Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241
DOI 10.1007/s00202-007-0071-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Single-phase transformer model including magnetic hysteresis
and eddy currents
A. D. Theocharis · J. Milias-Argitis · Th. Zacharias
Received: 21 December 2006 / Accepted: 21 April 2007 / Published online: 24 May 2007
© Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract In this paper, a single-phase core-type and
shell-type transformer model is proposed on the level of
state equations. The magnetic hysteresis and the eddy cur-
rents effects are successfully included based on the analytical
description of the magnetic core topology. Predicted values
from simulations are in very good agreement with published
measurements and hence, the developed transformer model
is a powerful tool for transient and steady-state studies.
Keywords Eddy currents · Magnetic circuits ·
Magnetic hysteresis · State equations · Transformers
1 Introduction
Transformer modeling is a very difficult task due the intro-
duction of the magnetic core characteristics as the saturation
effect, the hysteresis and the eddy currents losses as well as
to the magnetic core topology and the windings configura-
tion. Also, in cases where the skin and eddy currents effects
in the coils and the capacitive effects have to be included the
representation is very complicated. Thus, a variety of meth-
ods for the transformer description have been developed in
the literature in the past decades, which can be classified into
several groups.
This work was supported by the Research Committee of the
University of Patras under Grant B106.
A. D. Theocharis (B) · J. Milias-Argitis · Th. Zacharias
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Patras, Patras, 26500 Rion, Greece
e-mail: theoxar@ece.upatras.gr
URL: http://www.ece.upatras.gr
In a first group the description of the transformer is based
on the electromagnetic field analysis in the entire volume of
the magnetic core using numerical analysis as the finite ele-
ments method [1–4]. These methods are suitable when we
focus on the design of the transformer but are impractical for
the calculation of transients and steady state response since
they would give time-expensive simulations.
In a second group the transformer modeling is based on the
principle of duality between electric and magnetic circuits
and representative references are included in [5–9]. These
descriptions do not follow mathematical approaches but they
deal with an electrical equivalent circuit, which sometimes
may be very complicated where many ideal transformers are
used.
The models in a third group are based on the mathematical
description of the magnetic core topology and the windings
configuration [10–17]. They are represented by a set of state
equations in which the coupling between the electric and
the magnetic circuit takes into account the dimensions and
the material characteristics of the magnetic core. The main
difference between them is the way in which the complete
set of equations is derived.
The models in a fourth group are incorporated in the
EMTP/ATP-type programs as the BCTRAN Model [18] or
the STC Model [19]. The frequent problem of these models is
the numerical instability that they present and several efforts
have been done in this direction [20,21]. Papers that belong
to the second [6], to the third [22], [23] group or individual
works [24] are introduced in this category. Also, in [25] there
is a successful implementation of a transformer model in the
PSPICE program.
In this paper, single-phase core-type and shell-type trans-
former models of the third group are presented, which include
hysteresis and eddy currents effects of the magnetic core.
Particularly, the magnetic hysteresis is introduced by two
123
230 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

distinct models (a) using the Jiles-Atherton macroscopic given by

model of hysteresis [26–28] or (b) using the mathemati-
N12
cal model of hysteresis presented by Tellinen. [29]. Also, core-type : re = (Ap.8)
the eddy currents effects, as they are described by Bertotti ke
[30,31], are incorporated by a non-linear resistor in the pri- ⎧ ⎫
mary winding side of the transformer, which is dependent on ⎨3  2 ⎬
∂Φ j
the magnetic core topology of the transformer that is under shell-type : re = N12 / kej (Ap.10)
⎩ ∂Φ1 ⎭
consideration. The proposed models are verified by measure- j=1
ments published elsewhere for the transients and the steady where the terms ke and kej are defined in the Appendix.
state. The equations of the electrical part of the transformers in
Fig. 1 can be written in matrix form as
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ i 1 ⎤
v1 r1 + re −re 0
2 Description of the models ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥
⎣ v1 ⎦ = ⎣ r1 0 0 ⎦⎣ i 1 ⎦
−v2 0 0 r2 i2
2.1 Electrical equations
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ i1 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0
L1 0 0
The core-type and shell-type transformers in Fig. 1 are ⎣ ⎦ d ⎢
⎥ d⎢ ⎥
+ L1 0 0 ⎣ i ⎦ + ⎣ ψ1 ⎦ (1)
examined where v1 and v2 are the voltages at the trans- dt 1 dt
0 0 L2 ψ2
formers terminals, N1 , i 1 , r1 , L 1 and N2 , i 2 , r2 , L 2 are the i2
number of turns, the currents, the resistances and the leak- where ψ1 and ψ2 are the flux linkages.
age inductances of the primary and the secondary windings, The time derivatives of flux linkages are expressed as
respectively. The resistance re , for both of the transformers, non-linear functions of the time derivative of the windings
introduces the eddy currents effects in each case. The deter- currents of the transformers in the form
mination of the resistance re , for both of the transformers,   

is described in detail in the Appendix of this work, in order d ψ1 d i1
= Ld
to simplify the paper’s representation. Particularly, using the dt ψ2 dt i 2
description of the eddy currents effects proposed by Berto- where the matrix Ld is
tti, the resistance re is determined and it is depended on the  
magnetic core dimensions and topology of the transformer L d11 L d12
Ld =
that is under consideration in each case. This resistance re is L d21 L d22
and is depended on the topology of the magnetic core in each
case. The elements L d11 and L d22 represent the self induc-
tances and the elements L d12 and L d21 represent the mutual
inductances. The electrical equations can be represented in
compact form as
DI = L−1 (E − RI) (2)
where D = d/dt is the time derivative operator, E =

