Anda di halaman 1dari 9

IET Electric Power Applications

Research Article

ISSN 1751-8660
Integration of the hysteresis in models of Received on 27th September 2015
Revised on 12th March 2016
asymmetric three-phase transformer: Accepted on 24th March 2016
doi: 10.1049/iet-epa.2015.0476
finite-element and dynamic electromagnetic www.ietdl.org

models
Faouzi Aboura 1,2 ✉, Omar Touhami 1
1
Laboratoire de Recherche en Électrotechnique, École Nationale Polytechnique, El Harrach 16200, Algeria
2
Energy Management Sector-Division, Siemens-Spa, 16035 Hydra, Algeria
✉ E-mail: faouzi.aboura@siemens.com

Abstract: This paper deals with the models elaboration for the asymmetric three-phase transformers. The first model uses
the principle of the hysteresis integration in two-dimensional finite-element method (FEM) with magnetic field
calculations. This method is based on inverse Jiles–Atherton hysteresis model. The second one is a dynamic
electromagnetic model (DEM) based on Tellinen hysteresis model. The DEM and FEM models used in ferromagnetic
cores have been modified by replacing the anhysteretic curve by the hysteresis loop. A simulation in time domain is
carried out and the simulated results are compared with those obtained experimentally to validate the proposed
approach. An error calculation is performed to show the accuracy of results obtained by DEM and FEM models.

1 Introduction hysteresis model, the missing parameter of model is α (the mean


field parameter) [8].
The transformer is a static electrical machine that has been The hysteresis model used in the FEM keeps the same features that
represented by many models since more than a century. those of J–A hysteresis model original [9]. It has also the advantage
Nevertheless, the modelling accuracy of its operation has needed of being more suitable for the magnetic field calculations with a
the integration of hysteresis phenomena in the models. For this magnetic vector potential formulation where magnetic induction is
reason, the modelling of hysteresis remains a subject of significant beforehand known [10]. To solve the obtained non-linear
scientific interest [1, 2]. A great variety of hysteresis models are equations, we used the Newton–Raphson (NR) method leading to
available in the literature Jiles–Atherton (J–A), Preisach, Bouc– a differential reluctivity tensor. A DEM based on the duality
Wen model, Tellinen, Stoner–Wohlfarth, with their advantages and principle that considers the classical electrical equivalent circuit
their disadvantages. A comparison between some of these models coupled to a magnetic equivalent circuit has been implemented.
is given in [3]. The Tellinen hysteresis model that is a reversible scalar model was
In their representation, most models of transformers estimate the also used. The comparison between the simulated results with
saturation by an anhysteretic curve. This is mainly due to those obtained experimentally is presented in Section 5.
difficulties of correctly representing the hysteresis [2]. This led us The main contribution of this paper is the introduction of the
to introduce the hysteresis loops into the ferromagnetic cores of hysteresis in both models: FEM and DEM. The inverse J–A vector
the models of asymmetrical three-phase transformers. hysteresis model using an external user function was introduced in
This kind of transformer is called an asymmetric transformer due FEM software. The Tellinen model was also introduced in DEM.
to the difference in the length of the centre limb that is shorter than Unlike existent methods, this last model is developed in the
those of the other two limbs. Matlab/Simulink program and it includes all losses by hysteresis,
The aim of this paper is to provide an accurate dynamic and by eddy current in the lamination. It also includes a dynamic
electromagnetic model (DEM) for the representation of the hysteresis behaviour and not only quasi-static. The interest of this
asymmetric three-phase transformer. model lies in representation of all the parameters of the
For this purpose, we have organised our paper as follows. transformer, required to transient in low frequency. It can also be
Finite-element method (FEM) model and DEM based on duality coupled with FE model, which considers the current in the
principle and the dynamical hysteresis of Tellinen are presented in winding as an input quantity [11].
Sections 2 and 3. Then simulation in a time domain was
performed to compare the results of both models with
experimental ones. FEM is known as valuable tool for solving 2 Description of FE model of the asymmetric
various electromagnetic problems in electrical machines, three-phase transformer
nevertheless the integration of hysteresis in finite-element (FE)
computations remains challenging. One of major difficulties The formulation of classical magnetic vector potential of the FEM is
resides in the fact that the basic variable of the FE formulation adopted. The inverse J–A vector hysteresis model is chosen for the
does not coincide with the main variable of the hysteresis model. FEM. Particular attention is paid to the resolution of the non-linear
This problem may be solved by inverting the hysteresis model [4– equations by the NR method.
6]. The hysteresis in FEM model is based on the inverse J–A
hysteresis model. Its main problem is the perception that its five
parameters are all important. For example, if we consider α 2.1 Magnetic hysteresis in field equations
parameter when its value decreases, saturation, the remanent
induction and the coercive magnetic field decrease [7]. It is well The hysteresis is a complex phenomenon related to physically
known that in many commercial software that use the J–A irreversible processes. Indeed, at a given moment a value of the

