IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No.
3,July 1993
FEM ANALYSIS OF DC SATURATION TO ASSESS
TRANSFORMER SUSCEPTIBILITY TO GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENTS
SHU LU (Student Member, IEEE)
The Bradley Department of Electrical Engineering
Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Abstract: The paper presents results of a systematic
finite element (FEM) simulation of transformer
susceptibility to geomagnetically induced currents (GIC).
DC saturation patterns for five different transformer core
designs are examined usin FEM; magnetic fields along
various traverses are provifed. Impedance matrix entries
of a single phase transformer are compared for normal
and dc saturation operations, The study aims to
contribute in the understanding of fundamental
transformer magnetization mechanism under GIC.
Ke words: Power transformers, Solar Magnetic
Dis*ransformer Magnetization, Finite Element
Analysis, Geomagnetically Induced Currents.
INTRODUCTION
Atmosphere Solar Magnetic Disturbance (SMD) will
induce voltage on the earth's surface [1,2]. The potential
difference between different locations will cause
geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) to flow through
power transformers via grounded wye neutrals. GIC are
tJcpicaUy in the range of 0.001 to 0.1 Hz, and could be as
hgh as lOOA and last from several minutes to hours. As
these quasi-dc currents flow through transformer
a series of reactions will occur associated with
~ndF
the h cycle saturation of the transformer core. The most
profound effects are the extremely large harmonic
contents in excitation currents, increase in transformer
reactive power consumption, false operation of protective
relays caused by harmonic currents, and transformer
heating caused by stra flux that were "pushed out" of the
magnetic core due to l e a saturation. Different degrees
of heating symptoms in ei& EHV autotransformers were
observed during the severe geomagnetic disturbance in
March 1989.
A transformer core is made of high permeabilit
ferromagnetic material. Its role is to provide a we8
defined low reluctance path for magnetic flux. During
normal o eration, the majority of the flux will stay in the
core. O& about 1percent of the load current is required
to maintain the magnetizing force. The magnetic gradient,
92 SM 510-8 PWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee
of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presenta-
tion at the IEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle,
WA, July 12-116, 1992. Manuscript submitted February
3, 1992; made available for printing May 15, 1992.
0885-8977/93$03.000 1992 IEEE
1367
YILU LIU (Member, IEEE)
H, is in the order of 10 A-thch (about 400 A-t/m) along
!
the core lamination [3 Leakage or stray flux is wthm
tolerance level as far as osses are concerned.
Under GIC bias, the saturated core becomes a much
higher reluctance path which requires more ampere-turns
to produce the same amount of flux in order to sustain the
s stem sinusoidal voltage level. Also, the core nonlinearity
Jemands extremely large harmonic components in the
exciting currents. Reduced core permeability and
increased exciting magnetic gradient result in a large
amount of stray flux bemg generated. As a consequence,
stray flux heating could occur in windings, structural
metallic parts, winding supports, and the tank plate. Local
hot spots could develop which could damage paper
insulation and cause gassing and transformer oil
combustion.
Many aspects of the effect of eomagneticall induced
currents on power systems have %een studied c ruring the
last 25 ears by Albertson, Kappenman, Aspnes, et. al..
GIC efkcts on power transformers, in particular, were
studied by Gattens, Girgis, and Nevins [4], Ringlee and
Steward [3], Walling and Khan 51, Bolduc and Aubm [lo],
I
and McNutt [SI. To study trans ormer heating due to GIC,
measurements on scale models by Pasco, Norton, Nilsson
[6], Tay and Swift [ll] as well as field tests on actual
transformers by Kappenman [I, were erformed. Very
P
few reports on transformer flux ana ysis usin finite
elements method were found [4 5 and they often focused
on one particular design. O v e r 2 a comprehensive FEM
analysis covering most of the transformer core designs was
not available.
In this paper, a systematic finite element analysis of
transformer GIC magnetization is presented. DC
saturation of five simpllfied generic core configurations
are examined. The studies include the analysis of profdes
of magnetic field intensity (H) and transformer impedance
matrix (Z) parameters. A finite element computer
software [9] is used for this study. The objective of this
initial study is to understand the trends of dc flux
distribution under different levels of core saturation for
various transformer designs and core configurations.
Each design is a unique case. Although completely
general laws are not practical based on the generic cases
analyzed at the present time, typical cases can be used to
infer similar designs.
DC MAGNETIZING FLUX SIMULATION
DC flux distributions of simplified core geometries,
winding and tank structures are studied first. The
objective is to study the GIC effect on core saturation for
1368

