See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3918459

A study on the inrush current phenomena in transformer substations

Conference Paper in Conference Record - IAS Annual Meeting (IEEE Industry Applications Society) · January 2001
DOI: 10.1109/IAS.2001.955643 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
27 1,356

1 author:

Mohamed Saied
Independent Researcher
231 PUBLICATIONS 1,086 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Saied on 12 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Study on the Inrush Current Phenomena in
Transformer Substations
Mohamed. M. Saied
Senior Member IEEE
Department of Electrical Engineering
College of Engineering and Petroleum
Kuwait University
P.O. Box 5969 Safat
13060 KUWAIT.
Fax: (+965) 4817451
Phone: (+965) 4811188 (Ext. 5829)
Email: mmsaied@netscape.net

Abstract: This paper investigates the inrush current

phenomena in substations including parallel-connected
transformers or transformer banks. It is based on
analytical expressions for the transformers’ nonlinear, and
generally not identical, magnetization curves (from curve
fitting of experimental data) and the numerical solution of
the differential equations. It will then be possible to
determine the waveforms of the interesting signals (i.e.
currents, fluxes and voltages) of each transformer, the total
substation current and the common bus voltage. This will
be followed by a study of the affecting parameters on the
expected magnitudes of eventually strongly distorted
waveforms of the individual transformers’ inrush currents.
The effect of eventually existing power factor correcting
shunt capacitors will be also investigated. It is believed that
the study will provide helpful information regarding the
protection of transformers and substations.

Key Words: Transformers, Substations, Inrush Current,

Protection, Transients.

I. INTRODUCTION

The available literature includes numerous
investigations on the inrush current phenomena in power
transformers and its impact on the design and operation of
their protection schemes [1-6]. Procedures such as voltage-
or harmonic-current-restraints are being used to
distinguish between large fault currents (for which fast
disconnection of the transformers is necessary) and
eventually excessive magnetizing inrush currents (for
which the transformer protection should not operate) [5,6].
Little work is available in the literature, such as [2,3], on
the inrush current in a transformer within a substation,
such as that indicated in Fig.1. It is expected that there will
be a mutual , sometimes called “sympathetic”, interaction
between the different transformers. This is primarily due
to the common supply impedance represented in the
equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 2 by its inductance and
resistance Rs . Other symbols are defined as:
Fig. 1: The sample transformer substation
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The starting point for analyzing the transients is the
accurate representation of the transformers’ magnetic
cores. There are several models suggested in the literature
for emulating the strongly nonlinear and multi-valued
function relating the core fluxes to the corresponding
exciting currents [1-4]. For this investigation, the relation
between the flux φ(t) and the magnetizing current i(t) of
each transformer is expressed by the following equation ,
as proposed in [1].
i = c. tan[( ϕ /a) – b.i] (1)
which is equivalent to

e(t) : the sinusoidal supply voltage of amplitude E m

v(t) : the common voltage at the transformer substation
bus-bar
iT 1 (t) and iT 2 (t): the individual transformer currents
ϕ 1 (t) and ϕ 2 (t) : the core fluxes
Rw1 and Rw 2 : parallel resistances representing the
transformers’ core losses.
0-7803-7116-X/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE
1180
ϕ = a. tan −1 (i/c) + a.b.i (2)
where a, b and c are transformer constants. They can be
easily determined using curve fitting techniques. In terms
of these three constants, it can be shown that the initial
value of the transformer magnetizing inductance is
(a.b+a/c) Henrys.

