Received: 13 December 2018 Revised: 1 June 2019 Accepted: 2 July 2019

DOI: 10.1002/cta.2682

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Modified method for transformer magnetizing

characteristic computation and point‐on‐wave control
switching for inrush current mitigation

Abdelghani Yahiou1 | Abdelhafid Bayadi1 | Badreddine Babes2

1
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Technology, Ferhat Abbas Setif
1 University, Sétif, Algeria
2
Research Center in Industrial
Technologies (CRTI), Algiers, Algeria
Correspondence
Abdelghani Yahiou, Department of
Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Technology, Ferhat Abbas Setif 1
University, 19000 Setif, Algeria.
Email: abdelghani.yahiou@univ‐setif.dz
Summary
This paper proposes a new model for the low‐frequency transient analysis of a
transformer, with a modified equation for calculation of the flux‐current char-
acteristic representing the saturation inductance of the transformer. The model
is based on the V‐I (voltage‐current) no‐load curves and uses the no‐load reac-
tive power losses. To validate the model, it was used to simulate the no‐load
magnetizing current in steady‐state condition, as well as the transient inrush
current at network frequency. Evaluation was done both by comparing the sim-
ulation results obtained with the proposed model and those available in the rel-
evant literature, and by practical measurements. The experimental results
presented in this paper were obtained via a laboratory setup and a data acqui-
sition system based on the dSPACE board 1104. Moreover, a control switching
to mitigate the transient inrush current in a transformer was developed and
applied experimentally in the laboratory and also in the simulations. This con-
trol strategy was performed by taking into account the residual flux at the open-
ing instant of the related circuit breaker. A comparative study was carried out
showing the validity of the proposed model and the mitigation technique.

KEYWORDS
control switching, dSPACE data acquisition system, saturation modeling, transformer nonlinearity,
transient inrush current

1 | INTRODUCTION

Transient inrush currents occur during the energization of unloaded transformers. Their simulation is complex, and the
transformer must be modeled correctly in order to represent the nonlinear magnetization behavior, the losses, and the
saturation effects in its iron core.
Therefore, the essential part that must be modeled in a transformer, for transient studies, is the magnetizing branch
which represents the iron core. Current linear models do not give simulation results that can be corroborated by prac-
tical results or measurements, whether in steady‐state or transient conditions.
Several methods are available in the literature, however, for calculating and estimating the saturation characteristic
flux‐current, such as that presented in Neves and Dommel,1 Neves,2 and Prusty and Rao,3 where the authors proposed
an algorithm to compute the saturation curve (flux‐current). The algorithm used mainly active power losses, voltage,
and current for the transformer unloaded test data and was based on piecewise linearized inductance. The authors
Int J Circ Theor Appl. 2019;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cta © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 YAHIOU ET AL.