various transformer designs and core configurations. This Cpc = 2Qr (1)
study also considers the effect of extreme GIC levels that The reluctance or each segment of the core can be
may have not been observed in the past, and cases which expressed as,
would be difficult to achieve in full scale tests due to either
limitations of adequate dc test sources [6] or the risk of
damaging a healthy transformer [7]. The following
transformer core configurations are included in this study.
where p = po pr,L is the length of the segment, and A is
the cross sectional area. The core can be modeled by a
lumped magnetic equivalent circuit shown in Figure 2.
Since the cross sectlonal area of the side legs and the
yokes is half that of the main leg, the dimensions of the
transformer core are,
Ar = 1/2Ac, Lr = 5ft, Ly = 4.5ft (3)
Fundamental GIC Excitation Analysis of
a Single Phase Transformer Design where Lr and Ly are the effective length of the side legs
and the yokes respectively. The reluctance values of the
The single phase designs can always provide a return elements in the equivalent circuit are calculated as,
path or zero sequence magnetic flux. Flux distribution is
well confined inside the core during normal operation. Rr = 2 Rc, Ry = (915) Rc (4)
Under GIC excitation, the dc current will bias the core at The mmf is,
different saturation regions depending on the magnitude
of the current. As a result, part of the flux is being pushed 2Ry + Rr
out of the saturated core, causing leakage flux, or stray F = Qc(Rc + 5
) = K7Q c R c (5)
flux, surrounding the core. Flux distribution of a single
phase transformer under heavy saturation is shown in Thus,
Figure 1. Because of its tendency to seek a low reluctance
path, the stray flux is going to concentrate in regions where
magnetic materials exist. Therefore, heating problem due
to eddy loss is likely to occur in these regions under ac
operation.
Br = Q c/2
1 F
When a transformer saturates, the whole core usually
does not saturate on the same level. That is, part of the
-
Ar
= --
3.8 RcAc
core may saturate more than other parts, while some part
may not saturate at all. The core saturation patterns vary where Rc, Rr and Ry are the reluctances of the main leg,
with, not only core configurations, but also the core leg side leg, and the yoke. F is the magnetomotive force
dimensions. (mmf). @.c, Bc, and Ac are the flux, flux density and the
cross sechonal area of the main leg, respectively. Br is the
flux density of each side leg or yoke.

Figure 2. A lumped magnetic equivalent circuit of the

Figure 1. Single phase transformer core configuration and single phase core
its dc flux distribution under heavy saturation
Based on the equivalent circuit, two additional cases
Figure 1shows a slngle phase transformer core design. with respect to Figure 1 are examined. First, the side leg
Since only dc excitation current is applied for the cross sectional area Ar is increased such that Ar is equal
simulation, onl the primary winding is drawn on the to Ac. Then,
figure. The folzwing parqraphs describe the impact of
changing side leg cross section on overall core saturation. A r = A c , Lr = 6 f t , L y = S f t (8)
During normal operation without GIC, assuming no Hence the flux density can be calculated,
leakage flux leaving the core, the operating point lies in the
linear region of the B-H curve and the core possesses a
somewhat uniform permeability p If the cross sectional
Bc = 1 -- F
2.8 RcAc (9)
area of the side legs and yokes is LaI of that of the main
leg, the relationship between the main leg flux, Qc, and the 1
Br = -- F
side leg flux,Qr, as shown in Figure 1,is given by, 5.6 RcAc
 1369

I .. I
I
00 50e4 lie5 15b5 00 50e4 1 Oe5 15e5 00 5Oe4 1 Oe5 1 5 e 5
H [Ampslmefer) H [Ampsimeler) H [Ampslmefer)
a) nrde leg area I S equal fo he m a n leg area b) r,de leg area IS twice of b.n main leg area C)I side leg area #aa qwner o i he main leg area

Figure 3. Biasing levels for each core segment under the same low dc excitation for Single phase transformers
Second, the side leg cross sectional area Ar is may not be the same depending on core configurations.
decreased such that Ar is equal to a quarter of Ac. Then,
H profiles along A and B lines (Figure 1) under heavy
Ar = 1/4 Ac, Lr = 4.5 ft, Ly = 4.25 ft (11) saturation is shown in Figure 4. It is found that the inside
corner regions have the highest H if at least one leg
The flux density is calculated as, adjacent to the comer is saturated. The stray flux shows
more concentration in those regions. Also, two peaks are
Bc = 1 --
6.1 RcAc
F seen at the edges of the windings.