T
[v1 v1 − v2 ]T , I = i 1 i 1 i 2 ,
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
r1 + re −re 0 L1 0 0
R = ⎣r1 0 0 ⎦ and L = ⎣L 1 L d11 L d12 ⎦.
0 0 r2 0 L d21 L 2 + L d22

2.2 Magnetic equations and determination of the matrix Ld

2.2.1 The matrix Ld of the core-type transformer

Fig. 1 a A core-type transformer. b A shell-type transformer. Ac , lc , Φ The corresponding magnetic circuit of the magnetic
are the cross-section, the mean length paths of the magnetic lines and core in this case is shown in Fig. 2 where F1
, F2 are the
the magnetic flux, respectively magnetomotive forces of the primary and the secondary

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241 231

where the term µd is defined as

db
µd = (10)
dh
and is called incremental permeability.
Substituting the term dµ from (9) in (7), the differential
of the magnetic potential df is
 
Fig. 2 The electrical equivalent of the magnetic circuit of the core-type lc dΦ Φµ Φµ
transformer df = − 2 d dh + 2 dh (11)
Ac µ µ h µ h

The differential of the magnetic flux Φ can be determined as

windings respectively, Rm the magnetic resistance and f the
follows
magnetic potential. The time derivatives of the flux linkages
ψ1 and ψ2 are expressed via the number of turns of the wind- Φ = b Ac (12)
ings N1 and N2 and the core flux Φ and can be written as
dΦ = Ac db = Ac µd dh (13)
   
d ψ1 N1 dΦ Thus, by substituting in (11) the terms of the magnetic flux
= (3)
dt ψ2 −N2 dt from (12) and using Eqs. (8), (10) and (13), the derivative of
the core flux with respect to the magnetic potential results
The total magnetomotive force F is equal to the difference    
of the magnetomotive forces due to the primary and the sec- dΦ d f = µd Ac lc = G md (14)
ondary windings currents
where G md is called incremental magnetic conductance.
F= N 1 i 1
− N2 i 2 (4) From the magnetic circuit in Fig. 2 the partial derivative
of the magnetic potential with respect to the total magneto-
The core flux Φ is, in general, a non-linear function of the motive force results as
total magnetomotive force and can be written as 
∂f ∂F = 1 (15)
dΦ ∂Φ ∂ f dF
= (5) and from Eq. (4) the time derivative of the total magnetomo-
dt ∂ f ∂ F dt
tive force is equal to
The differential of the magnetic potential can be determined
dF di
di 2
from the equation = N1 1 − N2 (16)
dt dt dt
f = Φ Rm = Φ (lc /µAc ) (6) Substituting (14), (15) and (16) into (5), the time deriva-
tive of the core flux is written as
as
dΦ di
di 2
lc µdΦ − Φdµ = N1 G md 1 − N2 G md (17)
df = (7) dt dt dt
Ac µ2
Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (3), the matrix Ld of the core-
where µ = b(h)/ h is the magnetic permeability of the core- type transformer results as
material, b the magnetic flux density and h the magnetic field  2 
N1 G md −N1 N2 G md
strength of the core. Ld =
The derivative of the permeability µ with respect to the −N1 N2 G md N22 G md
magnetic filed strength h inside the core can be determined Finally, the Eqs. (2) and (17) are the complete set of state
from equations for the core-type transformer model.

