1820

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 7, JULY 2006

Time-Domain Simulation of Nonlinear Transformers

Displaying Hysteresis
D. W. P. Thomas1, John Paul1, Okan Ozgonenel2, and Christos Christopoulos1, Fellow, IEEE
George Green Institute of Electromagnetics Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K.
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department, Ondokuz Mayis University, Kurupelit-55139-Samsun, Turkey
This paper introduces a novel technique for modeling, in the time domain, a power transformer with nonlinear and hysteretic behavior.
The model is particularly suitable for harmonic or protection studies where the transformer is driven into the nonlinear regime. The
technique uses a single-phase two-winding transformer model based on the JilesAtherton model of ferromagnetic hysteresis. It includes
eddy-current loss by adding an extra single-turn winding so that the transients are modeled as fully as possible.
Index TermsHysteresis, JilesAtherton, modeling, nonlinear magnetics, transformers.

I. INTRODUCTION

OWER transformers are an important and universal component of power systems, for which various modeling schemes
have been developed for many years. Leibfried and Feser [1] introduced the transfer function concept for power transformers.
This method is well known as an additional method of evaluating the impulse test of power transformers. Wilcox introduced a
time-domain modeling and modal analysis which described how
a new form of transformer model can be converted from the frequency domain into the time domain for Electromagnetic Transients Program (EMTP) implementation [2]. To date none of the
models include an accurate representation of hysteresis as given
by the JilesAtherton (JA) model [3]. The J-A model is an intermediate solution of ferromagnetic hysteresis with some physical
basis and is computationally tractable for practical problems. The
J-A model is well suited to transmission-line modeling (TLM)
for lumped components because it is formulated in terms of a
first-order differential equation.
This paper demonstrates a novel simulation program based
on the TLM method for simulating a power transformer which
include nonlinear hysteresis and eddy-current loss effects [4].
The TLM algorithm is discrete in nature and is compatible with
other time-domain simulation programs such as ATP, PSCADEMTDC, or MATLAB [5]. This is an extension on a previous
published work on modeling of nonlinear inductors displaying
hysteresis [6].
II. TLM MODELING AND APPLICATION TO TRANSFORMERS
The basic TLM technique models linear reactive components
as transmission line segments (called stubs). The stub model
representing the inductor is terminated by a short circuit, to emphasize inductive behavior, current, and hence storage in the
magnetic field must be maximized. The TLM model for a capacitor is a stub with its far end open circuit. It emphasizes voltage
differences, storage in the electric field, and hence mainly capacitive behavior.

Fig. 1. (a) Inductance, (b) equivalent circuit, (c) stub model of inductance,
TLM equivalent circuit

In many applications, it is necessary to account for the nonlinear behavior of inductors and capacitors. These can be modeled as nonlinear stubs. Magnetic coupling between components
may also be described using TLM. Mutual coupling is modeled
by a current-controlled voltage source [7], [8].
A. Linear Inductor Model
An inductor modeled using a transmission line stub is shown
in Fig. 1. The stub model representing the inductor is terminated
across it is
by a short circuit. For an inductor the voltage
. The differential term
is then
equal to
,
replaced in TLM by the discrete transform
is the time step, and
is the incident
where
pulse at the stub terminals. It is assumed that it takes one time step
for the pulse to make a round-trip to travel to the end and be
reflected back as the incident pulse in the next time step . Thus,
is
at any time step the voltage across the inductor
(1)
Also, if the reflected amplitude at the inductor terminals is
then
(2)

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2006.874183

0018-9464/$20.00 2006 IEEE

THOMAS et al.: TIME-DOMAIN SIMULATION OF NONLINEAR TRANSFORMERS DISPLAYING HYSTERESIS

1821

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a two-winding transformer.

C. JilesAtherton Model
The classical J-A model [3], [6] is described in the following
subsections.
1) Weighting Coefficient: The magnetization is split into two
parts, the anhysteretic magnetization and the irreversible magnetization. In normalized form, this is expressed by

Fig. 2. TLM model of a nonlinear inductor.

where the subscript donates the th time step. For a shortcircuited transmission line stub, the incident pulse in the next
time step becomes
(3)
In a similar manner, capacitance can be simulated. The algorithm can be shown to be equivalent to the trapezoidal integration method adopted by ATP and PSCAD [8].