150%
Br = -1 - F I . . . . . . . +,
3.05 RcAc . . . . . . . . . .
+ w

It can be seen from the flux density results that for the
same dc excitation level, the larger cross sectional area Ar
results in the lower dc flux density in the side leg while
higher dc flux density in the main leg. Therefore, one can
conclude that:
. . . . . . .
a) Comparing the main leg saturation level of the three . . . . . .
cases, the one with the largest side leg will saturate first.
b) Comparing the side leg saturation level of the three
cases, the one with the smallest side le will saturate first. 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 8.0
c) For the case shown in Figure 1t%atthe side leg cross M
sectional area is half of that of the main leg, the entire core Figure 4. H rofdes along transverses of a single phase
will reach saturate at the same time. transformer
Resulted from finite element solution, the biasing levels
for each core segment under low saturation dc excitation GIC Effects of Three Phase Core Configurations
are shown in Figure 3. Note that once the core reaches
saturation, calculations based on the above e uivalent Under balanced GIC excitations in the three phases, it
circuit are no longer valid because the permeabity pr is seems logical that the following magnetic designs are more
not uniform. Also, equation (1) does not hold due to the susceptible to half cycle saturation since they allow a flux
existence of stray flux. path for zero sequence excitation "f.Those include
three phase conventional as well as three phase five leg
The results obtained from the above analysis can be and seven leg core designs.
applied to different transformer core configurations. The
core saturation atterns for a particular transformer can
be used to roughy predict the patterns for those having
the same core configuration but different core leg
dimensions.

H Fields Along Transverses

of A Single Phase Transformer
Examining the field intensity H outside the core
regions can help understand otential stray flux heating
effect in those regions. Since 8ux density B is proportional
to H, knowing the magnitude of the field intensity H in the
air region can lead to rough prediction of eddy losses if
conducting material exists. Areas having higher H are
like1 to be more sensitive to heating problem, although H Figure 5. Three phase three leg core form transformer
will Be redistributed in the presence of magnetic materials. configuration and flux distribution under
It is important to point out that ac and dc flux patterns balanced dc excitation
1370
5
0-.
H (Ampolmeter)
a) thrm phase firm leg c m l0rm b) Uwm phue five leg
Figure 6. Biasing points of different three phase core designs under the same balanced dc excitation currents
(shown by the square markers)
Other designs where a closed path through the iron
core for zero sequence mmf is not possible are expected to
be much less susceptible to GIC. The three phase three
leg core form is an example. Its configuration including
tank is illustrated in Figure 5. When the three hases are
biased under balanced dc excitation currents, &ere exists
no return path for the dc flux. DC flux tends to leave the
core. Since the air exhibits a very high reluctance path for
the magnetic flux, the dc flux bias IS low. Consequently,
the three phase three leg core type is less susceptible to
GIC if the dc excitation 1s balanced. This is illustrated by
showing its operating points in the linear region under very
high excitation currents in Figure 6.a.
Figure 7. Three phase five leg core transformer
configuration and flux distribution under
balanced dc excitation
Figure 8. Three phase seven leg core transformer
configuration and flux distribution under
balanced dc excitation
5*-0.0
H (Amps/meter)
C) thm, *S. reven leg
It is verv imDortant to notice that a three phase
threeleB core form transformer will eventually reach
saturation if the dc bias is increased further. In this
simulation, when the dc excitation current is doubled, the
core will operate at the knee of the saturation curve, as
shown by the cross markers in Figure 6.a.
The same GIC bias as that used in the three phase
three leg core form transformer is applied to a three phase
five leg and a seven leg transformers. Saturationoccurs as
expected in both cases. A comparison of the saturation
magnetizing flux between these two cases is illustrated by
Figure 7 and Figure 8. The results indicate that art of the
seven leg core has higher saturation level than %e five leg
core. Their bias points are shown in Figure 6.b and 6.c.
A three phase conventional core design is shown in
Figure 9. As we increase the dc excitation, it is apparent
that region 1 and 2 will saturate first since they provide
paths for two branches of flux. The same dc bias as that
used in the three phase three leg core form is applied.
Region 1and 2 are now under heavy saturation.
Figure 9. Three phase conventional core transformer and
flux distnbution under balanced dc excitation
Based on the simulation with the specified three hase
core dimensions shown from the figures, an or er of cf
increasing susceptibilityto GIC can be given as following:
- The three phase five le core
- The three phase seven feg core
- The three phase conventional core
This order may change if the proportion of the dc flux
return area (or side leg dimensions) varies. Because a
transformer saturation level depends on both the core
codiguration and the core dimension, there is no absolute
susceptibilityorder for the above configurations.
 1371