µ=b h (8)
2.2.2 Determination of the matrix Ld of the shell-type
as transformer

dµ µd − µ Figure 3 shows the equivalent magnetic circuit of the shell-

= (9)
dh h type transformer. The time derivatives of the flux linkages ψ1

123
232 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

The Kirchhoff’s law for the magnetic potentials for the

left loop, which includes parts 1 and 2 of the core, declares
that

f1 + f2 = F

The partial derivative with respect to the total magnetomotive

F, for this relation results as

∂ f1 ∂ f2
+ =1 (25)
Fig. 3 The electrical equivalent of the magnetic circuit of the shell- ∂F ∂F
type transformer
On the same way, from the right loop of the magnetic circuit,
which includes parts 1 and 3, reveals that
and ψ2 are expressed via the number of turns of the windings
N1 and N2 and the core flux Φ1 and are written as f1 + f3 = F
    ∂ f1 ∂ f3
d ψ1 N1 dΦ 1 + =1 (26)
= (18) ∂F ∂F
dt ψ2 −N2 dt
Equations (24), (25) and (26) constitute a system with
The time derivative for the core flux in the part j, ( j = unknown quantities the three partial derivatives of the mag-
1, 2, 3), of the core can be expressed as ∂f
netic potentials ∂ F1 , ∂∂ fF2 and ∂∂ fF3 . In compact matrix form, the
dΦ j ∂Φ j ∂ f j dF above system is represented as
= (19)
dt ∂ f j ∂ F dt
f = A−1
1 A2 (27)
where the total magnetomotive force F is given by (4) and
the magnetic potential f j across the jth part of the magnetic where  is the partial derivative operator  = ∂/∂ F and the
circuit is expressed in terms of the magnetic resistance Rm j matrices
⎡ f, A1 and A⎤2 are f = [ f 1 f 2 f 3 ]T , A1 =
and the core flux Φ j as −G md1 G md2 G md3
⎣ 1 1 0 ⎦ and A2 = [0 1 1]T . From (27),
f j = Rm j Φ j (20) 1 0 1
one can write
The Kirchhoff’s law for the core fluxes at the node of the
∂ f1 G md2 + G md3
magnetic circuit declares that = (28)
∂F G md1 + G md2 + G md3
− Φ1 + Φ2 + Φ3 = 0 (21) ∂ f2 G md1
= (29)
∂F G md1 + G md2 + G md3
The partial derivative with respect to the total magnetomotive
force of this equation results as ∂ f3 G md1
= (30)
∂F G md1 + G md2 + G md3
∂Φ1 ∂ f 1 ∂Φ2 ∂ f 2 ∂Φ3 ∂ f 3
− + + =0 (22)
∂ f1 ∂ F ∂ f2 ∂ F ∂ f3 ∂ F Substituting Eqs. (23), (28), (29), (30), (16) into (19), the
time derivatives of the core fluxes, in a compact matrix form,
Introducing the incremental conductance for each one of the are
three parts of the core, in the same manner that the incremen-
tal conductance has been defined in the case of the core type D
= DI (31)
transformer
∂Φ j Acj where the matrices are  = [Φ1 Φ2 Φ3 ]T ,
= G md j = µd j (23) ⎡ ⎤
∂fj lcj N1 G md1 (G md2 +G md3 ) N2 G md1 (G md2 +G md3 )
0 G md1 +G md2 +G md3 − G md1 +G md2 +G md3
⎢ ⎥
Eq. (22) is written as ⎢ ⎥
=⎢
⎢0
N1 G md1 G md2
G md1 +G md2 +G md3 − N2 G md1 G md2
G md1 +G md2 +G md3
⎥
⎥
∂ f1 ∂ f2 ∂ f3 ⎣ ⎦
− G md1 + G md2 + G md3 =0 (24) 0 N1 G md1 G md3 N2 G md1 G md3
− G md1
∂F ∂F ∂F G md1 +G md2 +G md3 +G md2 +G md3

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241 233

By substitution of the first equation of the system (31), 2.3.1 Incorporation of the J-A model of hysteresis
which corresponds to the time derivative of the flux Φ1 , into
Eq. (18) the matrix Ld of the shell-type transformer results Using the well-known expression b = µ0 (h + M) where the
as magnetization M is the sum of two components, the revers-
⎡ 2 ⎤
N1 G md1 (G md2 +G md3 ) N1 N2 G md1 (G md2 +G md3 ) ible magnetization Mrev and the irreversible magnetization
−
⎢ G md1 +G md2 +G md3 G md1 +G md2 +G md3 ⎥ Mirr , the term µd can be written as
Ld = ⎣ ⎦
− N1 GN2 G md1 (G md2 +G md3 ) N 2 md1 (G md2
2G +G md3 )  
md1 +G md2 +G md3 G md1 +G md2 +G md3 dM rev dM irr
µd = µo 1 + + (35)
dh dh
Therefore, Eqs. (2) and (31) constitute the complete set of
state equations for the shell-type transformer model. where µo is the permeability of free space. According to J-A
At this point, model
 it shouldbe noted that, in view of (Ap.10),
the terms ∂Φ2 ∂Φ1 , ∂Φ3 ∂Φ1 can be determined as follows dM irr Man − Mirr
= (36)
dh kδ − a 1 (M an − Mirr )
∂Φ2 ∂Φ2 ∂ f 2 ∂ F ∂ f 1  
= (32) dMrev dMan dMirr
∂Φ1 ∂ f 2 ∂ F ∂ f 1 ∂Φ1 =c − (37)
dh dh dh
Using Eqs. (23) for j = 1 and j = 2 as well as Eqs. (28) and and the term Man reflects the anhysteretic magnetization. In
(29), then (32) becomes terms of h it is represented by the Langevin equation as
   
∂Φ2 G md2 h + a1 M a2
= (33) Man (h) = M s coth − (38)
∂Φ1 G md2 + G md3 a2 h + a1 M

In an analogous manner, one can writte
∂Φ3 G md3
= (34)
∂Φ1 G md2 + G md3
The matrix Ld , in both cases, is dependent on the incre-
mental permeability µd (through G md ) representing the core
material characteristic. When the core material is described
by its magnetization curve h = g(b), the incremental perme-
ability is caclulated in each time step as µd = (dh/db)−1 .
When magnetic hysteresis is to be taken into account, the
expression for µd depends on hysteresis model.
2.3 Incorporation of the magnetic hysteresis
There are several descriptions for the magnetic hysteresis
which, in general, can be classified into three main cate-
gories. In the first, the hysteresis loop is described through
the physical mechanisms in microscopic scale. In the second
category, experimental data are fitted by mathematical func-
tions to obtain the major hysteresis loop and minor loops.
In the third category [32], the magnetic hysteresis is ana-
lyzed on a macroscopic level and equations are revealed for
the magnetization M. For the incorporation of the hysteresis
loop in this work two different methods are used. At first,
the Jiles-Atherton (J-A) model is selected among the mod-
els of the last category. Next, the model that is proposed by
Tellinen (TLN) is selected among the models of the second
category.
and the term dMan /dh is derived by differentiation of the
above equation. The parameters a1 , a2 , c and k are constants
for the material being used, Ms is the saturation magnetiza-
tion and the directional parameter δ is dependent on the sign
of dh/dt.
The vector of the state variables for the core-type trans-


T
former model is i 1 i 1 i 2 Mrev Mirr h . Equations (2)
are the state equations of the electrical part of the transformer
while, the state equations of the magnetic core are
dM rev dM rev dh
= (39)
dt dh dt
dM irr dM irr dh
= (40)
dt dh dt
The time derivative of the magnetic field strength dh/dt is
evaluated from
dh 1 dΦ
= µ−1
d (41)
dt Ac dt
In the case of the shell-type transformer, the vector of the


state variables is [i 1 i 1 i 2 Mrev1 Mrev2 Mrev3 Mirr1
Mirr2 Mirr3 h 1 h 2 h 3 ]T . The incremental permeabilities
are determined from Eq. (35) for each one of the three parts
of the magnetic core of the transformer. Equations (2) are
the state equations of the electrical part of the transformer
while, the state equations of the three parts of the magnetic
core have the same form as Eqs. (39) and (40). Also, the time
derivatives of the magnetic field strengths in the three parts
are of the same form as Eq. (41).