stressed the effectiveness of the algorithm and the simplicity of its integration in the electro‐magnetic transient program
(EMTP). A simple technique to estimate the deep saturation characteristics of transformers was proposed in de León
and Jazebi.4 It measures the flux‐current characteristic directly to obtain the air core inductance using a simple low‐
power static rectifier. Stenzel and Weber5 proposed a model which depends mainly on the substituting of the trans-
former hysteresis loop by a linear piecewise saturation curve and including remanence in the inrush current simulation.
Moradi and Madani6 demonstrated the advantage of using the flux‐current circuit (which contains few elements) in the
analysis of the current and flux in the transformer, compared with the use of the voltage‐current circuit. Some analytical
formulas were also derived to estimate the inrush current envelope, core flux, and maximum peak of inrush current
(MPIC). The formulas and the proposed model were validated by comparing the experimental and EMTP simulation
results. According to the authors, the formulas and the model can easily predict the inrush waveforms, thereby improv-
ing transformer protection. Chiesa7 proposed an advanced model of the iron core, in which each loss in the iron core
(eddy current losses, anomalous losses, and hysteresis losses) is represented by a nonlinear resistance while the mag-
netic saturation is modeled by nonlinear inductance. Martinez‐Velasco et al8 presented a review of the major trans-
former models existing up to 2003 used in the simulation midfrequency and low‐frequency transients. Abdulsalam
et al9 provide a new method for estimation of the saturation curve from the waveform data of the transformer inrush
current and claimed that there was close agreement between the simulation and measurement results of the magnetiz-
ing and inrush current. Oyanagi et al10 proposed a method to convert the current‐time curve to the current‐flux char-
acteristic, which is important for transient analysis. The method is essentially based on the measurement of the peak
current and the magnetic flux in the iron core. In Noshad et al,11 a new method to investigate ultra‐saturation at the
energization time of the loaded three‐phase transformer was presented, with consideration of its effect on differential
protection. The ultra‐saturation phenomenon was modeled by taking into account the residual flux and the nonlinearity
of the saturation curve. Jazebi et al12,13 focused on modeling this branch using the principle of duality. In Wiechowski
et al,14 the method presented in Neves and Dommel1 for implementation and verification in the DigsiLent Program-
ming Language (DPL) was exploited. Ketabim and Naseh15 proposed a method based on the differential evolution
(DE) algorithm to identify the iron core parameters, in which the DE was used to minimize the difference between
the measured and calculated inrush current. A method for correctly estimating the inrush current in the transformer
was also presented in this work. According to the authors, the model can be used for transient studies such as inrush
current and ferroresonance. Wu et al16 proposed a novel method to calculate the major hysteresis loop of a three‐phase
transformer; the necessary information was measured by standard tests at the transformer terminals and also some dig-
ital instrumentation. The two Y‐Y and Y‐D connections were illustrated in this paper. In the simulation, the hysteresis
loop obtained was implemented in the dual‐reversible model, and the latter was validated with measurements. Good
agreement between the measurements and the simulation was found. Dönük17 proposed a teaching method and intro-
duced a phase shift between the harmonic and fundamental components of the source voltage on the characteristic B‐H
by experimental work performed on a toroidal transformer. The method appeared to be very efficient and useful to gain
experience on the effects of harmonics on the transformer cores.
In addition, several methods have been proposed and developed to mitigate and eliminate transient inrush currents
in single‐phase and three‐phase transformers.
Huang et al18 analyzed a process for the excitation of an unloaded transformer in an electric power system. They also
presented a new scheme of controlled switching to mitigate the magnetizing inrush current from the delta‐connected
and the ungrounded star‐connected transformers, taking into account the phase shift between the three phases. The
strategy was verified by the EMTP. A detailed comparison between four strategies can be found in the paper by Cano‐
González et al,19 who identified that these strategies are the result of combining two options: that of independent‐
pole‐operated circuit breakers and that in which the residual flux in transformer core is taken into account.
Brunke et al20,21 were among the first to propose a technique to mitigate the inrush current of single and three‐phase
transformers. The technique is mainly based on three strategies: rapid, delayed, and a simultaneous closing strategy
considering the residual flux. A new approach was presented in Cheng et al22 based on changing the distribution of
the coil windings to increase the transient inductance and hence limit the inrush current. Arand et al, Abdulsalam
and Xu, Cui et al, and Xu et al23-26 proposed a simple method based on inserting a resistor in the neutral of the trans-
former, and with the sequential energization of each phase. Abdelsalam and Abdelaziz27 studied the reduction of the
inrush current by the existing photovoltaic source; the reduction was achieved applying an opposite flux, taking into
account the switching instant. In Cano‐González et al,28 a method for isolating the three‐phase transformer neutral
by controlled switching was presented, taking into account the phase sequential and residual flux. Pires et al29 proposed
a scheme to mitigate the inrush current in the transformer, using a circuit based on the progressive start with a
YAHIOU ET AL. 3

controlled voltage ramp. The method also used the phase‐locked loop (PLL) to synchronize the firing angle pulses with
the line (in the ramp, the fire angle is decreased from 180° to 0°). Several winding configurations of the transformer
were simulated and assembled. For the Yn‐D configuration, a persistent inrush current was observed. According to
the authors, simulation and experimental results proved the effectiveness of the proposed strategy.
In the present paper, the method presented in Wiechowski et al14 was modified and developed to calculate the sat-
uration curve which represents the saturation inductance of the transformer iron core, ie, the nonlinear resistance and
inductance, which is based on the reactive losses at no‐load test.
After identifying the parameters of the transformer equivalent circuit, and describing of the method found in
Wiechowski et al,14 the modified method of this paper will be presented in detail. Then, to confirm and validate the
approach presented, the simulation results obtained using the proposed method and the literature method are compared
with the experimental results obtained using a data acquisition system. The comparison is done for both permanent and
transient operating regimes. Finally, to minimize or eliminate the transient inrush current, a control strategy based on
the estimation of the flux waveform using Faraday's law, with the extraction of the residual flux value at the opening
instant of the circuit breaker, will be presented. This control was used in simulation as well as in the practical
measurement.

2 | T R A N S F O R M E R MO D E LI N G

2.1 | Identification of test transformer parameters

The equivalent circuit of a single‐phase transformer is shown in Figure 1.

