276 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO.

2, APRIL 2001

Elimination of Transformer Inrush Currents

by Controlled SwitchingPart I: Theoretical
Considerations
John H. Brunke, Fellow, IEEE and Klaus J. Frhlich, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractTransformer inrush currents are high-magnitude,

harmonic-rich currents generated when transformer cores are
driven into saturation during energization. These currents have
undesirable effects, including potential damage or loss-of-life
to the transformer, protective relay misoperation, and reduced
power quality on the system. Controlled transformer switching
can potentially eliminate these transients if residual core and core
flux transients are taken into account in the closing algorithm.
This paper explores the theoretical considerations of core flux
transients. Based on these studies algorithms were developed
which allow controlled energization of most transformers without
inrush current.
Index TermsControlled switching, inrush current, residual
flux, transformer switching.

I. INTRODUCTION

R ANDOM power transformer energization can create

large flux asymmetries and saturation of one or more
winding cores of the transformer. This saturation results in high
magnitude currents that are rich in harmonic content and have
a high direct current component. These currents can cause false
operation of protective relays and fuses, mechanical damage to
the transformer windings from magnetic forces, and generally
reduce power quality on the system.
The effects of these transients are normally mitigated by
de-sensitizing protective relays or over sizing fuses. Closing
resistors have been used to reduce the magnitude of the inrush
currents. Controlled closing, or controlling the point on the
power frequency voltage wave where energization occurs, has
also been employed to reduce these inrush transients [1].
Although reductions in inrush current magnitudes have been
achieved with controlled closing, the present state of the art does
not incorporate residual flux in the control algorithms, which
results in nonoptimal energization [1].
This paper will show that the effects of residual flux can be
specifically included in determining an optimal closing instant.
This optimal closing can theoretically result in the complete
elimination of inrush transients in many transformer core and
winding configurations. Part I of this paper presents strategies
for controlled energization of large power transformers based
Manuscript received December 29, 1999.
J. H. Brunke is with the Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA,
USA.
K. J. Frhlich is with the Swiss Federal Institude of Technology, Zrich,
Switzerland.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8977(01)03420-3.
08858977/01$10.00 2001 IEEE
Fig. 1. The flux/current (saturation) characteristic determines the magnitude
of the magnetizing and inrush current. (a) Symmetrical. (b) Unsymmetrical core
fluxes. Note: (a) and (b) have different scale factors.
on theoretical considerations. Part II discusses practical aspects
of controlled transformer energization, including the limitations
of typical circuit breakers.
II. INRUSH TRANSIENTS
Power transformers are operated with the peak core flux at
the knee of the transformer cores saturation characteristic.
A typical core saturation characteristic is illustrated in Fig. 1,
where, as well known, the sinusoidal core flux is the integral of
the applied voltage.
The curve shown is a flux/current curve, and the slope at any
point is proportional to the winding inductance. With only a
modest flux increase beyond saturation, or a symmetry shift of
the flux, very high magnitude current pulses will result as the
slope, and therefore the inductance, is very small in that region
of the curve [see Fig. 1(b)].
When a transformer is de-energized, a permanent magneti-
zation of the core remains due to hysteresis of the magnetic
material. This residual flux is influenced by the transformer
core material characteristics, core gap factor, winding capaci-
tance, circuit breaker current chopping characteristics and other
BRUNKE AND FRHLICH: ELIMINATION OF TRANSFORMER INRUSH CURRENTS BY CONTROLLED SWITCHINGPART I
Fig. 2. Core flux showing worst energization case for this residual condition.
capacitances connected to the transformer. The core flux and
therefore residual flux can be measured by integration of the
winding voltage.
When a transformer is energized the instantaneous magnitude
of core flux at the instant of energization is the residual flux. The
amount of offset of the sinusoidal flux generated by the applied
voltage is dependent upon the point of the voltage wave where
the transformer is energized. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. The
peak core flux can therefore reach a value of
.