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
614 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
magnetic material properties depends not only on the intrinsic where [Vr] is the tensor of the relative reluctivity of the material; V0 is
properties of the material, but also on its history. There are an the reluctivity of the vacuum, and its expression is
infinite number of possible curves B(H ), which makes it difficult
the modelling of the hysteresis loop and consequently its 1 1
introduction into a FE program. V0 = = (4)
m0 4p.10−7
We have integrated the hysteresis in two-dimensional (2D)
time-domain solver FLUX [12], by using external user function A is the vector potential (Wb/m); Hc is the coercive magnetic field;
named user subroutines. User subroutines are written in Groovy, [s] is the tensor of the conductivity (in S); V is the electric scalar
this is the name of an object-oriented programming language potential (in V).
intended to the Java platform that implements the inverse J–A The state variables are the magnetic vector potential A and the
vector hysteresis model. However, there exist several ways to electric scalar potential V [16].
implement the hysteresis model in field calculation [13]. The differential reluctivity is defined as
FE programs were traditionally developed in the Fortran and C
languages, which support procedural programming. During the last
dH DH H(t + Dt) − H(t)
15 years, the development of FE has gradually shifted towards an ∂v =  = (5)
object-oriented approach. When the user subroutines are written in dB DB B(t + Dt) − B(t)
Fortran, we have to compile them using a Fortran compiler, and
when user subroutines are written in Groovy it uses Java syntax where dH and dB are the magnetic field intensity and density,
and is directly compiled into bytecode by a Java compiler. The respectively.
Java is a simple language (simpler than C++) and efficiency of
Java code is comparable to that of C or C++ [14]. 2.2 Non-linear core model
Under rotational flux observed in the corner joints (T-joints) of the
asymmetric three-phase transformer, the vector relationship between The J–A scalar hysteresis model is a model, in which the whole
magnetic field and induction must be considered [15]. magnetisation is decomposed into reversible component Mrev
The differential reluctivity in the 2D modelling of an which corresponds to domain wall bending during the
asymmetrical three-phase transformer is introduced. The vector magnetisation process, and irreversible component Mir which
model is available by default in the FE software and we must take corresponds to domain displacement against the pinning effect [17]
that into account. This is why we used the inverse J–A model
instead of Tellinen model that is a scalar model. The main M = Mrev + Mir (6)
equations of FEM model are as follows.
Maxwell–Faraday equation
The model is written as a first-order ordinary differential equation.
The main equations of J–A hysteresis model are presented in [18]
−∂B
rot(E) = (1)     
∂t dM (1 − c) dMir /dBe + c/m0 dMan /dHe
=    
dB 1 + m0 (1 − c)(1 − a) dMir /dBe + c(1 − a) dMan /dHe
implies the presence of the electric scalar potential V, such as
(7)
 
∂A dMrev = c(dMan − dMir ) (8)
E=− − gradV (2)
∂t
He = (H + aM) (9)

The equation solved by the FEM in a transient magnetic application B = m0 (H + M ) (10)


is
Be = m0 He (11)
 
∂A dMir Man− Mir
div(V0 [V r ]rot(A) − H c ) + [s] + gradV = 0 (3) = (12)
∂t dBe m0 k d

Fig. 1 DEM for wye/wye asymmetric three-phase transformer core with Tellinen hysteresis model

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 615
Fig. 2 Matlab/Simulink subsystem of asymmetric three-phase transformer

where μ0 is the vacuum magnetic permeability and Ms, a, c, α, k are M is the total magnetisation. k, c and a are second rank tensors which
the model parameters to be estimated, while δ is given by δ = sign terms must be obtained experimentally and j is the diagonal matrix
(dH/dt). He is the effective magnetic field and Be is the effective of the anhysteretic functions derivatives against the effective field
magnetic induction. Man is the anhysteretic function. This function component. Knowing dM we can write dH as follows:
can have different shapes depending on the type of each hysteretic dH = ∂v · dB
system and, until today, the Langevin function is the most often Where ∂v is the differential reluctivity tensor. For the 2D case,
used anhysteretic function in the J–A hysteresis model [19] the differential reluctivity tensor assumes the form of
   
H a  ∂ Hx ∂Hx 
Man = Ms coth e − (13)   
a He  ∂B ∂By   ∂vxx ∂vxy 
 x
∂v =   =  (17)
 ∂ Hy ∂Hy  ∂vyx ∂vyy 
From a vector generalisation of the J–A scalar hysteresis model and  
 ∂Bx ∂By 
in its inverse version, the main equation of the model becomes [10,
20]
where x and y are the components of orthogonal axes.
1 All the tensor terms in (17) are given in detail in [10]. The
dM = [1 + fx (1 − a) + cj(1 − a) ]−1 ·[ fx + cj] dB (14) parameters of the J–A inverse method are the same as those of the
m0
 −1
 
fx = xf xf  xf (15)

Where the auxiliary vector variable is given by

xf = k−1 (Man − M ) (16)

Fig. 3 Matlab/Simulink subsystem for A, B, C in Fig. 2 Fig. 4 Family of the dynamic hysteresis loops

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
616 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Table 1 Dynamical Tellinen hysteresis model parameters Table 2 Specification of asymmetric three-phase transformer 3 kVA, 50
Hz
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Three-phase transformer parameters Value
α1 = 7.808 × 10−4 α2 = 7.808 × 10−4 α3 = 7.808 × 10−4
β1 = 0.3214 β2 = 0.3214 β3 = 0.3214 rated primary voltage, V 220
σ1 = 9.52 σ2 = 4.76 σ3 = 9.52 rated secondary voltage, V 127
σe(1) = 26.25 σe(2) = 13.125 σe(3) = 26.25 high-voltage windings turns 250
low-voltage windings turns 153
RP, Ω 0.6566
Rs, Ω 0.72466
a, A/m 22.05
α 9.22 × 10−6
k, A/m 10.62
Ms, A/m 1,810,000
c 0.15

Fig. 5 Family of the quasi-static hysteresis loops

J–A original method. These parameters have been determined from


the ‘branch-and-bound’ optimisation algorithm used in [17]. Fig. 6 Measurement circuit on non-linear (l–I) characteristics for limbs 1
and 2

3 Description of the DEM of the asymmetric losses in the transformer. The complete model of the
three-phase transformer electromagnetic circuit is shown in Fig. 1.
The detailed description of the subsystem ‘asymmetric
The model uses electric and magnetic coupling, the non-linear core three-phase transformer’ is shown in Fig. 2. Flux linkages and
representation, together with the dynamical behaviour due to fluxes are not mixed and the leakage air flux path is modelled by a
integration of eddy current factor in the field equations. The single linear reluctance term obtained from the zero-sequence tests
hysteresis model is described in detail in [21]. It is flexible [22]. The connection with the dynamical formulation is given by
because we can use the variation of the magnetic induction to the subsystems A, B, C as shown in Fig. 3, through a Matlab
compute the magnetic field and vice versa. This model can function.
simulate the quasi-static hysteresis loops, as well as the dynamic The Matlab function describes (18)–(23) and the global hysteresis
hysteresis loops, that consider the eddy currents and the excess behaviour. The controlled MMF source (1, 2 and 3) across the

Fig. 7 Experimental setup for three-phase transformer tests to measure the magnetic characteristic (l–I)
a Side view of the experimental setup
b Front view of the experimental setup

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 617
subsystem (1, 2 and 3) is used to compute (21) and (22) based on
(18)–(20). At every time step (Δt = 1 × 10−6), an ‘IF statement’
selects one of (21) and (22) based on the sign of the derivative of
flux. The script of the Matlab function of the subsystems 1 and 3
is given in Appendix.
To take into account of core asymmetry of the three-phase
transformer type, each core limb is modelled with its own
customisable non-linear hysteresis. The main equations of the
Tellinen model use the (l–I ) characteristics of all three limbs that
are different. They are described as

+
dwx (fx ) a ·b
=  x x (18)
dfx bx fx + sx + 1
 
w+  
x (fx ) = sgn(fx − sx ) · sx loge (bx fx − sx + 1) (19)
 
w−  
x (fx ) = sgn(fx + sx ) · sx loge (bx fx + sx + 1) (20)

w+ −
x , wx are, respectively, the ascending and descending parts of the
limiting hysteresis curve. jx is the instantaneous limb fluxes, for
each phase x, dependent on the limb MMF potential fx.
ρx is the slope of the fully saturated region along the limiting
hysteresis curve. The hysteresis equations (21) and (22) are given by
  
dwx dfx w− (f ) − wx (fx ) dw+ x (fx )
= rx + −x x · − r (21)
dt dt wx (fx ) − w+
x (fx ) dfx x

If (djx/dt) ≥ 0
  − 
dwx dfx wx (fx ) − w+
x (fx ) dwx (fx )
= r + · − rx (22)
dt dt x w− +
x (fx ) − wx (fx ) dfx

If (djx/dt) < 0 (x = 1, 2, 3).


This function has the advantage of requiring only two fitting
parameters (αx, βx) to shape the curve to measured experimental
loops. αx and βx influences the vertical and horizontal scaling,
respectively, of jx( fx). σx controls the width of the major
hysteresis loop. The measured hysteresis loop of each limb (Fig. 8)
is used to measure the two fitting parameters (αx, βx), and σx
controls the width of the major hysteresis loop for each limb (x =
1, 2, 3). In addition to (18)–(22), we used the eddy current factor
σe(x) for the lamination in (23). This factor reflects the classical
eddy current and the excess losses and fxd is the applied dynamic
current [21]

dwx
fxd = fx + se(x) (23)
dt

When σe(x) is different from zero, then hysteresis is dynamic as


shown in Fig. 4. The Tellinen dynamic hysteresis model
parameters are presented in Table 1.
When σe(x) is equal to zero, then hysteresis is quasi-static as shown
in Fig. 5. This family of quasi-static hysteresis loops has the same
Fig. 8 Hysteresis loop of the limbs 1, 2 and 3 obtained from
magnetic coercive field.
experimentations
a Hysteresis loop of the limb 1
b Hysteresis loop of the limb 2
4 Experimental measurement of hysteresis loops c Hysteresis loop of the limb 3

The test bench consists of an asymmetric three-phase transformer


with rated power at 3 kVA, and a voltage primary and a secondary Nevertheless, we have used the method of Fuchs [22] for
are, respectively, rated at 220 and 127 V, operated at 50 Hz. The measuring the hysteresis curve in each limb of the three-phase
transformer is supplied from a variable three-phase power source transformer, and the cross-coupling between different limbs due to
using an autotransformer. The data of the asymmetric three-phase saturation is taking place in the magnetic circuit of the DEM.
transformer are presented in Table 2. To measure the magnetic characteristic (l–I) for each limb of the
The currents and voltages are recorded through data acquisition transformer it is important to excite two phases of the three-phase
devices via current and voltage sensors. winding and to have two limbs to have the same flux magnitudes
A three-phase core-type transformer iron core model by taking in opposite directions (as shown in Fig. 6), i.e. two phases of the
into account the effects of cross-couplings between different limbs low-voltage windings are connected in parallel with reverse
due to saturation has been published by Dolinar et al. [23]. polarity. This method was definitively confirmed in another paper