Accuracy in the estimation of the transformer equivalent circuit parameters, and in the presentation of transformer
nonlinearities, is essential, due to the direct influence of some transient conditions such as inrush current and
ferroresonance on the simulation.30,31
Table 1 shows the data on the transformer nameplate.
To determine these parameters, the conventional method involving no‐load and short‐circuit tests was used.32
The equivalent circuit parameters obtained were: shunt resistance, Rm = 2847.05 Ω, shunt reactance Xm = 609.72 Ω,
series equivalent resistance, Req = 3.48 Ω, and series equivalent reactance, Xeq = 2.69 Ω.

2.2 | Iron core nonlinearities modeling

The real behavior of the transformer core is achieved by including the nonlinearities to represent the observed satura-
tion effects. For that purpose, a modified method for calculating the saturation curve of the magnetizing branch was
developed and was presented.
In the linear case, the equivalent circuit of a transformer under no‐load test conditions can be reduced to a resistance
Rm in parallel with an inductance Lm33 as shown in Figure 2A. However, this representation does not produce the real
behavior of the transformer. It is, therefore, necessary to include saturation and hysteresis effects using the parallel non-
linear branch elements, as shown in Figure 2B.
Rm and Lm are modeled using piecewise linear curves, as shown in Figure 3A,B, respectively,
where Rmk and Lmk (k=1, 2, …, N) are the segments slope for each curve.
The nonlinear resistance Rm describes two effects: eddy current and nonlinear hysteresis losses,5,14,34 and the nonlin-
ear inductance Lm represents only the saturation.

FIGURE 1 Equivalent circuit of the

transformer
4 YAHIOU ET AL.

TABLE 1 Transformer data

Rated Power Frequency Phase Rated Voltage Ratio Turn Ratio Rated Current Ratio Isolated Class

2 kVA 50 Hz 1 220/25 V 330/37 tr 9.1/80 A E

FIGURE 2 Magnetization branch model. A, Linear iron core model; B, nonlinear iron core model

FIGURE 3 Nonlinear piecewise curves. A, Voltage‐Active current (v = f(ir)) characteristic (Rm); B, Linkage flux‐Reactive current (λ = f(il))
characteristic (Lm)

v: Voltage;
ir: Active current through Rm;
λ: Linkage flux;
il: Reactive current through Lm.

2.2.1 | Calculation of the nonlinear resistance characteristic (v = f(ir))

This characteristic is calculated, segment by segment, using the peak values of the resistive current ir(t) from the active
no‐load losses P0.
According to Wiechowski et al,14 because of the symmetry of the v = f (ir) characteristic with respect to the origin, it
is sufficient to observe a quarter of the cycle, in other words for an angle α = π/2.
In general, ir(α) can be found for each v(α) through the nonlinear v = f (ir) characteristic. This will give us the curve
ir(α) over a quarter of a cycle, from which the no‐load active losses are found as

2 π2
P ¼ ∫0 vðαÞir ðαÞdα (1)
π

with

vðαÞ ¼ V k sinðαÞ (2)

YAHIOU ET AL. 5

pffiffiffi
and V k ¼ V rmsk × 2 is the voltage magnitude of segment k.
Vrms: rms voltage value.
For k = 1 the resistance R1 is equal to

V2rms1
R1 ¼ (3)
P1

The current of the first segment is

pffiffiffi
Vrms1 2
ir1 ¼ (4)
R1

For the following segments (k ≥ 2), power definition of Equation (1) must be used:
  
2 α1 Vk sinα
Pk ¼ ∫0 ðVk sinαÞ dαþ
π R1
 
α2 Vk sinα − V1
∫α1 ðVk sinαÞ Ir1 þ dα þ … þ (5)
R2
  
π
Vk sinα − Vk−1
∫αk−1 ðVk sinαÞ Irk−1 þ
2
dα
Rk

where
Pk is the active power losses, and αj (j = 1,2, …,n) are the break points of the saturation curve.

2.2.2 | Calculation of the nonlinear inductance characteristic (λ = f(il))

In Wiechowski et al,14 the authors had to determine the v = f (ir) characteristic before calculating the λ = f (il) charac-
teristic using the active power losses. However, the modified method proposed in this paper utilizes the reactive power
losses, and it is not necessary to calculate the v = f (ir) characteristic.
Let us assume that the no‐load reactive power losses Q1, Q2, Q3,…, Qnare function of the applied voltages Vrms − 1,
Vrms − 2, Vrms − 3…Vrms − n, as shown in Figure 4.
The values of Q1, Q2, Q3,…, Qn are calculated using the no‐load active power losses P1, P2, P3,…, Pn of Table 2.
Due to the symmetry of the saturation curve, it is sufficient to take a quarter cycle of the voltage waveform as shown
in Figure 5.
In general, il(α) can be found for each v(α) through the nonlinear v = f (il) characteristic, or graphically as indicated
by the dotted lines in Figure 3. This will give us the curve il(α) over a quarter of a cycle, from which the no‐load reactive
losses are found:

FIGURE 4 Reactive power losses—voltage characteristic Qk = f(Vk) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 YAHIOU ET AL.