(9)
is the weighting coefficient with
is
where
the normalized anhysteretic magnetization, and
is the normalized irreversible magnetization.
2) Modified Langevin Function: The anhysteretic magnetization dependence is given by a modified Langevin function,
i.e.,
(10)

B. Nonlinear Inductor [6]

A full description of the modeling of an inductor can be found
in [6]. The flux density in an inductor core of area is given by
, where is the core flux. The constitutive relation for
, where
is the permethe flux density is
is the magnetic flux density, and
is
ability of free space,
the magnetization intensity. From Amperes law
,
where is the number of winding turns and is the mean length
. These
of the magnetic path. Also,
and
relationships can then be combined using
, where
is the normalized magnetization giving

where
is the normalized saturation magnetization,
is
is the normalthe interdomain coupling coefficient, and
ized anhysteretic magnetization form factor. The coefficients
are positive constants. Also,
denotes the mod.
ified Langevin function with argument
To avoid difficulties with the modified Langevin function for
small arguments, a linear approximation is used where for
we put
.
3) Differential Equation for the Irreversible Magnetization:
In the J-A model, the derivitive of the normalized irreversible
magnetization w.r.t. the inductor current is

(4)
(11)
Thus, in TLM we can model the nonlinear inductance voltage
as the sum of two voltages given by
(5)
(6)
At each time step , the incident waves are updated for the next
with
time step

where the migration flag

is given by

if
if
otherwise.

and
and

(12)

D. Modeling of Transformers
(7)
(8)
The equivalent circuit is then as given in Fig. 2.

Consider a nonlinear lumped two winding transformer as

shown in Fig. 3 where the primary winding has
turns, the
turns, the area of the core is , and
secondary winding has
the magnetic path length is .

1822

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 7, JULY 2006

Fig. 4. A general ideal transformer equivalent circuits for TLM modeling. (a) Linear transformer. (b) Nonlinear hysteretic transformer core.

The primary and secondary voltages ( and ) can be derived in terms of the primary and secondary currents ( and )
and the magnetization intensity as for the lumped inductance
to give

(13)
where
and
.
1) Ideal Linear and Lossless Transformers: For linear loss, (14) then reduces to
less transformers

The following simultaneous equations are solved for

:

and
(17)
(18)

,
where
is the source voltage. The incident TLM stub voltages
and
are calculated as for the linear inductor.
2) Ideal Transformer With Nonlinear Hysteretic Core: For an
ideal transformer with nonlinear and hysteretic core inductance,
the TLM model is as given in Fig. 4(b). There is an extra source
and is given by
term representing the magnetization
(19)

(14)
The magnetization
is nonlinear so that an iterative solution
for the following simultaneous equations has to be found:

where
, and
.
A linear lossless transformer equivalent circuit is then as
given in Fig. 4(a). The controlled sources representing mutual
are as follows:
terms of the type
(15)
(16)
where

(20)
(21)
and
. We have chosen the
where
NewtonRaphson technique for its efficiency and stability so a

THOMAS et al.: TIME-DOMAIN SIMULATION OF NONLINEAR TRANSFORMERS DISPLAYING HYSTERESIS

1823

solution is found through the following iterative procedure:

(22)
where is the iteration number.
by

is the Jacobian matrix given

(23)

and
is

is given by the average solution to (20) and (21) which

Fig. 5. Typical scrapless core transformer geometry. l
is the mean winding
length, l is the mean core length, and t is the lamination thickness.