For the most severe case shown in Fig. 2, where energization
was at a voltage zero, the peak transient core flux is more than
two times higher than the peak normal core flux. The core has
been driven far into saturation. This asymmetrical saturation re-
sults in the typical inrush current transient characterized by a
high harmonic content and a direct current component.
Although closing resistors have been employed to reduce
these transients, the only way these transients can be eliminated
is to prevent the core saturation. This can be accomplished by
controlling the instant of energization [2].
III. TRANSFORMER MODELING
In order to investigate core flux transient phenomena in trans-
formers with various core and winding configurations a theoret-
ical model was required. Transformer modeling, especially of
transient phenomena, is a complicated proposition. A universal
model good for all frequencies and modeling all characteristics
of the transformer is not available. In addition, the significant
differences in parameters among various transformers make a
detailed knowledge of the transformer parameters and charac-
teristics a requirement. The requirements for the model to study
core flux transients primarily include a correct core flux/current
relationship and the ability to model residual core flux.
The most commonly used transformer core model utilizes a
resistor, to represent losses, connected in parallel with an in-
ductor that represents the magnetizing current [3]. Such a model
does not allow for residual flux. Other methods using a current
generator to represent residual flux function in a single-phase
model but are not applicable in three-phase transformer models
as they yield an effective short circuit.
In order to accurately model the core, the type 96 hys-
teretical inductor of the Electromagnetic Transient Program
277
Fig. 3. Optimal energization of a single phase transformer is shown. Optimal
energization points exist at times (1) and alternate optimal time (2).
(EMTP) [3] was used. This model follows a hysteresis charac-
teristic to represent the core. In order to gather the necessary
data to accurately model the transformer, the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) performed a field test. Comparison of
simulations and the field test data verified the model perfor-
mance. The model obviously has limitations, such as modeling
the core characteristic only at one frequency, but this restraint
is considered acceptable for this analysis.
IV. CONTROLLED SWITCHING OF SIGNAL-PHASE
TRANSFORMERS
In the case of controlled closing of capacitors, optimal
energization point is at the instant when the source voltage is
equal to the trapped charge voltage on the capacitor. For the
case of controlled closing of transformers, the trapped charge
has a parallel in the residual flux. So the basic principle to
eliminate the core flux asymmetry, the induced flux (integral
of the applied voltage) at the instant of energization must equal
the residual flux [2]. There is of course no induced flux before
energization, but the source voltage has the prospect to create
an induced flux. If the source voltage is considered as a virtual
flux source, then the optimal instant to energize a transformer
is when the prospective flux is equal to the residual flux. This
principle is shown in Fig. 3. It provides the basic strategy for
controlled closing on single phase transformers.
V. CONTROLLED SWITCHING IN MULTIPHASE TRANSFORMERS
WITH NO RESIDUAL FLUX
Only transformers with single-phase cores and only grounded
windings may be considered as three single-phase transformers,
but most transformers on power systems have interactions be-
tween the phases. In these other transformers, after one phase
has been energized, the flux in the other cores or core legs is not
a static residual flux, but a transient flux, in the following called
dynamic core flux. Fig. 4 shows an example of a transformer
with three separate cores connected by a delta winding.
First, assuming that the residual flux is zero in all three
phases, then the optimal instant for the first phase to close is
when the prospective flux is equal to zero. This instant is at a
voltage peak. After the first phase closes, a voltage is generated
in each of the other two phases of the delta winding. These
278
Fig. 4. A multiphase transformer with singlephase cores and a delta-connected
winding demonstrating the interaction of voltage and fluxes. The arrows show
the phase relationship between the core fluxes.
Fig. 5. Energization of a three-phase transformer without residual flux.
Prospective and dynamic core fluxes for each phase are shown.
voltages are each one half the magnitude and 180 degrees out
of phase of the voltage of the fully energized phase. The flux
created in the cores of the other two phases is dynamic core
flux.
The core fluxes in all three phases therefore have the same
