Modeling Multi-Winding Transformers

Roger C. Dugan
Sr. Technical Executive, EPRI
September 14, 2013

Figure 1 shows the common 3-winding transformer equivalent model used in power
system analysis based on positive-sequence equivalent circuits. This is used in nearly all
(if not all) of the popular transmission system power flow, short-circuit, and dynamics
tools. The popularity of the model likely stems from the fact that it can be constructed
entirely from simple two-terminal R-L branch models. This makes the programming
somewhat simpler, although it does create some issues because a single device (a
transformer) is modeled by three branches. So programs usually contain some “kluge
code” to keep track of branches that are associated with transformers. Also, it requires the
creation of a fictitious node (M) that doesn’t physically exist.

(M)
H L
ZH ZL
ZT

T
Figure 1. Common Model of 3-Winding Transformers used in Positive-Sequence Analysis

This model is so ingrained in the minds of electric power systems analysts that many, if
not most, think the impedances in the model are actually found somewhere in a
transformer. It is not until one encounters an unusual transformer such as a 4-winding
transformer that one discovers that this modeling approach works only for the special
case of a 3-winding transformer.

The leakage impedance network of a 3-winding transformer is defined by (3x2)/2 = 3

short circuit tests that yield ZHL, ZHT, and ZLT. The formula for the number of short circuit
tests required is: N(N-1)/2 where is N is the number of windings. A model need 3 degrees
of freedom to model a 3-winding transformer.

The model in Figure 1 has 3 degrees of freedom, so it works. A 4-winding transformer is

defined by (4x3)/2 = 6 short circuit tests and requires 6 degrees of freedom. Some sort of
mesh circuit is required to represent the transformer leakage impedance characteristic. It
may be impossible to create a star model that is accurate. The same can be done for the 3-
winding case. The model in Figure 2 can be made equivalent to the one in Figure 1 and
does not require the creation of a fictitious node. Note: ZH-L is not the same as the short-
circuit impedance between H an L, ZHL, above; it can be obtained by a simple star-delta
conversion from the circuit in Figure 1. Inside a power flow program, a Kron reduction
can be performed on the admittance matrix to eliminate the fictitious node. This will
accomplish the same thing as the star-delta conversion.

Sept 2013 -1- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

 ZH-L
H L

ZT-H ZL-T

T
Figure 2. Equivalent Model that Does Not require Fictitious Node

The architects of the Common Information Model (CIM) chose to use the values of ZH,
ZL, and ZT to describe a 3-winding transformer. Each winding – H, L, and T – of the
transformer is stored in the database separately, each with a single value of resistance, R,
and reactance, X. While it might be argued that it is acceptable to store the resistance with
the winding model because each winding does indeed have resistance, there is no such
thing as the reactance of a single winding, such as XH, for example. Short-circuit leakage
reactances only exist between pairs of windings. If the architects of the CIM had wanted
to model transformers more correctly, they would have defined a separate object to
contain short circuit tests, of which there would be 3 for a 3-winding transformer. This
defect (in my opinion) in the CIM has caused problems trying to adapt it to distribution
system analysis, which uses more complicated transformer models. As it is, one can only
model 2- and 3-winding transformers.

Reasons for NOT using the model in Figure 1

 The model requires the creation of an additional node.
 Need to model a transformer with more than 3 windings.
 XL often comes out negative for autotransformers with tertiaries.
 It is incapable of modeling the most common 3-winding transformer in the North
American power grid – the ubiquitous split-phase distribution transformer.

Each of these points is addressed further in the following:

Each fictitious node requires an equation in a nodal admittance formulation. In a

case with hundreds of transformers, this could add significant time to the solution.
So it would be nice to avoid this with a model that does not require an extra node.
In the case of a three-phase model, the impact of the extra nodes could be even
greater than for a simple positive-sequence model.

While not common in the transmission grid, transformers with more than 3
windings show up in various industrial processes and have also been used to
connect inverter-based DG such as fuel cells. They are used to provide isolation
between devices with electronic power converters.

