it will be able to represent higher frequency
transients accurately. Each branch has two nodes and the nodes belonging to each winding will be connected according
to the winding design (continuous disc, interleaved, disc, multi-start winding, etc.). The total number of nodes of the
transformer will be 𝑞.
Step 2: A certain number of logarithmically spaced frequencies 𝑓𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝) with 𝑝 in the order of 14 to 20 are
selected in the range of 50 Hz to 1 MHz:
1
𝑓𝑘+1 = 𝑓𝑘 × 10𝑛𝑑 (1)
where 𝑛𝑑 is the number of frequency samples per decade.
Example: with 𝑛𝑑 = 3 and 𝑓1 = 50 Hz we obtain 𝑝=14 frequencies between 50 Hz and 1077.2 kHz and with 𝑛𝑑 = 4 and
𝑓1 = 10 Hz we obtain 𝑝=17 frequencies between 10 Hz and 1 MHz.
Step 3: For each frequency an equivalent anisotropic complex permeability is calculated for each transformer winding
strand (strand by strand, not turn by turn, for example each turn of a winding can be a CTC with many strands) according
to Moreau equations [23] in function of strand dimensions and frequency.
Step 4: Sometimes a homogenization process is applied to reduce the size of the model. Based in the complex permeability
of each strand, the geometry of the branch containing the stand and the insulation between strands, an equivalent complex
permeability is obtained for each branch (group of strands to form a turn and group of turns to form a branch, for example
in a disc winding a pair of discs).
Step 5: The matrix of inductive transformer impedances (dimension 𝑛 × 𝑛):
𝑍𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) = 𝑅𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) + 𝑗2𝜋𝑓𝑘 𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝 (2)
is calculated for each frequency 𝑓𝑘 using FEM [22] solving a 2D-axisymmetric complex magnetostatics problem,
modelling each branch with an equivalent material with conductivity equal 0 and anisotropic complex permeability
calculated in Step 4. This impedance matrix includes proximity effect but not include the skin effect.
Step 6: The skin effect impedances:
𝑍𝑖𝑖𝑠 (𝑓𝑘 ) = 𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑠 (𝑓𝑘 ) + 𝑗2𝜋𝑓𝑘 𝐿𝑠𝑖𝑖 (𝑓𝑘 ) 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝 (3)
are calculated for each frequency 𝑓𝑘 using FEM [22] or Stoll [28] formulas and added to diagonal elements of the matrix
of inductive transformer impedances.
Step 7: Using vector fitting we obtain for the matrix of inductive transformer impedances 𝒁(𝑠), from the values calculated
in Step 5 and 6 for the frequencies 𝑓𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝), an expression of the type:
𝑟=𝑚
𝑪𝒌
𝒁(𝑠) = 𝑫 + 𝑠𝑬 + ∑ (4)
𝑠 − 𝑎𝑘
𝑟=1
The number of stable real poles 𝑚 must be select as small as possible but enough to obtain a small rms error in the fitting
process (less than 4 × 10−3 ). Normally 𝑚 results between 4 to 6 depending of the complexity of the transformer.
Step 8: A topology for the inductive time domain equivalent circuit of each branch is defined. The two most usual
approach are using coupled magnetic circuits [16] or first order series Foster circuits [17].
Step 9: Once the topology of the inductive equivalent circuit has been defined, it is possible to calculate the impedance
matrix represented by this circuit based on the resistances and self and mutual inductances of the circuit and put them in
a format similar to that of the vector fitting (4):
𝑟=𝑚
̅𝒌
𝑪
̅ + 𝑠𝑬
𝒁(𝑠) = 𝑫 ̅+∑ (5)
𝑠 − 𝑎̅𝑘
𝑟=1
By matching these expressions (4) and (5), a system of non-linear equations is obtained that allows determining the
parameters of the equivalent circuit.
Step 10: The capacitances of the transformer are calculated by FEM in a turn-to-turn level. The capacitances are assumed
constant with frequency and the dielectric losses normally are disregarded. The capacitive impedance matrix is finally
reduced from turn-to-turn level to branch-to-branch level according to the defined inductive branches to be compatible
 with the inductive equivalent circuit.
Step 11: The calculated capacitances are included in the inductive time domain equivalent circuit to obtain the complete
time domain equivalent circuit of the transformer.
Step 12: Finally, the total time domain equivalent circuit of the transformer is solved for the transient under investigation
using commercial circuit solvers (as SPICE, EMTP, ATP, etc.).