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
618 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 9 M (H) characteristic of the core material ET130-35

by the same author published in 2003 and deals with closure on


‘measurement of (l–I ) characteristics of asymmetric three-phase
transformers and their applications’ [24]. Fluxes (l1) and (l2) can
be calculated by integrating the induced voltages (V1) and (V2)of
the secondary windings, respectively, of the two (1, 2) excited
phases by an analogical RC circuit. The laboratory test transformer
to measure the magnetic characteristic (l–I ) for each limb of the
transformer is shown in Fig. 7.
The magnetic characteristics (l–I ) of all limbs are different
(Fig. 8) because they depend not only on magnetic properties of
core material but also from geometric dimensions of each limb,
consisting of vertical part and horizontal portion.

5 Comparison between the simulated results and


those obtained experimentally

For clarity, we compare the results of each procedure namely DEM


and FEM models, with those obtained from experimental tests.

5.1 FEM computations

A 3 kVA asymmetric three-phase transformer is used to evaluate the


FEM model. Some transformer characteristics are listed as follows
(primary/secondary): 220/127 V, 250/153 turns. The hysteresis
characteristics of the material are shown in Fig. 9.
The transformer core is made of 0.35 mm Fe-3%Si sheets. The
non-linear FEM equations are solved by means of the NR method.
A relative tolerance of 10−5 is adopted.
The 2D automatic mesh with triangular elements on the
three-phase transformer and the study domain are shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 11 Comparison between experimental no-load currents in steady state
and the FEM ones
a Steady-state current in phase 1
b Steady-state current in phase 2
c Steady-state current in phase 3

The comparison of the experimental no-load currents in


steady state with those obtained by the simulated FEM model
with the inverse J–A vector hysteresis model is shown in
Fig. 11. The FE model due to high number of parameters and
its accuracy in calculations requires a very important time of
calculation. In addition, the determination of the parameters of
the J–A model needs precise knowledge of the magnetic
material of the transformer. All the results are as observed on
our notebook with the following configuration: Windows 7,
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M @ 2.3 GHz and RAM:
6 GB and the time duration to obtain 1 period of current
Fig. 10 Two-dimensional FE meshes with triangular elements signal (20 ms) is 36 min.

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 619
Fig. 12 Comparison between experimental no-load currents in steady state
and the DEM ones Fig. 13 Comparison between the inrush currents in DEM and the
a Steady-state current in phase 1 experimental ones
b Steady-state current in phase 2 a Inrush current in phase 1
c Steady-state current in phase 3 b Inrush current in phase 2
c Inrush current in phase 3

5.2 DEM computations


determined precisely. The comparison between the inrush currents of
The analysis with DEM does not require an important calculation DEM and the experimental ones is presented in Fig. 13. The inrush
time. It features a large convergence and stability. It is also being current of a transformer depends also on the residual flux of the
adapted to calculations of the electromagnetic transients, such as: magnetic core [25]. The slightest phase mismatch can lead to large
the inrush current and the ferroresonance. discrepancies.
The comparison of the experimental no-load currents in steady
state with those simulated by DEM is shown in Fig. 12. 5.4 Ferroresonance study

5.3 Inrush currents We want clearly show the validity of the developed model through a
ferroresonance test. The realised circuit is described in [26]. We
To obtain good comparison of measured and simulated waveforms, chose the fundamental mode because of the ease of obtaining it
the initial conditions (i.e. the instant of voltage phase angle) must be compared with other modes. The obtained currents can be used as

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
620 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
† The developed DEM is well suitable for the study of the
low-frequency transients. In addition, the computation time in the
DEM is very short.