magnitude and phase relationships to each other as the winding
voltages. The dynamic core fluxes are also 180 degrees out of
phase and at one-half the magnitude as the flux in the fully ener-
gized phase. In these cases optimal energization can be achieved
by energizing the last two phases one-quarter cycle after the first
phase, when the prospective flux and the dynamic core flux in
each phase is equal [1]. Fig. 5 shows this situation.
The optimal energization for a transformer with a three-phase
core will be the same. In that situation the flux generated by
the energized phase will directly create dynamic fluxes in the
other two phases. These dynamic fluxes will have the same
characteristics as those induced by the delta windings (see
Fig. 4) described above.
VI. RESIDUAL FLUX
Residual core flux can assume values up to 85% of peak
normal flux, although more typical magnitudes are in the range
of 20 to 70% [4]. It can be shown that the residual flux in cores of
three-phase transformers must inherently sum to zero, and typ-
ically forms a pattern with near zero residual flux in one phase
and plus and minus some finite value in the other two phases.
This has been observed in the literature and demonstrated in
field tests [2].
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
VII. CONTROLLED SWITCHING IN THREE-PHASE
TRANSFORMERS WITH RESIDUAL FLUX
First, for illustration, it is assumed that a typical residual flux
pattern is formed in a transformer of the configuration shown in
Fig. 4, and the phase with zero residual (A) is energized at the
optimal point on wave (peak voltage and therefore zero prospec-
tive flux). The resulting dynamic core flux in the other phases
will not be divided evenly. The dynamic fluxes in Fig. 6 start at
their respective residual flux levels and move around their hys-
teresis loop in the same direction. One phase (C) will reach
the knee of the saturation characteristic while the other phase
(B) is still in the linear portion. As the slopes of the character-
istics are significantly different at this point, the inductances of
the two windings are also significantly different. Therefore the
voltage on the windings is not divided evenly, i.e., the winding
with the largest inductance will have the highest voltage. This
higher voltage will create a higher flux level, increasing the
B-phase flux toward the magnitude of the C-phase flux. The
result is that the flux in B and C phases rapidly equalizes and
eliminates the effect of their residual flux. This phenomenon is
referred to as core flux equalization.
As already mentioned, in most three-phase transformers, the
flux in the main core legs sum to zero [5]. This is true for trans-
formers with a three legged core or a delta winding. It is not
the case for transformers without a delta-connected winding that
are single phase or have five-legged or shell-form cores. If one
phase of a transformer which is configured such that fluxes sum
to zero is energized such that its core leg does not go into sat-
uration, the flux in that phase is equal to its prospective flux at
every instant. Since the prospective fluxes and the core fluxes
must sum to zero, the induced dynamic core fluxes must equal
their prospective fluxes two times per cycle [2]. This is illus-
trated in Fig. 7, where A-phase with zero residual flux is closed
at point A and immediately induces dynamic fluxes in phase
B and C.
Depending upon the polarities of the residual flux in the two
legs, the dynamic core flux and prospective fluxes will be equal
either at the point marked B or C in Fig. 7. These points
offer the opportunity to energize the other two phases without
saturation of the core. This closing strategy is called rapid
closing. The point marked B obviously is more tolerant to
closing timing error than point C, since the slopes of the
prospective and dynamic fluxes are nearly equal for a period of
approximately a millisecond, which is not the case at point C.
Another interesting closing opportunity can also be observed
in Fig. 7. At point A, where the first phase is closed, the dy-
namic and prospective fluxes of the other two phases are nearly
equal and therefore optimal for this residual flux pattern. If the
residual fluxes were slightly higher on these two phases, point
A would be optimal for a simultaneous closing of all three
phases. This offers some unique opportunities for lower voltage
systems, where independent-pole-control circuit breakers are
uncommon. This is called the simultaneous closing strategy.
As previously mentioned, after one phase is energized, the
residual flux in the other phases is rapidly eliminated by core
flux equalization. This means that if one phase is energized
when the residual and prospective core fluxes are equal, and
BRUNKE AND FRHLICH: ELIMINATION OF TRANSFORMER INRUSH CURRENTS BY CONTROLLED SWITCHINGPART I 279