123
234 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

2.3.2 Incorporation of the TLN model of hysteresis

200 161.7 A
161.7 A
The ascending branch of the major hysteresis loop is denoted 150

Inrush Current (A)

as basc (h) and the descending branch of the major hysteresis
loop is denoted as bdesc (h). It is well known that due to the 100 65 A
symmetry about the origin of the axes 60 A 38 A
25 A
50 39.6 A
31.3 A
basc (h) = −bdesc (−h) (42)
0
The incremental permeability µd through which the hystere-
sis loop is introduced in the previously defined transformers -50
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
models, can be evaluated as
time (s)
 
bdesc (h) − b dbasc (h)
µd = µ0 + − µ0 dh > 0 Fig. 4 Inrush current waveform. The peak values from [33] (bold) and
bdesc (h) − basc (h) dh from the simulation (normal)
(43)

and
  and using the proposed transformer model, all the measured
b − basc (h) dbdesc (h) waveforms have been confirmed. A representative result is
µd = µ0 + − µ0 dh < 0
bdesc (h) − basc (h) dh shown in Fig. 4, where the four first cycles of the simulated
(44) inrush current and the peak measured values are shown. By
comparison of the peak measured and simulated values as
Using this model of hysteresis, the state variables of the well as by comparison with the published measured wave-
 T
core-type transformer are i 1 i 1
i 2 Φ h . Equations (2) are form in [33] (L air = 0.85643 mH) the agreement is very
the state equations of the electrical part of the transformer good. The slight differences at the peak values and the dis-
while, Eq. (17) is the equation for the magnetic core and similarity in the regions of the minimum values are due to
the term dh/dt is evaluated from (41). The state variables of the fact that only the magnetization curve was available.

T
A further agreement in this region would be accomplished if
the shell-type transformer are i 1 i 1 i 2 Φ1 Φ2 Φ3 h 1 h 2 h 3 .
the hysteresis loop were used.
Equations (2) are the state equations of the electrical part
of the transformer while, Eqs. (31) are the state equations
for the magnetic core and the terms dh j /dt are evaluated
from (41). 3.2 Second case: TLN model of hysteresis

3 Results
Simulations have been conducted in order to verify the pro-
posed transformers models. Three cases are investigated.
In the first case, the core material is represented by its
magnetization curve.
In the second case, the core material is represented by its
hysteresis loop using the TLN model.
In the third case, the core material is represented by its
hysteresis loop using the J-A model.
3.1 First case: magnetization curve model
In this case, hysteresis loop and eddy currents are taken into
account. Data for the core material are taken from [34]. In
[34] the core material power losses Pc as well as the hyster-
esis loop power losses Ph per unit mass are reported. They
correspond to a sinusoidal excitation with 50 Hz frequency at
maximum flux densities 1.7 and 1.5 T. Moreover, the major
hysteresis loop in [34] is given as a graph on the b − h plane.
Consequently, the ascending branch of the hysteresis loop of
the core material is approximated by
5
q=1 w1q (h − H c )q
b(h) = 4 (45)
q=0 w2q (h − H c )q

In this case, an unloaded, single-phase, shell-type transformer where Hc is the coercive force. The constants w1q and w2q
is considered. Eddy currents are not taken into account. The for h < Hc and h > Hc are given in Table 1. The descend-
set of state equations are (2) and (31). In [33] a number ing branch is determined from Eq. (42). The corresponding
of measured waveforms for the inrush current are reported curve is shown in Fig. 5. The hysteresis loop is incorporated

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241 235

Table 1 Constants w1q and w2q Table 3 Magnetic cores dimensions

q h > Hc h < Hc Length (m) Cross-section (10−4 m2 )

w1q w2q w1q w2q Core-type

1.4 63.36
0 – 627.98 – 330.28
Shell-type
1 159.4 −271.3 217.78 48.18
Part 1 0.35 63.36
2 −93.68 −37.6 105.84 −50.12
Part 2 1.05 31.68
3 5.01 2.6 3.13 −1.32
Part 3 1.05 31.68
4 –0.14 −0.0842 0.33 0.191
5 −1.13 × 10−5 – 7.98 × 10−6 –