TABLE 2 Transformer open‐circuit test results

V0, V I 0, A P0, W

00.00 00.00 00.00

9.90 0.005 0.025
220.00 0.369 17.00
275.60 0.978 37.30
305.30 1.591 52.50
316.50 2.033 60.00
326.50 2.908 88.00
343.20 9.30 110.0
348.40 13.00 150.0
352.30 20.00 195.0
356.00 30.00 270.0
360.10 47.00 500.0

FIGURE 5 One‐fourth (1/4) of the

waveform cycle. A, Saturation curve; B,
Reactive current il; and C, voltage source
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

π
2 2
Q ¼ ∫0 vαil αdα (6)
π

It should be noted that all calculations are based on the peak values.
In the first segment (ie, for k = 1), the characteristic is assumed linear. The slope is calculated by

V 2rms 1
X1 ¼ (7)
Q1

Xi: Reactance of the slope Lmi.

YAHIOU ET AL. 7

The magnetizing current is then

pffiffiffi
V rms1 2
il1 ¼ : (8)
X1

Starting from the second segment (k ≥ 2), the characteristic is nonlinear, and it is necessary to use the reactive power
definition of Equation (6). In the modified method, the active power losses Pk, the active current ir, and the resistance Rk
are replaced by the reactive power losses Qk, the reactive current il, and the reactance Xk, respectively. In this case,
Equations (6) and (7) replace Equations (1) and (5):
  
2 α1 V k sinα
Qk ¼ ∫0 ðV k sinαÞ dαþ
π X1
 
α2 V k sinα − V 1
∫α1 ðV k sinαÞ I l1 þ dα þ …þ (9)
X2
  
π
V k sinα − V k−1
∫αk−1 ðV k sinαÞ I lk−1 þ
2
dα
Xk

pffiffiffi
V k ¼ V rms−k × 2 (10)

where:
Qk: Reactive power losses of segment k.
The αjare given by

Vj
αj ¼ sin−1 (11)
Vk

In Equation (9), the only unknown parameter is the reactance Xk for the segment k at the time of the current com-
putation. It can be rewritten as follows:

blk
Qk ¼ alk þ (12)
Xk

With the known quantities alk, blk, and Qk, the slope Xk for each segment k can be easily calculated. Then, the reac-
tive current ilk is determined from

V k − V k−1
ilk ¼ ilk−1 þ (13)
Xk

In a power transformer, the flux ϕ in the iron core is proportional to the applied voltage Vk in the primary winding in
the no‐load test. According to Faraday's law:

dϕ dλ
vk ¼ V k sinðωtÞ ¼ n1 ¼ (14)
dt dt

Vk
λðt Þ ¼ ∫V k sinðωt Þdt ¼ cosðωt Þ ¼ λk cosðωt Þ (15)
ω
n1: Number of turns.
Considering Equation (15), the maximum linkage flux of segment k is

Vk
λk ¼ (16)
ω
where:
8 YAHIOU ET AL.

FIGURE 6 Flowchart to compute the

saturation curve [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

ω = 2πf: Angular frequency of the voltage signal, and f : power system frequency.
Figure 6 shows the flowchart to calculate the saturation curve.
Irms: rms current value

2.2.3 | Saturation characteristic of the tested transformer (2 kVA)

In order to calculate this saturation characteristic, the voltage, current, and active power losses are required. Table 2
shows the measured values of voltage, current, and active power losses using a Chauvin Arnoux analyzer (Model: C.
A. 8336).

V0: Primary unload voltage.

I0: Primary unload current.
P0: Unloaded active power losses.

