Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Controlled energization procedures of power transformers

Daniel Bejmert a, *, Matthias Kereit b, Klaus Boehme b
a
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland
b
Siemens AG, Berlin, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents results of research related to transformer inrush current reduction with application of
Power transformers controlled switching of circuit breakers. Procedures for switching instant determination for each phase for wide
Inrush current range of possible three-phase transformer constructions are precisely described. Proposed switching techniques
Point-on-wave switching
were thoroughly tested and chosen simulation results are presented in the paper to validate the efficiency of
proposed procedures.

1. Introduction fluxes in remaining phase/phases will disappear. Such long asymmet­

Under typical uncontrolled power transformer energization signifi­
cant inrush currents are usually observed [1–4]. These currents are of
high magnitude and are rich with higher harmonics and DC component.
It may deteriorate power quality [5–8], lead to maloperation of trans­
former protective devices [4,9,10] and finally can affect transformer
lifecycle [1,11–13]. Intensity of magnetizing inrush depends mainly on
remanent flux of the energized transformer, power system impedance,
power transformer nominal power and voltage switching angle
[2–4,14]. Hence, to mitigate transformer inrush currents such methods
as demagnetization [15–17], damping elements application [18–21],
sequential phase energization, and point-on-wave (PoW) switching
[22–26] are developed. Since controlled switching of the power trans­
former does not require any additional devices installed in primary
circuit, thus application of controlled switching is the most promising
technique. For this purpose it is necessary to know actual values of re­
sidual fluxes in energized transformer and, using these values, to
determine appropriate CB switching instants. Obviously it also requires
usage of CBs with independent drives for each phase which are precisely
and repeatably controlled [27,28].
Although the basic principles of PoW technique have been provided
in the literature [22–26], there is no publication that thoroughly address
the problem. Some of them do not present formulas for switching time
determination [24,25]. Others concentrate on one particular type of
power transformer winding connection [22], while some of them do not
take into account transformer core type [22–26]. Additionally, all
techniques recommend to close remaining phase/phases (after first
phase/phases energization) with a significant delay when residual flux/
rical energization of power transformer may cause undesirable opera­
tion of transformer protection.
In this paper, new algorithms for controlled transformer energization
are proposed. One may find here procedures for switching instant
determination for each phase for wide range of possible three-winding
transformer constructions (vector groups and core types). After the
discussion of benchmark cases of transformer energization in Section II,
detailed controlled switching algorithms for various transformer types
are described in Section III. To illustrate the effect of proposed proced­
ures application in terms of the inrush reduction/ elimination chosen
simulation examples are also presented in this section. Simulation
models of power transformers that were used for proposed techniques
validation are shortly discussed in the Appendix. Finally, Section IV
summarizes the paper and gives some recommendations.
2. Benchmark cases of transformer energization
In the further part of this paper proposed point-on-wave switching
procedures are presented. But first, in order to analyze efficiency of the
point-on-wave switching technique the following reference tests have
been prepared:
– uncontrolled transformer energization (ψres = 0),
– uncontrolled transformer energization (ψres ∕
= 0),
– asynchronous transformer energization, simplified method (all
phases energized at max voltage value (ψres = 0),
– asynchronous transformer energization, simplified method (all
phases energized at max voltage value (ψres ∕
= 0).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: daniel.bejmert@pwr.edu.pl (D. Bejmert), matthias.kereit@siemens.com (M. Kereit), klaus.m.boehme@siemens.com (K. Boehme).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107555
Received 16 June 2021; Received in revised form 7 August 2021; Accepted 27 August 2021
Available online 4 September 2021
0142-0615/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Bejmert et al.
Fig. 1. Synchronous CB operation during transformer (YNyn) energization for
two closing time instants (ψres = 0): a) worst possible case; b), c) favourable
energization time instant.
Results of these tests for an YNyn power transformer are presented
below. In Fig. 1 one may see three cases of transformer energization
without residual fluxes. In Fig. 1a the worst energization case is shown.
Inrush current in phase L1 achieves very high value close to 7 kA at the
beginning of energization. It may obviously happen that under uncon­
trolled transformer energization the switching instant will be more
favourable and the inrush currents will be reduced, see Fig. 1b and 1c,
but one may expect that their currents will still be significant.
When transformer with residual fluxes in the core is energized the
inrush currents may achieve even higher values than those observed for
transformer without residual fluxes, see Fig. 2a. Although, in such a case
even under synchronous CB operation it may happen that inrush cur­
rents could also be significantly reduced, what is presented in Fig. 2b.
It is well known that to mitigate inrush currents under energization
of transformer without residual fluxes the CBs should operate at
2
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555
Fig. 2. Synchronous CB operation during transformer (YNyn) energization for
two closing time instants (ψres ∕
= 0): a) worst possible case; b) favourable
energization time instant.
Fig. 3. Controlled asynchronous CB operation during transformer (YNyn)
energization - all phases energized at max voltage value (ψres = 0).
maximum value of voltage waveform of given phase. Results of such
controlled asynchronous transformer energization are presented in
Fig. 3. Obviously, in reality there is almost always some remanent flux in
the transformer core, and then such a controlled transformer energiza­
tion may not bring good results, see Fig. 4.
In further part of this Section the algorithms for optimal point-on-
wave switching of power transformers are thoroughly described. To
simplify the algorithms realization the instant of the first phase/phases
operation is always defined in terms of a phase angle of switched phase/
phases (phase angle of phase-to-ground voltage (φsw_X) in a case of
single-phase energization or phase angle of phase-to-phase voltage
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