7 References
1 de Léon, F., Farazmand, A., Joseph, P.: ‘Comparing the T and II equivalent circuits
for the calculation of transformer inrush currents’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2012,
27, (4), pp. 2390–2398
2 Moses, P.S., Massoum, M.A.S., Toliyat, H.A.: ‘Dynamic modelling of three-phase
asymmetric power transformers with magnetic hysteresis: no-load and inrush
currents’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2010, 25, (4), pp. 1040–1047
3 De Leon, F., Semlyen, A.: ‘A simple representation of dynamic hysteresis in power
transformers’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1998, 10, (1), pp. 315–321
4 Gyselinck, J., Vandevelde, L., Melkebeek, J.: ‘Calculation of no load losses in an
induction motor using an inverse vector Preisach model and an eddy current loss
model’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2000, 36, (4), pp. 856–860
5 Sadowski, N., Batistela, N.J., Bastos, J.P.A., et al.: ‘An inverse Jiles–Atherton
model to take into account hysteresis in time-stepping finite-element
calculations’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2002, 32, (2), pp. 797–800
Fig. 14 Comparison of the current I1 in fundamental mode between DEM 6 Kefalas, T., Kladas, A.: ‘Harmonic impact on distribution transformer no-load
and the experimental results loss’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2010, 57, (1), pp. 193–200
7 Bui, A.T.: ‘Caractérisation et modélisation du comportement des matériaux
magnétiques doux sous contrainte thermique’. PhD thesis, Claude Bernard
University, 2011
Table 3 Calculation error for currents obtained by DEM and FEM 8 Marinucci, T., Maglietta, V.: ‘Identification of the Jiles–Atherton parameters using
models with those obtained experimentally commercial software’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2004, 19, (1), pp. 200–207
9 Jiles, D., Atherton, D.: ‘Ferromagnetic hysteresis’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 1983, 19,
RMS error DEM FEM (5), pp. 2183–2185
10 Leite, J.V., Sadowski, N., Kuo-Peng, P., et al.: ‘Inverse Jiles–Atherton vector
I1, % 2.3096 3.3174 hysteresis model’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2004, 40, (4), pp. 1769–1775
I2, % 2.5842 5.4670 11 Charalambous, C.A., Wang, Z.D., Jarman, et al.: ‘Two dimensional finite element
I3, % 3.2298 4.9083 electromagnetic analysis of an auto-transformer experiencing ferroresonance’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2009, 24, (3), pp. 1275–1283
12 ‘Flux software user guide’, http://www.cedrat.com, accessed 27 January 2014
13 Mathekg, M.E., McMahon, R.A., Knight, A.M.: ‘Application of the fixed point
inputs to the FEM and so show the influence of other ferroresonant method for solution in time stepping finite element analysis using the inverse
vector Jiles–Atherton model’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2011, 47, (10), pp. 3048–3051
modes on the transformer [11, 27, 28]. The comparison of currents in 14 Nikishkov, G.: ‘Programming finite element in java’ (Springer-Verlag, London,
the fundamental ferroresonant mode of DEM with those 2010)
experimental is shown in Fig. 14. 15 Ferreira da Luz, M.V., Leite, J.V., Benabou, A., et al.: ‘Three-phase transformer
modeling using a vector hysteresis model and including the eddy current and the
anomalous losses’, IEEE Trans Magn., 2010, 46, (8), pp. 3201–3204
5.5 Comparison of no-load currents in steady-state 16 Bastos, J.P.A., Sadowski, N.: ‘Electromagnetic modelling by finite element
operation between those of the models and those of methods’ (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2003)
17 Chwastek, K., Szczygłowski, J.: ‘Modelling dynamic hysteresis loops in steel
experimental tests sheets’, COMPEL, Int. J. Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng., 2009, 28, (3),
pp. 603–612
For the comparison of the obtained results from DEM and FEM 18 Lacerda Ribas, J.C., Lourenco, E.M., Leite, J.V., et al.: ‘Modelling ferroresonance
models with those experimental, we have used the criteria of the phenomena with a flux-current Jiles–Atherton hysteresis approach’, IEEE Trans.
Magn., 2013, 49, pp. 1797–1800
root mean square (RMS) error, defined by 19 Kokornaczyk, E., Gutowski, M.W.: ‘Anhysteretic functions for the Jiles–Atherton