The v = f (ir) characteristic and a conversion to flux‐current values for the saturation characteristic λ = f (il) are per-
formed using the modified method proposed in this paper. The results obtained are shown in Table 3. The λ = f (il) obtained
in Wiechowski et al14 was included only for comparison purposes.
Figure 7 shows a comparison between the saturation curve λ = f (il) obtained with the proposed approach and that
proposed in Wiechowski et al.14
It can be seen from Figure 7 that the two curves are nearly superimposed, except for the last value of the linkage flux,
where for the same value of linkage flux (ie, λ = 1.6210 V.s) the current calculated by the two methods is different: the
current calculated by the proposed method is higher than that calculated by Wiechowski et al.14 This will make it pos-
sible to estimate correctly the magnetizing current in the steady state and then to simulate the transient inrush current,
for a single‐phase transformer.
YAHIOU ET AL. 9

TABLE 3 Results of the calculated curves

Vpeak, V ir, A λ, V.s il, A14 il, A

0 0 0 0 0
14 0.0036 0.0446 0.0061 0.0061
311.13 0.1097 0.9903 0.5150 0.5152
389.75 0.2412 1.2406 1.8607 2.0369
431.76 0.2965 1.3743 3.1256 3.4671
447.59 0.3414 1.4248 4.3861 5.0670
461.74 0.3842 1.4698 7.1129 8.9173
447.60 0.3414 1.4248 4.3861 5.0670
461.74 0.3842 1.4698 7.1129 8.9173
476.02 0.6495 1.5152 14.6989 20.6989
485.35 0.9004 1.5449 28.4246 43.7268
492.71 1.6083 1.5684 37.1205 54.7964
498.22 2.2172 1.5859 66.4507 109.397
503.46 3.5504 1.6026 98.2100 162.631
509.25 8.5901 1.6210 154.672 259.742

FIGURE 7 Positive part of the saturation characteristic λ = f(il) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 8 Hysteretic cycle of the studied transformer [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The actual saturation characteristics given in Figure 7 were used to simulate the transient inrush current. The air core
inductance presents the slope of the magnetizing curve when the core is fully saturated; its value is 258.53 μH. The hyster-
esis effect shown in Figure 8 is considered in the simulation.
10 YAHIOU ET AL.

ir: Active current through Rm;

λ: Linkage flux;
il: Reactive current through Lm.

iM ¼ ir þ il

In the next section, an evaluation is carried out by comparing the simulation results obtained with the proposed
model and those available in the relevant literature, and by practical measurement.

3 | E X P E R I M E N T A L S E T U P AN D T E S T P R O C E D U R E

The laboratory test system is depicted in Figure 9A. The 2‐kVA transformer is supplied by a 220 V alternative current (AC)
voltage source. The magnetizing current signal was measured using a current sensor, and the applied voltage was mea-
sured using a voltage probe. The signals were acquired simultaneously using a digital oscilloscope and a dSPACE 1104 data
acquisition card, which is connected to a computer. Data acquisition control, storage, and analysis were performed using
dSPACE experiment software under MATLAB environment. The developed interface is shown in Figure 9B.
In the steady‐state regime, the unloaded transformer is powered by an AC voltage which is gradually increased until it
reaches its nominal value (220 V). The measured magnetizing current signal is shown in Figure 10A. The current has an
rms value of 0.369 A. However, in the transient regime, a circuit breaker is added to the experimental setup to perform the
transient inrush phenomenon. The value of the supply voltage is set to 220 V, and a trip signal is passed to the circuit
breaker to close at any desired instant t, imitating the transient inrush current phenomenon. The transient inrush current
signal is then recorded.

FIGURE 9 Measurement and acquisition. A, Laboratory setup; B, front panel of the data acquisition system [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 10 Steady‐state current. A, Magnetizing current; B, error between measurement and simulations [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
YAHIOU ET AL. 11

4 | VALIDATION OF THE TRANSFORMER MODEL

Simulated and experimental magnetizing current signals for the steady‐state regime are provided in Figure 10A. On com-
parison of these signals, it is evident that the use of the proposed transformer model improves the results, and a very good
agreement with the recorded experimental magnetizing current is observed. This finding is well supported by the calcu-
lated error shown in Figure 10B.
A comparison between measured and computed magnetizing inrush current waveforms for the case of the transient
regime is shown in Figure 11A. As can be seen from the figure, a good agreement between the measured and computed
results using the proposed approach is obtained. The computed first peak current is 36.76 A, which is very close to the mea-
sured one which is about 36.05 A, whereas a net difference can be seen (Figure 11B) between the measured and computed
results using the approach in Wiechowski et al.14 In this case, the calculated value is 31.68 A.
The above results show that the proposed approach is extremely good for modeling power transformers with different
control techniques to simulate transient low‐frequency conditions such as inrush current.

5 | I N R U S H C U R R E N T R E D U C T I O N BY CO N T R O L L E D S W I T C H I N G

In this section, a method for reducing the inrush current in a single‐phase transformer will be presented. Detailed com-
parisons of the simulation results with the practical results are carried out showing the validity of this approach. The
mitigation method is based on determining the optimal closing time on the point‐on‐wave voltage waveform.