Ψbc = Ψb − Ψc (3)

Ψca = Ψc − Ψa
Then fluxes seen from Wye side can be calculated:
ΨA = Ψab ⋅υ

ΨB = Ψbc ⋅υ (4)

ΨC = Ψca ⋅υ
and finally, to realize point-on-wave switching of this type of
transformer ‘phase-to-phase’ fluxes at Wye side are determined:
ΨAB = ΨA − ΨB

ΨBC = ΨB − ΨC (5)
Fig. 4. Controlled asynchronous CB operation during transformer (YNyn)
energization - all phases energized at max voltage value (ψres ∕
= 0).
ΨCA = ΨC − ΨA
b) Only voltage measurement at Wye side is available.
In such a case fluxes at energized side ψA, ψB, ψC can be calculated
directly with use of voltage measurement UA, UB, UC. Then, since to
realize point-on-wave switching of un-grounded Wye transformer
‘phase-to-phase’ fluxes at Wye side are required, one may directly
calculate these fluxes:
ΨAB = ΨA − ΨB

ΨBC = ΨB − ΨC (6)
Fig. 5. Winding arrangement of Yd1 power transformer.
ΨCA = ΨC − ΨA

related to two switched phases (φsw_XY) in a case of two-phase energi­ In a case of energization of grounded YNd1 transformer from Wye
zation). The time instant for the remaining consecutive phase/phases side following cases could be distinguished:
operation (energized after first phase of energization) is always defined a) Delta side is the low voltage side and it is possible to measure
as a time delay (tdel_Y, tdel_Z, tdel_YZ) referred to the first energized phase/ voltage at this side
phases. In such a case fluxes ψa, ψb ψc calculated with use of voltages Ua, Ub,
To realize the proposed algorithms knowledge of remanent fluxes Uc need to be converted onto Wye side. Thus, first ‘phase-to-phase’
referred to transformer energized side is required. If it is possible, fluxes at Delta side are determined:
remanent flux should be determined by the integration of phase voltages
Ψab = Ψa − Ψb
measured at low voltage terminals. When transformer is energized from
low voltage side, then determined fluxes can be used directly if voltage Ψbc = Ψb − Ψc (7)
measurement is available at this side. On the other hand, if transformer
is energized from high voltage side and fluxes can be estimated from LV Ψca = Ψc − Ψa
side voltages, then values of remanent fluxes should be converted onto
HV side taking into account transformer vector group (in the same way Then, fluxes seen from Wye side are calculated as follows:
as it is done in a case of voltages and currents transformation). Let us ΨA = Ψab ⋅υ
assume that one needs to realize remanent flux conversion in a case of
Yd1 transformer (see Fig. 5) energized from Wye side. ΨB = Ψbc ⋅υ (8)
It is well known that relationship between flux seen from Wye side
(ψA, ψB, ψC) and flux seen from Delta side can be expressed as: ΨC = Ψca ⋅υ
ΨA = Ψab ⋅υ (1) b) Only voltage measurement at Wye side are available.
In such a case fluxes at energized side ψA, ψB, ψC can be calculated
where transformer winding ratio is equal to directly with use of voltage measurement UA, UB, UC and any additional
U operations are not necessary.
υ = √̅̅̅ A (2) It is proposed (but it is not obligatory) that first energized phase
3⋅Ua
should be the phase with the highest remanent flux. Then in a case of
Now, in a case of energization of ungrounded Yd1 transformer from single-phase energization (phase X should be energized first)
Wye side two cases could be distinguished:
a) Delta side is the low voltage side and it is possible to measure Ψres X = max(|Ψres A |, |Ψres B |, |Ψres C |) (9)
voltage at this side.
and in a case of two-phase energization (phases XY should be energized
In such a case fluxes ψa, ψb, ψc calculated with use of voltages Ua, Ub,
first)
Uc need to be converted onto Wye side. Thus, first ‘phase-to-phase’
fluxes at Delta side are determined: Ψres XY = max(|Ψres A − Ψres B |, |Ψres B − Ψres C |, |Ψres C − Ψres A |) (10)
Ψab = Ψa − Ψb Additionally, it was assumed that the notation of particular phases
will be as follows:

3
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

4. Controlled energization of YNyn, YNy (5-limb, triplex)

connection groups

In this case (energization from Wye grounded side) all phases of

energized transformer should be switched consecutively (then operation
sequence is UX, UY, UZ).
Since transformer flux of a given winding can be calculated ac­
cording to:
∫t
ΨX (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres X =
tdel X (13)
= − Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres X + Ψmax cosωtdel X ]

then to eliminate residual flux in phase X (ψres_X) the switching time

(tdel_X) must be chosen to meet the following condition:
Ψmax cosωtdel X = − Ψres X (14)
Thus
( )
1 − Ψres X
tdel X = arccos (15)
ω Ψmax

and the switching angle of energized phase should be equal to

( )
− Ψres X
φSW X = arccos (16)
Ψmax

where
√̅̅̅
2⋅UN
Ψmax = (17)
ω
Fig. 6. Controlled energization of YNyn (five limb) transformer (ψres = [180; UN – is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage applied to the energized
− 100; − 80]Vs; ψmax = 285.9Vs): a) synchronous energization; b) controlled winding.
switching (φSW_A = 129.0 deg; tdel_B,C = [4.5; 11.2]ms). If one assumes that precise value of ψres_X cannot be determined but
its sign is known, then approximate value of tdel_X may be calculated
– if X is phase L1 then Y is L2 and Z is L3, according to the following procedure.
– if X is phase L2 then Y is L3 and Z is L1, Assuming that:
– if X is phase L3 then Y is L1 and Z is L2.
Ψresmax = 0.6⋅Ψmax (18)
In all further analysis it was assumed that voltage waveshape at the
and
energized transformer side at the moment of energization has the
following form, for phase or phase-to-phase voltages, respectively: Ψres X = 0.5⋅Ψresmax = 0.3⋅Ψmax (19)
√̅̅̅
UX (t) = 2UN sin(ωt + φsw X ) (11) then for negative ψres_X value
√̅̅̅√̅̅̅ ( )
UXY (t) = 3 2UN sin(ωt + φsw XY ) (12) 1
tdel X = arccos
Ψres X 1
= arccos(0.3) = 4ms (20)
ω Ψmax ω
where:
t is equal to zero at the moment of energization, When phase angle of the first energized phase is determined,
UN is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage, switching time delay of two remaining energized phases (switched
ψsw_X, ψsw_XY are phase angles at the time instant of operation. separately) are calculated according to the following formulas:
( )
120◦ 1 − Ψres Y
3. Determination of optimal transformer switching instants tdel Y = + arccos − tdel X (21)
360 ⋅fn ω
◦ Ψmax

In this Section the proposed point-on-wave switching procedures are
presented. One may find here precise description of controlled trans­
former energization for all possible vector groups and core types.
Considering transformers behaviour under energization all transformer
types were gathered into following groups (assuming that transformer is
energized from high voltage side):
a) Ynyn, Yny (5-limb, triplex),
b) Ynyn, Yny (3-limb),
c) Ynd (5-limb, 3-limb, triplex),
d) Y ungrounded (all possible arrangements of secondary winding
and core type),
e) D (all possible arrangements of secondary winding and core type),
g) autotransformer.
fn – nominal frequency.
In Fig. 6 results of application of the above precise procedure for
YNyn five limb transformer are shown. In Fig. 6b one may see that for
given residual fluxes magnetizing inrush currents were almost
completely reduced as compared to the case where standard synchro­
nous energization was applied, see Fig. 6a. When residual fluxes are not
precisely known and only sign of the residual fluxes can be determined
the simplified method can be used, eq. (19). In Fig. 7 results of operation
of simplified procedure are presented. Although inrush currents are
higher here (Fig. 7b) than those observed under operation of precise
procedure, they are still much lower than normal magnetizing inrush
currents, see Fig. 7a.