For a linear magnetization, the eddy-current power loss at

given by [9]

is

(24)
The iteration is started with initial values taken from the previous time step and continued until suitable convergence criteria
are met. In this work, this is set as
and
and

(25)

where is the convergence parameter (

in the simulations presented).
3) Full Transformer Model With Copper Losses Leakage
Inductance and Nonlinear Hysteretic Core: In the complete
model, we also include transformer leakage inductance in the
primary and secondary winding and resistive winding losses
and eddy-current losses. In this model, we have used a scrapless
[9] lamination core geometry as shown in Fig. 5.
can be calculated for each
The copper loss resistance
winding from [9]

(26)
where
is the copper conductivity,
is the mean turn
is the bare wire area, and
is the number of turns
length,
for winding .
The winding leakage inductance for each winding
of a
scrapless lamination core and assuming concentric secondary
and primary windings as shown in Fig. 5 is given by [9]

(28)
where is the primary rms input voltage,
is the lamination
is the volume of the iron core,
is
factor of the iron core,
the iron core area,
is the iron core conductivity, is the lamis the number of turns in the primary
ination thickness, and
winding. It is normal to then simply represent the eddy-current
loss as due to a shunt impedance across the primary winding
given by

(29)
A more complete and representative model of eddy-current loss
is obtained by adding a third single-turn winding loaded by a
given by
resistance

(30)
The full TLM equivalent circuit for a nonlinear transformer including leakage reactance, iron, and copper loss is as shown in
Fig. 6.
There are now three nonlinear simultaneous equations to
and which have the form
solve for

(31)
(27)
The eddy-current losses are due to circulating currents in the
iron core and behave as a third winding the resistance of which
can be calculated from the fundamental of power frequency .

(32)
(33)

1824

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 7, JULY 2006

Fig. 6. Full transformer TLM model equivalent circuit with nonlinear hysteretic core, leakage inductance, conductor losses, eddy-current losses, and source and
load impedances.

where
and the Jacobian matrix is now

(34)

III. RESULTS
To demonstrate the modeling procedure, a small 25 kVA,
11 kV/220 V power transformer with the parameters as given
in the Appendix was modeled using the TLM method described
in Section II. The JilesAtherton parameters were typical of a
core made of FeSi sheets [10]. The transformer was loaded with
a series resistor and inductor which would provide a 25 kW load
of 0.9 p.f. at 220 V.
As a comparison, the same transformer parameters and
electrical supply and load were modeled using the MATLAB
power system block set with a transformer hysteretic core. The

MATLAB program uses a shunt linear resistance to represent

eddy-current losses and a semi-empirical hysteresis characteristic curve fitting the empirical data defining the major loop and
single-valued saturation. The user defines: the remanent flux,
saturation flux, saturation current, coercive current (current at
zero flux), flux slope at coercive current, and pairs of values of
currents and fluxes in the saturation region. This is a standard
approach which is also available in the EMTP simulation
program [5].
Fig. 7 shows the curve for a soft start simulation where
the supply voltage increases to rated value with a time constant
of 0.0434 s. Fig. 8 shows the curves produced by the
MATLAB simulation. It can be seen that, although the major
loop at rated voltage have been constructed to be similar for
both simulations, the loops at reduced supply voltages are different with the MATLAB simulation producing a large coercive
current at small supply voltages. The JilesAtherton model is
believed to be a more accurate representation [10], particularly
for transients.
Fig. 9 shows the simulated primary currents obtained using
the TLM with the JilesAtherton model compared with those
from the MATLAB simulink simulation. Fig. 10 shows the

THOMAS et al.: TIME-DOMAIN SIMULATION OF NONLINEAR TRANSFORMERS DISPLAYING HYSTERESIS

Fig. 7. TLM simulated B H curve under full load and the supply voltage increasing to rated voltage  = 0:0434 s.

Fig. 8. MATLAB simulink simulated B H curve under full load and the
supply voltage increasing to rated voltage  = 0:0434 s.

1825

Fig. 10. Comparison of the simulated secondary current using the TLM model
or the MATLAB simulink model for rated load as supply voltage increases to
rated value  = 0:0434 s.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the simulated primary current using the TLM model or
the MATLAB simulink model for no load as supply voltage increases to rated
value  = 0:0434 s.