5.1 | Control state procedure

The method by which the circuit breaker is opened and closed, either randomly or by control, is the main goal of this
section. First, the transformer is randomly energized at t = 0.5725 seconds and remains closed during a period of
0.0506 seconds; the circuit breaker then opens randomly at t = 0.6231 seconds. Finally, the circuit breaker is reclosed
with the controlled switching strategy at t = 1.5651 seconds taking into account the data of the last opening and the
point‐on‐wave of the voltage when closing.
To confirm that this control strategy operates properly and effectively and gives consistently good results, the proce-
dure was repeated several times.

5.2 | Principle of controlled switching

In a transformer, the core flux ϕ is proportional to the applied voltage v in the primary winding, and according to the
Faraday's law considering a sinusoidal applied voltage, one can write

d∅ dλ
vðt Þ ¼ V max sinðωt Þ ¼ n1 ¼ (17)
dt dt

where Vmax is the voltage magnitude and λ is the linkage flux.

FIGURE 11 Transient inrush current signal. A, Waveform; B, error between measurement and simulation [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
12 YAHIOU ET AL.

Integrating Equation ((17)) gives

V max
λt ¼ ∫V max sinωtdt ¼ − cosωt þ K ¼ −λmax cosωt þ K (18)
ω

At the closing instant, the flux value is equal to the residual flux λR. Therefore, Equation ((18)) can be rewritten as
follows:

V max  
λR ¼ − cos ω t cl−opt þ K (19)
ω

tcl − opt:
Optimal closing time.
Considering that λR has the same value at tcl − opt and at top, the constant K is

V max  
K ¼ λR þ cos ωt cl−opt (20)
ω

λR: Residual linkage flux.

Equation ((18)) then becomes

V max V max
λt ¼ − cosωt þ cosωt cl−opt þ λR (21)
ω ω

In order to eliminate the magnetization inrush current, it is necessary for the linkage flux at the closing instant and
the residual flux to compensate each other, so that the total linkage flux is equal to the linkage flux in the steady state.

Vmax
λ ðtÞ ¼ − cosðωtÞ (22)
ω

This means that

Vmax
λR þ cosω tcl−opt ¼ 0 (23)
ω

Figure 12 presents an explanation of the relationship between the applied voltage v and the linkage flux λ at the
instant of opening and controlled closing of the circuit breaker. It is assumed that the period between the opening
and closing times is small enough for the residual flux takes the same value at the two instants.
The control strategy program shown in Figure 13 to mitigate the inrush current is based essentially on Equation (23).

FIGURE 12 Optimal energization to

eliminate the transient inrush current
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
YAHIOU ET AL. 13

FIGURE 13 Data acquisition system flowchart [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 14 Control and flux

measurement strategy [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

5.3 | Real‐time measurement and control strategy

The measurement and control strategy to estimate the flux and to control the circuit breaker are shown in Figure 14.
The following steps are involved:

1. The voltage source is fixed at the nominal value of the transformer high voltage side; the current and voltage signals
are acquired.
2. The circuit breaker is programmed to close at the time when the voltage signal passes through zero, whatever the
value of the residual flux.
3. The voltage signal is integrated to get the flux signal.
4. The residual flux is estimated at the opening instant of the circuit breaker.
5. Using the Control Desk interface, the optimal closing instant is calculated.
6. To confirm that the control strategy gives the same results, the point‐on‐wave of the voltage is changed during the
opening of the circuit breaker (angles are varied between 0 and 2π rad) to sweep the entire period of the voltage
signal.

Figure 15 presents the method used to estimate the residual flux and to calculate the optimal closing instant.

5.4 | Point‐on‐wave controlled switching strategy results

Measurement and simulation results during the whole energization process using the proposed strategy are presented in
Figures 16, 17, and 18. First, the transformer is energized for a duration of about 0.50962 seconds. Then, the transformer
is de‐energized for a duration of about 0.49885 seconds to take into account the residual flux. Finally, the circuit breaker
is again closed using the proposed control algorithm. This procedure is done for both simulations and experimental
measurement. The results are obtained considering three values for the angle α changing on the voltage waveform
7π 11π
(ie, α = π, α ¼ , and α ¼ ).
6 6
14 YAHIOU ET AL.