Table 4 Comparison of the core power losses for Bmax = 1.7 T

2.0
Magnetic Flux Published in [34] Predicted
Density (T) 1.5
Core-type Shell-type
1.0
Ph (w/kg) 0.6 0.615 0.613
0.5 Pe (w/kg) 0.9 0.927 0.926
Pc (w/kg) 1.5 1.542 1.539
-300 -200 -100 100 200 300
-0.5 Magnetic Field
Table 5 Comparison of the core power losses for Bmax = 1.5 T
-1.0 Strength (A/m)
Published in [34] Predicted
-1.5
Core-type Shell-type
-2.0
Ph (w/kg) 0.37 0.388 0.386
Fig. 5 Hysteresis loop. Data points from [34] and the fitted curve Pe (w/kg) 0.65 0.673 0.671
Pc (w/kg) 1.02 1.061 1.057
Table 2 Windings data
Primary Secondary
component of power losses due to eddy currents is a signifi-
Resistance () 64.2 0.0457 cant percentage of the total power core losses.
Leakage Inductance (10−3 H) 243.6 0.1732
Number of turns 4165 111 3.2.2 Eddy currents effect on the primary winding current
waveform

The eddy currents effect on the primary winding current

using the TLN model of hysteresis. The term (σ Gdτ Ho )1/2 ,
which appears in the eddy currents resistance, is calculated
from the analysis of the measurements as it is shown in the
Appendix. The set of state equations are (2), (17) and (41)
for the core-type and (2), (31) and (41) for the shell-type.
Data for the two types of transformers are shown in Tables 2
and 3. The amplitude of the source voltage is adjusted for
maximum flux density in each case.
3.2.1 Core losses
Loaded, core-type and shell-type transformers are simulated
in order to predict the magnetic core power losses in each
case. The load at the secondary side is an R L series branch
with values 2.7  and 5 mH. Simulation results and mea-
sured values are shown in Tables 4 and 5 where a very
good agreement is achieved. It is worthwhile to note that the
waveform of the core-type tranformer is examined. The sec-
ondary winding is considered to be open. Figure 6 shows the
nonlinear characteristic of the eddy currents resistance re on
the i − v plane. Figure 7 shows the primary winding current
waveforms when the eddy currents are neglected as well as
when the eddy currents are taken into account (maximum
flux density 1.5 T). As it is shown from the results, the eddy
currents produce significant changes on the primary winding
current waveform.
3.3 Third case: J-A model of hysteresis
In this case, simulation results are presented for a loaded,
shell-type transformer. The load at the secondary side is an
R L series branch with values 1.9  and 8.064 mH in parallel
with a capacitance 0.5121 mF for the compensation of the
reactive power to a power factor value 0.9. The amplitude of

123
236 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

200 (a)
15

Voltage (kV)
Primary
150 Secondary
10
100
5

Current (A)
50

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 0
-5 Current (mA)
-50
-10
-100
-15
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Fig. 6 The nonlinear characteristic of the eddy currents resistance re time (s)
in the case of the core-type transformer for maximum flux densities 1.5 200
T (dashed line) and 1.7 T (solid line) (b) R-L branch
150 Capacitor

100
20
50

Current (A)
15
0
10
Primary Current (mA)

-50

5 -100

0 -150

-200
-5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

-10 time (s)

2.0
-15 (c) Part 1
1.5
Magnetic Flux Density (T)

-20
1.92 1.93 1.94 1.95 1.96 1.97 1.98 1.99 1.0

time (s) 0.5

Fig. 7 The primary winding current waveform of the unloaded core- 0.0
type transformer when the eddy currents are neglected (solid line) or
-0.5
included (dotted line)
-1.0

-1.5
the source voltage is 12.25 kV. The parameters of the core
-2.0
material are those in [28] (Fig. 1). The J-A model of hys- -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
teresis is used, while the eddy currents are neglected. More- Magnetic Field Strength (A/m)
over, for the magnetic core two cases are considered. First, a
symmetrical magnetic core and next an asymmetrical one. Fig. 8 Transient response for the shell-type transformer with a sym-
metrical magnetic core. a Primary and secondary windings currents.
The set of state equations are (2), (39), (40) and (41).
b Load currents. c The b(h) trajectory of the part 1 of the magnetic
core
3.3.1 Shell-type transformer with symmetrical
magnetic core
3.3.2 Shell-type transformer with asymmetrical
The parameters of the transformer are given in Tables 2 and 3. magnetic core
Figures 8 and 9 show transient and steady state responses
of the transformer respectively. Due to the symmetry of the In order to present simulation results of an asymmetrical
magnetic core, the b(h) trajectories of the parts 2 and 3 are shell-type transformer, the length as well as the cross-
identical to that of part 1. The secondary winding current section of the part 3 of the magnetic core in the previous
shows a slight difference from the sinusoidal shape due to case have been changed. The new values are lc3 = 1.5lc2
the presence of the capacitor. and Ac3 = 0.5Ac2 where lc2 and Ac2 are those in Table 3.

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241 237

250 (a)
Primary (N1/N2) Primary
Secondary 200 Secondary
(a) R-L branch
150
120 Capacitor

Current (A)
100
80
50
40
Current (A)

0
0
-50
-40
-100
-80
-150
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
-120
time (s)
3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 200 (b) R-L branch
time (s) 150 Capacitor
100
1.5
(b)
Part 1 50

Current (A)
Magnetic Flux Density (T)

1.0 0

-50
0.5
-100
0.0
-150
-0.5 -200

-250
-1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

-1.5 time (s)

-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 2.0 (c)

Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) 1.5
Magnetic Flux Density (T)

1.0 Part 1
Fig. 9 Steady state response for the shell-type transformer with a sym-
metrical magnetic core. a Current waveforms. b The b(h) trajectory in Part 2
0.5
the part 1 of the magnetic core Part 3
0.0