TABLE I
RESULTS FOR POWER LOSSES, POWER TRANSFERRED, AND EFFICIENCY
(P INPUT/P OUTPUT %) AT RATED LOAD WITH 0.9 P.F
AND RATED SUPPLY VOLTAGE

Fig. 9. Comparison of the simulated primary current using the TLM model or
the MATLAB simulink model for rated load as supply voltage increases to rated
value  = 0:0434 s.

simulated secondary currents obtained using the TLM with the

JilesAtherton model compared with those from the MATLAB
simulink simulation. Fig. 11 shows the simulated primary
currents at no-load. The power losses due to hysteresis, copper,
and eddy current have been calculated and the transformer
efficiency is derived, the results of which are given in Table I.
The results obtained are typical of comparable commercial
power transformers [9]. Note that, for the steady state, the two
models have been designed to give comparable results.
Figs. 12 and 13 compare the minor loops modeled using the
JilesAtherton model and the MATLAB power system block

set. The waveforms were created by initially operating at 0.3

p.u. of the rated supply voltage and then adding a small Gaussian
pulse of amplitude 0.05 p.u and width 0.02 s to give a dc offset as
given in Fig. 14. The transient properties of the two methods are
clearly different. It is expected that the JilesAtherton model is
more accurate although more experimental measurements and
comparisons with other models are needed to confirm the transient properties presented in this work [11], [12].
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper introduces a novel technique for modeling, in the
time domain, a power transformer with nonlinear and hysteretic

1826

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 7, JULY 2006

APPENDIX A
Data for 11 kV/220 V, 25 kVA power transformer
m

m
S m
S m
Fig. 12. TLM simulated B H curve minor loops for an initial 0.3 p.u. supply
with a dc pulse is in Fig. 14.

H
H
A m

Anhysteretic form factor.

Interdomain coupling
coefficient.
Coercive field magnitude.

A m

A m
Fig. 13. MATLAB simulink simulated B H curve minor loops for an initial
0.3 p.u. supply with a dc pulse as in Fig. 14.

Core dimension.
Magnetic path length.
Core area.
Lamination thickness.
Iron conductivity.
Copper conductivity.
Number of turns in primary.
Number of turn in secondary.
Lamination factor.
Window utilization factor.
Mean turn length.
Primary copper loss resistance.
Secondary copper loss
resistance.
Primary leakage inductance.
Secondary leakage inductance.
Saturation magnetization.

H m

Magnetization weighting
factor.
Permeability of the free space.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the UK EPSRC research
council.

REFERENCES

Fig. 14. Supply voltage waveform used to reproduce hysteretic curves given in
Figs. 12 and 13.

behavior. A single-phase two winding transformer TLM model

is developed. The hysteretic model is based on JilesAtherton
model of ferromagnetic hysteresis and eddy-current loss is included as an extra single-turn winding so that the transients are
modeled as fully as possible. The simulations produce a more
accurate transformer transient response than that currently available in commercial power system simulation programs.

[1] T. Leibfried and K. Feser, Monitoring of power transformers using

the transfer function method, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 13331341, Oct. 1999.
[2] D. J. Wilcox, Time-domain modelling of power transformers using
modal analysis, IEE Proc.Elect. Power Appl., vol. 144, no. 2, pp.
7784, Mar. 1997.
[3] D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton, Ferromagnetic hysteresis, IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. MAG-19, no. 5, pp. 21832185, Sep. 1983.
[4] C. Christopoulos, The transmission line modeling method TLM,
IEEE/OUP Series on Electromagnetic Wave Theory, 1995.
[5] ATP Rule Book, European EMTP-ATP Users Group.
[6] J. Paul, C. Christopoulos, and D. W. P. Thomas, Time-domain simulation of nonlinear inductors displaying hysteresis, in COMPUMAG
2003, Saratoga Springs, NY, Jul. 2003, pp. 182183.
[7] S.Y.R. Hui and C. Christopoulos, Discrete transform technique for
solving nonlinear circuits and equations, IEE Proc. ASci., Meas.
Technol., vol. 139, no. 6, pp. 321328, Nov. 1992.
[8] S. Y. R. Hui and C. Christopoulos, Non-linear transmission line modeling technique for modeling power electronic circuits, in Proc. Eur.
Power Electronics Conf., Florence, Italy, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 8084.
[9] W. T. McLyman, Transformer and Inductor Design Handbook. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.