Fig. 2: Equivalent circuit of the substation
Together with the parallel resistances Rw1 and Rw 2
representing the transformers’ core losses, the hysteresis
effect as well as the eddy current losses can be taken into
account. It should be also noted that through the
appropriate choice of Rw1 and Rw 2 any transformer
unity power factor loading condition can be simulated.
Referring to Fig. 2, the governing equations are
e(t) = E m .sin( ω t+ α )=v(t)+ Rs . i s (t)
'
+ Ls . i s (t) (3)
ϕ (t) = ϕ (t) = v(t)
' '
(4)
1 2
i s (t) =[ i1 (t) + v(t)/ Rw1 ]+ [ i2 (t)
+ v(t)/ Rw 2 ] (5)
where i1(t) and i2(t) are the two magnetizing currents.
In Eq. (3), ω is the power angular frequency, and the
phase angle α describes the switching time point with
respect to the supply voltage waveform. For example,
α =0 means transformer switching at the zero crossing,
whereas α = π /2 represents a switching at the peak of the
supply voltage e(t). The initial conditions are given by:
i s (0)= i1 (0) ≈ - E m .cos α /[ ω . ( Ls + a.b+a/c)] and
i2 (0)=0.
If a power factor correcting capacitor of C Farads is
parallel-connected at the substation bus, then equation (5)
should be modified to
1181
i s (t) =[ i1 (t) + v(t)/ Rw1 ]+ [ i2 (t)
'
+ v(t)/ Rw 2 ] + C. v (t) (6)
and the corresponding initial conditions will be:
i s (0)= E m sin[ α - π /2].( ω 2
L P C -1) /
[ω L P Ls C -( Ls + L P ) ω ]
3
v(0)= E m sin α . L P / ( L P +(1- ω
2
L P C) Ls )
i1 (0)= E m sin[ α - π /2]/ { ω [ L P + Ls (1- ω 2
L P C)]}
and i 2 (0)=0.
with L P denoting the value of the parallel equivalence of
the two transformers’ initial inductances.
Using a Mathematica package for numerically solving
this set of simultaneous equations, it was possible to
determine the waveforms of the terminal currents iT 1 (t)=
i1 (t)+ v(t)/ Rw1 , iT 2 (t)= i2 (t)+ v(t)/ Rw 2 and the fluxes
ϕ 1 (t) , ϕ 2 (t) of each transformer, as well as the total
substation current i s (t) and the common bus voltage v(t).
III. SAMPLE RESULTS
The results are based on the following data for the 60-
Hz power network: E m =156V, Ls =0.01105H, Rs =10Ω
The two transformers are assumed identical with the
following parameters: Rw1 = Rw 2 =400 Ω, and for both
transformers the magnetization constants are:: a=0.3215,
b=0.0115 and c=1.1571
Case I: Switching of a Single Transformer:
To check the validity of the mathematical model and the
written Mathematica program, the case dealing with the
inrush current during a single transformer switching will
be presented. Numerically, this is simulated by putting
both the magnetic constant a 1 and the resistance
Rw1 = ∞ . The simulation results are depicted in Fig. 3, for
switching at the voltage zero crossing (i.e. α =0) , and in
Fig. 4 for the case α =90 denoting the switching of the
transformer at the peak of the supply voltage. Both
diagrams show the transformer current (solid curve in A),
and the bus voltage v(t) ( dotted curve divided by factor
10) , in Volts. It should be mentioned here that the current
curve in Fig. 3 is in agreement with the corresponding
results in reference [1].

Fig. 3: Simulation results for a single transformer switching at the zero
crossing of the supply voltage, i.e. α =0
Fig. 4: Simulation results for a single transformer
switching at the peak of the supply voltage,
i.e. α =90
Fig. 5: The hyteresis loop for a single transformer
switching at the voltage zero crossing
Figs. 3 and 4 show that the inrush current is most
dangerous if switching occurs at the zero crossing of the
supply voltage, i.e. α =0. It can reach momentarily values
1182
Fig. 6: The hyteresis loop for a single transformer
switching at the voltage peak
of several multiples of the expected steady state
magnetization current. Moreover, the high harmonic
content of the current in both cases is evident. The
hysteresis loops of the transformer are illustrated in Figs. 5
and 6 for α =0 and α =90, respectively. Fig. 5 indicates a
strongly unsymmetrical loop, as compared to the almost
symmetrical case of α =90,depicted in Fig. 6.
Case II: Switching of a Second Transformer to a
Connected Unloaded Transformer:
It is assumed that the first transformer T 1 was already
connected and drawing its steady state magnetizing
current, oscillating approximately between ± 2.5A, for a
long time, before the second transformer T 2 is energized at
t=0. The results will be given for the worst case of α =0.
The diagram in Fig. 7 illustrating the current in the already
connected transformer T 1 indicates the interesting fact that
this transformer also will exhibit an inrush phenomenon.
It is now oscillating between +1A and –5A. The dotted
curve shows the bus voltage v(t) (divided by factor 10) in
volts. The curves in Fig. 8 depict corresponding results for
the energized transformer T 2 . The effect of the presence
of T 1 on the energizing transient of T 2 is manifested in
the difference between the diagram in Fig. 3 describing
the results of Case I of single transformer switching. A
comparison of Figs. 3 and 8 will indicate that there is no
much effect of T 1 on the peak value of the energizing
transient of T 2 (about 8A in both cases). Nevertheless,
both transformers will need much longer time in order to
reach their steady state condition of symmetrical no-load
current curves (notice that according to Fig. 3 the
transformer needed only about two 60-Hz cycles to reach
the steady state). The supply current i s (t) and bus voltage
v(t) following energizing T 2 , α =0 are shown in Fig.9.
o
The current is seen to lag the voltage by about 90 , as
expected.
It is further noticed that the total current needs less than two
cycles to reach its symmetrical shape. It will then oscillate
between about ± 6A.

Fig. 7: The current in the already connected transformer T 1 , α =0. Fig. 10: The waveforms of the fluxes in both transformers after
energizing T 2 , α =0.

Fig. 8: The energizing current transient in transformer T 2 , α =0.

