Comparing Two Topology Transformer Hysteresis Models with Power Transformer Measurements

D. Albert, L. Domenig, D. Maletic, A. Reinbacher-Köstinger, K. Roppert, H. Renner
{"title":"Comparing Two Topology Transformer Hysteresis Models with Power Transformer Measurements","authors":"D. Albert, L. Domenig, D. Maletic, A. Reinbacher-Köstinger, K. Roppert, H. Renner","doi":"10.1109/compumag55718.2022.9827499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Power transformer modelling and simulation requires detailed material and design information. However, this detailed information about a transformer is usually not entirely available. Therefore, we use a supplemental single-phase excitation setup (saturation test) to measure the transformer core hysteresis characteristic at elevate voltages. Only transformer parameters from the factory acceptance test and very few design data is used to set up the topology transformer models. In topology-correct models each section of the core is represented separately. Also the different off-core (leakage) flux paths can be included in the models. In this study we compare two transformer topology models in the electric domain with measurements from a 3-limb 2-winding, 50 kVA transformer in YNyn0 vector group. The first model uses the capacitance-permeance analogy to model the transformer. The second model uses the principle of duality of electric and magnetic circuits together with the Jiles-Atherton (JA) model for the hysteresis implementation. The hysteresis model parameters in both models are identified with the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm. We have found that both transformer topology models can reproduce the measured current waveforms during the no-load and saturation test with very good accuracy. The active and reactive power deviation between the capacitor-permeance model and the measurements are below 10 %, and for the JA model below 17 % for the no-load and the saturation test.","PeriodicalId":430005,"journal":{"name":"2022 23rd International Conference on the Computation of Electromagnetic Fields (COMPUMAG)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 23rd International Conference on the Computation of Electromagnetic Fields (COMPUMAG)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/compumag55718.2022.9827499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Power transformer modelling and simulation requires detailed material and design information. However, this detailed information about a transformer is usually not entirely available. Therefore, we use a supplemental single-phase excitation setup (saturation test) to measure the transformer core hysteresis characteristic at elevate voltages. Only transformer parameters from the factory acceptance test and very few design data is used to set up the topology transformer models. In topology-correct models each section of the core is represented separately. Also the different off-core (leakage) flux paths can be included in the models. In this study we compare two transformer topology models in the electric domain with measurements from a 3-limb 2-winding, 50 kVA transformer in YNyn0 vector group. The first model uses the capacitance-permeance analogy to model the transformer. The second model uses the principle of duality of electric and magnetic circuits together with the Jiles-Atherton (JA) model for the hysteresis implementation. The hysteresis model parameters in both models are identified with the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm. We have found that both transformer topology models can reproduce the measured current waveforms during the no-load and saturation test with very good accuracy. The active and reactive power deviation between the capacitor-permeance model and the measurements are below 10 %, and for the JA model below 17 % for the no-load and the saturation test.
两种拓扑变压器迟滞模型与电力变压器实测数据的比较
电力变压器建模和仿真需要详细的材料和设计信息。然而,这些关于变压器的详细信息通常不是完全可用的。因此,我们使用补充的单相励磁设置(饱和测试)来测量变压器铁芯在升高电压下的磁滞特性。仅使用工厂验收试验的变压器参数和很少的设计数据来建立拓扑变压器模型。在拓扑正确的模型中,核心的每个部分分别表示。此外,模型中还可以包括不同的离芯(泄漏)磁通路径。在这项研究中,我们比较了两种变压器拓扑模型在电域与测量从三翼两绕组,50kva变压器在YNyn0矢量群。第一个模型使用电容-渗透率类比来模拟变压器。第二种模型利用电路和磁路的对偶原理以及Jiles-Atherton (JA)模型来实现迟滞。采用Nelder-Mead单纯形算法对两种模型的滞回模型参数进行辨识。我们发现这两种变压器拓扑模型都能很好地再现空载和饱和测试时的电流波形。在空载和饱和试验中,电容导通模型与测量值的有功和无功偏差小于10%,JA模型的有功和无功偏差小于17%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信