Effect of Unbalanced GIC Bias

on A Three Phase Three Leg Core Design a 5c.
' A ' * I
How neutral GIC current divides among transformer
windm is determined by the dc resistances along the . . .
three prases as well as the system resistances. Usually it is *b5i . . . .
assumed that the three phase windings have approximately
the same resistance and the rest of the power system has
less effect due to smaller resistances. Experiments (3,q on
actual transformers tend to suggest that the GIC may not
be evenly distributed among the three phases. Some
degree of flux cancellation may result due to this
unbalanced situation.
Flux distribution of the three phase three leg core form
transformer under unbalanced dc excitations was
examined for two setups. First, the unbalanced excitation
is obtained by decreasmg the dc excitation current in one 0.0 9.0 0.0 ea
of the three phases. For example, current in winding 2 is F d
decreased. Second, the unbalanced excitation is obtained
by increasing winding 3 current. The resultant flux
dtstribution for the second setup is shown in Figure 10. A I I I

return path is provided for the net magnetic flux due to the
unbalanced flux in the three phases. As a result, part of
the core will saturate, as illustrated by the flux density in
Figure 10.

Figure 11. H profiles along the transverses of the three

phase three leg core form transformer

2. H profiles along transverses outside the tank

Figure 10. Three phase three leg core form transformer
flux distribution under unbalanced dc excitation
H Field Profiles of Three Phase Transformers
1. H profiles along transverses outside the core
Considering the three phase three leg core form and
the five le transformer mentioned above, the magnitude
of the fielcfintensity H along lines A ~rF (shown in Figure
6 and 7) are lotted in F' es 11 and 12, respectively. It
can be seen tgat the H v x s along lines C and E outside
the core are similar in these configurations. Since high H
is found outside the cores, high dc flux density near the
tanks is expected.
H outside the three phase conventional shell form core
is also examined. An interesting phenomenon occurs that
H along line C and line E, as shown in Figure 13, is much
lower compared with those in the previously described
three phase configurations. Flux density inside the tank is
therefore very low.
H along lines D and F for all configurations decreases
uniformly towards the direction leaving the tank, except at
the comers where there are small peak values, as shown in
Figures 11and 12.
3. H profiles along transverses across the main leg
H values along lines A and B in Figure 11are low in
the corners since the dc bias inside all the main leg cores
are low. They peak in the air outside of the corners and in
regions between windings a and b, b and c. In Figure 12,
the H value alonF line A has almost the same shape as that
in Figure 11, whde the H along line B shows two peaks in
the side leg corners due to the side leg saturation. Since
yokes 1 and 2 are under heavy saturation in the
conventional shell form configuration, it is understandable
that H near these two yokes is very high.
The three phase seven leg transformer has similar H
profiles as the five leg configuration except that along B
line there is a minimum appearingbetween windings b and
c as well as windings a and b. This is resulted from the
extra core legs between the two adjacent windings.
 7 * A ' .

+ m
. . . . I .
I
TRANSFORMER IMPEDANCE MATRIX
AND CIRCUIT MODEL UNDER GIC
2.8.5'
' * c
* D ' ' . . It is usually convenient to model magnetic circuits
. . . . . . .
using their electric analogies. A typical transformer model
for low frequency is the equivalent Tee circuit (Figure 14).
It consists of leakage inductances Llkl and Llk2,
magnetizing inductance M, and ac wind resistances,
R1 and R 2 The shunt resistance R is u s 3 to represent
core losses. Transformer two po3network impedance
matrix is defined as:

0.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 12

Fen

v1 v2

Figure 14. Tee equivalent circuit model of a single phase

transformer
The impedance matrix of a single hase transformer
Figure 12. H rofiles along the transverses of the three without including tank is calculatef using the finite
phase &e leg core transformer element method. Figure 15 shows the single phase
transformer 2D model with finite element meshes. Both
3.k5
primary and secondary windings are included in the
I . . I . , . : . . ' . . I model. In this example, the core conductivity is set at
l e + 6 4 s . The windin conductivity is 5.8e+7 m/S
(copper). Since the impefance matrix calculation involves
ac operation, the periodically varying flux inside any
conducting materials tends to be crowded toward the
surface. This phenomenon is known as skin effect. The
numerical calculation requires that the largest mesh size of
any conducting material must be smaller than half of its
skln depth. In order to meet this requirement without
drastically increasing the computation time, the model has
been scaled down to millimeter range and a frequency of
0.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 12 10 Hz is used. Modeling of core lamination becomes less
Foot critical with the smaller core size. Three cases are used to
' 3.5.5 1 simulate the different GIC bias levels.
I

= Ii'.;
a
5"
2.1.5

Xl.4.5

:+; 1
7.64
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.