Fig. 11: The hysteresis loops of both transformers after

energizing T 2 , α =0.

T 1 (top) T 2 (bottom)

The two curves in Fig. 10 show the time waveforms of the

Fig. 9: The supply current i s (t) and bus voltage v(t) following magnetic fluxes in the already connected transformer T 1 and
energizing T 2 , α =0. the energized one T 2 for switching with α =0. As expected,

1183
since both transformers are in parallel, the difference between
the two fluxes will be constant. Hence, their time derivatives
(i.e. the induced EMF’s) will be equal.

Interesting also are the hysteresis loops of transformer T 1

(top) and T 2 (bottom) shown in Fig. 11, after energizing
T 2 , α =0. It is noticed that the DC offset of the transformers
are of opposite polarities. Apart from that fact, the two
hysteresis loops are exactly identical.

Case III: Switching of a Second Transformer to a Connected

Loaded Transformer

The following results describe the case in which the first

transformer T 1 was loaded by an ohmic resistance of 30 Ω ,
prior to the energization of T 2 . The circuit model takes
care of that, if the shunt resistance of the first transformer, i.e.
Rw1 , is replaced by the parallel equivalence of the load
resistance, 30 Ω, and Rw1 . The initial conditions must be
adjusted accordingly. Fig. 12 shows the almost sinusoidal
current waveform of T 1 . It is further seen that the voltage
and current waves are approximately in phase. This diagram
should be compared with that in Fig. 7 without any pre-
switching load.
Fig. 13: The energizing current transient in transformer T 2 , α =0.
Two interesting effects can be observed in Fig. 13 giving the
current in T 2 ,if compared with Fig, 8 for the case without
pre-switching load of T 1 . The first peak of the inrush current
in T 2 is smaller (about 5A in Fig. 13 compared to about 8A in
Fig. 8). Moreover, the subsequent peaks are only about 2.5A,
i.e. about half those in Fig,8. The above effects can be
attributed to the damping introduced by the load resistance
across T 1 and to the fact that the voltage across the
transformers’ terminals will be less than the supply voltage
due to the drop across Ls and Rs . These facts can be also
concluded from inspecting the hysteresis loop of T2
depicted in Fig. 14.

Fig. 12: The current in the already connected loaded

transformer T 1 , α =0.

Fig. 14: The hysteresis loop of T 2 , α =0.

T 1 is loaded by 30 Ω.

1184
 Fig. 16: The current in the already connected transformer T 1 , α =0.

Fig. 15: The supply current i s (t) and bus voltage v(t) following

energizing T 2 , α =0.

T 1 is loaded by 30 Ω.

The supply current is shown in Fig. 15. After just one half
cycle, the DC offset practically disappeared and the current
is almost sinusoidal. The supply voltage and supply current
waves are almost in phase. This diagram should be compared
with the corresponding one in Fig. 9 for the unloaded case.
More important, the peak values in Fig. 15 are generally
smaller than the corresponding (much sharper) peaks in
Fig. 9.
Fig. 17: The energizing current transient in transformer T 2 , α =0.
Case IV: Effect of The Source Impedance:

The network impedance is represented by the series

connection of the two elements Ls and Rs ,as shown in
Fig. 2. There are two issues regarding the effect of the source
impedance. On the one hand, increasing the source
impedance will result in a reduced voltage at the transformer
terminals, trying to reduce both the peak value and the
harmonic content of the inrush current of T 2 . On the other
hand, an increased source parameters will lead to an
increased interaction between the transformers due to the
common voltage drop across the source internal impedance,
as seen in Fig. 2. The following diagrams illustrate the result
of increasing both Ls and Rs by factor 2. They have to be
Fig. 18: The supply current i s (t) and bus voltage
compared with the results in Case II above. For example, Fig.
v(t) following energizing T 2 , α =0.
16 indicates the current in T 1 for α =0. The peak value is
about 3A, i.e. approximately 40% less than the
corresponding value in Fig. 7. Fig. 17 depicts the energizing Case V: Switching of a Second Transformer to a
Connected Unloaded Transformer and a
current transient in transformer T 2 . It is seen that the first Parallel Capacitor:
current peak is substantially reduced to about 4A, which is
50% less than the corresponding value in Case II (i.e. Fig. 8). It is a common practice to use shunt connected capacitors to
The source current i s (t) is given in Fig. 18. It should be improve the operating power factor. The reactive power
generated in these capacitors can compensate for a part of the
compared with the curves in Fig. 9 describing Case II.
load ’s reactive power demand. This section deals with the
impact of these eventually existing capacitors on the
substation current and voltage signals. This case is similar to

