Abstract

Transformer core modeling is of importance for some transient studies like inrush currents, ferroresonance and geomagnetically induced current. This paper compares a transformer model with different magnetization representations to actual measurements. Piecewise nonlinear (Type 98) or hysteretic inductors (Type 96) both in parallel to a constant resistance, Jiles–Atherton hysteretic inductance and a newly developed inverse dynamic hysteresis model (DHM) are tested for open circuit response, residual flux after switching out, and inrush currents when energizing the transformer. The models have all problems of reproducing the magnetization current details and there are substantial differences between the models in residual flux estimation resulting in quite different inrush patterns. The DHM model is the easiest to use as few parameters are required and the model gives fairly well agreement with measurements.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.