III. COMPLEX PERMEABILITY PRINCIPLE

Standard FEM eddy current calculations are not practical in real transformers at high frequencies because is necessary
use very huge meshes with at least two finite elements in the skin depth 𝛿 which turn the calculation impossible (skin
depth for copper at 1 MHz is 0.066 mm). The skin depth is calculated in (6) in function of the angular frequency 𝜔,
permeability 𝜇 (𝜇 = 𝜇0 for copper or aluminium) and conductivity 𝜎 of the conductor material.
y

2
𝛿=√ (6) →
j
𝜔𝜇𝜎
h →
→
k i x

z
e
Figure 1: Conductor dimensions and coordinates

For the calculation of losses in the conductors due to proximity effects the principle of complex permeability is applied.
The approach consists in replace the conductors (strands) with a non-conductive ferromagnetic material described by a
complex anisotropic permeability 𝜇̅𝑥 and 𝜇̅𝑦 (elliptical hysteresis loop) calculated in such a way that the complex power
(active and reactive) in each conductor remains unchanged.

The complex permeability 𝜇̅𝑥 and 𝜇̅𝑦 is calculated in function of frequency and strand dimensions (ℎ and 𝑒 in Figure 1)
using formulas (7), (8), (9) and (10) from references [23] [24].
ℎ ℎ ℎ ℎ
𝜇𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 ) 𝜇𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 )
Re(𝜇̅𝑥 ) = (7) Im(𝜇̅𝑥 ) = − (8)
ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (ℎ) ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (ℎ)
𝛿 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿
𝑒 𝑒 𝑒 𝑒
𝜇𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 ) 𝜇𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 )
Re(𝜇̅𝑦 ) = (9) Im(𝜇̅𝑦 ) = − (10)
𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (𝑒 ) + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑒 ) 𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (𝑒 ) + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑒 )
𝛿 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿
Using the complex permeability principle, the FEM problem is reduced to solve a complex magnetostatics problem that
allows a coarse mesh.

IV. HOMOGENIZATION PROCESS

Since the branches are normally a group of rectangular conductors with his respective insulation a homogenization
process, based on reluctance considerations, is sometimes applied to determinate one equivalent anisotropic permeability
𝜇̅𝑥′ and 𝜇̅𝑦′ for each winding branch or element to reduce the size of the problem to solve.
2
2

1 3 1
1 3 1

2
2

Figure 2: Homogenization in x direction Figure 3: Homogenization in y direction

 𝑎 𝑒 𝑒
𝑅1𝑥 = 𝑅2𝑥 = 𝑅3𝑥 = (11)
𝜇0 (ℎ + 𝑏)𝑙 𝜇0 𝑏𝑙 𝜇̅𝑥 ℎ𝑙
𝑅2𝑥 𝑅3𝑥 𝑒+𝑎
𝑅𝑥 = 𝑅1𝑥 + = (12)
𝑅2𝑥 + 𝑅3𝑥 𝜇̅𝑥′ (ℎ + 𝑏)𝑙
𝑒+𝑎
𝜇̅𝑥′ =
𝑎 𝑒(ℎ + 𝑏) (13)
+
𝜇0 𝜇̅𝑥 ℎ + 𝜇0 𝑏
ℎ+𝑏 𝑏 ℎ
𝑅1𝑦 = 𝑅2𝑦 = 𝑅3𝑦 = (14)
𝜇0 𝑎𝑙 𝜇0 𝑒𝑙 𝜇̅𝑦 𝑒𝑙
𝑅1𝑦 (𝑅2𝑦 + 𝑅3𝑦 ) ℎ+𝑏
𝑅𝑦 = = ′ (15)
𝑅1𝑦 + 𝑅2𝑦 + 𝑅3𝑦 𝜇̅𝑦 (𝑒 + 𝑎)𝑙
ℎ+𝑏 𝑏 ℎ
+ +
𝜇 0 𝑎 𝜇 0 𝑒 𝜇̅ 𝑦𝑒
𝜇̅𝑦′ = (16)
𝑒+𝑎 𝑏 ℎ
( + )
𝜇0 𝑎 𝜇0 𝑒 𝜇̅𝑦 𝑒

Based in the geometry of Figures 2 and 3, where 𝑙 is the length of the branch under consideration, the equivalent
reluctances are calculated in direction 𝑥 (11) (12) to obtain 𝜇̅𝑥′ in (13) and the equivalent reluctances are calculated in
direction 𝑦 (14) (15) to obtain 𝜇̅𝑦′ in (16).
Then, each branch in the FEM model is replaced by a non-conductive material with anisotropic complex permeability 𝜇̅𝑥′
and 𝜇̅𝑦′ reducing the size of the model from strand by strand to branch by branch.