Fig. 6. Flux-current core characteristic showing how the effective inductance of the B and C phase windings depend upon the residual flux and the trajectory
around the hysteresis loop. After phase A is energized, the dynamic flux in the other two phases results in an inductance difference causing rapid core flux
equalization.

Fig. 7. Prospective and dynamic core flux for a three phase transformer with Fig. 8. Laboratory test showing delayed closing strategy on a transformer with
residual flux. a three-legged core and a delta-connected winding.

that the closing of the last two phases is delayed a few cycles,
residual flux can be ignored on these two phases. This is referred
to as the delayed closing strategy. This strategy is demon-
strated in the test energization of a laboratory transformer in
Fig. 8.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In most three-phase transformers it is possible to use residual
flux measurements and controlled closing to eliminate trans-
former inrush transients. Three strategies have been proposed
for controlled energization of multi-phases transformers.
For all three strategies, closing each winding when the
prospective and dynamic core fluxes are equal results in an op-
timal energization, without core saturation or inrush transients.
A. Rapid Closing Strategy
This strategy closes one phase first and the remaining two
phases within a quarter cycle. It requires knowledge of the
residual flux in all three phases, independent pole breaker
control, and a model of the transformers transient performance
(no studies were run to compare transient performance of
different transformer designs to determine error from assuming
a standard model).
B. Delayed Closing Strategy
This strategy closes one phase first and the remaining two
phases after 23 cycles. It requires knowledge of the residual
flux in one phase only, independent pole breaker control, but
does not require any transformer parametric data.
280
C. Simultaneous Closing Strategy
This strategy closes all three phases together at an optimum
point for the residual flux pattern. It does not require indepen-
dent pole breaker control, but requires knowledge of the residual
flux in all three phases and that the residual flux magnitudes in
two phases are high and follow the most traditional residual flux
pattern.
Part II of this paper will further investigate the selection of
the appropriate strategy and discuss practical aspects such as
breaker closing errors.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Moraw et al., Point-on-wave controlled switching of high voltage
circuit-breakers, in CIGRE, Aug. 28Sept. 3 l988, CIGRE paper 13-02,
pp. 16.
[2] J. H. Brunke, Elimination of transient inrush currents when energizing
unloaded power transformers, Doctoral Dissertation no. 12 791, ETH
Zurich, 1998.
[3] EMTP, Electro-Magnetic Transient Program, Rule Book, Re-
vised. Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, Sept. 1980,
pp. 227339.
[4] E. Colombo and G. Santagostino, Results of the inquiries on actual net-
work conditions when switching magnetizing and small inductive and on
transformer and shunt reactor saturation characteristics, Electra, no. 94,
pp. 3553, May 1984.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
[5] R. Holmgren, R. S. Jenkins, and J. Riubrugent, Transformer inrush cur-
rent, in CIGRE Paris, Paris, 1968, CIGRE paper 12-03, pp. 113.
John H. Brunke received the Bachelor of Science and Master of Science de-
grees from Portland State University in Portland, OR, and the degree of Doctor
of Technical Science from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zrich,
Switzerland. He is a past Chairman of the IEEE Switchgear Committee, a past
United States Representative to CIGRE Study Committee 13 (Switching Equip-
ment). He is presently the Chairman of CIGRE Study Committee 13. Employed
by the Bonneville Power Administration since 1975, he has held various posi-
tions involved with the testing and application of high voltage equipment. He
presently heads up the high voltage equipment engineering group. Dr. Brunke is
a Fellow of the IEEE and a Distinguished Member of CIGRE. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Oregon.
Klaus Frhlich was born in 1945 in Salzburg, Austria. He received the Master
of Electrical Engineering and Ph.D. degrees in technical science from the Vi-
enna University of Technology, Austria. After 11 years in Switchgear and High
Voltage Technology with BBC (later ABB) in Switzerland he became a Full
Professor at the Vienna University of Technology in 1990. Since 1997, he has
been a Full Professor of High Voltage Technology at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology Zrich, Switzerland. K. Frhlich is a Senior Member of IEEE, a
member of CIGRE Study Committee 13, and the convener of CIGRE Working
Group 13.07 (Controlled Switching).
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3273280

Elimination of transformer inrush currents by

controlled switching - Part II: Application and
performance...