. .
" ' " " ' 1
. . . . . .
:
0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 8.0

Foot
Figure 13. H profiles along transverses of the three phase
conventional core transformer Figure 15. Single phase transformer with FEM mesh

Case 1 simulates the normal operation assuming an
average relative permeability of 50,000 for the core
material. The parameters as defined in equation (14) is
given by Z I . Case 2 is under saturation. Since the relative
permeability pr is no longer uniform in the core as
discussed earlier, piece-wise p is assigned for different
parts of the core, as shown in Figure 16. gives
parameters for this case. Case 3 simulates the extreme
case by assuming an air core (pr = 1). Its parameters are
given by %.
Figure 16. A piecewise model of a single phase
transformer core under saturation, the numbers
indicate values of pr in each region
All units in the impedance matrixes are in MKS. Note
that the 2 matrix entries are for an conceptual transformer
design. Only the changes of those parameters are used to
illustrate the change due to GIC bias:
(1.8771e-1,3.6202e-3) (2.0304e-1,3.6206e-3)1
[ (2.0303e-1,3.6205e-3) (1.8771e-1,3.6202e-3)
Z1=
(1.5326e-2,25730e-5) (6.2434e-6,2.5650e-5)
6.2434e-6,2.5650e-5) (1.5326e-2,2.6240e-5) I Based on the above discussion, if the basic parameters
(1.5326e-2,6.1629e-7) (4.3721e-9,4.6033e-7)
4.3721e-9,4.6033e-7) (1.5326e-2, 1.006Oe-6) I
The following changes can be observed:
Mutual Coupling
The tight coupling introduced by the iron core is less
effective at saturation. The coupling coefficient K is used
to indicate the coupling efficiency.. It is given as:
K = MT / ( L + ~b d~u 2 ' (15)
where,
MT = L12 or h1
FEM analysis of the above single hase shell form
transformer shows that coupling coefgcients decrease
when the saturation level increases. Here, the coupling
coefficient is 0.9999 under the normal operation and
0.9872 during core saturation. The air core coupling
coefficient is 0.6521.
Mutual inductances between the primary and
secondary winding decrease from MT = 3.620e-3 MKS to
MT = 4.603e-7 MKS corresponding to a change of
average pr from 50,000 to 1, respectively. The simulation
1373
indicates that the mutual inductance MT is nearly in
proportion to the core permeability, which is true when
Rm is much greater then w M.
Leakage Inductances
The leakage inductance Llk of the primary winding
for this particular design can be iound from the difference
between L11 and L12
Normal operation:
L k l * L11- L12 = 3.6205e-3 - 3.6202e-3 = 2.6e-7 MKS
-
Under core saturation:
Lkl Lll - L12 = 2.5730e-5 - 2.5650e-5 = 0.8e-7 MKS
Air core case:
L k l * L11- L12 = 6.1629e-7 - 4.6033e-7 = 1.5e-7 MKS
These numbers show that leakage inductance varies a
little under dc bias. This indicates that net change of the
leakage flux introduced by the load current is almost
negligible. The major leaka e flux under saturation is
resulted from the drasticaiy increased magnetizing
current.
Resistances
The difference between R11 and R 1in the 2 matrix is
the winding loss RI in the equivalen? circuit. Here R1
represents copper loss as well as eddy current loss in the
windmg. Rm represents the core loss which was
k y s e c t e d in the expressions of all the 2 matrix entries.
in the transformer equivalent circuit are to be reserved,
they will have to be modified accordingly. TBis merits
further study since saturation occurs only during part of
each half c cle and the model needs to reflect the dynamic
nature of t i e transformer operation under GIC.
Simplifications
In our study, some 2D simulations have been compared
with 3D simulations. On the symmetric lanes, 2D and 3D
simulations show very similar results. T%Sproves that 2D
simulation can also provide useful informahon. Windings
are all modeled as concentric cylindrical arrangements.
Core laminations and structural parts are not included in
the model. In the impedance matrix simulation, skin
effects requires extreme1 small mesh size. In order to
make computation possibre, the core dimension is scaled
down to millimeter range. This approach will, in the
meantime, reduced the error of not modeling laminations
in the core.
CONCLUSION
The FEM analyses described in this paper have
provided new findings regarding GIC susceptibility of
different transformer core conf'iiations, both confirmed
and modified some early predictions based on analytical
approaches.
1374
The study concludes that All single phase and three phase
designs are susceptible to GIC! A transformer core
saturation pattern is determined by both the core
configuration and the relative core leg dimensions. A three
phase three leg core form design could also reach saturation