THOMAS et al.: TIME-DOMAIN SIMULATION OF NONLINEAR TRANSFORMERS DISPLAYING HYSTERESIS

[10] A. Benabou, S. Clenet, and F. Piriou, Comparison of Preisach and

JilesAtherton models to take into account of hysteresis phenomenon
for finite element analysis, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., vol. 261, no. 1, pp.
139160, 2003.
[11] S. E. Zirka, Y. I. Moroz, P. Marketos, and A. J. Moses, A viscous-type
dynamic hysteresis model as a tool for loss separation in conducting
ferromagnetic laminiations, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 3, pp.
11091111, Mar. 2005.
[12] G. Stumberger, B. Polajzer, B. Stumberger, M. Toman, and D. Dolinar,
Evaluation of experimental methods for determining the magnetically
nonlinear characteristics of electromagnetic devices, IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 40304032, Oct. 2005.
Manuscript received March 1, 2005; revised December 30, 2005. Corresponding author: D. W. P. Thomas (e-mail: Dave.Thomas@nottingham.ac.uk).

David W. P. Thomas (M95) was born in Padstow, U.K., in 1959. He received

the B.Sc. degree in physics from Imperial College of Science and Technology,
London, U.K., in 1981, the M.Phil. degree in space physics from Sheffield University, Sheffield, U.K., in 1987, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from Nottingham University, Nottingham, U.K., in 1990.
In 1990, he joined the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
University of Nottingham, where he is now a Senior Lecturer. His research interests are in electromagnetic compatibility, electrostatic precipitation, and the
protection and simulation of power networks.

John Paul was born in Peterborough U.K., in 1960. He received the M.Eng. and
the Ph.D. degrees in electrical and electronic engineering from the University
of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K., in 1994 and 1999 respectively. His Ph.D.
dissertation involved the application of signal processing and control system
techniques to the simulation of general material properties in time-domain TLM.
He is currently a Research Associate with the George Green Institute for Electromagnetics Research at the University of Nottingham. His research interests
are in the application of signal processing techniques for material modeling in

1827

time-domain computational electromagnetics, the simulation of complete systems for electromagnetic compatibility studies, and the interaction of electromagnetic waves with biological tissues.

Okan Ozgonenel was born in Samsun, Turkey. He received the M.Sc. degree
in electrical education from Marmara University in 1992 and the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from Sakarya University in 2001.
He has been with Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey, since 1991,
where he is a Lecturer in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department.
His main research interests are digital algorithms, digital signal processing, simulation methods for power transformers, power system control and protection,
and wavelet techniques.

Christos Christopoulos (F05) was born in Patras, Greece, on September 17,

1946. He received the Diploma in electrical and mechanical engineering from
the National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, in 1969 and the
M.Sc. and D.Phil. degrees from the University of Sussex, Sussex, U.K., in 1974
and 1979, respectively.
In 1974, he joined the Arc Research Project, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K., and spent two years working on vacuum arcs and breakdown while
on attachment at the UKAEA Culham Laboratory. In 1976, he joined the University of Durham, Durham, U.K., as a Senior Demonstrator in Electrical Engineering Science. In October 1978, he joined the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K., where he
is now Professor of Electrical Engineering. His research interests are in computational electromagnetics, electromagnetic compatibility, signal integrity, protection and simulation of power networks, and electrical discharges and plasmas.
He is the author of over 250 research publications and five books.
Dr. Christopoulos has received the Electronics Letters and the Snell Premiums from the Institute of Electrical Engineers and several conference Best
Paper awards. He is a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE),
U.K., and IoP. He is the Executive Team Chairman of the IEE Professional
Network in EMC, member of the CIGRE Working Group 36.04 on EMC,
and Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY.