474 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

An Inrush Current Reduction Technique for Multiple

Inverter-Fed Transformers
Yu-Hsing Chen, Ming-Yang Yeh, Po-Tai Cheng, Jen-Chuan Liao, and Wen-Yin Tsai

Abstract—This paper introduces a transformer inrush current

reduction technique for the conventional double-conversion unin-
terruptible power supply (UPS) feeding multiple loads and their
transformers. As these loads are engaged or disengaged, their
transformers are also connected or disconnected from the power
lines. To avoid the inrush current, a closed-loop flux linkage
control and a phase winding energizing sequence control for
the incoming transformer are proposed to maintain the flux of
transformers which are already engaged and of the transformer
which is switched on. The proposed method can utilize the existing
voltage and current sensor feedback of the UPS, and it can be
seamlessly integrated with the voltage and current control. Exper-
imental test results are provided to validate the effectiveness of the
proposed method.
Index Terms—Flux compensation, inrush current, magnetic
saturation, uninterruptible power supply (UPS).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE double-conversion online uninterruptible power sup-
plies (UPSs) have been widely adopted in facilities where
unexpected downtime cannot be tolerated, like semiconductor
industries and flat-panel display industries. Many transformers
are installed in the power distribution within these facilities
for the electrical isolation of the loads, or simply for voltage
matching. Thus, UPSs deliver their power to the production
equipment through these transformers. Although these facilities
operate around the clock, some equipment may switch on and
off during the day, depending on the production processes and
scheduling. The transformers in front of them are also switched
on and off along with the equipment that they serve. The
significant transient inrush current, which often occurs when
the transformer is energized, could easily cause the temporary
voltage drop and trigger the overcurrent protection of the UPS.
Moreover, the inrush current increases the electrical and the
Manuscript received November 14, 2012; revised April 2, 2013; accepted
April 2, 2013. Date of publication June 18, 2013; date of current version
January 16, 2014. Paper 2012-IPCC-646.R1, presented at the 2011
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Phoenix, AZ, USA,
September 17–22, and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS
ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power Converter Committee
of the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
Y.-H. Chen is with the Medium Voltage Drive Business Department, Delta
Electronics Inc., Chungli 32063, Taiwan (e-mail: chenyuhsing@gmail.com).
M.-Y. Yeh, J.-C. Liao, and W.-Y. Tsai are with the Mission Critical Infras-
tructure Solutions Business Unit, Delta Electronics Inc., Tainan 74144, Taiwan
(e-mail: luby0913@yahoo.com.tw; steven.liao@delta.com.tw; charles.tsai@
delta.com.tw).
P.-T. Cheng is with the Center for Advanced Power Technologies, Depart-
ment of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013,
Taiwan (e-mail: ptcheng@ieee.org).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2013.2269312
Fig. 1. One-line diagram of proposed online UPS system with multiple load
transformers.
mechanical stresses of the transformer coil and even reduces the
transformer’s lifetime [1], [2]. In many industry applications,
therefore, the inrush current situation occurs frequently and
has been considered as normal service operation. The inrush
current magnitude usually depends on several factors such
as the load conditions, size of line impedances, and knee
point of the transformer B–H curve (typically 1.05–1.15 p.u.
of the normal operation flux) [3]–[5]. Inserting a resistor during
the transformer switch-on transient [6]–[8] is effective, but it
also requires a large power distribution panel to accommo-
date the resistors and switch gears. Ramping up the applied
voltage magnitude [8], [9] is effective for the transformer
being switched on but may disturb other transformers which
are already online. This paper presents a flux compensation
technique integrated with a transformer energizing sequence
control for UPS to prevent inrush current when a transformer is
switched on, without interfering with other transformers which
are already online. Laboratory test results are presented to
validate the performance of the proposed method.
II. O PERATION P RINCIPLES OF THE P ROPOSED
C ONTROL M ETHOD
The closed-loop flux control for the line-interactive UPS
system was developed and has obtained a successful outcome in
the inrush current mitigation [10]. In this paper, the flux control
method is extended to solve the inrush current problem when
multiple load transformers are connected to the online UPS
system. Fig. 1 shows a UPS converter powering two loads along
with their transformers, assuming that load 1 and transformer 1
are in operation and load 2 and transformer 2 are offline. At
a certain moment t = tload2 , load 2 and transformer 2 are
engaged. Significant inrush current may be easily induced as
transformer 2 is energized.
The proposed control consists of two parts: 1) the closed-
loop flux compensator for the transformers which are already

0093-9994 © 2013 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.
CHEN et al.: INRUSH CURRENT REDUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR MULTIPLE INVERTER-FED TRANSFORMERS
Fig. 2. Proposed UPS controller with dual transformer flux control (d-axis not shown).
online and the transformer which is being switched in (in this
case, transformer 2) and 2) the energizing sequence control for
the incoming transformer (transformer 2). These two parts are
integrated into the conventional closed-loop voltage and current
method as shown in the control block diagram in Fig. 2 [11].
A. Closed-Loop Flux Compensator
The control block diagram of the UPS system shown in
Fig. 2 displays the integration of the proposed flux compen-
sator and the voltage and current controllers. When the UPS
system is online, the proposed flux compensator corrects the
flux deviations of all online load transformers, and it also
improves the voltage regulation characteristics under vary-
ing loads [11], [12]. When the UPS system and their load
transformers are operated under steady-state conditions, the
switch SW1 is turned on, and SW2 and SW3 are turned off
to offer the proportional–integral (PI) control [10] and the
feedforward control to the flux compensation of the online
transformers (in this case, transformer 1). When transformer 2
is switched in, the flux compensator changes its mode to sup-
press the flux deviation of both load transformers. In this mode,
SW1 is turned off to deactivate, SW2 is turned on to calculate
the flux deviation of transformer 2, and SW3 is turned on to
activate the flux compensator of both the existing transform-
ers and the incoming transformer. The coefficients KΔλ1 and
KΔλ2 are to regulate the compensation ratio between the exist-
ing and the incoming load transformers. The coefficients deter-
475
mine how much percentage of the compensation voltage each
transformer needs (i.e., KΔλ1 + KΔλ2 = 2.0). For example,
if the magnetic saturation threshold of transformer 2 is lower
than that of transformer 1, the coefficient of KΔλ2 should be
increased to speed up the flux compensation in transformer 2.
Therefore, the system designer can strike a balance between
the saturation thresholds of two transformers to provide a full
consideration in the inrush current mitigation of transformers.
As the magnitudes of the flux deviations of all online trans-
formers are within their own magnetic saturation thresholds
(i.e., [1.05–1.15 p.u.] of steady-state level) after the flux com-
pensation is activated, the flux control strategy can be switched
back to the closed-loop PI and feedforward control for trans-
former flux.
B. Detection of Transformer Switching
The performance of the flux dc-offset compensation for
multiple load transformers is highly dependent on how fast the
switching action of the incoming transformer can be detected
and its flux can be tracked by the flux estimator. Since the
proposed UPS controller is designed to compensate the trans-
former flux without any communication with the circuit breaker
in front of transformer 2, measuring the positive sequence
component of the load current is used to identify the operation
status of load transformers. As shown in Fig. 3, the positive
sequence component (Ipos ) of the load current is calculated,
and its steady-state value before transformer 2 is switched on
476 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
Fig. 3. Detection of transformer switching in SRF.
Fig. 4. Relationship between maximum flux dc offset and detection delay in
transformer switching.
is multiplied by a scaling factor Gth (> 1.0) and is stored as
the reference threshold level (Ith ). The controller can capture
the transformer switching action and generate a switching
command by comparing the current magnitude Ipos with the
reference threshold level (Ith ). In the design consideration,
the cutting frequency of the low-pass filter and the scaling
factor Gth can be decided according to the power rating of the
load transformers and the magnitude of the current ripple in
the synchronous reference frame (SRF) caused by the current
harmonics.
The performance of flux compensation for multiple load
transformers could be affected considerably by the delay in
transformer switching detection due to the low-pass filter.
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the relationship between the delay
in the transformer switching detection and the performance
of the closed-loop flux compensator when the UPS system
is connected with two load transformers as given in Fig. 1.
Both transformers are rated at 10 kVA, respectively, with rated
loads of 0.8 lagging power factor, and the reference threshold
current level is set at 120% of the rated current of a single
transformer (Gth = 1.2) for transformer switching detection.
Fig. 4 shows that the delay of 2.0 ms in switching identification
results in a maximum flux dc offset of 71.52% in transformer 2
after the flux compensation is activated, and the resulting max-
imum inrush current is about 1.92 p.u. of the steady-state peak
current as shown in Fig. 5. If delay in transformer switching
detection rises above 3.8 ms, the error in the flux estimation
of transformer 2 can cause the flux compensation failure com-
Fig. 5. Relationship between maximum inrush current and detection delay in
transformer switching.
pletely or even leads to worst for the inrush current problem.
Typically, the proposed detection scheme can identify the in-
coming transformer within 1.0 ms while the scaling factor Gth
is put at 1.2 and the cutting frequency in the low-pass filter is
5000 Hz.
C. Energizing Sequence Control for Transformer 2
If the control method has only the close-loop flux compen-
sator, the capability of inrush current mitigation is finite. This
problem is due to both the flux of the load transformers being
affected by flux compensation. To further improve the perfor-
mance of inrush current mitigation, therefore, the energizing
sequence of the load transformers must be controlled to mini-
mize flux deviation [13]–[15]. The energizing sequence control
provides an alternate control option to enhance the performance
of the closed-loop flux compensator if the switching timing of
transformer 2 can be controlled by the UPS’s controller.
Applying this energizing sequence control method can effec-
tively reduce flux deviation and thus mitigate the inrush current.
Fig. 6 shows the flux of the load transformer 2 and its line-
to-line load voltage by using the energizing sequence control,
where transformer 2 is a delta–wye connection transformer.
Dotted lines (λpro,ab , λpro,bc , λpro,ca ) represent the trace of the
prospective flux of transformer 2 which is in a steady state
without any dc offset. The starting time of energizing sequence
control is in accordance with the flux in a steady state. When
the λpro,ca is equal to zero, the phase A and phase C of trans-
former 2 are switched in, and the flux of the CA winding starts
CHEN et al.: INRUSH CURRENT REDUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR MULTIPLE INVERTER-FED TRANSFORMERS
Fig. 6. Inrush current mitigation by energizing sequence control (i.e., phase A
and phase C are switched on at t = 3.4 ms and phase B is at t = 3.404167 ms).
to be integrated. After a quarter period, the phase B starts to
energize, and then, the AB and the BC winding start to integrate.
Solid lines represent the flux of transformer 2, almost without
any dc offset.
In practical implementation, the performance of energizing
sequence control for the inrush current mitigation could be
affected by an error in the calculation of the switching instant
or the delay in the operation of the circuit breaker. In this
case, the closed-loop flux compensation can be synchronized
with the phase angle in the energizing sequence control by
the detection of the transformer switching action. Therefore,
the flux deviation due to the error in energizing sequence
control can be minimized. The test results of the integration of
closed-loop flux control and energizing sequence control will
be presented in the next section.
III. L ABORATORY T EST R ESULTS
A scaled-down prototype of the proposed UPS system with
two load transformers is implemented as in Fig. 1, and the
circuit parameters are as follows:
1) UPS inverter: output voltage of 220 V, 60 Hz; switching
frequency of 20 kHz; dc bus voltage of 365 V; and output
filter with Lf = 2.0 mH and Cf = 10 μF;
2) transformer 1: 3.0 kVA, 220 V/220 V (Δ/Y connection);
3) transformer 2: 500 VA, 220 V/220 V (Δ/Y connection);
4) loads: resistor bank of 280 Ω.
Based on the manufacturer’s design data, the flux densities (B)
of these two transformers are 14 000 G (for transformer 1) and
10 000 G (for transformer 2), respectively, while being ener-
gized by 220-V power lines. The characteristics of the silicon
steel type of 35H440 (0.35 mm) used in these transformers are
shown in the data sheet from Nippon Steel Corporation [16].
The performance of the proposed inrush current mitigation
technique is tested under different phase angles of switching
inrush and is compared with that of the conventional UPS
system which only relies on the closed-loop voltage and current
control design.
477
A. Conventional UPS System During the
Transformer Switching
Fig. 7 shows the transient performance of the conventional
voltage and current control UPS under the engagement of the
load transformer. At first, only transformer 1 is connected to
the UPS converter output, and then, transformer 2 is switched
on at the phase angle of 60◦ of phase A. Fig. 7(a) shows
the estimated flux of two transformers under the synchronous
reference frame. The flux dc offset in the stationary reference
frame gives rise to the 60-Hz ripple on the estimated flux
of λ̂eload1,d and λ̂eload2,d when transformer 2 is switched on,
and the resulting maximum peak-to-peak values of the 60-Hz
ripple in the λ̂eload1,d and λ̂eload2,d are roughly 0.176 and
0.611 Wb-t, respectively. The peak load current reaches 6.6 A
due to the offset of the flux linkages. Although the flux devi-
ation of transformers can naturally decay to zero by the core
losses of the transformer and the power consumption of the
load within 1.0 s, the switching of the transformer still causes
a significantly inrush current in this transition as shown in
Fig. 7(b). Additionally, Fig. 7(c) shows that a high switching
inrush current also lowers the load voltage quality.
B. Proposed Closed-Loop Flux Compensation
for Inrush Mitigation
Under the same transformer switching conditions, Fig. 8
shows the test results of the proposed UPS system, where the
coefficients of KΔλ1 (= 1.3) and KΔλ2 (= 0.7) are selected.
In this case, the operation of transformer 2 switching-on is
commanded by the UPS system’s controller to minimizing the
effect of delay in the detection of transformer switching in the
inrush current reduction. Compared to Fig. 7(a), Fig. 8(a) shows
that the proposed flux control scheme reduces the maximum
peak-to-peak value of the 60-Hz ripple in λ̂eload2,d from 0.611
to 0.562 Wb-t (≈ 10.3% of its steady-state level) in the initi-
ation of transformer 2 switching. Therefore, the inrush current
problem caused by the switching of transformer 2 is suppressed
from 6.6 A in Fig. 7(b) to 3.96 A in Fig. 8(b). Additionally,
Fig. 8(c) shows that the inrush current reduction also improves
the load voltage quality. In this case, a reduction of 10.3% in
the peak-to-peak value of the 60-Hz ripple in λ̂eload2,d may not
be obvious in the flux waveforms compared with the inrush
current reduction in Fig. 8(b). However, the proposed flux
control method can trace the flux variation and correct the flux
deviations of both transformers in real time. By contrasting with
the transformer flux shown in Fig. 7(a), therefore, Fig. 8(a)
shows that the proposed UPS control method can accelerate
the decreased speed in the 60-Hz ripple without causing large
inrush current.
The performance of the proposed inrush current mitigation
technique is highly dependent on the selection of the weighting
coefficients. Although increasing the weighting coefficients
KΔλ2 can place more emphasis on compensating the flux offset
of transformer 2, it may also upset the flux of transformer 1
by driving it closer toward the saturation region and results in
an inrushlike phenomenon. Fig. 9(a) shows the performance of
inrush current mitigation, where the ratio of two weighting co-
efficients is set at 1 : 1. In this case, the maximum peak-to-peak
478 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

Fig. 7. Transient performance of conventional UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 60◦ of phase A. (a) Transformer flux under
the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div). (b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div). (c) Load
voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

Fig. 8. Transient performance of proposed UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 60◦ of phase A (control gains: KP x = 500,
KΔλ1 = 1.3, and KΔλ2 = 0.7). (a) Transformer flux under the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div).
(b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div). (c) Load voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

Fig. 9. Transient performance of proposed UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 60◦ of phase A (control gains: KP x = 500,
KΔλ1 = 1.0, and KΔλ2 = 1.0). (a) Transformer flux under the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div).
(b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div). (c) Load voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

value of the 60-Hz ripple in λ̂eload2,d can be further reduced
down to 0.484 Wb-t, but it also raises the maximum peak-
to-peak value of the 60-Hz ripple in λ̂eload1,d from 0.211 to
0.288 Wb-t due to the flux compensation of transformer 1. The
resulting peak inrush current is about 4.92 A which is still lower
than the inrush current magnitude produced by the conventional
UPS system as shown in Fig. 9(b). The aforementioned test
results under the transformer switching angle of 60◦ are sum-
marized in Table I.
Additionally, the proposed UPS system is verified and com-
pared with the conventional one when transformer 2 is switched
on at the phase angle of 270◦ . The test results are given in
CHEN et al.: INRUSH CURRENT REDUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR MULTIPLE INVERTER-FED TRANSFORMERS 479

TABLE I
M AXIMUM P EAK - TO -P EAK VALUE OF 60-Hz AC C OMPONENT IN THE E STIMATED F LUX AND THE M AXIMUM VALUE
OF I NRUSH C URRENT W HEN T RANSFORMER 2 I S S WITCHED ON AT THE P HASE A NGLE OF 60◦

Fig. 10. Transient performance of conventional UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 270◦ of phase A. (a) Transformer flux
under the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div). (b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div).
(c) Load voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

Fig. 11. Transient performance of proposed UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 270◦ of phase A (control gains: KP x = 500,
KΔλ1 = 1.3, and KΔλ2 = 0.7). (a) Transformer flux under the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div).
(b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div). (c) Load voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

Figs. 10–12 and are summarized in Table II. In this case,
transformer 2 is switching on at the zero crossing of the trans-
former phase b-c winding voltage (Vload,bc (t)|t=tload2 ≈ 0)
which leads to the worst case scenario in terms of the flux
offset of transformer 2. Figs. 11(b) and 12(b) show that the
inrush current problem at the initiation of transformer switch-
ing can be alleviated effectively by the proposed flux control
scheme compared to the test result of the conventional UPS
system in Fig. 10(b). Moreover, it should be noted that the flux
compensation in transformer 2 also leads to flux deviation and
causes irregular current in transformer 1. This inrush current
phenomenon from transformer 1 during the flux compensation
process is usually smaller than the switching inrush from trans-
former 2, and it can be handled by the proposed closed-loop
flux control.
C. Inrush Current Mitigation With Energizing
Sequence Control
The test results of closed-loop flux compensation show
that the inrush current is not completely reduced because
the compensation is affected by the flux between each load
480 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

Fig. 12. Transient performance of proposed UPS system when transformer 2 is switched on at the phase angle of 270◦ of phase A (control gains: KP x = 500,
KΔλ1 = 1.0, and KΔλ2 = 1.0). (a) Transformer flux under the synchronous reference frame (q-axis not shown) (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 0.351 Wb-t/div).
(b) Load current (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div). (c) Load voltage (X-axis: 20 ms/div, Y -axis: 200 V/div).

TABLE II
M AXIMUM P EAK - TO -P EAK VALUE OF 60-Hz AC C OMPONENT IN THE E STIMATED F LUX AND THE M AXIMUM VALUE
OF I NRUSH C URRENT W HEN T RANSFORMER 2 I S S WITCHED ON AT THE P HASE A NGLE OF 270◦

Fig. 13. Integration of the closed-loop flux control and energizing sequence control in UPS system. (a) Estimation flux of transformer 2 under the stationary
reference frame. (b) Load current under the energizing sequence control (iload : X-axis: 10 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div; iload2 : X-axis: 10 ms/div, Y -axis: 1 A/div).
(c) Load current under the closed-loop flux control and energizing sequence control scheme (iload : X-axis: 10 ms/div, Y -axis: 2 A/div; iload2 : X-axis: 10 ms/div,
Y -axis: 1 A/div).

transformer. When the energizing sequence control is adopted
in the UPS system, the estimated flux of transformer 2 is
shown in Fig. 13(a) which is almost without flux deviation.
The method is effective in reducing the inrush current when
transformer 2 is switched on. The mitigation of the inrush
current shown in Fig. 13(b) is acceptable but still not ideal.
Thus, the proposed control method is to combine the close-
loop flux compensator and an energizing sequence control.
With this control method, the flux deviation can be minimized
by energizing the sequence controller, and some of the flux
deviation can be compensated by the closed-loop flux compen-
sator. The final test result exhibits that the application of the
proposed method can effectively prevent the inrush current as
shown in Fig. 13(c).
IV. D ISCUSSION
The proposed inrush current reduction technique can effec-
tively minimize the inrush current when multiple load trans-
formers are fed by the UPS system as validated by test results.
This section will discuss a design consideration of the pro-
posed flux compensator based on two load transformers with
delta/wye connection as shown in Fig. 1 to satisfy various
magnetic characteristics in practical applications. Since the
CHEN et al.: INRUSH CURRENT REDUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR MULTIPLE INVERTER-FED TRANSFORMERS 481

performance of the proposed inrush current reduction technique The expression of transient flux linkage in (5) and (6)
is highly dependent on the control gain selection, the evaluation can be∗ rewritten as the following by the assumption of 4)
of the transient flux dc offset of transformer switching-on can (( Vload (t)dt)|t=tload2 = λload1 (t)|t=tload2 and
obtain a better understanding of the control design. λload2 (t)|t=tload2 = 0):
To simplify the discussion, the following assumptions are

 t
made. 
λload1 (t) = ∗
Vload (t)dt  + 
Vcomp (t) dt,
1) The impedances of the transmission line and transformer 
t
winding are neglected. tload2

2) The flux estimator can precisely track the variation of for t ≥ tload2 (7)
transformer flux without error. t 
3) The fundamental component of load voltage generated by 
∗
λload2 (t) = Vload 
(t) + Vcomp (t) dt,
the voltage and current controller can perfectly track the
voltage command. tload2

4) No flux dc offset occurs in the transient flux of for t ≥ tload2 . (8)

transformer 1 (Δλload1 (t)|t=tload2 = 0) before the
transformer 2 is switched on. By substituting (3) and (4) into (7) and (8), the transient flux
Therefore, the general form of the flux linkage across the linkages after transformer 2 is switched on can be further
transformer winding of the delta/wye connection can be ex- expressed as
pressed by VL−L,peak
 λload1 (t) = ·sin(ωt+ΦL−L −π/2)
ω
λload (t) = Vload

(t) dt, for ∀ t. (1)
+ λcomp1 (t)+λcomp2 (t), for t ≥ tload2 (9)

According to the assumption of 3), the load voltage can be VL−L,peak

λload2 (t) = ·(sin(ωt+ΦL−L −π/2)
considered as a combination of the load voltage command ω
∗
(Vload (t)) and a line-to-line voltage for flux dc-offset compen- − sin(ωtload2 +ΦL−L −π/2))

sation (Vcomp (t))
+λcomp1 (t)+λcomp2 (t), for t ≥ tload2 (10)

 ∗ 
Vload (t) = Vload (t) + Vcomp (t), for ∀t (2)
where the terms of the flux dc-offset compensation of each
where transformer are
⎛   ⎞
∗   KΔλ1 · Δλ̂ (t) · KP x 
Vload (t) = VL−L,peak · sin(ωt + ΦL−L ), for ∀ t (3) load1 
 

λcomp1 (t) = ⎝ dt 
⎠
2 
 KΔλ1 · Δλ̂load1 (t) + KΔλ2 · Δλ̂load2 (t) t
Vcomp (t) =
2
· KP v · KP i , for t ≥ tload2
· KP x · KP v · KP i , for ∀ t. (4) ⎛ t   ⎞
 KΔλ2 · Δλ̂load2 (t) · KP x

Vload (t) is the line-to-line voltage across the transformer wind- λcomp2 (t) = ⎝ dt⎠
2
∗ 
ing, Vload (t) is the line-to-line voltage command, Vcomp (t) is tload2

the line-to-line voltage generated by the proposed flux com- · KP v · K P i , for t ≥ tload2 .
pensator for flux dc-offset compensation, and Δλ̂load(1,2) (t)
denotes the estimated flux linkage dc offsets of transformer Equations (9) and (10) state the relationship between the trans-
windings. Assuming that transformer 2 is switched on at t = former flux dc offset and the proposed flux dc-offset com-
tload2 , from (1), the transient flux linkage of both load trans- pensation scheme. The equations show that the magnitude of
formers can be expressed as the flux dc offset is dominated by the voltage phase angle of
transformer 2 switching-on and the couplings of the flux dc-
t  
∗ offset compensation between the two transformers (λcomp1 (t)
λload1 (t) = Vload 
(t) + Vcomp (t) dt
and λcomp2 (t)) when the flux compensation is in progress.
tload2 To maintain the flux of the transformers which are already

 online and the transformer which is being switched on, the
+ λload1 (t) , for t ≥ tload2 (5)
t=tload2 proposed method adopts a closed-loop control with different
t  weightings on the flux errors of the transformers which are

∗ already online and the incoming transformer, respectively. In
λload2 (t) = Vload 
(t) + Vcomp (t) dt
the laboratory test bench, transformer 1 (representing the online
tload2 ones) is designed to operate at a higher flux density of 14 000 G

 at its steady state, and the incoming transformer 2 is designed
+ λload2 (t) , for t ≥ tload2 . (6)
t=tload2 to operate at 10 000 G at its steady state. In other words,
482 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
transformer 2 has a larger flux headroom, and transformer 1
has less. As Tables I and II summarize, placing less empha-
sis on compensating transformer 2 (KΔλ1 = 1.3, KΔλ2 =
0.7) results in less inrush current than the case of equal
weighting (KΔλ1 = 1.0, KΔλ2 = 1.0). During the transient of
transformer 2 switch-in, the proposed control manipulates the
UPS output voltage to suppress the flux deviation mainly for the
incoming transformer. The flux deviation of the transformer 1
(i.e., the existing transformers) is also taken into account in the
proposed control, but all these transformers are fed by the same
UPS. Inevitably, the flux of the existing transformers will be
affected by the compensation effort as depicted in (9) and (10).
By assigning higher control weighting on the transformer with
less flux headroom, the proposed control method can handle the
flux of the existing transformers and the incoming transformer
more adequately and accomplish reduced transient converter
current, thus reducing the risk of triggering the UPS overcurrent
warning.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper has presented a flux compensation technique for
multiple transformers fed by the UPS inverter. The proposed
control method consists of two parts: 1) closed-loop flux control
and 2) energizing sequence control. Without considering the
switching-on angle of the transformer, the closed-loop flux
control loop is designed for simultaneously maintaining the
flux linkages of the transformers which are online and the
transformer which is switched on to prevent inrush current.
Test results show that the weighted control gain of the existing
transformer flux and the incoming transformer flux can affect
the performance of inrush current reduction. The system de-
signer can strike a balance between the magnetic saturation
thresholds of all transformers to select a proper weighting
combination. To further reduce the inrush current magnitude,
the energizing sequence control is integrated into the closed-
loop flux control loop. In this case, the closed-loop flux control
is used to compensate the flux dc offset due to error in switching
timing. These two inrush current mitigation methods can take
effect in different ways; thus, conflict between the two methods
does not exist, and both load transformers are relieved of the
risk of inrush current.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Steurer and K. Frohlich, “The impact of inrush currents on the mechan-
ical stress of high voltage power transformer coils,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 155–160, Jan. 2002.
[2] R. A. Turner and K. S. Smith, “Transformer inrush currents,” IEEE Ind.
Appl. Mag., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 14–19, Sep./Oct. 2010.
[3] D. Povh and W. Schultz, “Analysis of overvoltages caused by transformer
magnetizing inrush current,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-97,
no. 4, pp. 1355–1365, Jul. 1978.
[4] M. Nagpal, T. G. Martinich, A. Moshref, K. Morison, and P. Kundur,
“Assessing and limiting impact of transformer inrush current on power
quality,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 890–896, Apr. 2006.
[5] S. G. Abdulsalam, W. Xu, W. L. A. Neves, and X. Liu, “Estimation of
transformer saturation characteristics from inrush current waveforms,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 170–177, Jan. 2006.
[6] Y. Cui, S. G. Abdulsalam, S. Chen, and W. Xu, “A sequential phase
energization technique for transformer inrush current reduction—Part I:
Simulation and experimental results,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 943–949, Apr. 2005.
[7] W. Xu, S. G. Abdulsalam, Y. Cui, and X. Liu, “A sequential phase
energization technique for transformer inrush current reduction—Part II:
Theoretical analysis and design guide,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 950–957, Apr. 2005.
[8] V. Zaltsman, “Inrush current control for equipment powered by UPSs,” in
Proc. 11th INTELEC, 1989, vol. 2, pp. 19.4/1–19.4/7.
[9] C. Fitzer, A. Arulampalam, M. Barnes, and R. Zurowski, “Mitigation of
saturation in dynamic voltage restorer connection transformers,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1058–1066, Nov. 2002.
[10] Y.-H. Chen and P.-T. Cheng, “An inrush current mitigation technique for
the line-interactive uninterruptible power supply systems,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1498–1508, Jul./Aug. 2010.
[11] M. J. Ryan, W. E. Brumsickle, and R. D. Lorenz, “Control topology
options for single-phase UPS inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 33,
no. 2, pp. 493–501, Mar./Apr. 1997.
[12] P. T. Cheng, J. M. Chen, and C. L. Ni, “Design of a state-feedback
controller for series voltage-sag compensators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 260–267, Jan./Feb. 2009.
[13] J. H. Brunke and K. J. Frohlich, “Elimination of transformer inrush cur-
rents by controlled switching—Part I: Theoretical considerations,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 276–280, Apr. 2001.
[14] J. H. Brunke and K. J. Frohlich, “Elimination of transformer inrush
currents by controlled switching—Part II: Application and performance
considerations,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 281–285,
Apr. 2001.
[15] N. Chiesa and H. K. Hoidalen, “Novel approach for reducing transformer
inrush currents: Laboratory measurements, analytical interpretation and
simulation studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2609–
2616, Oct. 2010.
[16] Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Sheets, Nippon Steel Corporation, Tokyo,
Japan, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.nsc.co.jp/
Yu-Hsing Chen was born in Kaohsiung, Taiwan,
on December 12, 1979. He received the B.S. degree
from Kun Shan University, Tainan, Taiwan, in 2002
and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from National Tsing
Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, in 2004 and 2010,
respectively.
He is currently an Electrical Engineer with Delta
Electronics, Inc., Chungli, Taiwan. His research in-
terests include voltage sag ride-through technologies
and converter controls.
Ming-Yang Yeh was born in Tainan, Taiwan, on
September 13, 1987. He received the B.S. degree
from National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sci-
ences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in 2009 and the M.S. de-
gree from National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu,
Taiwan, in 2011.
He is currently an Electrical Engineer with Delta
Electronics, Inc., Tainan, Taiwan.
Po-Tai Cheng (S’96–M’99) received the B.S. de-
gree from National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu,
Taiwan, in 1990 and the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees
from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI,
USA, in 1994 and 1999, respectively.
He is currently a Professor in the Department
of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua Uni-
versity, Hsinchu. His research interests include mi-
crogrid and smart grid issues, power electronics
for distributed energy resources, and high-power
converters.
CHEN et al.: INRUSH CURRENT REDUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR MULTIPLE INVERTER-FED TRANSFORMERS
Jen-Chuan Liao was born in Nantou, Taiwan,
on February 11, 1967. He received the B.S. de-
gree from National Taiwan University of Science
and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1992 and the
M.S. degree from Tatung University, Taipei, Taiwan,
in 1996.
He joined Delta Electronics, Inc., Tainan, since in
1996 and is currently an R&D Manager responsi-
ble for the product development of uninterruptible-
power-supply-related products.
megawatt wind converters, EV charging stations, and much more.
483
Wen-Yin Tsai was born in 1963. He received
the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from National Cheng Kung University, Tainan,
Taiwan, in 1989 and 1995, respectively.
He is currently the Operation General Manager
of the Power System Business Group (PSBG) at
Delta Electronics Inc., Tainan, Taiwan. The whole
range of the PSBG product portfolio includes tele-
com power supplies, uninterruptible power supplies,
mission-critical infrastructure power and cooling
solutions, solar inverter, medium-voltage drives,