1185
Case II but after adding a shunt capacitor of C=50 µ F to the
bus-bar. The switching of T 2 occurs with α =0. Fig. 19
shows the waveforms of the 3 currents iT 1 (dotted curve),
iT 2 (thin continuous curve) and the supply current i s (bold
curve).The presence of C will increase the peak magnetizing
current in the already connected transformer T 1 from 5A in
Fig. 7 to slightly more than 6A. This is also valid for the
inrush current in T 2 . Its first peak exceeds 8A, which is the
corresponding value in Fig. 8. More important, however, is
the strongly distorted supply current.
Fig. 19: The individual transformer currents iT 1 (t),
iT 2 (t) and the supply current i s (t)
following the energization of T 2 , α =0.
Fig. 20: Waveforms of the bus voltage v(t) and the
current through the shunt capacitor C
following the energization of T 2 , α =0.
From Fig. 20 it can be noticed that the presence of C will
raise the peak value and increase the harmonic content in the
bus voltage v(t) (if compared with the corresponding wave in
Fig. 9 for the uncompensated case). The distortion is much
more pronounced in the capacitor current, which is
proportional to the first derivative of v(t).
1186
IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. This paper deals with simulating the inrush current
phenomena in substations including parallel-connected
transformers. The analysis and computer program are based
on analytical expressions for the transformers’ nonlinear
magnetization curves and the numerical solution of the
governing equations.
2. The results of single transformer switching were first
presented. The inrush current is most dangerous if switching
occurs at the supply voltage zero crossing. The transformer
exhibits a strongly unsymmetrical magnetization loop, as
compared to the almost symmetrical case of switching at the
voltage peak. The high harmonic content of the current is
evident for any switching time point.
3. In the case of switching a second transformer T 2 to an
already connected unloaded transformer T 1 , the current in T 1
indicates that this transformer also will exhibit an inrush
phenomenon. There is no much effect of T 1 on the peak
value of the energizing transient of T 2 .
4. Both transformers will need much longer time in order to
reach their steady state condition of symmetrical no-load
current. The total current needs less than two cycles to reach
its symmetrical shape.
5. Since T 1 and T 2 are in parallel, the difference between
the two fluxes will be constant, so that their time derivatives
(i.e. the induced EMF’s) will be equal. The DC offset of the
transformers’ currents is of opposite polarities. Their
hysteresis loops are identical.
6. The results of the case in which transformer T 1 was
resistively loaded prior to the energization of T 2 show an
almost sinusoidal current waveform of T 1 . If compared with
the case without pre-switching load of T 1 , the peaks of the
inrush current in T 2 are about 50% smaller. After just one
half cycle, the DC offset in the supply current practically
disappeared.
7. The above effects can be attributed to the damping
introduced by the load and to the fact that the voltage across
the transformers will be less than the supply voltage.
8. Increasing the source impedance will result in a reduced
voltage at the transformer terminals, trying to reduce both the
peak value and the harmonic content of the inrush current of
T2 .
 9. An increased source parameters will also lead to an
increased interaction between the transformers due to the
common voltage drop across the source internal impedance.

10. If the source impedance is doubled, the peak value of the

current in T 1 will be reduced by approximately 40%.
Moreover, the first peak of the energizing current transient in
T 2 is 50% less than the value in the original case.

11. The presence of a shunt capacitor at the bus-bar will

increase the peak magnetizing current in both transformers.
More important, however, is the strongly distorted supply
current.

12. Shunt capacitors will also raise the peak value and
increase the harmonic content in the bus voltage. The
distortion is much more pronounced in the capacitor current.

REFERENCES

[1] C. Perez-Rojas, ”Fitting Saturation and Hysteresis via

Arctangent Functions”, IEEE Power Engineering Review,
Vol.20, No.11, Nov.2000, pp.55-57.
[2] A-R. A. M. Makky, ”Sympathetic Interaction Between
Loaded Transformers Caused By Inrush Phenomenon” Proc.
Sixth Middle-East Power Systems Conference
(MEPCON’98), Egypt, Dec.15-17, 1998, pp. 119-123.
[3] H.S. Bronzeado, P.B. Brogan and R. Yacamini,
“Harmonic Analysis of Transient Currents During
Sympathetic Interaction”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems,
Vol. 11, No. 4, Nov. 1996.
[4] A. Greenwood, “Electrical Transients in Power
Systems”, Book, Wiley-Interscience, Second Edition, 1991,
Chapters 5 &12.
[5] C.A. Gross, “Power System Analysis”, Book, John Wiley,
New York, Second Edition, 1986, Chapter 11.
[6] C.R. Mason, “The Art and Science of Protective
Relaying”, Book, Wiley, New York, 1956
[7] J.R. Lucas and P.G. Mclaren, ”B-H loop representation
for transient studies”, Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 28, pp. 261-270,
1991.
[8] A-R. A. M. Makky, ”Representation of Magnetization
Curves”, Paper No. A78054-9 presented at the IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, New York, Jan. 29-Feb. 3, 1978.

1187

View publication stats