V. MODELLING OF CORE INFLUENCE

Transformer cores in power transformers are built using thin cold rolled grain oriented (CRGO) silicon steel laminations
stacking together in such a way that the direction of the magnetic flux produced in the core by the windings coincides
with the rolling direction of the magnetic steel.
There are three different type of core losses: classic eddy current losses or Foucault losses, hysteresis losses and
anomalous loss. The Foucault losses increase in higher frequencies and are relatively easy to calculate and the two latter
components are not easy to estimate and are normally disregarded.
The laminations are subjected to an alternating magnetic flux density and as consequence appears eddy currents that
affects the magnetic field distribution as well the effective permeability of the laminations and create Foucault losses in
the core.
This phenomena affects the inductive transformer impedances and is modelled in FEM using for the core a material with
a conductivity 𝜎 and an anisotropic complex permeability (𝜇̅𝑥𝑥 and 𝜇̅𝑦𝑦 ) that can be calculated in function of frequency
using formulas (17) and (18) from reference [15].
𝑏
tanh ((1 + 𝑗) )
2𝛿𝑥 2
𝜇̅𝑥𝑥 = 𝑘𝐹𝐸 𝜇0 𝜇𝑥𝑥 𝛿𝑥 = √ (17)
𝑏 𝜔𝜎𝜇 0 𝜇𝑥𝑥
(1 + 𝑗)
2𝛿𝑥

𝑏
tanh ((1 + 𝑗) )
2𝛿𝑦 2
𝜇̅𝑦𝑦 = 𝑘𝐹𝐸 𝜇0 𝜇𝑦𝑦 𝛿𝑦 = √ (18)
𝑏 𝜔𝜎𝜇0 𝜇𝑦𝑦
(1 + 𝑗)
2𝛿𝑦

Where 𝑥 is the rolling direction, 𝑏 is the laminations thickness, 𝑘𝐹𝐸 is the core stacking factor (≈ 0.96), and typical values
for 𝜎, 𝜇𝑥𝑥 and 𝜇𝑦𝑦 are:
𝑆 𝜇𝑥𝑥
𝜎 = 5 × 106 𝜇𝑥𝑥 = 500 𝜇𝑦𝑦 = = 16.7
𝑚 30
The influence of the core is highly dependent of the winding terminals connections during the transient under analysis.
In factory acceptance tests the transient voltage is applied to one of the transformer terminals and all the other terminals
are grounded. In that case the influence of the core in high frequencies is not important and can be disregarded. In service
the situation is completely different, and the transformer terminals are connected to surge arresters and eventually to loads
and in this case the influence of the core in transients is of paramount importance in the high-frequency behaviour of the
transformer and must be considered in the transformer model. There is a tendency in some utilities to make the impulse
 test with the winding terminals open, connected to the surge arresters, to try to reproduce in the test conditions most
similar as possible to service.

VI. CALCULATION OF TRANSFORMER INDUCTIVE IMPEDANCES IN FUNCTION OF FREQUENCY

Since the elements of the inductive impedance matrix (resistive and inductive) have a very smooth frequency dependence,
it is possible use a frequency scan with no more than 20 logarithmically spaced frequencies 𝑓𝑘 to interpolate such
dependence in 5 decades (10 Hz to 1 MHz).
The losses in the transformer came from several different contributions: ohmic or DC losses, skin-effect losses and
proximity effect losses in the winding conductors and losses in the silicon steel laminated core.
To calculate the consequence of core and proximity effect in the impedance, FEMM [22] with anisotropic complex
permeability 𝜇̅ is used, in the frequency domain, using the potential vector 𝐴⃗ formulation (19) for determine the
⃗⃗ (20) in the transformer geometry for each frequency 𝑓𝑘 , and then the impedances are
distribution of the flux density 𝐵
calculated from the complex fluxes. The winding conductors are modelled using the complex permeability principle
followed by homogenization as is described in sections III and IV, and the core effect is modelled using also an anisotropic
complex permeability considering the effect of sheets lamination as is described in section V.
A current 𝐼𝑖 is imposed in branch 𝑖 (𝐼𝑖 = 1 𝐴), equation (19) is solved, the flux 𝜙̅𝑗 is calculated in branch 𝑗 (𝐼𝑗 = 0 𝐴) using
equations (20) and (21), the complex inductance is obtained in (22) and finally the resistance 𝑅𝑖𝑗 and inductance 𝐿𝑖𝑗 of
𝑍𝑖𝑗 are calculated in (23) and (24) for frequency 𝑓𝑘 . To complete the impedance matrix this process is repeated for all the
frequencies 𝑓𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝) and all the branches (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛).
1
∇ ∧ ( ∇ ∧ 𝐴⃗) = 𝐽⃗𝑖 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 (19)
𝜇̅
𝐵⃗⃗ = ∇ ∧ 𝐴⃗ (20)
0
𝜙̅𝑗 = ∫𝑆 𝐵⃗⃗ × 𝑛⃗⃗ 𝑑𝑆 = ∫0(∇ ∧ 𝐴⃗) × 𝑛⃗⃗ 𝑑𝑆 = ∮0 𝐴⃗ × ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑑𝑃 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛 (21)
𝑆 𝐶

𝜙̅𝑗
𝐿̅𝑖𝑗 = 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛 (22)
𝐼𝑖
𝑅𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) = −2𝜋𝑓𝑘 Im(𝜙̅𝑗 ) (23) 𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) = Re(𝜙̅𝑗 ) (24)

To calculate the ohmic and skin losses effect a self-resistance 𝑅𝑠 (25) and a self-inductance 𝐿𝑠 (26), derived from an
analytical 2D magnetic field calculation [28], are calculated for each conductor and added to the diagonal terms of the
previous calculated inductance matrix.
ℎ ℎ 𝑒 𝑒
1 𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 ) ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 ) Ω
𝑅𝑠 = 2[ ( )+ ( ) + 2]
𝑒 ℎ 2𝛿 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (ℎ) 2𝛿 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (𝑒 ) − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑒 ) 𝑚 (25)
4𝜎 ( + ) 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿
2 2
ℎ ℎ 𝑒 𝑒
𝑒𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 )
𝜇0 ℎ𝛿 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝛿 ) − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝛿 ) H
𝐿𝑠 = [ ( )+ ( )] (26)
𝑒 ℎ 2 4 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (ℎ) 4 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (𝑒 ) − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑒 ) 𝑚
4( + ) 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿 𝛿
2 2
In (25) and (26) ℎ and 𝑒 are the axial and radial conductor dimensions (Figure 1) and 𝜎 is the conductivity of the conductor
material.
Then the matrix of inductive transformer impedances (dimension 𝑛 × 𝑛) is calculated for each frequency 𝑓𝑘 :
𝑍𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) = 𝑅𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) + 𝑗2𝜋𝑓𝑘 𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑓𝑘 ) 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝 (27)
Finally, using vector fitting [25] [26] [27] we obtain a mathematical expression 𝒁(𝑠) for the matrix of inductive
impedances from the values calculated in (27) for the frequencies 𝑓𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝):
𝑟=𝑚
𝑪𝒌
𝒁(𝑠) = 𝑫 + 𝑠𝑬 + ∑ (28)
𝑠 − 𝑎𝑘
𝑟=1
Where 𝑫, 𝑬 and 𝑪𝒌 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟) are real constant matrices.
To represent properly a circuit that contains only resistances and self and mutual inductances the poles 𝑎𝑘 must be negative
real numbers and the number of poles 𝑚 must be select as small as possible but enough to obtain a small rms error in the
fitting process (less than 4 × 10−3 ).
Normally for a model with a frequency range of five decades (10 Hz to 1 MHz) 𝑚 results between 4 to 6 depending of
the complexity of the transformer.
During the vector fitting process passivity is enforced because having a non-passive model may result in unstable time-
domain simulations.
VII. TIME DOMAIN INDUCTIVE EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT

One of the fundamental steps in the development of the model is define a topology for the time domain inductive
equivalent circuit. The advantage of having a time domain equivalent circuit is that it can work in combination with
models of the power systems in circuits solvers like EMPT, APT, SPICE, etc., is easy to include in the circuit the
capacitive effects and can be include in the transformer model non-linear elements, as internal surge arresters, internal air
series reactors to limit short-circuit currents and any other external impedance connected to the transformer terminals
during factory acceptance tests.
The equivalent circuit must be capable of represent the frequency dependent behaviour of the transformer inductance
matrix and for that there are two classical approaches to define the circuit topology: the Mombello’s circuit [16] that uses
auxiliary circuits magnetically coupled with the winding branches (Figure 4) and the Eslamian’s circuit [17] that uses
first order series Foster circuits to represent each winding branch (Figure 5).

Figure 4: One branch in Mombello’s approach Figure 5: One branch in Eslamian’s approach

Both circuits are equivalents, but the circuit parameters determination is directly and very much easy in the Mombello
approach than in the Eslamian approach where is necessary to solve iteratively a non-linear equations system that can
present convergence problems.
The complete Mombello’s circuit for a transformer with n branches is shown in Figure 6 (the mutual inductances are not
indicated in the Figure), where 𝑛 is the number of winding elements or branches, 𝑟 is the number of groups of auxiliary
or fictitious circuits and 𝑚 = 𝑛 × 𝑟 de total number of auxiliary circuits.
The equivalent circuit is based in two hypotheses:
1. It is not considered magnetic coupling between auxiliary coils
2. The resistance and self-inductance of all auxiliary circuits in each group are equal (𝑅𝑓𝑘 and 𝐿𝑓𝑘 for 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)

Figure 4: Inductive equivalent Mombello’s circuit

The equations system that represents the inductive equivalent Mombello’s circuit are given in matrix form in (29).

𝑹𝒃 𝟎 𝟎 … 𝟎 𝒊𝒃 𝑳𝒃 𝑴𝟏 𝑴𝟐 … 𝑴𝒓 𝒊𝒃
𝒖𝒃
𝟎 𝟎 𝑹𝒇𝟏 𝟎 … 𝟎 𝒊𝒇𝟏 𝑴𝑡𝟏 𝑳𝒇𝟏 𝟎 … 𝟎 𝒊𝒇𝟏
𝟎 = 𝟎 𝟎 𝑹𝒇𝟐 … 𝟎 𝒊𝒇𝟐 + 𝑠 𝑴𝑡𝟐 𝟎 𝑳𝒇𝟐 … 𝟎 𝒊𝒇𝟐 (29)
… … … … … … … … … … … … …
[𝟎] [𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 … 𝑹𝒇𝒓 ] [𝒊𝒇𝒓 ] 𝑡 𝒊
[ 𝑴𝒓 𝟎 𝟎 … 𝑳𝒇𝒓 ] 𝒇𝒓 ]
[
Where:
𝒖𝒃 : vector (𝑛 × 1) with the voltages in the main branches
𝒊𝒃 : vector (𝑛 × 1) with the currents in the main branches
𝒆𝒇𝒌 : vectors (𝑛 × 1) with the induced voltages in the auxiliary circuits in group 𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)
𝒊𝒇𝒌 : vectors (𝑛 × 1) with the currents in the auxiliary circuits in group 𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)
𝑹𝒃 : diagonal matrix (𝑛 × 𝑛) with the resistances of the main branches
𝑳𝒃 : complete matrix (𝑛 × 𝑛) with self and mutual inductances of the main branches
𝑹𝒇𝒌 : diagonal matrices (𝑛 × n) with the resistances of the auxiliary circuits of group 𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)
𝑳𝒇𝒌 : diagonal matrices (𝑛 × n) with the self-inductances of the auxiliary circuits of group 𝑘 (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)
𝑴𝒌 : complete matrices (𝑛 × n) with the mutual inductances between main branches and auxiliary circuits of group 𝑘
(𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟)
 From the previous equations we obtain the inductive impedance of the equivalent circuit 𝒁𝒆𝒒 (𝑠) from the relationship
between the voltages [𝒖𝒃 ] and currents [𝒊𝒃 ] in the main branches (30).
𝑘=𝑟
2
1 𝑴2𝒌
𝒁𝒆𝒒 (𝑠) = 𝑹𝒃 + 𝑠𝑳𝒃 − 𝑠 ∑
𝐿𝑓𝑘 𝑅𝑓𝑘 (29)
𝑘=1 𝑠+
𝐿𝑓𝑘

VIII. DETERMINATION OF INDUCTIVE EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT PARAMETERS

The parameters of the equivalent inductive circuit are obtained matching the know impedance matrix 𝒁(𝑠) with the
unknow impedance matrix 𝒁𝒆𝒒 (𝑠) representative of the equivalent circuit.
In first place the impedance matrix 𝒁(𝑠) is converted in (30) to a format similar to 𝒁𝒆𝒒 (𝑠).
𝑘=𝑟
2
𝑲𝒌
𝒁(𝑠) = 𝑹 + 𝑠𝑳 − 𝑠 ∑ (30)
𝑠 + 𝜆𝑘
𝑘=1

Where:
𝑘=𝑟 𝑘=𝑟
𝑪𝒌 𝑪𝒌 𝑪𝒌
𝜆𝑘 = −𝑎𝑘 𝑲𝒌 = − 2 𝑹=𝑫−∑ 𝑳=𝑬−∑ (31)
𝑎𝑘 𝑎𝑘 𝑎𝑘2
𝑘=1 𝑘=1
Finally matching 𝒁𝒆𝒒 (𝑠) in (29) with 𝒁(𝑠) in (30) the parameters of the equivalent circuit are calculated:
𝑘=𝑟 𝑘=𝑟
𝑪𝒌 𝑪𝒌 (33)
𝑹𝒃 = 𝑫 − ∑ (32) 𝑳𝒃 = 𝑬 − ∑
𝑎𝑘 𝑎𝑘2
𝑘=1 𝑘=1
𝑅𝑓𝑘 (34)
= −𝑎𝑘 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟
𝐿𝑓𝑘
The equivalent circuit is not unique, in fact there are infinite solutions, and to determine the problem the values of 𝐿𝑓𝑘 for
𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟 are selected arbitrary and then the values of 𝑅𝑓𝑘 are calculated in (35) using equations (34).
𝑅 = −𝑎 𝐿 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟 (35)
𝑓𝑘 𝑘 𝑓𝑘

Finally, the matrices of the mutual inductances between the main branches and the auxiliary circuits are calculated with
equation (36).
𝐿𝑓𝑘 (35)
𝑴𝒌 = √− 𝑪 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑟
𝑎𝑘2 𝒌
If a matrix is positive definite the elements of his square root are real numbers, this means that the matrices 𝑴𝒌 must be
positive defined. This is the only condition that must be fulfilled to obtain the parameters of the Mombello’s equivalent
circuit, and the simplicity of the former equations is one of the most remarkable advantages of the Mombello’s approach.

IX. CALCULATION OF TRANSFORMER CAPACITIVE IMPEDANCES

FEM is widely used to accurately calculate the capacitance between two electrodes having any geometrical shape and
one of the advantages of FEM are that the fringing effects around the electrodes are automatically calculated.
The behaviour of a dielectric material in an electric field is described using a complex frequency-dependent permittivity:
𝜀̅ = 𝜀0 𝜀̅𝑟 = 𝜀 ′ (𝜔) − 𝑗𝜀 ′′ (𝜔) = 𝜀 ′ (𝜔)(1 − 𝑗 tan𝛿) (36)
The complex permittivity principle is analogous to complex permeability described in section III.
The capacitive impedance matrix (capacitances and conductances) of the transformer is calculated in a turn-to-turn level
(𝑛𝑡 × 𝑛𝑡 ) solving equation (37) with FEMM [22] for the potential 𝑉 using a complex permittivity 𝜀̅ (36) for each dielectric
material for different frequencies 𝑓𝑘 :
𝛻 × (𝜀̅ 𝛻𝑉) = 0 (37)
A voltage 𝑉𝑖 is imposed in turn 𝑖 (𝑉𝑖 = 1 𝑉), equation (37) is solved, the electric charge 𝑄𝑗 is calculated on the surface of
turn 𝑗, and the capacitance 𝐶𝑖𝑗 between turns 𝑖 and 𝑗 is calculated using equations (38) to (39).

⃗⃗ = 𝜀̅ 𝐸⃗⃗ = 𝜀̅ 𝛻𝑉
𝐷 (38)
0
𝑄𝑗 = ∫ ⃗𝐷
⃗⃗ × 𝑛
⃗⃗ 𝑑𝑆 (39)
𝑆𝑖
 𝑄𝑗
𝐶𝑖𝑗 = 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛𝑡 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛𝑡 (40)
𝑉𝑖
To complete the capacitive impedance matrix this process is repeated for all the frequencies (𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑝′) and all the
turns (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛𝑡 ).
The capacitances between each turn and ground 𝐶𝑖𝑖 are calculated applying the same principle.
The capacitive impedance matrix is finally reduced from turn-to-turn level to branch-to-branch level according to the
defined inductive branches to be compatible with the inductive equivalent circuit.
Typical dependency of complex permittivity with frequency for pressboard, paper and oil [29] [30], shows that the real
part has only very weak frequency dependency whereas the imaginary part (representing the dielectric losses) is strongly
frequency dependent for paper and pressboard and for oil the imaginary part is almost zero for all frequencies.
Studies and calculations carried out in the CIGRE working group by several members have shown that dielectric losses
and the dependence of capacitance with frequency have a second order effect in the accuracy of high-frequency
transformer's models and can be disregarded.

X. INCLUSION OF CAPACITANCES IN THE INDUCTIVE EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT

The inductive equivalent circuit is obtained connecting the branches of Figure 4 to represent the transformer windings
and then the capacitances are included in the circuit to obtain the total equivalent circuit of the transformer. The series
capacitance of each branch is connected in parallel with the respective branch and the parallel capacitance between
windings and between windings and ground are connected to the corresponding nodes of the windings.
As example, in Figure 5 is shown a transformer with two windings and each winding is divided in two branches. For this
case the number of branches is 4 and the number of nodes is 6. In Figure 6 is shown the complete equivalent circuit with
the series and parallel capacitances included (for simplicity the coupled auxiliary circuits and the mutual inductances are
not included in the figure).

Figure 5: Transformer scheme Figure 6: Transformer equivalent circuit

XI. SOLVING THE EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT IN TIME DOMAIN

Once the transformer equivalent circuit is ready, the internal connections between windings and the connections of
transformer terminals to the applied voltages and to ground are included in the circuit. The internal non-linear elements
(surge arresters), series reactors and external circuit elements, if exits, are also included and finally the circuit is solved
in the time-domain by any circuit solver like EMTP, ATP, SPICE, etc.
It is also possible to solve the model in the time domain in the form of space-state equations applying the trapezoidal rule
for integration. The results presented in section XII was calculated using this last approach.

XII. COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

In this section, the calculated voltages are compared with the measured values for the Cases 6 and 7 of the single-phase
transformer, manufactured by WEG in Mexico, and measured by CIGRE JWG A2/C4.52 in 2016, when a standard
lighting impulse (1.2/50us) is applied to terminal H1 of the transformer.
In Figure 7 are shown the connections diagram for Case 6 and in Figure 8 the calculated and measured voltages in
terminals H1, R1, X1 and Y1.
 Case 6
Y1 X1 Nom+ (Tap 11+)

+ 84 +149 -213 1
2
-219 3
4
5
k - 6
HV RW 7
+ 8
9
10
+217 11

+182
TV LV
+181
+216

HV RW

-214
-1 - 85 - 150

Y2 X0 H1 H0

Figure 7: Single Phase Transformer connection diagram for Case 6

Figure 8: Single Phase Transformer Case 6 comparatives

This same example was calculated in reference [31] using the classical approach with constant L and C matrices
(independent of frequency) and using Fergestad approach [13] [14] to consider damping in function of frequency. The
comparison between calculations and measurements are shown in Figures 10 and 11 of this reference.
From the inspection of these figures we can conclude that the classical calculation is acceptable in the prediction of the
maximum values of the voltages but is not very accurate in the determination of the oscillation frequencies.
Is evident comparing the results showed in Figure 8 with the results presented in Figures 10 and 11 of reference [31] that
the calculated values obtained in this work with the new proposed approach are very much better compared with the
measurements.
In Figure 9 are shown the connections diagram for Case 7 and in Figure 10 the calculated and measured voltages in
terminals R1 and X1 (the impulse voltage applied in terminal H1 is the same as in case 6).
 Case 7
Y1 X1 Nom+ (Tap 11+)

+ 84 +149 -213 1
2
-219 3
4
5
k - 6
HV RW 7
+ 8
9
10
+217 11

+182
TV LV
+181
+216

HV RW

-214
-1 - 85 - 150

Y2 X0 H1 H0

Figure 9: Single Phase Transformer connection diagram for Case 7

Figure 10: Single Phase Transformer Case 7 comparatives

XIII. CONCLUSIONS

The proposed model is the better approach, in opinion of the authors, considering the comparisons between measurements
results and the calculations made in the CIGRE WG A2/C4.52 for the transformers manufactured by WEG in Mexico.
The model can represent with great precision the effect of the damping dependence with the frequency and the equivalent
circuit obtained from the transformer model can be included without problems in the analysis of the interaction of the
transformer with the power system in any circuit solver like EMTP, ATP, SPICE, etc.

XIV. MEMORIAL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In first place we want to dedicate this work to Robert Degeneff, that passed away this year. Robert was pioneering in
developing high-frequency transformer models and shared generously his knowledge and experience with us for more
than thirty years. Secondly the authors would like to thank Bjorn Gustavsen, Enrique Mombello, Oliver Sterz, Tobias
Röhrl and Anniyappan Palani for their support and many fruitful discussions on transformer modelling in the last years
working together in the CIGRE JWG A2/C4.52.

XV. REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE WG A2.37: “Transformer reliability surveys”, Technical Brochure 642, December 2015
[2] CIGRE JWG A2/C4.39: “Electrical transient interaction between transformers and the power system. Part 1 - Expertise”, Technical Brochure
577A, April 2014
[3] CIGRE JWG A2/C4.39: “Electrical transient interaction between transformers and the power system. Part 2 – Case studies”, Technical Brochure
577B, April 2014
[4] W.J. McNutt, T.J. Blalock and R.A. Hinton: “Response of Transformer Windings to System Transient Voltages”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-93, Nº2, March 1974, pp 457-467
[5] H. B. Margolis, J. D. M. Phelps, A. A. Carlomagno and A. J. McElroy: “Experience with part-winding resonance in EHV auto-transformers:
Diagnosis and corrective measures”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-94, Nº4, Pt.1, pp. 1294–1300, July 1975
[6] A. J. McElroy: “On the significance of recent EHV transformer failures involving winding resonance”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-94, Nº4, Pt.1, pp. 1301–1307, July 1975
[7] R. J. Musil, G. Preininger, E. Schopper, and S. Wenger: “Voltage stresses produced by aperiodic and oscillating system overvoltages in transformer
windings”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, Nº1, pp. 431–441, January 1981
[8] R. J. Musil, G. Preininger, E. Schopper, and S. Wenger: “The resonance effect of oscillating system overvoltages on transformer windings”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-101, no. 10, pp. 3703–3711, October 1982
[9] R.C. Degeneff, W.J. McNutt, W. Neugebauer, J. Panek, M.E. McCallum and C. Honey: “Transformer Response to System Switching Voltages”,
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, Nº6, June 1982, pp 1457-1470
[10] CIGRE WG 12.07: “Resonance Behaviour of High-Voltage Transformers”, Paper presented in the name of Study Committee 12 (Transformers)
by Working Group 12.07, CIGRE 1984 Session, Paper 12-14
[11] E.E.Henriksen: “Study of Very Fast Transients Overvoltages in Transformers (VFTO)”, CIGRE Working Group 12.11, ELECTRA Nº179, August
1998, pp 12-23
[12] “Electrical Environment of Transformers – Impact of Fast Transients”, Prepared by CIGRE JWG A2/A3/B3.21, ELECTRA Nº218, February
2005, pp 24-37
[13] P. I. Fergestad: “Transient oscillations in transformer windings”, Thesis, Oslo Universitetsforlaget, 1972
[14] P. I. Fergestad and T. Henriksen: “Transient oscillations in multiwinding transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-93, Nº2, pp. 500–509, March 1974
[15] N. Abeywickrama, A. Podoltsev, Y. Serdyuk and S. Gubanski: “Influence of Core Characteristics on Inductance Calculations for Modelling of
Power Transformers”, First International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS 2006, 8-11 August 2006, Sri Lanka
[16] E. Mombello and H. Zini: “A novel linear equivalent circuit of a transformer winding considering the frequency-dependence of the impedances”,
Electric Power Systems Research 77, pp. 885-895, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, 2007
[17] M. Eslamian and B. Vahidi: “New Equivalent Circuit of Transformer Winding for the Calculation of Resonance Transients Considering
Frequency-Dependent Losses”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 30, Nº4, pp. 1743-1751, August 2015
[18] B. Gustavsen, Á. Portillo and H.K. Høidalen: “Modelling of transformers and reactors for electromagnetic transient studies”, Paper A2-213,
CIGRE Paris Biennale 2018
[19] B. Gustavsen, A. Portillo, R. Ronchi, A. Mjelve, "Measurements for validation of manufacturer's white-box transformer models", 4th International
Colloquium Transformer Research and Asset Management, May 10-12, 2017, Pula, Croatia. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 202, 2017, pp. 240-250
[20] CIGRE Technical Brochure JWG A2/C4.52: “High-Frequency Transformer and Reactor Models for Network Studies - Part 1: White-Box
Models” (to be published)
[21] Tobias Röhrl: “Dämpfungsmodelle für Leistungstransformatoren”, Masterarbeit, Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg, Fakultät
Elektro- und Informationstechnik, Februar 2017
[22] D.C. Meeker: “Finite Element Method Magnetics”, FEMM 4.2, April 2019, Available on-line: http://www.femm.info
[23] O. Moreau, L. Popiel and J. L. Page: “Proximity Losses Computation with a 2D Complex Permeability Modelling”, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, Vol. 34, Nº5, pp. 3616-3619, September 1998
[24] O. Moreau, R. Michel, T. Chevalier, G. Meunier, M. Joan and J.B. Delcorix: “3-D High Frequency Computation of Transformer R, L Parameters”,
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 41, Nº5, pp. 1364-1367, May 2005
[25] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen: “Rational Approximation of Frequency Domain Responses by Vector Fitting”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 14, Nº3, pp. 1052-1061, July 1999
[26] B. Gustavsen: “Improving the Pole Relocating Properties of Vector Fitting”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 21, Nº3, pp. 1587-1592,
July 2006
[27] D. Deschrijver, M. Mrozowski, T. Dhaene and D. De Zutter: “Macromodeling of Multiport Systems Using a Fast Implementation of the Vector
Fitting Method”, IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol.18, Nº6, pp. 383-385, June 2008
[28] R.L. Stoll: “The Analysis of Eddy Currents”, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1974
[29] N. Abeywickrama, C. Ekanayake, Y. Serdyuk and S. Gubanski: “Effects of the Insulation Quality on the Frequency Response of Power
Transformers”, Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1, Nº4, pp. 534-542, 2006
[30] E. Bjerkan: “High Frequency Modeling of Power Transformers”, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, PhD thesis,
2005
[31] B. Gustavsen and Á. Portillo: “A Damping Factor-Based White-Box Transformer Model for Network Studies”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol.33, Nº6, pp. 2956-2964, December 2018