4
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

Fig. 7. Controlled energization of YNyn (five limb) transformer when simpli­

Fig. 8. Controlled energization of YNy (three limb) transformer (ψres = [180;
fied method was used for t0 estimation (ψres = [− 6.2845; − 18.3901; 24.6733]
− 100; − 80]Vs; ψmax = 285.9Vs): a) synchronous energization; b) controlled
Vs; ψmax = 51.9Vs): a) worst possible case of synchronous energization; b)
switching (φSW_A = 129.0 deg; tdel_BC = 2.8 ms).
controlled switching (tdel= =[10.7; 17.3; 6.0]ms).

tdel_X – time delay of the first phase energization (calculated from the
5. Controlled energization of YNyn, YNy (3-limb) connection
zero crossing (14)),
groups
tdel_YZ – time delay of the remaining two phases energization
(unknown),
In case of such a transformer construction with energization from
tX_YZ – time delay related to the phase angle shift between phase X
Wye grounded side right after the first phase energization (when asyn­
and phase Y.
chronous energization is applied) dynamic circulating flux, connected
In order to minimize inrush current the following condition should
with the first energized phase voltage, starts to affect fluxes in two
be met:
remaining phases. Hence, this time after first phase energization two
remaining phases should be energized simultaneously (then operation Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) (25)
sequence is UX, UYZ). Phase angle of the first energized phase is deter­
mined according to the same formula that is employed in case of YNyn where the residual flux in remaining energized phases is a dynamic
and YNy 5-limb transformers: circulating flux that can be calculated as follows:
( )
− Ψres X Ψmax
φSW X = arccos (22) Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) = cos(ω(tdel X + tdel YZ )) (26)
Ψmax 2
Then
where
Ψmax
√̅̅̅
2⋅UN cos(ω(tdel X + tdel YZ )) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) (27)
Ψmax = (23) 2
ω
where
UN – is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage applied to the energized
winding. ωtdel X = φsw X (28)
When the first phase is energized the flux in phases YZ can be
calculated according to following formula: ωtX YZ = φYZ (29)
∫t
ΨYZ (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres YZ (t) = what finally leads to the following solution:
tdel X +tdel YZ +tX YZ ( )
1 num
− Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) + Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) ] tdel YZ = arccos √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (30)
ω denom
(24)
where: with

5
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

Fig. 9. Controlled energization of YNd (five limb) transformer (ψres = [80; Fig. 10. Controlled energization of Yyn (five limb) transformer (ψres = [180;
− 200; 120]Vs; ψmax = 285.9Vs): a) synchronous energization; b) controlled − 100; − 80]Vs; ψmax = 495.2Vs): a) synchronous energization; b) controlled
switching (φSW_B = 45.6 deg; tdel_AC = 7.5 ms). switching (φSW_CA = 124.4 deg; tdel_B = 13.1 ms).

num = 2sin(φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 2cos(φsw X )sin(φYZ ) + sin(φsw X ) (31) after the first phase energization. Phase angle of the first energized
phase is determined according to the same formula that is employed in
and case of YNyn and YNy 5-limb transformers:
( )
denom = 4sin2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )... − Ψres X
φSW X = arccos (34)
+4cos (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4sin2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )...
2
Ψmax
+4sin2 (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + sin2 (φsw X ) + cos2 (φsw X )
(32) where
√̅̅̅
φYZ = − 120◦ (33) Ψmax =
2⋅Un
(35)
ω
In Fig. 8 inrush currents of controlled asynchronous energization
with use of proposed PoW switching procedure of YNyn three-limb Un – nominal value of voltage applied to the energized winding.
transformer are shown. One may see that magnetizing currents were When the first phase is energized the flux in phases YZ can be
reduced to the values close to nominal steady-state magnetizing current. calculated according to following formula:
Only small picks appear in all three phases, but they are lower than 10% ∫t
of the nominal current of energized transformer. ΨYZ (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres YZ (t) =
tdel X +tdel YZ +tX YZ

− Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) + Ψmax cos(ωtdel + ωtdel + ωtX YZ ) ]

6. Controlled energization of YNd (all core types) connection
X YZ

(36)
groups
where:
In case of such a transformer construction with energization from tdel_X – time delay of the first phase energization (calculated from the
Wye side right after the first phase energization (when asynchronous zero crossing (14)),
energization is applied) due to the presence of Delta winding dynamic tdel_YZ – time delay of the remaining two phases energization
circulating flux connected with the first energized phase voltage starts to (unknown),
affect fluxes in two remaining phases. Hence, the two remaining phases tX_YZ – time delay related to the phase angle shift between phase X
should be energized simultaneously (then operation sequence is UX, UYZ) and phase Y.