Article in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery May 2001

DOI: 10.1109/61.915496 Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

96 187

2 authors, including:

John Brunke
12 PUBLICATIONS 449 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Brunke on 19 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001 281

Elimination of Transformer Inrush Currents by

Controlled SwitchingPart II: Application and
Performance Considerations
John H. Brunke, Fellow, IEEE and Klaus J. Frhlich, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractTransformer inrush currents are high-magnitude,

harmonic-rich currents generated when transformer cores are
driven into saturation during energization. These currents have
undesirable effects, including potential damage or loss-of-life
to the transformer, protective relay misoperation, and reduced
power quality on the system. Controlled transformer switching
can potentially eliminate these transients if residual core and core
flux transients are taken into account in the closing algorithm.
This paper explores the practical considerations of core flux
transients, performance of control strategies, and the application
of circuit breakers to control transformer inrush transients.
Index TermsControlled switching, inrush current, residual
flux, transformer switching.
Fig. 1. After the first phase is energized near its optimal point, the dynamic
and prospective fluxes of the other two phases make point A the preferred
I. INTRODUCTION optimal closing time.

T HIS paper is the second part of a two-part paper on the

topic of controlled energization of transformers to reduce
inrush currents. The first part [1] presented theoretical consid-
erations of core flux transients and the basic principles.
Three strategies were introduced for controlled energization
of typical three-phase transformers. Each of these has advan-
tages and disadvantages. The strategies are the rapid closing
strategy, delayed closing strategy, and the simultaneous
closing strategy. These strategies will be investigated along
with a strategy for single-phase transformers. In addition, using
residual flux to determine the correct closing instant will be
discussed. This second part addresses the practical issues of
application and expected performance in service.
II. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In theory, transformer inrush transients can be eliminated
using controlled energization. In practice, however, a number of
factors can prevent achieving the goal of complete elimination.
These factors include:
Deviations in circuit breaker mechanical closing time.
Effects of circuit breaker prestrike.
Errors in the measurement of residual flux.
Transformer core or winding configurations that prevent
an optimal solution.
Manuscript received January 4, 2000.
J. H. Brunke is with the Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA,
USA.
K. J. Frhlich is with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zrich,
Switzerland.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8977(01)03421-5.
08858977/01$10.00 2001 IEEE
A. Deviations in Mechanical Closing Times
It is well known that all circuit breakers have some statistical
deviation in their mechanical closing time from operation to op-
eration. For a breaker designed for controlled closing, typical
closing time deviations are less than ms [2]. In the selection
of the closing instant it is important to consider these timing
deviations and to understand the influence they have when con-
sidered together with flux transients and prestrike [3]. For the
performance studies included here, the 3-sigma timing devia-
tion of the circuit breaker will be assumed to be from to
milliseconds. Timing deviations caused by very long pe-
riods between operations (idle time) can be a potential difficulty
in some circuit breaker designs, they were not considered in this
study.
B. Flux Considerations
As described in Part I [1], the relative slopes of the plots
of prospective and dynamic core flux can create a preferred
optimal closing instant. Fig. 1 illustrates this for the case of
a transformer with single-phase cores and a delta-connected
winding switched from a ground wye winding. Assuming a
typical residual flux pattern as shown in Fig. 1, one phase
is energized near its optimal instant, where the residual and
prospective fluxes are equal. The vertical lines at A and B
show two possible optimal closing instants for the remaining
two phases. Closing time errors will produce higher magnitude
inrush transients at point B, because the difference between
the dynamic and prospective flux is greater for any closing time
error than for point A.
282
Fig. 2. The combined effects of mechanical timing deviation and prestrike.
TABLE I
PEAK INRUSH CURRENTS FOR BENCHMARK CASE USING RANDOM CLOSING
Note: 2% Current LevelThe peak inrush current that is exceeded in
only 2% of the closing cases.
C. Influence of Prestriking
Prestrike is the dielectric breakdown of the closing contact
gap in a circuit breaker before metal-to-metal contact. There-
fore, the timing of transformer energization also depends upon
the circuit breakers prestrike characteristics and the voltage
across the contacts as it closes. The effect of both prestrike and
mechanical timing deviation is shown in Fig. 2.
With the same mechanical closing time deviation, closing
on the rising voltage wave (A) produces a significantly better
overall timing accuracy than closing on the falling voltage (B).
III. STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE
When the effects of transient flux, prestrike, and mechanical
deviation are considered together, the expected real perfor-
mance of controlled closing using the three closing strategies
[1] can be studied. Using the ElectroMagnetic Transients
Program (EMTP) [4], numerous series of statistical studies
were performed. The mechanical closing time was programmed
to follow a Gaussian distribution. Prestrike was included in
the model with a typical closing dielectric characteristic for
a 242 kV SF single chamber circuit breaker of 100 kV/ms.
The transformer characteristics initially studied were from
a 230/115 kV autotransformer with three single-phase cores
and a delta-connected 13.8 kV tertiary. The transformer was
switched from the 230 kV winding.
Case 1: Wye-Connected Windings with Single-Phase Cores
(Three Single-Phase Transformers): Table I gives the results of
the initial benchmark studies for transformer energization using
random breaker closing (uncontrolled). The highest phase cur-
rent is reported in three phase studies.
Controlled closing was implemented with the closing time for
each phase set for the instant the residual and prospective fluxes
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
TABLE II
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT USING CONTROLLED CLOSINGNO
RESIDUAL FLUX
Note: 3 ClosingBreaker statistical closing deviation among the three
phases.
TABLE III
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT USING CONTROLLED CLOSING70%
RESIDUAL FLUX
are equal. The closing time can easily be determined using the
expression:
(1)
Where the residual core flux is and peak normal core flux
is . The power radian frequency is .
Table II shows the results of statistical simulations using con-
trolled closing on the transformer described above for the case
of residual flux equal to zero.
Reduction from Random: The percent of reduction from the
case with no controlled closing. The resulting peak inrush cur-
rent levels using four different mechanical timing deviations for
the circuit breaker are provided.
Table III shows the results of a series of statistical simulations
performed using the Case 1 transformer for a condition of 70%
residual core flux on all phases. The results with 70% residual
flux differ from the zero residual performance of Table II
because the prestrike voltages and therefore the effects of
mechanical time deviation are different. Closing with a higher
residual flux has an improved statistical performance. Signif-
icant reductions are achieved for all residual flux conditions
using controlled energization.
Case 2: Rapid ClosingStrategy Single-Phase Transformers
with a Delta-Connected Winding: Using the model transformer
with a delta-connected tertiary, statistical studies were again
performed. The first studies were for random closing as a bench-
mark for performance improvements. The results are shown in
Table IV.
Studies were then conducted for the rapid closing strategy
using various residual flux levels and closing sequences.
BRUNKE AND FRHLICH: ELIMINATION OF TRANSFORMER INRUSH CURRENTS BY CONTROLLED SWITCHINGPART II
TABLE IV
PEAK INRUSH CURRENTS FORCASE 2 TRANSFORMER USING RANDOM
CLOSING
TABLE V
0
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT USING RAPID CLOSING STRATEGY, 0, 70,
70% RESIDUAL FLUX (FIRST PHASE TO CLOSE HAS ZERO RESIDUAL FLUX)
TABLE VI
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT USING RAPID CLOSING STRATEGY, 70, 0,
0 70% RESIDUAL FLUX (FIRST PHASE TO CLOSE HAS 70% RESIDUAL FLUX)
Prestrike was included in the model. The results are shown in
Tables V and VI. Table V shows the results for a residual flux
pattern of 0, %, 70% or peak normal, with the phase with
zero residual closed first.
Table VI shows the results for a residual flux pattern of 70%,
0%, and % of peak normal flux. The phase with a residual
of 70% peak normal flux is closed first. Closing this phase first
provides better prestrike conditions than closing a phase with
zero residual flux first. In addition, the closing performance of
the first phase to close has a strong influence on the performance
of the second and third phases to close with the rapid closing
strategy.
The rapid closing strategy provides significant reductions in
peak inrush current for breaker statistical closing deviations of
0.5 to 2.0 ms. This strategy requires a complete knowledge of
the transient phenomena associated with this particular trans-