-0.5

Transient and steady state responses are shown in Figs. 10, -1.0
11, respectively. Due to the asymmetry of the magnetic core, -1.5
the operating points on the b − h plane of the parts 2 and
-2.0
3 have been inserted in the saturation region. The windings -5000 0 5000 10000
currents have been further distorted in comparison with the Magnetic Field Strength (A/m)
symmetrical case hence, J-A model has been easily incorpo-
rated into the transformers models of this work. Fig. 10 Transient response for the shell-type transformer with an
asymmetrical magnetic core. a Primary and secondary windings cur-
rents. b Load currents. c The b(h) trajectories of the three parts of the
magnetic core

4 Conclusions

In this paper, detailed models of single-phase, core-type
and shell-type transformers for a state space formulation are
presented. The proposed models incorporate the topology,
material characteristics and size of the core. The magnetic
hysteresis of the core material is taken into account using
either the model of Jiles-Atherton or the mathematical for-
mulation of Tellinen. The eddy currents effects are modeled
by a nonlinear resistor based on the work of Bertotti.
For the validation of the model, simulation results are com-
pared with published measuremets. The developed model
permits the various parts of the core having different dimen-
sions thereby leading to an assymetrical core.
Although the paper is written for single phase transform-
ers the developed theory is suitable for the simulation of any
three-phase transformer with uniform magnetic flux density
in the various parts of the core.

123
238 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

Primary (N1/N2)
Secondary
160 (a) Load R-L
Capacitor
120

80

40
Current (A)

-40

-80

-120

-160
3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05
time (s)
Fig. 12 A magnetic lamination with length l p , thickness d, cross-sec-
2.0 (b) tion A p , width τ and electrical conductivity σ in which the magnetic
1.5 flux density b p is considered uniform
Part 1
Magnetic Flux Density (T)

1.0 Part 2
Part 3
0.5
where h e.c represents the classical eddy currents and given
0.0 by
-0.5
σ d 2 db p
-1.0 h e.c (t) = (Ap.2)
12 dt
-1.5

-2.0 and h e.e represents the excess eddy currents and given by
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
Magnetic Field Strength (A)  1/2
db p
Fig. 11 Steady state response for the shell-type transformer with an h e.e (t) = (Gdτ H o σ )1/2 (Ap.3)
asymmetrical magnetic core. a Current waveforms. b The b(h) trajec-
dt
tories in the three parts of the magnetic core
The term G = 0.1356 is a dimensionless constant and Ho is
a parameter with dimensions [A/m] representing the internal
potential experienced by domain walls in the magnetic lam-
The proposed model could also be very useful for the
ination and can be a function of the maximum flux density
simulation of power converters including transformers and
Bmax .
interconnecting a linear or nonlinear source with the power
In the case of the core type transformer the eddy currents
system [35].
magnetic field strength in the magnetic core is

 1/2
σ d 2 db 1/2 db
h e (t) = + (Gdτ H o σ ) (Ap.4)
Appendix 12 dt dt

Determination of the eddy currents resistance where b is the magnetic flux density of the core. The instan-
taneous power core losses are estimated by
In the classical model of the eddy currents effects, the mag-
netic domains of the material are neglected. This is too gross db
pe = h e Ac lc (Ap.5)
a simplification and the consequences of the domain walls dt
are the excess eddy currents effects, which have been inves-
tigated in detail by Bertotti [30,31]. According to Bertotti, in and substituting Eq. (Ap.4) and the magnetic flux density as
a part of length l p of the magnetic lamination in Fig. 12, the b = Φ/Ac the power core losses are written as
total magnetic field due to eddy currents effects is
 
ke dΦ 2
pe = N 1 (Ap.6)
h e (t) = h e.c (t) + h e.e (t) (Ap.1) N12 dt

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241 239

where
  1/2  −1/2 
σ d 2 lc Gdτ H o σ l 2c dΦ
ke = + (Ap.7)
12 Ac Ac dt
Fig. 13 Equivalent magnetic branch of the part with length l p of the
lamination shown in Fig. 12
The coefficient of the parenthesis of Eq. (Ap.6) has dimen-
sions −1 and represents the eddy currents conductance
which is referred to the primary winding. Hence, the eddy
currents resistance in the case of the core-type transformer is

N12
re = (Ap.8)
ke
In the same manner, in the case of the shell-type trans-
former the eddy currents instantaneous power core losses
are the sum of the losses in each part of the magnetic core
and are written as
⎡ ⎤
3    
kej ∂Φ j 2 dΦ 1 2
pe = ⎣ ⎦ N1 (Ap.9)
N 2 ∂Φ1
j=1 1
dt

where the subscript j declares the number of the part of the

magnetic core. Thus, the eddy currents resistance which is
referred to the primary winding of the shell-type transformer
is defined as
⎧ ⎫
⎨ 3  2 ⎬
∂Φ j
re = N12 / kej (Ap.10)
⎩ ∂Φ1 ⎭
j=1
The resistances in Eqs. (Ap.8) and (Ap.10) are two suit-
able predetermined resistances to fit the magnetic core power
losses in each case. Following a detailed representation of
the magnetic circuit of the magnetic core for each one of the
transformers, the relations (Ap.8) and (Ap.10) can be found.
The part of length l p in Fig. 12 is represented by an equiva-
lent magnetic branch in order to prove this interpretation. The
magnetomotive force Fep due to eddy currents in the length
l p of the magnetic lamination in Fig. 12 can be defined as
Fep = h e l p
and by substitution of the Eqs. (Ap.1), (Ap.2) and (Ap.3) it
is written as
 