6
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

In order to minimize inrush current the following condition should switching time delay of the remaining energized phase is calculated
be met: according to the following formula:
( )
Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel + ωtdel + ωtX YZ ) (37) 270◦ 1 − Ψres Z
(50)
X YZ
tdel Z = + arccos − tdel XY
360 ⋅fn ω
◦ Ψmax
where the residual flux in remaining energized phases is a dynamic
circulating flux that can be calculated as follows: Proposed point-on-wave switching for energization of ungrounded
Wye transformers brings satisfactory results, what is presented in
Ψres
Ψmax
cos(ω(tdel + tdel (38) Fig. 10. Thanks to application of such switching procedure inrush cur­
YZ (tdel YZ ) = X YZ a))
2 rents were reduced to the values only slightly higher than nominal
Then steady-state magnetizing current. Thus, transformer starts operating
from steady-state, without any undesirable magnetizing inrush.
Ψmax
cos(ω(tdel X + tdel YZ )) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) (39)
2 8. Controlled energization of Delta winding transformer (any
where core type and arrangement of the secondary side winding)

ωtdel X = φsw X (40) In this case with energization from Delta side it is necessary to
energize two phases simultaneously first (then operation sequence is
ωtX YZ = φYZ (41) UXY, UZ). It is recommended (but it is not obligatory) to energize phases
with the highest phase-to-phase residual flux:
what finally leads to the following solution:
( ) Ψres XY = max(|Ψres A − Ψres B |, |Ψres B − Ψres C |, |Ψres C − Ψres A |) (51)
1 num
tdel YZ = arccos √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (42)
ω denom Then to eliminate residual flux in phase X and Y (ψres_XY) the
switching time (tdel_XY) must be correctly determined:
with ( )
1 − Ψres XY
tdel XY = arccos (52)
num = 2sin(φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 2cos(φsw X )sin(φYZ ) + sin(φsw X ) (43) ω Ψmax XY
and
and switching angle of energized phase should be equal to:
denom = 4sin2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )... ( )
− Ψres XY
+4cos2 (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4sin2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )... φSW XY = arccos (53)
Ψmax
+4sin2 (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + sin2 (φsw X ) + cos2 (φsw X )
(44) where
√̅̅̅√̅̅̅
φYZ = − 120 ◦
(45) 3 2⋅UN
Ψmax = (54)
Current waveforms of controlled YNd five-limb transformer energi­ ω
zation are presented in Fig. 9. It is well seen that thanks to application of UN – is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage on energized side.
proposed PoW strategy the inrush currents were limited to the values When the first two phases are energized the flux in phase Z can be
close to nominal steady-state magnetizing current of the considered calculated according to the following formula:
transformer.
∫t
ΨZ (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres Z (t) =
7. Controlled energization of ungrounded Y transformer (any tdel XY +tdel X +tXY Z (55)
core type and arrangement of the secondary side winding) − Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres Z (tdel Z ) + Ψmax cos(ωtdel XY + ωtdel Z + ωtXY Z ) ]

In this case with energization from Wye ungrounded side it is where:

necessary to energize two phases simultaneously first (then operation tdel_XY – time delay of the first two phases energization (calculated
sequence is UXY, UZ). It is recommended (but it is not obligatory) to from (14)),
energize phases with the highest ‘phase-to-phase’ residual flux: tdel_Z – time delay of the remaining phase energization (unknown),
tXY_Z – time delay related to the phase angle shift between phase Y
Ψres = max(|Ψres − Ψres B |, |Ψres − Ψres C |, |Ψres − Ψres A |) (46)
XY A B C
and phase Z.
Then to eliminate residual flux in phase X and Y (ψres_XY) the In order to minimize inrush current the following condition should
switching time (tdel_XY) must be correctly determined: be met:
( )
1 − Ψres XY Ψres Z (tdel Z ) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel + ωtdel + ωtXY Z ) (56)
(47)
XY Z
tdel XY = arccos
ω Ψmax XY
where the residual flux in remaining energized phase is a dynamic
and switching angle of the energized phase should be equal to: circulating flux that can be calculated as follows:
( ) Ψmax
φSW XY = arccos
− Ψres XY
(48) Ψres Z (tdel Z ) = cos(ω(tdel XY + tdel Z )) (57)
Ψmax 2
Then
where
Ψmax
√̅̅̅√̅̅̅ cos(ω(tdel XY + tdel Z )) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel XY + ωtdel Z + ωtXY Z ) (58)
3 2⋅UN 2
Ψmax = (49)
ω
where
UN – is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage on energized side.
ωtdel = φsw (59)
When phase angle of the first energized phases is determined, XY XY