former. The most accurate method is to perform model studies
or field measurements, and place the results in a look-up table.
An approximate functional relationship could also be developed
and incorporated into the controlled closing device.
283
Fig. 3. Core flux equalization. Prospective and dynamic core fluxes with one
phase optimally closed at a.
Fig. 4. Peak inrush current (2% level) vs. breaker closing time deviation for
various combinations of residual flux.
Case 3: Delayed ClosingStrategy Single-Phase Trans-
formers with a Delta-Connected Winding: Additional
statistical studies were performed using the delayed closing
strategy on the transformer model of Case 2. This strategy is
easier to implement because it requires very little information
on the characteristics of the transformer. Also the timing
accuracy for closing the first phase does not affect the optimal
instant for energizing the second and third phases due to core
flux equalization. An example of core flux equalization is
shown in Fig. 3. The first phase is energized at point A near
the optimal point for its zero residual flux condition. The high
residual fluxes in the other phases rapidly dissipate within a
cycle. This provides for optimal closing times for the last two
phases shown as B in Fig. 3.
The results of simulations for the delayed closing strategy
showing the influence of closing accuracy are shown in Fig. 4.
Performance improves by closing on a phase with a high
residual flux first and, like the other strategies, by using a
breaker with a small closing time deviation. As predicted, core
flux equalization eliminated the effects of residual flux polarity
and magnitude for the last two phases to close. These results
represent considerable improvements over the 2% value for
the uncontrolled case of 2280 amperes. The inrush currents
are reduced by as much as 97%. For a circuit breaker with a
statistical deviation of 1.0 ms, the resulting inrush currents
range from 170 to 362 amperes, a reduction of from 93 to 85%
over the uncontrolled case.
284
Fig. 5. The flux plot (upper) and the cross-interrupter prestrike voltage plot
(lower) for a simultaneous closing strategy.
Case 4: Simultaneous Closing StrategySingle-Phase
Transformers with a Delta-Connected Winding: The final
closing strategy to be discussed is the simultaneous closing
strategy where all three phases are closed together. Its effective
application is limited to cases in which the residual flux levels
are high and follow the 0, pattern.
Fig. 5 illustrates the theory of this closing strategy, where the
three phases are mechanically closed simultaneously. The upper
traces show the residual, prospective and dynamic core fluxes
and the lower traces show the cross-interrupter and prestrike
voltages. The first phase prestrikes and is energized at point A.
The dotted line indicates the voltage withstand of the closing in-
terrupter gap. As seen the second and third phase prestrike oc-
curs at a slightly later time B and the result is a nearly optimal
close.
IV. OTHER CORE AND WINDING CONFIGURATIONS
In addition to the core and winding configuration used for
the above examples (single-phase autotransformer with a delta-
connected tertiary), other core and winding configurations can
also be switched using these strategies.
All transformers with three legged cores or a delta-connected
winding can be switched from a grounded wye, ungrounded
wye, or delta winding [5]. Changes in timing are required when
switching from an ungrounded winding. For example, when
switching from a delta-connected winding the first core leg is
energized when the first two phases are energized, and the other
two core legs are connected at reduced voltage as before. The
last two core legs are energized when the last phase is energized.
Optimal conditions still exist for elimination of inrush current
[5].
Transformers that have four or five-legged cores, or shell
form cores, and no delta-connected winding, do not have fluxes
which sum to zero in the core legs with windings. Therefore as
core fluxes in these winding legs do not sum to zero, there is no
optimal closing instant for the last two phases to be energized.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
Fig. 6. Prospective and dynamic core fluxes for a transformer with a four or
five-legged core and no delta-connected winding.
However, the first phase can still be closed optimally, and an
approximate solution can be achieved using the delayed closing
strategy. This is shown in Fig. 6.
V. LABORATORY TESTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of these closing strategies first requires the
measurement of the residual core flux, which can be accom-
plished by integrating the winding voltage (Faradays Law). This
was demonstrated using both test instruments [5] and with an
automated PC-based controller [6].
In the selection of closing strategy a number of factors must
be considered. Use of the rapid closing strategy requires a more