and become susceptible if the dc bias is increased further. It
will also be susceptible if unbalanced GIC currents in the
three phases become significant. The three phase
conventional core design in our study seems to have less
heating risk in the tank since H (dc) outside the core is low.
AC analysis is needed in order to confirm this.
Under GIC bias, the major source of possible stray flux
heating is very likely the magnetizing current which
contains higher harmomcs and has an increased total effect
during saturation.
Including the transformer tank in the simulation proves to
be necessary. The results show that the magnetic field
intensity outside the core with tank is much higher than
without the tank. Obviously, winding location also affects
the magnetic field distribution during saturation. Under
normal circumstance, the effect is much less significant.
The work presented in this paper is the first phase of
investigation in order to assess the possible stray flux
heating problems in a GIC affected transformer. Future
work will include eddy loss analysis using actual
transformer design data. Better methods of combined
application of dc and large ac excitations in FEM study will
be investigated. More structural details and core
laminations may be considered in the problem. Thermal
study will be performed based on knowledge of eddy losses
analysis.
It is hoped that the study will help to reveal and confirm
the fundamental transformer stray flux heating mechanism
and provide information for predicting future transformer
heating possibilities with respect to different designs and
core configurations; classification of the GIC subjected
transformers in the igneous rock zone by their potential risk
factors may become possible.
Acknowledgment
This study is being supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant Number ECS-9018443 and the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
equipment grant. The authors would like to thank Dr.Jaime
De La Ree at Virginia Tech for providing essential
computing facilities.
References
(11 V. D. Albertson, J. A. Van Bellen, "Electric and Magnetic
Fields at the Earth's Surface Due to Auroral Currents," IEEE
Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems Vol. PAS-89, No. 4,
April 1970, pp. 578-584
[2] J. G. Kappenman, V. D. Albertson, "Bracing for the
Geomagnetic Storms," IEEE Spectrum, March 1990, pp.
27-33.
[3] R. J. Ringlee, J. R. Steward, "Geomagnetic Effects on Power
Transformers," IEEE Special Panel Session Report,
90TH0291-5 PWR.
[4] P. R. Gattens, R. Girgis, R. Nevins, "Investigation of
Transformer Overheating Due to Solar Magnetic
Disturbances," IEEE Special Panel Session Report,
9OTHO291-5 PWR.
[SI R. A. Walling, A. H. Khan, "Solar-Magnetic Disturbance on
Power System Performance and Security," EPRI GIC
Workshop Report, 1990.
[6] W. Pasco, E. T. Norton, S. L. Nilsson, "High Voltage Direct
Current Converter Transformer Magnetics," EPRI Report
EL-4340, Research Project 1424-3, December 1985.
[7] J. G. Kappenman, "Transformer DC Excitation Field Test &
Results," IEEE Special Panel Session Report, 9OTHO291-5
PWR.
[8] W. J. McNutt, "The Effect of GIC on Power Transformers,"
IEEE Special Panel Session Report, July 1990.
91 Ansoft Corporation, << ANSOFT n, University Technology
Development Center, 4516 Henry Street, Pittsburgh, PA
15213, (412)683-4846, January, 1989.
101 L. Bolduc, J. Aubin, "Effects of Direct Currents In Power
Transformers,Part I. A General Approach, Part 11, Simplified
Calculations for Large Transformers," Electric Power
Systems Research, Vol. 1, 1978, pp. 291-304.
111 H. C. Tay, G. S. Swift, '*Onthe Problem of Transformer
Overheating due to Geomagnetically Induced Currents",
IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-104, No.1, Jan. 1985, pp.212-219.
Shu Lu was born in Guangzhou, China in December 1962. She
received the B.S. degree from South China Institute of
Technology, Guangzhou, China in 1984. She -eceived the
M.S.E.E. degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institule and State
University in 1990 and is working towards her Ph.D. degree at the
same school.
was born in Chengdu, China, in 1959. She received
the B.S.E.E. degree from Xian Jiaotong University, Xian, China
in 1982, and the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from The Ohio State
University in 1985 and 1989. Dr.Liu is an Assistant Professor of
Electrical Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. Her current research interests include: power system
transients and harmonics; transformer modeling and finite
element analysis. She is a member of IEEEPES T&D working
group on geomagnetically induced currents and their effects to
power systems.