dΦ p
Fep = kep (Ap.12)
dt
where Φ p is the magnetic flux of the part under consideration
and the term kep is in the same form as ke in Eq. (Ap.7) with
the difference that the quantities are referred to the part under
consideration of the lamination.
Thus, the part of length l p of the magnetic lamination in
Fig. 12 can be represented as a magnetic branch with mag-
netic flux Φ p and a magnetic resistance Rmp in series with
the magnetomotive force Fep as Fig. 13 shows.
Fig. 14 The electrical equivalent of the magnetic circuit of the core-
type transformer with “n” laminations including the eddy currents
according to the representation in the Fig. 13
Supposing that the magnetic core of the core-type trans-
former consists of “n” laminations of length lc , the magnetic
circuit, which includes the eddy currents effects according to
the above representation, results as that shown in Fig. 14. In
the same manner, the magnetic circuit of the sell-type trans-
former supposing that each one of the three parts consist of
“n” laminations of length lcj is as Fig. 15 shows.
In the case of the core-type transformer, the magnetic
resistance Rmi is given by
lc
Rmi = (Ap.13)
µi Aci
(Ap.11)
where Aci the cross-section, µi the magnetic permeability
and Φi the magnetic flux in the ith lamination. The magne-
tomotive force Fei is given by Eq. (Ap.12) where the term
Φ p is replaced by Φi and the kep is replaced by kei which
is referred to the quantities of the ith lamination. Since the i
laminations of the core are identical one can write

Φi = Φi+1 = Φ n (Ap.14)

Aci = Aci+1 = Ac n (Ap.15)
Using Eqs. (Ap.14) and (Ap.15), for the kei factors and
the Fei magnetomotive forces it results
kei = kei+1 = ke (Ap.16)
Fei = Fei+1 = Fe (Ap.17)

123
240 Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241

Fig. 15 The electrical equivalent of the magnetic circuit of the shell-

type transformer with “n” laminations including the eddy currents
according to the representation in the Fig. 13

where ke is given from (Ap.7) and Fe from (Ap.12) by replac-

ing kep with ke and Φ p with Φ. Applying the Ampere’s law Fig. 16 a A first equivalent of the magnetic circuit in Fig. 14 due to
in the loop that contains the branches i and i + 1 of the mag- Eq. (Ap.20). b The equivalent magnetic circuit for the core-type trans-
former including eddy currents
netic circuit in Fig. 14, it arises that the magnetic resistances
of the loops are equal
Rmi = Rmi+1 (Ap.18) the total magnetomotive force is written as


and the magnetic permeabilities are equal too F = N 1 i 1 − N2 i 2 (Ap.24)
µi = µi+1 (Ap.19)
and the eddy currents resistance represented by Eq. (Ap.8)
Hence, the magnetic potentials f i and f i+1 across the mag- revealed.
netic resistances are equal In the case where only the classical eddy currents effects
are taken into account the eddy currents resistance presented
f i = f i+1 (Ap.20)
in Eq. (Ap.8) is identical to that in [36].
and the magnetic resistances can be considered to be in par-
allel. Thus, the magnetic circuit is simplified in that shown Determination of the term (σ Gdτ H o)1/2
in Fig. 16a. The parallel combination of the magnetic resis-
tances further simplifies the magnetic circuit in that shown in The total power losses per unit mass Pc in a magnetic lami-
Fig. 16b. The total magnetomotive force F from the primary nation are
and the secondary windings currents as well as from the eddy
currents is given by Pc = Ph + Pe (Ap.25)
dΦ
F = N 1 i 1 − N2 i 2 − ke (Ap.21) where Ph are the dc hysteresis loop power losses and Pe
dt
are the eddy currents power losses. The eddy currents power
Rearranging the terms in the above equation results in losses are the sum of the classical, Pcl and the excess, Pexc
  
ke dΦ eddy currents losses
F = N 1 i 1 − 2 N1 − N2 i 2 (Ap.22)
N1 dt
Pe = Pcl + Pexc (Ap.26)


Defining the current i 1 as
  In the case of a sinusoidal voltage supply, which means that

ke dΦ the magnetic flux density b p is also sinusoidal, the classical
i 1 = i 1 − 2 N1 (Ap.23)
N1 dt losses per unit mass are given by

