122 ACTA ELECTROTEHNICA

Inrush Current of a Group of

Transformers – Effect of the Secondary
Load
Răzvan Radu, Dan D. Micu, Dan Ovidiu Micu, Andrei Ceclan
Technical University, dept. of Electrical Engineering and Measurements, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Abstract—Occurrence of inrush transients, which are mostly comprised of the 3rd and 5th harmonic is influenced by a variety of
factors such as the switching angle, the remanent flux of the transformers’ cores but also the load on the secondary side.

Keywords— inrush; transient; load; impedance.

Using our previously defined method,
1. INTRODUCTION determination of the parameters is facilitated so a model
can be constructed for each standard rated power [1].
Modern energy distribution grids are moving Therefore, being given the catalog data of the
ahead towards smart grid control and smart metering. transformers, precisely the rated power Sn in VA,
But there is a constant need for having adequate primary voltage U1 in V , short-circuit (winding) losses
protection systems in order to avoid or limit power Psc in W, short-circuit impedance(voltage) uk in %, no-
outages to a minimum. One important disturbance load (iron) losses P0 in W, and no-load current i0 in %,
which affects protective relays is the occurrence of we just need to multiply uk and i0 by 10-2 to standardize
inrush currents when reconnecting a group of the units.
transformers, which is the typical event following the In such way, the no-load parameters can be easily
elimination of a faulty section of the grid. As part of our determined [1]:
study which targets using inrush as the key to optimize
the operation of protective relays, we constructed an 1 Psc ⋅ U 12
analytical model of the main electrical elements needed R1 = ⋅ (1)
to be taken into account for the simulation of inrush 2 S n2
transients [1]. One important detail to take into account
is the type and ratio of the load of each transformer. u k ⋅ U 12
Z1 = (2)
Hence, this paper shows how the peak inrush and its Sn
decay rate are affected by the load ratio and its power
factor.
X 1 = Z12 − R12 (3)
2. ANALYTICAL MODEL
Z1 = Z 2 ' = R1 + j ⋅ X 1 (4)
The model we propose for the distribution
transformer is a quadripole with the secondary load The transversal element (admittance) is then
represented as an impedance Zs. The model is shown in determined :
Fig 1 below.
P0
G0 = (5)
U 12

i0 ⋅ S n
B0 = (6)
U 12

Y = G0 − j ⋅ B0 (7)
Fig. 1. Distribution transformer model with load on secondary

© 2015 – Mediamira Science Publisher. All rights reserved

 Volume 56, Number 1-2, 2015 123

Next, the remaining element is the load This model is based on validated parameters, so
impedance. In order to obtain the correct values, given the components of the quadripole are easily determined
that the transformers are operating live and there is no as :
possibility to actually measure the on-site impedance of Rcable = 0,188 ⋅ lc
the load, the simplest method is to determine the
secondary current at full-load[2]. Lcable = 0,186 *10 −3 ⋅ lc (13)
−6
Next, the full-load value can be downscaled and Ccable = 0,65 *10 ⋅ lc ,
facilitates calculation of the equivalent impedance by
applying Ohm’s law. The values can then be Where lc is the cable length given in kilometers.
recalculated for different power factors by determining
the resistance and reactance which comprise the load
⋅ (Rcable + j ⋅ ω ⋅ Lcable )
1
impedance. Z1 = Z 2 ' =
2 (14)
Sn Y = j ⋅ ω ⋅ Ccable
I 2n = (8)
3 *U 2n

With U2n being the rated line voltage on the 3. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND
secondary side, which in our case is 400V. RESULTS
Then, the impedance is obtained at various points
The model is based on step-by-step simplification
by simply dividing the rated phase voltage by I2n*load
of the string of transformers and cables, usually
ratio (0…1). This impedance has to be reported on the
interconnected as shown in Fig.3.
primary side, achieved by amplifying the obtained
value with the transformer ratio[3].

U 2n
Z s' = (9)
k _ load * I 2 n

Z s = Z s' * K 2
Given the power factor of the load, we can fully
characterize the transformer by knowing the active and
reactive power consumption through the two
components of the load impedance, the resistance and
inductive reactance.
(10)
Fig. 3 General topology of a medium voltage feeder upon
reconnection
After modeling each element, the schematic is
then reduced to an ideal voltage source, a switch to be
closed at a given moment, and an equivalent impedance
of the entire feeder, given as:

Rs = Z s * PF (11) Z e = Re + j ⋅ X e (15)

X s = ω * Ls = Z s − Rs
2 2
(12) From here, the permanent regime current is
determined as:
In fact, various models can be constructed and
U f ⋅ Re U f ⋅ Xe
through series and paralleling of impedances, each I perm = + (16)
Re + X e Re + X e
2 2 2 2
transformer can be simplified to a single equivalent
impedance Ze [4],[5].
The model of the underground cable is also a And knowing that the equivalent inductance is
quadripole requiring per-unit length parameters [1]. given by Le=Xe/ω, with ω=2*π*f, we can determine the
time constant of the circuit as:

Le
τ= (17)
Re

Hence, the inrush regime consists mainly of 3

stages: the peak inrush from the switching to 20*τ , the
transition from the transient from 20*τ to 30*τ, and the
Fig. 2 The quadripole model of the underground cable
slow decay to the permanent regime load after a
duration of 30*τ.
In this case, the inrush of a group of transformers
can be described by:
124 ACTA ELECTROTEHNICA