Discussion
R. A. Walling ( G E I n d u s t r i a l and Power Systems) - Can the conclusions regarding the relative susceptibility of
Finite-element analysis is a powerful method for revealing the
magnetic behavior of transformers. The discusser is seriously
concerned, however, that the limitation of the analysis to
dc-only excitation could lead to conclusions which are not
necessarily valid under the realistic condition of simultaneous
ac voltage and direct (GIC) current excitation. Under such
combined ac and dc excitation, the flux atterns must b e
considered instant-by-instant over the full Rndamental cycle.
At no point in the cle are the conditions the same as for dc
excitation alone, s u x as discussed in this paper.
For the dc-only excitation analysis described in this paper to
have practical value, one must assume that the dc and ac flux
effects a r e superimposable. To ex lain this further,
considering dc excitation only, a very smalramount of GIC will
bias the flux to a level more than the rated value and nearly to
complete saturation. This is illustrated by the flux bias shown
in the pa er, such as Figure 3a. If one then superimposes a 1
p.u. funfamental-frequency flux wave on the main legs,
centered on this bias point, nearly half of the ac flux wave is in
the air-core (fully-saturated) slope of the magnetizing
characteristic and the transformer exciting current would be
many times rated current. This is obviously not true as
transformer failure would occur very quickly from such high
exciting currents, and such failures have not generally been
observed des ite exposure of many power transformers to
significant G
&
.I'
It is obvious that superposition cannot be applied to the
extremely nonlinear magnetic circuits of a transformer when
subjected to combined ac and dc excitation. Under such
combined excitation, the flux bias point is substantially less
than that determined by dc-only analysis. This is because the
flux offset is biased on1 to the point where the average value,
or dc component, of d e exciting current is identical t o the
applied direct current. Also, the ac component of the flux
l i n k a g e f o r e a c h p h a s e winding must b e t h e 1 .U.
fundamental-frequency value of the appropriate relative p!ase
angle. These are the boundary conditions for combined ac and
dc excitation, and are described at length in Reference [SI for
both single-phase and three-phase transformers. When the
boundary conditions are met, the core is saturated for only a
small portion of each cycle.
Figure 2 of Reference [SI shows how the flux bias versus direct
current in a single-phase transformer is dependent on the ac
voltage level when the boundary conditions are properly
considered. Althou h the bias versus dc characteristic is
identical to the transformer magnetization curve when the ac
voltage is zero, the bias is substantially reduced when
simultaneous ac voltage excitation is applied. In practice, GIC
does not offset the flux bias more than 30% - 50% of rated.
In three-phase core structures, the bias on the various phase
flux linkages will differ due to the asymmetry of the magnetic
circuit when the boundary conditions are considered. This was
shown in Reference [SI. When only dc excitation is considered,
the center and outer legs of a five-leg transformer have equal
offset such as shown in Figure 6b of the paper. Combined ac
and dc excitation can also create maximum saturation in
different core members than is found by considering dc alone.
For example, the discusser has noted significant saturation in
the yokes of a five-le transformer when combined ac and dc
analysis is performet but the authors show the saturation
concentrated in the outer legs when only dc is considered.
The following questions are directed to the authors:
1. What value is seen by the authors in performing analysis of
dc excitation alone, as compared to the realistic condition
of a c voltage imposed on the transformer windings
simultaneously with GIC flow throu h the transformer?
This question is raised in view of the facts that core offsets
differ substantially in magnitude and relative phase value,
1375
and maximum saturation can occur in different locations in
the core structure when ac and dc are considered together.
different transformer types to GIC be considered generally
valid when they were made using dc-only analysis and the
flux offset values do not necessarily represent that which
can be expected in practical circumstances?
Why do the authors consider drastically unbalanced GIC
flow in the different transformer phases? Considering that
transmission systems have resistances which are very well
balanced in practice, and further considering that a
transformer cannot develop a dc volta e except by direct
current flow through its (well balanced! resistance, how do
the authors hypothesize that such a GIC phase imbalance
could ever occur? Would not the findings of Reference [SI
regarding the different flux offsets appearing in center and
outer phases of three-phase transformers be a better
explanation of the differences in phase saturation observed
in the field?
X. Chen (Department of Electrical Engineering, Seattle University,
Seattle, WA): The authors are to be congratulated for their efforts in
exploring the mechanism of transformer magnetization under GIC. I
would like the authors to clarify or comment on the following:
(a) The paper stated that the mutual inductance MT is nearly in
proportion to the core permeability. When relative permeability
changes from 50,000 to 1, the mutual inductance should also
change 50,000 times. But in the paper, MT changes from 3.62e-3
to 4.603e-7 for a change of relative permeability from 50,000 to 1,
which is only 7864 times.
(b) The leakage inductance together with the winding resistance will
determine the short circuit characteristics of a transformer. The
paper stated that leakage inductance changes from 2.6e-7 MKS
under normal conditions (unsaturated core) to 0.8e-7 MKS under
core saturation. This is an extremely large variation of leakage
inductance (3.25 times!). The self and mutual inductances have
very large unsaturated values. The subtraction of two very large
numbers results in large errors. Computing the leakage inductance
directly, if possible, might solve the problem.
(c) Under nonlinear conditions, inductance has two different defini-
tions: apparent inductance ( h / i ) and incremental inductance
( d h / d i ) . While incremental inductance for a grain-oriented steel
core modern power transformer is almost constant, apparent in-
ductance is a function of the flux in the core. What definition of
the inductance did the authors use in their paper?
(d) It is intuitively not right that the leakage inductance under core
'
saturation (0.8e-7 MKS) is smaller than that of the air core (Me-7
MKS).
(e) The tee-equivalent circuit model of a single-phase transformer
(Figure 14) is only valid for linear-core transformer. When core
saturation is considered, especially when the core is severely
saturated, no equivalent circuit such as Figure 14 can be derived
for the transformer.
S. Lu and Y. Liu: We would like to thank Dr. Chen and Mr. Walling
for their discussions and interest in this paper. These discussions will
help us to better understand the very complex transformer saturation
phenomenon under GIC.
We would like to respond first to Dr. Chen's questions. In the
impedance matrix simulation, the definition of apparent inductance
( A / i ) is used. We pointed out that the mutual inductance MT is nearly
in proportion to the core permeability. This is especially true if the
mutual flux path is mostly within the core material. However when
saturation occurs, the mutual flux path will also include a large portion
of air. The combined flux path will obviously determine the mutual
coupling. Under such circumstance, the mutual inductance is not
linearly proportional to the core permeability.
We agree with Dr. Chen that the subtraction of the very large self
and mutual inductance values could result in errors in the calculated
leakage inductances. The main purpose of including this example in
the paper is to illustrate that the changes in leakage inductances are
much less compared with the changes in mutual inductances during
saturation.
1376
The T-equivalent circuit of transformer with constunt parameters is
not accurate when the core reaches heavy saturation. However, due to
lack of any sophisticated model for a saturated transformer at present
time, it may become necessary to use the T-equivalent circuit by
introducing uuriublepummeters as a reasonably good approximation.
Mr. Walling correctly pointed out that the practical problems are
constrained by dc and ac boundaq conditions together. It would be
ideal if the problems can be analyzed with a FEM solver that consid-
ers both ac and dc simultaneously. Unfortunately, there is no such
software available, at least to the extent for practical use. Even if there
is one, the computation procedure would be extremely tedious and
inefficient because step by step solution is required. The simple and
imperfect dc analysis, on the other hand, can be valuable since a
solution for a particular dc input corresponds to a point on the
saturation curve. Within this context, the conclusions reached under
dc analysis can be applied when dc and ac are considered together.
We also believe there is a need to first totally understand dc
magnetization for different transformer core configurations. Before
this effort, many conclusions about how dc flux will distribute were
drawn based on analytical studies and predictions. FEM analysis is
able to produce a systematic survey. The results had explained some
thought provoking field test results. One example is about GIC suscep-
tibility of the three phase three leg core form transformers. The FEM
results reveal that even for three phase three leg core form design,
saturation will occur if dc bias is high enough. It is dangerous to
assume they are immune to GIC as have been understood before. The
dc flux distribution is also a valuable parameter which provides infor-
mation on saturation levels at different parts of transformer under
GIC alone and GIC susceptibility of different core designs.
As we have pointed out in the paper, field measurements [7] tend to
suggest that GIC may not be evenly distributed among the three
phases. It is certainly possible that the dc offsets could be different in
center and outer phases of a three phase transformer even with
balanced bias currents.
Again, we appreciate the discussers valuable comments.
Manuscript received September 28, 1992.