A negative XL is not necessarily a show stopper. If it can be buried in the system

Y matrix along with overwhelming positive values of the other parts of the model,
it is seldom a problem. It was a problem in the past with models in

Sept 2013 -2- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

 electromagnetic transient analysis where the integration formulae would yield
unstable solutions for a R-L branch defined with negative inductance. It used to
be common to ignore the small negative XL branch to avoid this. It is not known
whether this is still an issue, but I suspect most transients program vendors use
more sophisticated transformer models now. But this is something to keep in
mind if creating software for transients analysis.

While it is common to think of a residential service transformer only as a simple

single-phase 2-winding transformer, it is actually a 3-winding transformer. It has
one primary-voltage winding and two 120-V secondary windings. While it might
seem like it is just like the single-phase model used in a positive-sequence power
flow, it is not. In the transmission model, the three windings are connected to the
power system model with the same polarity. In the distribution transformer
model, the two secondaries are connected in series. The grounded terminals of the
secondaries are connected in opposite polarity. The link below describes how the
transformer is modeled in OpenDSS

http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/electricdss/index.php?title=TechNote_Mod
eling_Single-phase,_Center-tapped_Distribution_Transformers

To make the modeling problem for the distribution transformer more interesting,
the mixture of 240 V and 120 V loads makes it impossible to model the
transformer with a single per-unit model. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) That is
one reason why we don’t use per-unit models of lines and transformers in the
distribution analysis tools such as OpenDSS. A more general transformer model is
needed.

A more general way to model transformers

Is there a way to avoid these issues? Let’s take a look at a general method that will allow
the construction of a leakage impedance model of nearly any transformer for power
system analysis.

While I learned the conventional 3-winding model for power flow in college and have
worked with several computer programs that use it, I learned a different way of modeling
transformers in 1973 and have used it almost exclusively in programs I designed and
wrote myself. At the core of most power systems analysis programs whether for power
flow, short circuit, harmonics, dynamics, or transients, is a system nodal admittance (Y)
matrix. Y may be a plain nodal admittance matrix, an augmented matrix or a component
of another set of equations such as a Jacobian for a Newton-based solution. The general
approach is to first build Y from so-called “primitive” admittance matrices for each
element.

Sept 2013 -3- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

For the simple 3-winding transformer in Figure 1, a primitive Y matrix, YPrim, is
illustrated in Eq. (1).

‫ܫ‬ு ܸு
൥ ‫ܫ‬௅ ൩ ൌ ൥ ܻ௉௥௜௠ ൩ ൥ ܸ௅ ൩ (1)
‫்ܫ‬ ்ܸ

This equation relates the transformer’s terminal currents to the node-to-ground voltage at
the terminal. This is the voltage of the positive-sequence network model. Thus, every
element of YPrim can be summed directly into the system Y matrix. There is a direct
mapping of each element of the YPrim matrix to the system Y determined by a terminal-to-
node incidence list.

The YPrim matrix can be constructed directly from short-circuit test data. There is no need
to generate an intermediate equivalent circuit. This method applies not only to a simple
single-phase positive-sequence model but to general n-phase, m-winding transformers.
This is the approach used in OpenDSS.

Here is description of the method adapted from my paper with Surya Santoso presented at
the 2003 IEEE T&D show: (Note: Equation numbering restarts at 1.)

---------------------------------------------Insert----------------------------------------------------

The Transformer Model

Some of the methods for modeling transformers use the per unit system and some use actual values. The
authors prefer to work in actual values and will demonstrate that method here. The objective of the method
described here is to develop a “primitive” nodal admittance matrix, Yprim, describing the transformer. Once
the transformer impedance model is in this form, it can generally be incorporated quite easily into most
system solution algorithms.
The method permits the modeling of the leakage impedance network of any transformer with any
number of phases and any number of windings connected in an arbitrary fashion. It works equally well for
developing inductance models for time domain analysis, where it is perhaps more commonly employed, or
models of complex impedance values for steady state analysis. The latter is more applicable to distribution
system analysis. Therefore, the notation will be presented in terms of complex impedance (z) and
admittance (y) values. Bold uppercase letters designate matrices or vectors while lowercase letters
designate scalar values.
The starting ingredients are:

1. The short circuit impedance between each pair of windings,

2. The turns ratio or voltage ratings of the windings.

One of the reasons we have adopted this approach is that transformer manufacturers can generally
provide accurate values for the short circuit impedances between windings by test or empirical formulae for
any number of windings.
From these data, the short circuit impedance matrix, ZB, is constructed with one of the windings serving
as the reference (assumed shorted). The process is identical to forming the short circuit matrix for a power
system with the infinite bus as reference. Thus, the designation, ZB, is borrowed from that area of power
system analysis.
The short circuit impedance between windings i and j, which we will designate zSCi,j, is generally
expressed in percent on some voltampere (VA) base, usually that of the first winding. Let zbase be the

Sept 2013 -4- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

multiplier to convert to a convenient voltage base. We generally use either a one-turn or a one-volt
depending on how the turns ratios are to be expressed (turns or voltages). This is an arbitrary choice that is
simply a matter of choosing the appropriate multiplying factors and any base will work.

With the first winding as the reference winding, ZB is constructed as follows:

Diagonal Elements of ZB

ZBii = zSC 1, i+1  zbase for i = 1 to m-1 (1)

where m = number of windings.

Off-diagonal Elements of ZB:

ZBij = 0.5[zBii + zBjj - zScj+1,i+1  zbase] i j (2)

Note that the order of ZB is (m-1) – one less than the number of windings. For a simple 2-winding,
single-phase transformer, ZB is trivial, having only one element.
Once this matrix is computed, any arbitrary transformer connection may be modeled by simply applying
linear algebra to perform power-invariant reference frame changes and the conversion to actual values.
The desired result here is the primitive admittance matrix for the transformer. This is merged with the
primitive admittance matrices for other elements in the system to form a system nodal admittance matrix,
Y, representing the connections to the buses in the system. Therefore, the immediate goal is to transform ZB
into the corresponding primitive admittance matrix, Yprim. The transformation can be written in matrix
notation as shown in Equation (3).
B is defined as an m x (m-1) incidence matrix whose elements are either 1, -1, or 0. It relates currents in
the short circuit reference frame where the first winding is assumed shorted to the currents in the nodal
admittance reference frame on a one-turn or one-volt base designated Y1. This network is essentially a per-
unit value model with no winding connections represented, similar to what one might use for a positive-
sequence power flow.

Yprim = A N B ZB-1 BT NT AT (3)

Y1

Yw
N is either a m x m or a 2m x m incidence matrix whose non-zero elements are the inverse of the number
of turns in the windings (or the voltage rating of the winding, depending on the base of ZB). The matrix is
2m x m if you wish to explicitly represent each terminal of each winding individually at this point. This
matrix relates the currents in the Y1 equation to the actual winding currents. The resulting admittance
matrix in the winding reference frame, YW, is in actual values (S). The voltages and currents in this
reference frame are the voltages across the windings and the currents through the windings.
The A matrix is an incidence matrix, whose non-zero elements are generally either 1 or -1, that relates
the winding currents to the actual transformer terminal currents. A single-phase, two-winding transformer
would yield a 4x4 Yprim matrix because there are 4 conductors available for connecting to something (two
conductors per winding). A three-phase, wye-delta transformer with the neutral terminal explicitly
modeled would yield a 7x7 Yprim matrix. (In OpenDSS it would be a 8x8 because all terminals must have
the same number of conductors and there is a neutral conductor for the delta winding that is not connected
to anything.)
Note that nowhere in this formulation is a three-phase system assumed. There are not necessarily any
values appearing in the incidence matrices as in many formulations found in the literature. When the 3 is

Sept 2013 -5- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

used, the model generally applies only to 3-phase transformers. The model described here will work for any
number of windings and phases. The phases do not have to be balanced nor must they have the same turns
ratios. If you get the short circuit impedances, number of turns, and the winding connections correct,
everything will come out correctly in the system model. Whether the transformer is single-phase, three-
phase, or n-phase unit, the notation stays the same. Only the contents of the matrices are changed.