7
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

9. Controlled energization of autotransformers

In case of autotransformer right after the first phase energization

(when asynchronous energization is applied) due to the presence of the
tertiary delta winding dynamic circulating flux connected with the first
energized phase voltage starts to affect fluxes in two remaining phases.
Hence, after the first phase energization two remaining phases should be
energized simultaneously (then operation sequence is UX, UYZ).
Since autotransformer flux of a given winding can be calculated
according to:
∫t
ΨX (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres X
tdel X

= − Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres X + Ψmax cosωtdel X ] (65)

Then to eliminate residual flux in phase X (ψres_X) switching time

(tdel_X) must be correctly chosen to meet the following equation:
Ψmax cosωtdel X = − Ψres X (66)

thus
( )
1 − Ψres X
tdel X = arccos (67)
ω Ψmax

and switching angle of energized phase should be equal to

( )
− Ψres X
φSW X = arccos (68)
Ψmax

where
√̅̅̅
2⋅UN
Ψmax = (69)
ω
Fig. 11. Controlled energization of Dyn (three limb) transformer (ψres = [100;
UN – is the nominal phase-to-ground voltage on energized side.
50; − 150]Vs; ψmax = 495.2Vs): a) synchronous energization; b) controlled
switching (φSW_CA = 59.6 deg; tdel_B = 6.7 ms).
When first phase is energized flux in phases YZ can be calculated
according to following formula:
∫t
ωtXY Z = φYZ (60) ΨYZ (t) = Umax sin(ωτ)dτ + Ψres YZ (t) =
tdel X +tdel YZ +tX YZ

what finally leads to the following solution: − Ψmax cosωt + [Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) + Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) ]
( ) (70)
1 num
tdel Z = arccos √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (61)
ω denom where
tdel_X – time delay of first phase energization (calculated from the zero
with
crossing (66))
num = 2sin(φsw XY )cos(φYZ ) + 2cos(φsw XY )sin(φYZ ) + sin(φsw XY ) (62) tdel_YZ – time delay of the last two phases energization (unknown)
tX_YZ – time delay related to the phase angle shift between phase X
and and phase Y.
From the above equation one may see that to minimize inrush cur­
denom = 4sin2 (φsw XY )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw XY )cos2 (φYZ )...
rent:
+4cos2 (φsw XY )cos(φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw XY )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4sin2 (φsw XY )cos2 (φYZ )...
+4sin2 (φsw XY )cos(φYZ ) + sin2 (φsw XY ) + cos2 (φsw XY ) Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) (71)
(63)
where the residual flux in last energized phases is a dynamic circulating
φYZ = − 120◦ (64) flux which can be calculated as follows:
In Fig. 11 one may see that also for transformer energized from Delta Ψmax
Ψres YZ (tdel YZ ) = cos(ω(tdel + tdel YZ )) (72)
side the proposed energization procedure gives very good results. It may 2
X

be observed in Fig. 11b that thanks to application of proposed switching

algorithm magnetizing inrush currents were completely eliminated and Then
transformer right after the energization operates in steady-state. Ψmax
cos(ω(tdel X + tdel YZ )) = − Ψmax cos(ωtdel X + ωtdel YZ + ωtX YZ ) (73)
2

where

8
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

ωtdel X = φsw X (74) Table A1

Power transformers parameters.
ωtX YZ = φYZ (75) Parameters Values

Rated power Sn 200 MVA

what finally leads to the following solution
Voltage ratio U1n/U2n 110 kV/20 kV
( ) Rated current I1n (HV side) 1049 A
1 num
tdel YZ = arccos √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (76) Rated current I2n (MV side) 5773 A
ω denom Connection group Yy0, Yd11, Yd1, Dy5
Core type Five/three-leg or Triplex
where Short circuit voltage uz 15 %
Active power losses ΔPcu 510 kW
num = 2sin(φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 2cos(φsw X )sin(φYZ ) + sin(φsw X ) (77) Magnetising current (at no-load) I0 1%
Iron losses ΔPFe 110 kW
and

denom = 4sin2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )...
+4cos (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + 4cos2 (φsw X )sin2 (φYZ ) + 4sin2 (φsw X )cos2 (φYZ )...
2

+4sin2 (φsw X )cos(φYZ ) + sin2 (φsw X ) + cos2 (φsw X )

(78) Table A2
Relative magnetizing characteristic (without hysteresis) of the transformer iron
φYZ = − 120◦ (79) core.
ψ/ 1.0 1.2285 1.5015 1.7745 1.911
10. Summary and recommendations
ψ0
iμ/ 1.0 1.4259 4.0846 74.517 322.0
iμ0