FIGURE 15 Algorithm for computation of the optimal closing time [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 16 Inrush current mitigation by controlled switching with α = π. A, Measurement; B, simulation [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

π
FIGURE 17 Inrush current mitigation by controlled switching with α ¼ 7 . A, Measurement; B, simulation [Colour figure can be viewed
6
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

As can be observed from Figures 16, 17, and 18, it is clear from both simulation and experimental results that there is
a reduction in the magnetizing inrush current. On thorough comparison between the simulations and the measure-
ments, we can also notice that the experimental inrush current plots confirm the results achieved from theoretical sim-
ulations both quantitatively and qualitatively. As expected, higher recorded inrush currents are obtained by
uncontrolled energizing and even exceed the rated current regardless of the value of angle α. The obtained inrush cur-
rents are 44.82, 5.322, and −31.1 A, respectively. The inrush current is reduced to the value of the no‐load current in all
cases regardless of the residual flux pattern. A significant reduction in inrush current has been achieved because the de‐
energization and energization are controlled and the circuit breaker is open and closed at the same point‐on‐wave.
YAHIOU ET AL. 15

π
FIGURE 18 Inrush current mitigation by controlled switching with α ¼ 11 . A, Measurement; B, simulation [Colour figure can be viewed
6
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The effectiveness of the proposed controlled switching was confirmed and has a direct influence on the re‐
energization of the transformer.

6 | CONCLUSION

In this paper, a new model for the iron core of a single‐phase transformer was presented. This model takes into account
the saturation of the transformer iron core, with a nonlinear inductance represented by the saturation curve λ = f (il),
which is dependent on reactive power loss.
To validate this model, simulation results using the proposed model as well as a model available in the specialized
literature were compared with experimental results, for the case of an unloaded magnetizing current in steady state,
as well as for a transient inrush current.
This study has clearly shown that the main advantage of the proposed model is that it substantiates the simulation
results with measurement results, as compared with results obtained using the literature model.
Although a controlled switching for transient inrush current mitigation is applied in this paper, the algorithm of this
technique is based on the residual flux value. Furthermore, real‐time implementation was carried out on a laboratory
measurement dSPACE setup on top of a model simulation study, leading to a positive assessment of the proposed model
despite the angle point‐on‐wave voltage changes during circuit breaker opening or closing. This further confers reliabil-
ity on the proposed model for a single‐phase transformer and the control strategy developed.

ORCID
Abdelghani Yahiou https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5877-5859
Badreddine Babes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9256-2021

R EF E RE N C E S
1. Neves WLA, Dommel HW. On modelling iron core nonlinearities. IEEE Trans on Power Syst. 1993;8(2):417‐425.
2. Neves WLA. Transformer Modelling for Transient Studies. Canada: British Colombia University; 1994.
3. Prusty S, Rao MVS. A direct piecewise linearized approach to convert rms saturation characteristic to instantaneous saturation curve.
IEEE Trans On Mag. 1980;16(1):156‐160.
4. de León F, Jazebi S. Accurate measurement of the air‐core inductance of iron‐core transformers with a non‐ideal low‐power rectifier.
IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2014;29(1):294‐296.
5. Stenzel J, Weber T. Model representing the nonlinear behaviour of three‐phase transformers. Elect Eng Journal. 1994;77:143‐150.
6. Moradi A, Madani SM. Technique for inrush current modelling of power transformers based on core saturation analysis. IET generation.
Trans & Dist. 2018;12(10):2317‐2324.
7. Chiesa N. Power Transformer Modelling Advanced Core Model. Italy: Polytechnic University of Milan; 2005.
8. Martinez‐Velasco JA, Mork BA. Transformer modeling for low frequency transients—the state of the art. Inter Conf on Power Syst Trans
USA. 2003;n/a: 03IPST09a‐03IPST01a 1‐6. https://ipstconf.org/papers/Proc_IPST2003/03IPST09a‐01.pdf
16 YAHIOU ET AL.

9. Abdulsalam SG, Xu W, Neves WLA, Liu X. Estimation of transformer saturation characteristics from inrush current waveforms. IEEE
Trans on Power Del. 2006;21(1):170‐177.
10. Oyanagi R, Noda T, Ichikawa M. A method for estimating the current–flux curve of a single‐phase transformer for electromagnetic tran-
sient simulations of inrush currents. Elect Eng in Japan. 2018;204(2):183‐192.
11. Noshad B, Tabatabaee S, Ghanavati B, Mohammadzadeh S. A new model to study ultra‐saturation phenomenon during the energization
of a loaded three‐phase power transformer and its effects on differential protection. Int Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2015;25(12):3681‐3703.
12. Jazebi S, Zirka SE, Lambert M, et al. Duality derived transformer models for low‐frequency electromagnetic transients—part I: topological
models. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2016;31(5):2410‐2419.
13. Jazebi S, Rezaei‐Zare A, Lambert M, et al. Duality derived transformer models for low‐frequency electromagnetic transients—part II:
complementary modeling guidelines. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2016;31(5):2420‐2430.
14. Wiechowski W, Bak‐Jensen B, Bak CL, Lykkegaard J. Harmonic domain modelling of transformer core nonlinearities using the
DIgSILENT power factory software. Elect Power Qual and Utilisat Journal. 2008;14:3‐12.
15. Ketabim A, Naseh M. Single‐phase transformer modeling for inrush currents simulation using differential evolution. Eur T Electr Power.
2012;22(3):402‐411.
16. Wu Q, Hong T, Jazebi S, de Leon F. Experimentally validated method to measure the λ–i characteristics of asymmetric three‐phase trans-
formers. IEEE Trans on Magnetic. 2019;55(4):1‐9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2019.2897962
17. Dönük A. A laboratory application for teaching the effect of harmonics on transformer core saturation. Inter Journal of Elect Eng & Edu-
cation. 2019;0(0):1‐11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720919837852
18. Huang B, Tai N, Huang W. Novel inrush current restraining method for transformers of shipboard power system. Int Trans Electr Energ
Syst. 2015;25(5):817‐826.
19. Cano‐González R, Bachiller‐Soler A, Rosendo‐Macías JA, Álvarez‐Cordero G. Controlled switching strategies for transformer inrush cur-
rent reduction: a comparative study. Elect Power Syst Res. 2017;145:12‐18.
20. Brunke JH, Fröhlich KJ. Elimination of transformer inrush currents by controlled switching—part I: theoretical considerations. IEEE
Trans on Power Del. 2001;16(2):276‐280.
21. Brunke JH, Fröhlich KJ. Elimination of transformer inrush currents by controlled switching—part II: application and performance con-
siderations. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2001;16(2):281‐285.
22. Cheng CK, Liang TJ, Chen JF, Chen SD, Yang WH. Novel approach to reducing the inrush current of a power transformer. IEE Proc of
Elect and Power App. 2004;151(3):289‐295.
23. Arand SJ, Saeedi M, Masoudi S. Transformer inrush current mitigation using controlled switching and magnetic flux shunts. Inter Journal
of Energy and Power Eng. 2013;2(2):46‐53.
24. Abdulsalam SG, Xu W. A sequential phase energization method for transformer inrush current reduction—transient performance and
practical considerations. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2007;22:2008‐2016.
25. Cui Y, Abdulsalam SG, Chen S, Xu W. A sequential phase energization technique for transformer inrush current reduction—part I: sim-
ulation and experimental results. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2005;20(2):943‐949.
26. Xu W, Abdulsalam SG, Cui Y, Liu X. A sequential phase energization technique for transformer inrush current reduction—part II: the-
oretical analysis and design guide. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 2005;20(2):950‐957.
27. Abdelsalam HA, Abdelaziz AY. A new strategy for selection of switching instant to reduce transformer inrush current in a single‐phase
grid‐connected photovoltaic system. Electric Pow Comp and Syst. 2015;43(11):1297‐1306.
28. Cano‐González R, Bachiller‐Soler A, Rosendo‐Macías JA, Álvarez‐Cordero G. Inrush current mitigation in three‐phase transformers with
isolated neutral. Elec Power Syst Res. 2015;121(1–6):14‐19.
29. Pires IA, Machado AAP, de Jesus Cardoso Filho B. Mitigation of electric arc furnace transformer inrush current using soft‐starter‐based
controlled energization. IEEE Trans on Ind App. 2018;54(4):3909‐3918.
30. Rusch RJ, Good ML. Wyes and wye nots of three‐phase distribution transformer connections. IEEE Trans on Ind App. 1990;26(4):683‐688.
31. Bayless RS. Capacitor switching and transformer transients. IEEE Trans on Power Del. 1988;3(1):349‐357.
32. International Electrotechnical Commission Standards (IEC), Power transformers—Part 11: Dry‐type transformers. IEC 60076‐1, Edition
2.12000–04.
33. Mitra J, Mascarenhas RD, Jayachandran MA. Advanced Transformer Modelling For Transients Simulation. USA: North Dakota State
University; 2003.
34. Bertotti G. General properties of power losses in soft ferromagnetic materials. IEEE Trans on Mag. 1988;24(1):621‐630.

How to cite this article: Yahiou A, Bayadi A, Babes B. Modified method for transformer magnetizing
characteristic computation and point‐on‐wave control switching for inrush current mitigation. Int J Circ Theor
Appl. 2019;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cta.2682