1 1
− −
i (τ ) = 4 ⋅ i p 0 ⋅ e 25τ
+ 3 ⋅ i p0 ⋅ e 75τ
, τ < 20 ⋅ τ (18)

1
−
i (τ ) = i perm (τ ) + 4 ⋅ i p 0 ⋅ e 125τ
, τ > 20 ⋅ τ (19)

Where, with γ the phase,

Uf ⋅ 2   X 
i p0 = ⋅ sin γ + arcτan e , τ > 20 ⋅ τ (20)
Re + X e   Re 
2 2
Fig. 5. Numerical aproximation of the inrush transient at 0.8 power
factor, case 1
Based on this model, on-site samples of the inrush
transient were collected for a case concerning of the The second on-site set of data was collected
reconnection of 7 distribution transformers (total rated following the reconnection of a group of 4 transformers
power is 2960 kVA), assuming a 50% load degree on (total rated power 1910 kVA), making an assumption of
each transformer at neutral power factor. The data were 90% load ratio.
analyzed and extrapolated to a range of load ratios in In this case, increasing from 90% to 100% load
order to demonstrate the effects the load over the inrush ratio would mean the safe area shifting from 0.23 to
transient. 0.28 seconds, thus a 0.05 seconds increase, as shown in
The results are purposed to be used for the Fig. 6.
overcurrent relays, as described below. An interesting fact is that the power factor has a
The safe area to set the protective relays is bigger impact in this case, altering the safe area to 0.37
restricted by the permanent load limit of the seconds (0.14 seconds increase), opposite when
underground cables, which, for the existing cables, compared to the other case.
having a cross-section of 3x150mm2 and Aluminium
conductors, is derated to a value of 280 A because of
the insulation aging.
Hence, we define the safe area as the right-hand
side starting from the point where the decaying inrush
transient crosses the 280 A mark.
It is easy to observe that a larger load ratio leads to
an increased peak inrush and shifts the “safe area”
towards 0.65 seconds for the worst case scenario of
reaching 100% load on all transformers, as shown in
Fig. 4.
On the other hand, if we consider that the load Fig. 6. Numerical aproximation of the inrush transient at 0.92 power
factor, case 2
ratio cannot change dramatically, because the power
substations power the same consumers, a more
plausible 10% increase in load would mean the safe
area shifts from 0.225 to 0.325 seconds, thus a 0.1
seconds increase in the required trip delay.
Next, we can easily distinguish the effect of the
load type, through a power factor reduced to 0.8, as in
Fig.5.
In this case, the safe area is shifted from 0.225 to
0.3 seconds, and the corresponding difference of 0.075
seconds shows less impact than the load ratio.

Fig. 7. Numerical aproximation of the inrush transient at 0.8 power

factor, case 2

After the analysis of the data, the final conclusions

can be drawn out.
Before issuing any conclusions and comments, we
have to detail that, in the absence of instantaneous
measurements on the corresponding transformers, we
were compelled to make some assumptions which may
affect the coefficients of the inrush transient equation.
Fig. 4. Numerical aproximation of the inrush transient at 0.92 power
factor, case 1
 Volume 56, Number 1-2, 2015
The first assumption made was that the
transformers, for the two depicted cases, operate at
either 50% load or 90% load, value approximated by
existing measurements at different hours, hence
different load profiles in the urban area. Even so, the
method described here and in [1], [6] allows modeling
of any feeder with any combination of usual
transformers.
The second assumption made was that the
corresponding power factor is the neutral 0.92,
considering that the transformers provide electricity to a
residential area.
Having the results at hand, we can conclude that
the biggest requirement is to investigate the actual load
profiles with digital analyzers, given that both
characteristics have different impact on the inrush
transient.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper is a part of our detailed research on
inrush transients in energy distribution grids with the
final target of using transients as disturbance and then
optimize the operation of relays accordingly.
Here we have shown that there is a correlation
(direct dependence) between the load ratio of the
transformers and the magnitude of the inrush transient
generated by the group.
It has also been proven that the biggest impact is
the load ratio itself, with the load type (described by its
power factor) having less impact on the peak inrush and
its damping rate.
125
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is supported by the Human Resources
Development Program POSDRU/159/1.5/S/137516
financed by the European Social Fund and by the
Romanian Government.
REFERENCES
1. R. Radu, D. O. Micu, D. D. Micu, A. Ceclan, “Analytical model
for a Medium Voltage distribution grid’s main elements –
transformers and cables”, in press.
2. F. de Leon and A. Semlyen, “Complete transformer model for
electromagnetic transients,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no.
1, pp. 231–239, 1994.
3. D. Micu, V. Topa, “Basic electrotechnics and electrical
circuits”, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 1987.
4. F. de Leon and A. Semlyen, “Efficient calculation of elementary
parameters of transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 7,
no. 1, pp. 376–383, Jan. 1992.
5. N. Chiesa, “Doctoral Thesis: Power Transformer Modeling for
Inrush Current Calculation”, Norwegian University for Science
and Technology, 2010.
6. R. Radu, Dan O. Micu, A. Ceclan, C. Barbulescu, and St.
Kilyeni, “Recent advances on the influence of power
transformers inrush current over the optimization of medium
voltage feeder protection”, Universities Power Engineering
Conference, Dublin, 2013.
Răzvan Radu
Technical University, dept. of Electrical Engineering and
Measurements
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Razvan.Radu587@gmail.com