In this paper the problem of magnetizing inrush current mitigation

by application of controlled asynchronous transformer energization is
considered. Final versions of point-on-wave switching algorithms are
presented and precisely described. Proposed point-on-wave switching
techniques for various types of power transformers have been thor­
oughly tested and chosen results of these tests are shown in Section II.
Conducted tests proved that all proposed procedures bring significant
reduction of magnetizing inrush current and energized transformers
start operating almost from steady-state right after energization. Addi­
tionally, thanks to proposed PoW switching procedures minimal
required delay time of remaining phase/phases energization can be
determined. It means that time of asymmetrical operation of power
transformer will be maximally reduced what is crucial from the point of
view of the power transformer differential protection operation.
Obviously, one must bear in mind that all tests were performed under
ideal conditions. It means that it was assumed that one is able to pre­
cisely estimate residual fluxes and to control CB operation with precision
of tithings of a millisecond.
There are some conditions that should be met if switching strategies
described in this paper are to be used. Namely, proposed controlled
asynchronous transformer energization algorithms may be realized
when residual flux can be estimated with sufficient precision. Obviously,
it is possible only when voltage measurements are available at least at
one side of the energized transformer.
prepared in both Simulink and ATP-EMTP environments. All trans­
formers have the same parameters, summarized in Table A1. Following
core types and vector groups have been taken into account:
Core type:
- Triplex,
- Five-limb,
- Three-limb,
Vector group:
- Yy0, Yd11, Yd1, Dy5.
To simulate power transformer saturation two types of magnetizing
characteristics were considered. The first characteristic was a simple
piecewise magnetizing curve without hysteresis loop, see Table A2 and
Fig. A1. The second one was a magnetizing characteristic with hysteresis
loop, see Table A3 and Fig. A2. In both cases it was possible to introduce
initial residual flux. Modelled magnetizing characteristics were always
referred to the low voltage side of the transformer model and actual
values of magnetizing fluxes and currents were calculated with use of
transformers data presented in Table A1.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

D. Bejmert: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodol­

ogy, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization. M. Ker­
eit: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. K. Boehme:
Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A

Simulation model for transformer point-on-wave energization tests

Fig. A1. Magnetizing characteristic (without hysteresis) of the considered Yy0
In order to investigate efficiency of proposed switching algorithms
transformer.
for all possible transformer configurations, relevant from the point of
view of considered problem, various transformer models have been

9
D. Bejmert et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107555

Table A3
Relative magnetizing hysteresis characteristic of the transformer iron core (lower loop).
ψ/ − 1.4 − 1.3 − 1.2 − 1.08 − 1.0 1.01 1.08 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
ψ
/ 0
iμ − 503 − 209 − 17.2 − 1.3 0 1.0 1.6 17.7 210 503 793 1161
iμ0