model’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2015, 51, (2), pp. 1–5
n 2 n 2 20 Leite, J.V., Benabou, A., Sadowski, N.: ‘Transformer inrush currents taking into
1 xref − 1 xsim
RMS =

n 2
(24) account vector hysteresis’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2010, 46, (8), pp. 3237–3240
21 Tellinen, J.: ‘A simple scalar model for magnetic hysteresis’, IEEE Trans. Magn.,
1 xref
1998, 34, (4), pp. 2200–2206
22 Fuchs, E.F., You, Y.: ‘Measurement of l–i characteristics of asymmetric
where xref is experimental result and xsim is a simulated result. three-phase transformers and their applications’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
The comparison of no-load currents in steady state, simulated by 2002, 17, (4), pp. 983–990
FEM and DEM with those measured, shows that DEM gives better 23 Dolinar, M., Dolinar, D., Stumberger, G., et al.: ‘A three-phase core-type
transformer iron core model with included magnetic cross saturation’, IEEE
results (see Table 3). Trans. Magn., 2006, 42, (10), pp. 2849–2851
24 Fuchs, E.F., You, Y.: ‘Closure on measurement of – characteristics of asymmetric
three-phase transformers and their applications’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2003,
6 Conclusions 18, (2), pp. 642–643
25 Naghizadeh, R.A., Vahidi, B., Hosseinian, S.H.: ‘Modelling of inrush current in
transformers using inverse Jiles–Atherton hysteresis model with a neuro-shuffled
A methodology to include the magnetic hysteresis models in the FE frog-leaping algorithm approach’, IET Electr. Power Appl., 2012, 6, (9), pp. 727–734
calculations and DEM of an asymmetric three-phase transformer is 26 Moses, P.S., Masoum, M.A.S., Toliyat, H.A.: ‘Impacts of hysteresis and magnetic
presented in this paper. couplings on the stability domain of ferroresonance in asymmetric three-phase
three-leg transformers’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2011, 26, (2), pp. 581–592
The main conclusions we have reached are: 27 Charalambous, C.A., Wang, Z.D., Jarman, P., et al.: ‘Time-domain finite-element
technique for quantifying the effect of sustained ferroresonance on power
† A newly DEM based on Tellinen hysteresis model is developed. transformer core bolts’, IET Electr. Power Appl., 2014, 8, (6), pp. 221–231
28 Charalambous, C.A., Wang, Z.D., Jarman, P., et al.: ‘Frequency domain analysis of
The obtained dynamic behaviour from an eddy current factor is a power transformer experiencing sustained ferroresonance’, IET Gener. Transm.
included in a Matlab/Simulink program. Distrib., 2011, 5, (6), pp. 640–649
† The DEM and FEM models are numerically stable. They give
good performance in terms of numerical convergence.
† The results obtained on an asymmetric three-phase transformer 8 Appendix
are very satisfactory and confirm the validity of the developed
models. 8.1 Implementation of subsystems 1, 3 in Matlab script
† The computation time in the FEM model with the external language
hysteresis function is very high by comparison to the case when
an anhysteretic curve is used. function [Imd,Im] = fcn(im,qm,dqm)

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 621
%#codegen dq_m = a*b./(b*abs(im + seg)+1);
mu = 4*pi*10^-7; if dqm > 0
s = 32e-4;l = 0.56; dim = dqm*1/abs((ρ + (q_m-qm)/(q_m-q_p)*(dq_p-ρ)));
ρ = mu × s/l; else
a = 0.0007808;b = 0.3214;seg = 9.52;segma = 26.25; dim = dqm*1/abs((ρ + (qm-q_p)/(q_m-q_p)*(dq_m-ρ)));
q_p = (im-seg)./abs(im-seg)*a.*log(b*abs(im-seg) + 1); end
q_m = (im + seg)./abs(im + seg)*a.*log(b*abs(im + seg)+1); Im = im + dim*1e-6;
dq_p = a*b./(b*abs(im-seg)+1); Imd = Im + segma*dqm;

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, pp. 614–622
622 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016