123
Electr Eng (2008) 90:229–241
 2
π dB pmax fr σ
Pcl = (Ap.27)
6dens
while the excess losses are given by, [31]
8(σ Gdτ H o)1/2  3/2
Pexc = Bpmax fr (Ap.28)
dens
where Bpmax is the maximum flux density in the lamination,
fr the excitation frequency and dens the density of the mate-
rial of the lamination.
The manufacturer in [34] gives the total losses Pc and the
dc hysteresis losses Ph at a specific frequency and maximum
flux density. Hence, the eddy currents losses, the classical
losses and the excess losses can be calculated, accordingly,
from Eqs. (Ap.25), (Ap.27) and (Ap.26). Consequently, in
Eq. (Ap.28) the term (σ Gdτ H o)1/2 is calculated as
an unknown quantity. The derived values are 72.36 × 10−2
[A/(Volt)1/2 ] for Bmax = 1.7 T and 60.44 × 10−2 [A/(Volt)1/2 ]
for Bmax = 1.5 T. The different values show that the internal
potential Ho is dependent on the maximum flux density for
this material.
References
1. Silvester P, Chari MVK (1970) Finite element solution of saturable
magnetic field problems. IEEE T Power Ap Syst PAS- 89:1642–
1651
2. Chari MVK, D’angelo J, Palmo MA, Sharma DK (1986) Appli-
cation of three-dimensional electromagnetic analysis methods to
elecrtical machinery and devices. IEEE T Energy Conver EC-
1:145–157
3. Demerdash NA, Nehl TW, Fuand FA, Mohammed OA (1981)
Three dimensional finite element vector potential formulation of
magnetic fields in electrical apparatus. IEEE T Power Ap Syst PAS-
100:4104–4111
4. Demerdash NA, Nehl TW, Fuand FA, Mohammed OA (1981)
Experimental verification and application of the three dimensional
finite element magnetic vector potential method in electrical appa-
ratus. IEEE T Power Ap Syst PAS- 100:4112–4122
5. Arturi CM (1991) Transient simulation of a three phase five limb
step-up transformer following an out-of-phase synchronization.
IEEE T Power Deliv 6:196–207
6. De Leon F, Semlyen A (1994) Complete transformer model for
electromagnetic transients. IEEE T Power Deliv 9:231–239
7. Narag A, Brierley RH (1994) Topology based magnetic model for
steady state and transient studies for three-phase core type trans-
formers. IEEE T Power Syst 9:1337–1349
8. Chen X, Venkata SS (1997) A three-phase winding core type trans-
former model for low frequency transient studies. IEEE T Power
Deliv 12:775–782
9. Mork BA (1999) Five legged wound core transformer model: deri-
vation, parameters, implementation and evaluation. IEEE T Power
Deliv 14:1519–1525
10. Nakra HL, Barton TH (1973) Three phase transformer transients.
IEEE T Power App Syst 93:1810–1818
11. Ewart DN (1986) Digital computer simulation model of a steel core
transformer. IEEE T Power Deliv PWRD- 1:174–183
241
12. Hatziantoniu C, Galanos GD, Milias-Argitis J (1988) An incre-
mental transformer model for the study of harmonic overvoltages
in weak ac/dc systems. IEEE T Power Deliv 3:1111–1121
13. Rajakovic N, Semlyen A (1989) Investigation of the inrush phe-
nomenon a quasi-stantionary approach in the harmonic domain.
IEEE T Power Deliv 4:2114–2120
14. Chen XS, Neudorfer P (1992) Digital model for transient studies
of a three-phase five legged transformer. IEE Proc-C 139:351–358
15. Dolinar D, Pihler J, Grcar B (1993) Dynamic model of a three-
phase power transformer. IEEE T Power Deliv 8:1811–1819
16. Yacamini R, Bronzeado H (1994) Transformer inrush calculations
using a coupled electromagnetic model. IEE Proc-A 141:429–498
17. Hatziargyriou ND, Prousalidis JM, Papadias BC (1993) General-
ized transformer model based on the analysis of its magnetic core
circuit. IEE Proc-C 140:269–278
18. EMTP-ATP rule book, Chapter XIX-C
19. EMTP-ATP rule book, Chapter IV-E
20. Henriksen T (2002) How to avoid unstable time domain responses
caused by transformer models. IEEE T Power Deliv 17:516–522
21. Chen X (2000) Negative inductance and numerical instability of
the saturable transformer component in EMTP. IEEE T Power
Deliv 15:1199–1204
22. Chen X (1996) A three phase multi legged transformer model in
ATP using the directly formed inverse inductance matrix. IEEE T
Power Deliv 11:1554–1562
23. Chadrasena W, McLaren PG, Annakkage UD, Jayasinghe RP
(2004) An improved low-frequency transformer model for use in
GIC studies. IEEE T Power Deliv 19:643–651
24. Thomas DWP, Paul J, Ozgonenel O, Christopoulos C (2006) Time-
domain simulation of non-linear transformers displaying hystere-
sis. IEEE T Magn 42:1820–1827
25. Pedra J, Sainz L, Corcoles F, Lopez R, Salichs M (2004) PSPICE
computer model of a nonlinear three phase three legged trans-
former. IEEE T Power Deliv 19:200–207
26. Jiles DC, Atherton DL (1984) Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis.
J Appl Phys 55:2115–2120
27. Jiles DC, Thoekle JB (1989) Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis:
determination of model parameters from experimental hysteresis
loops. IEEE T Magn 25:3928–3930
28. Jiles DC, Thoekle JB, Devine MK (1992) Numerical determina-
tion of hysteresis parameters for the modeling of magnetic prop-
erties using the theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis. IEEE T Magn
28:27–35
29. Tellinen J (1998) A simple scalar model for magnetic hysteresis.
IEEE T Magn 34:2200–2206
30. Bertotti G (1988) General properties of power losses in soft ferro-
magnetic materials. IEEE T Magn 24:621–630
31. Bertotti G (1998) Hysteresis in magnetism, 1st edn. Academic,
San Diego
32. Liorzou F, Phelps B, Atherton DL (2000) Macroscopic models of
magnetization. IEEE T Magn 36:418–428
33. Chen SD, Lin RL, Cheng CK (2005) Magnetizing inrush model of
transformers based on structure parameters. IEEE T Power Deliv
20:1947–1954
34. Akcay H, Gokhan Ece D (2003) Modeling of hysteresis and power
losses in transformer laminations. IEEE T Power Deliv 18:487–492
35. Theocharis AD, Menti A, Milias-Argitis J, Zacharias Th (2005)
Modeling and simulation of a single-phase residential photovoltaic
system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE power tech 2005 conference,
St. Petesburg, paper nr. 206
36. Avila-Rosales J, Alvarado F (1982) Nonlinear frequency depen-
dent transformer model for electromagnetic transient studies in
power systems. IEEE T Ap Syst PAS- 101:4281–4288
123