[11] Rocha R, Barros G, da Costa EG, Araujo JF, de Andrade FLM, Ferreira TV.
“Contribution of inrush current to mechanical failure of power transformers
windings. IET J: High Voltage 2019;4:300–7. https://doi.org/10.1049/
hve.2018.501901.
[12] Steurer M, Frohlich K. The impact of inrush currents on the mechanical stress of
high voltage power transformer coils. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 2002;17(1):
155–60.
[13] Neves W, Fernandes D, Baltar FJA, Rosentino AJP, Saraiva E, Delaiba AC, et al.
A comparative investigation of electromechanical stresses on transformers caused
by inrush and short-circuit currents. In: 11th International Conference on Electrical
Power Quality and Utilisation (EPQU); 2011. p. 1–6.
[14] Jamali M, Mirzaie M, Asghar-Gholamian S. Calculation and analysis of transformer
inrush current based on parameters of transformer and operating conditions.
Electron Electr Eng 2011;109(3):17–20.
[15] Diego M. Robalino. Power transformer demagnetization. In: 2016 IEEE 36th
Central American and Panama Convention (CONCAPAN XXXVI), 9–11 November
2016, DOI: 10.1109/CONCAPAN.2016.7942393.
[16] Makowski NJ, Hildreth JG. Demagnetization of a large power transformer based on
calculation of the flux linkage. In: 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, 22-26 July 2012. doi: 10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344639.
[17] de Leon F, Farazmand A, Jazebi S, Deswal D, Levi R. Elimination of residual flux in
transformers by the application of an alternating polarity DC voltage source. IEEE
Trans Pow Del 2015;30(4):1727–34.
[18] Jamali Arand S, Saeedi M, Masoudi S. Transformer inrush current mitigation using
Fig. A2. Magnetizing hysteresis characteristic of the considered Yy0 controlled switching and magnetic flux shunts. Int J Energy Power Eng 2013, April
2, 2013, pp. 46-53, doi: 10.11648/j. ijepe.20130202.13.
transformer.
[19] Cheng P-T, Chen W-T, Chen Y-H, Ni C-L, Lin J. A transformer inrush mitigation
method for series voltage sag compensators. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2007;22
References (5):1890–9.
[20] Hamza AS, El-Ahmer MA, El-Azim WSA. Different techniques for mitigation and
reduction of power transformer inrush current. Eng Res J (ERJ) 2019;1(40):80–6.
[1] Neves W, Fernandes D Jr., Baltar FJA. A comparative investigation of
[21] Cipcigan L, Xu W, Dinavahi V, 2002. A new technique to mitigate inrush current
electromechanical stresses on transformers caused by inrush and short-circuit
caused by transformer energization. IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer
currents. International Conference on Electrical Power Quality and Utilisation
Meeting, 21–25 July 2002, doi: 10.1109/PESS.2002.1043303.
(EPQU); 2011.
[22] Basu KP, Asghar A, Morris S. Effect of sequential phase energization on the inrush
[2] Lin CE, Cheng CL, Huang CL, Yeh JC. Investigation of magnetizing inrush current
current of a delta connected transformer. In: 2006 International Conference on
in transformers. I. Numerical simulation. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 1993;8(1):
Power Electronic, Drives and Energy Systems, 12–15 December 2006. doi:
246–54.
10.1109/PEDES.2006.344345.
[3] Wang Y, Abdulsalam SG, Xu W. Analytical formula to estimate the maximum
[23] Cano-González R, Bachiller-Soler A, Rosendo-Macías JA, Álvarez-Cordero G. Inrush
Inrush current. IEEE Trans Power Del 23(2):1266–1268.
current mitigation in three-phase transformers with isolated neutral. Electric
[4] Hamilton R. “Analysis of transformer inrush current and comparison of harmonic
Power Syst Res 2015;121:14–19.
restraint methods in transformer protection. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2013;49(4):
[24] Brunke JH, Fröhlich KJ. Elimination of transformer inrush currents by controlled
1890–9.
switching Part I – theoretical considerations. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 16(2);
[5] Nagpal M, Martinich TG, Moshref A, Morison K, Kundur P. Assessing and limiting
2001:276–280. doi: 10.1109/61.915495.
impact of transformer inrush current on power quality. IEEE Trans Power Del
[25] Brunke JH, Fröhlich KJ. Elimination of transformer inrush currents by controlled
2006;21(2):890–6.
switching—Part II: Application and performance considerations. IEEE Trans Power
[6] Blume LF, Camilli G, Farnham SB, Peterson HA. Transformer magnetizing inrush
Del 2001;16(2):281–285.
currents and influence on system operation. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng 1944;63(6):
[26] Sahoo SK, Modi A, Balamurugan M, Sultana R, Chhawchharia S. Reduction of
366–75.
inrush current using point on wave switching in power transformers. International
[7] Shahl SI. Simulation and analysis effect of distribution transformer energizing on
Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies,
electrical power quality. Int J Scientif Eng Res 2019;10(8):53. ISSN 2229-5518.
21–22 April 2017, doi: 10.1109/IPACT.2017.8244993.
[8] Manana M, Eguiluz LI, Ortiz A, Diez G, Renedo C, Perez S. Effects of Magnetizing
[27] Goldsworthy D, Roseburg T, Tziouvaras D, Pope J. Controlled switching of HVAC
inrush current on power quality and distributed generation. In: 9th Spanish
circuit breakers: application examples and benefits. In: 61st Annual Conference for
Portuguese Congress on Electrical Engineering; 2005.
Protective Relay Engineers, 1-3 April 2008, doi: 10.1109/CPRE.2008.4515078.
[9] Kasztenny B. Impact of transformer inrush currents on sensitivity protection
[28] Andreas E. Determination of acceptable closing time scatter and residual flux
functions. In: 32nd Annual Protective Relaying Conference, October 25-27, 2005.
measurements uncertainty for controlled switching of transformers. In:
[10] Hosny A, Sood VK. Transformer differential protection with phase angle difference
Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering,
based inrush restraint. Electr Power Syst Res 2014;115:57–64. https://doi.org/
Cape Town, South Africa, 24–28 August 2009, pp. 326–326.
10.1016/j.epsr.2014.03.027.

10