detailed knowledge of the core characteristics for an exact solu-
tion, or a generalized approximation may be developed. To gen-
eralize this approach a survey of transformer transient character-
istics to determine general applicability is required. The delayed
closing strategy provides a more generalized approach. The si-
multaneous strategy is limited to situations with high residual
core fluxes and a 0, flux pattern. It may be possible that
a passive circuit be constructed to generate this residual flux
condition, but this was not investigated further.
A prototype PC-based controller was constructed to
the feasibility of these closing strategies and the automated mea-
surement of residual flux [6]. The control system was developed
with commercial graphical software programming package and
used to switch a 30 kVA, grounded-wye/delta transformer with a
three-legged core. A typical laboratory test result of the core flux
during a delayed strategy closing is shown in Fig. 7. It should
be noted that there is no flux asymmetry produced. The peak
potential inrush current of over 400 A was reduced to less than
10 A. Laboratory test results were consistency with the com-
puter model.
VI. CONCLUSION
As computer modeling and laboratory tests prove, trans-
former inrush transients can be greatly reduced or eliminated
in most transformers. Reductions of over 90% from worst
case inrush currents can be achieved with a circuit breaker of
normal closing time performance. This can be accomplished
by measuring the residual flux in a transformer core, and using
BRUNKE AND FRHLICH: ELIMINATION OF TRANSFORMER INRUSH CURRENTS BY CONTROLLED SWITCHINGPART II
Fig. 7. The core flux during a delayed strategy closing of the laboratory test
transformer.
that information with the appropriate breaker closing control
strategy.
The phenomena of core flux reduction can greatly simplify
closing strategies, allowing the delayed strategy to be very ef-
fective. The delayed strategy can also provide a reduction of
inrush transients when switching transformers with more than
three core legs and no delta-connected winding. However, com-
plete elimination of inrush currents is not possible with these
configurations.
The simultaneous closing strategy allows the use of a non-
independent pole controllable breaker, but requires the residual
flux pattern and residual flux magnitudes to be within certain
limits.
Further investigation is necessary to determine how to
achieve this is a practical and economical manner.
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Brunke and K. J Frhlich, Elimination of transformer inrush cur-
rents by controlled switching, Part I,.
View publication stats
285
[2] A. C. Carvalho, W. Hofbauer, P. Hgg, and K. Frhlich, Controlled
switching as a reliable mean to reduce stresses imposed to the circuit
breaker and to the network, in CIGRE Study Committee 13 Colloquium,
Florianopolis, Brazil, Sept. 1995, pp. 17.
[3] CIGRE Working Group 13.07, Controlled switching of HVAC
circuit-breakers, Guide for application lines, reactors, capacitors,
transformers,, Electra no. 183, Apr. 1999.
[4] EMTP, Electro-Magnetic Transient Program, Rule Book. Portland,
OR: Bonneville Power Administration, Sept. 1980, pp. 227339.
[5] J. H. Brunke, Elimination of transient inrush currents when energizing
unloaded power transformers, Doctoral dissertation no. 12 791, ETH,
Zurich, 1998.
[6] U. Krsi and S. Moser, Implementation of closing algorithms to reduce
inrush current transients of unloaded transformers, Diploma, ETH,
Zrich, Nov.Mar. 19981999.
John H. Brunke received the bachelor of science and master of science de-
grees from Portland State University in Portland, OR, and the degree of doctor
of technical science from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zrich,
Switzerland. He is a Past Chairman of the IEEE Switchgear Committee, a past
United States Representative to CIGRE Study Committee 13 (Switching Equip-
ment). He is presently the Chairman of CIGRE Study Committee 13. Since
1975, the Bonneville Power Administration has employed him in various po-
sitions involved with the testing and application of high voltage equipment. He
presently heads up the High Voltage Equipment Engineering Group. Dr. Brunke
is a Fellow of the IEEE and a Distinguished Member of CIGRE. He is a Regis-
tered Professional Engineer in the State of Oregon.
Klaus Frhlich was born in 1945 in Salzburg, Austria. He received the master
of electrical engineering and Ph.D. degrees in technical science from the Vi-
enna University of Technology, Austria. After 11 years in Switchgear and High
Voltage Technology with BBC (later ABB) in Switzerland he became a Full
Professor at the Vienna University of Technology in 1990. Since 1997, he has
been a Full Professor of High Voltage Technology at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology Zurich, Switzerland. K. Frhlich is a Senior Member of IEEE, a
member of CIGRE Study Committee 13, and the Convenor of CIGRE Working
Group 13.07 (Controlled Switching).