Load Tap Change Transformers: Admittance Represented on the Nominal Winding Side: For the

model of Figure 1, the following relationships can be obtained:

A Modeling Reminder
1 1
I ik = yik E i − yik E k
Luciano V. Barboza, Hans H. Zürn, Roberto Salgado a2 a (4)

Author Affiliation: Electrical Engineering Department, Federal

University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; Catholic University 1
I ki = − yik E i + yik E k .
of Pelotas, Federal Center for Technological Education of Pelotas, a (5)
Brazil.
Abstract: This letter reviews the general model of transformers The parameters A, B, and C for the equivalent ␲ circuit shown in Figure
with off-nominal turns ratios used in power systems steady-state stud- 3, are
ies. The conventional model of the load tap change transformer (LTC)
is shown in terms of the analytical expressions that represent this de- 1 1−a a −1
A= yik B = 2 yik C = yik .
vice. A general model incorporating the effects of the transformers with a a a (6)
off-nominal turns ratios with the phase shifting transformers is pre-
sented. The differences between the alternative models, in which the Admittance Represented on the Off-Nominal Winding Side: From
admittance is represented either on the tap side or on the opposite tap Figure 2,
side of the transformer, are explained. It is also shown that, if the admit-
tance is represented on the tap side, its value must be suitably adjusted. 1 1
An example illustrates the differences in terms of numerical results I ik = yik E i − yik E k
a2 a (7)
from these models.
Keywords: Off-nominal turns ratio transformers, phase shifting
transformers, general model.
Introduction: The literature presents some models for the simula-
tion of LTC transformers. Generally, transformers with off-nominal
turns ratios and phase shifting transformers can be represented as an ad-
mittance (or impedance) in series with an ideal autotransformer with
transformation ratio a:1 and ej φ:1, respectively. Referring to the differ-
ent models shown in the literature, we note that the main difference be-
tween them is the side of the ideal transformer in which the admittance
is represented. In [1]-[2], this admittance is represented on the side of
the nominal winding. In [3]-[4] the admittance is represented on the Figure 1. Equivalent circuit for LTC—total admittance on the nominal winding
off-nominal side. A third possibility, presented in this letter, is to divide
the admittance into two parts, one for each side of the ideal transformer.
This letter points out the differences between these models.
LTC Transformers: An LTC transformer with nominal admittance
yik is represented by an ideal transformer with turns ratio a:1 in series
with this admittance. This model is shown in Figure 1.
In this model the admittance is represented on the nominal side of
the transformer, and thus its value is also nominal. From this figure,

 I 
E i = aE p = a  − ki + E k  Figure 2. Equivalent circuit for LTC—total admittance on the off-nominal
 ik
y  (1) winding

and

I ki = − aI ik , (2)

which combined provides

a2
Ei = I ik + aE k .
yik (3)

Equation (3) leads to the diagram shown in Figure 2.

The diagrams shown in Figures 1 and 2 are equivalent. The differ-
ence between them is the side where the admittance is represented.
From Figure 2 we note that, if the transformer admittance is repre-
sented on the off-nominal side, it must be multiplied by the inverse of Figure 3. Equivalent circuit for an LTC transformer
the squared transformation ratio. This is interpreted as referring the ad-
mittance to the off-nominal side.
Therefore, we conclude that for nominal turns ratio, the per unit
value of the admittance is the nominal on both sides and for off-nominal
turns ratio, the admittance can be represented on the nominal side with
the nominal per unit value (as shown in Figure 1) or on the off-nominal
side with the nominal value referred to this side, even in the per unit
system (as shown in Figure 2).
Model for LTC: Figure 4. General model for transformers

IEEE Power Engineering Review, February 2001 0272-1724/01/$10.00©2001 IEEE 51


Figure 5. Equivalent one-phase circuits
1 pu.
I ki = − yik E i + yik E k .
a (8)
The parameters A, B, and C for this model result in
1 1−a a −1
A= yik B = 2 yik C = yik .
a a a (9)
As expected, both formulations yield the same parameters. There-
fore, if any of these models are used, the same results in terms of electri-
cal variables will be obtained.
In [3]-[4] these parameters are expressed as
A = ayik B = (1 − a ) yik C = a( a − 1) yik .
Observe that the difference between the parameter values of the
equivalent π circuit is the factor 1/a2. As previously explained, the se-
ries admittance value of the transformer must be referred to the
off-nominal winding side. Thus, in (10), the admittance value is consid-
ered referred to the off-nominal side. Under this assumption, (9) and
(10) provide the same results.
Therefore, it is very important to emphasize that, if the admittance is
represented on the nominal side, its value is the proper transformer ad-
mittance. If it is represented on the off-nominal winding, its value must
be referred to this side, multiplying its value by the factor 1/a2.
General Model for Power Transformers: The general off-nominal
tap transformer model is composed by an ideal transformer with com-
plex turns ratio aej φ:1 in series with its admittance or impedance. The im-
pedance is decomposed into two terms: one represented on the nominal
side, whose value is m. zi , and the other on the off-nominal side,
(1 − m). zik , which must be referred for this side, that is, a 2 (1 − m). zik . In
terms of admittances, we have (1 / m) yik and (1 / a 2 (1 − m)) yik , respec-
tively. Note that this representation includes both models discussed ear-
lier. With m = 1 we have the admittance represented on the nominal side
and with m = 0 the admittance is represented on the off-nominal winding.
The general model is shown in Figure 4.
For this model,
1 1
I ik = yik E i − e jφ yik E k
a2 a (11)
1 PES Web Site
I ki = − e − jφ yik E i + yik E k .
a (12)
Analyzing (11) and (12), we conclude that only in the case for
which φ = 0 (the transformer ratio becomes a:1) there is an equivalent π
circuit for this general model.
Numerical Example: Consider a three-phase transformer with
nominal values of 1,000 MVA; 13.8 kV ∆/345 kV Y, X eq = 5%. The low
voltage windings (LV) have taps with variation of ±10%. Let the tap be
selected to reduce the high voltage (HV) by 10%. Thus, according to
52
Figures 1 and 2, the transformer can be represented by
equivalent circuits in Figure 5, where a is equal to 1.11.
According to (6) or (9), the equivalent π circuit for
this transformer has parameters A = -j 18.0 pu (S), B = j
1.8 pu (S), and C = -j 2.0 pu (S). If the admittance is
represented on the off-nominal side and not referred to
it, however, according to (10), these parameters are A =
-j 22.22 pu (S), B = j 2.22 pu (S), and C = -j 2.47 pu (S).
If a voltage of 1.0⬔0° pu is applied on the LV wind-
ing, with no load on the HV side, models represented
by (6) and (10) provide the same results in terms of the
complex voltage for the HV winding, that is, 0.9∠0°
If a load represented by an impedance of 0.4 + j0.4 pu(Ω) is con-
nected on the HV side, the results are slightly different. Now the complex
voltages on the HV winding are 0.8456⬔-3.37° pu and 0.8556⬔-2.76°
pu for the models represented by (6) and (10), respectively.
Considering each LTC transformer individually we find that the dif-
ference between the models does not seem to have a major effect on the
numerical results. The reason for this is that the tap range is small (gen-
erally from 0.9 to 1.1). In a large power system, the number of LTC
transformers can be large enough so that different levels of voltage
magnitude are determined. In this case, the losses and the total values of
generated powers corresponding to the different models are significant.
We tested a stressed real system with 749 buses and 260 LTC trans-
formers. Using the model based on (10) without adjusting the trans-
(10)
former admittance, a solution was found using Newton’s power flow
after seven iterations. No convergence was obtained when using the
correct model of (6), however. These results lead to the following ques-
tion: Is the correct modeling too stringent as to overstress the network?
Conclusions: This work points out the transformer model problem
in steady-state power system analysis and shows the differences result-
ing from an incomplete modeling. Different models for transformers
with off-nominal turns ratios and their influence on the equivalent π cir-
cuit parameters were analyzed. A general model was presented that in-
corporates both LTC and phase-shifting effects. We note that, if the
impedance value is adequately considered when the transformer is rep-
resented, the models discussed in this work provide the same results in
terms of complex voltages and currents. Otherwise, the models may
lead to different results.
References:
[1] G.W. Stagg and A.H. El-Abiad, Computer Methods in Power
System Analysis. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
[2] O.I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory: An Introduction.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
[3] C.A. Gross, Power System Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1979.
[4] J.D. Glover and M. Sarma, Power System Analysis and Design.
Boston: PWS-Kent, 1987.
Copyright Statement: ISSN 0282-1724/01/$10.00  2001 IEEE.
Manuscript received 25 July 2000. This paper is published herein in its
entirety.
The PES Web site (http://www.ieee.org/power) contains
current information on PES Meetings, Chapters, and Tech-
nical Activities. The home page contains links to the follow-
ing items to which we call your attention:
● PES 2001 Organization Manual & Committee Direc-
tory (soon to be available)
● PES Author’s Kit and Presentation Guidelines.
IEEE Power Engineering Review, February 2001