Figure 3 illustrates the process defined in Eq. (3) schematically.

Figure 3.Schematic of transformer model development for a simple wye-delta 3-phase transformer.

Y1 represents a ground-referenced nodal admittance network that will give the proper leakage impedance
model on a one-turn or one-volt base. The N matrix represents the effect of the ideal transformers shown to
obtain actual winding voltages. Finally, the A matrix represents the connections of the winding conductors
to obtain the transformer terminals as depicted by the dashed lines.
A neutral impedance of wye-connected windings can be implicitly included in Yprim by adding the
appropriate admittance to the corresponding diagonal element (Yprim 44 in this case).
----------------------------------------End Insert----------------------------------------------------

See the Appendix for more detail on modeling transformers adapted from an OpenDSS
document. The focus of the Appendix is on how to address core behavior for multiphase
transformer models, but the general principles can be gleaned from the material to apply
to modeling the short circuit impedance characteristics of any transformer.

Sept 2013 -6- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

 Appendix
Adapted from OpenDSS Documentation

Modeling Core Effects in OpenDSS

For distribution system analysis studies that involve only power flow analysis, it is
generally sufficient to model 3-phase transformers using the positive-sequence leakage
impedance values. You rarely need to represent the magnetizing impedance unless you
are doing loss analysis that is sensitive to the magnetizing current. However, there are
types of analysis where the zero-sequence response of some types of transformers is
important to model. Since the OpenDSS models transformers as they are physically
rather than using symmetrical component equivalents, you have to understand a little
more about transformer behavior than you might otherwise.

The main issue with core effects is with core structure of 3-phase transformers. The
existing OpenDSS Transformer model does not represent the transformer core other than
as a linear reactance (if the “%imag” property is greater than zero). The magnetizing
branch is embedded within the matrices as the short-circuit impedance matrix is
computed. Therefore, it is difficult to separate it explicitly from the model. Most of the
time, this is sufficient for distribution system analysis, but there are exceptions. One, in
particular, is when the characteristics of the magnetic circuit in 3-legged core
transformers results in significant impacts on zero-sequence impedances. The present
Transformer model in OpenDSS assumes no magnetic coupling between the phases.
Coupling between phases is accomplished by electrical connections of the windings. So
when it becomes important to model the core effects on the zero sequence impedances,
something special must be done.

Instances Where Modeling 3-Legged Core Effects Might Be

Important
 Manufacturers have told me that the vast majority (>90%) of the utility
distribution substation transformers are core-form transformers (3-legged core
designs – sometimes called “E” cores). Thus, the single-phase fault current at the
primary distribution bus can be slightly higher than what one might get by
assuming the zero sequence leakage impedance of the transformer is the same as
the positive-sequence leakage impedance. Whether this is important depends on
the purpose of the analysis. If you are most interested in things that happen more
than ½ mile or so out on the feeder, it generally doesn’t matter much. However, if
breaker duties due to DG infeed are being computed at the substation bus, it could
be important.
 Many of the distribution substation transformers in areas where the transmission
system is strong are two-winding transformers connected Delta-Yg. It is typically
most important for these transformers for the zero-sequence model to be correct
only when looking into the Yg side. The physical Delta winding dominates the
effect while the core model makes a minor contribution to the zero sequence.

Sept 2013 -7- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

 However, in many other systems such as where the transmission system needs a
lower grounding impedance, the distribution substation transformers are 3-
winding transformers connected Yg-Delta-Yg. The delta winding (usually called
the “tertiary” winding) is frequently unloaded and buried, but in some cases
reactors or capacitors may be connected to it to support transmission functions.
For many distribution system analysis cases, it is only necessary for the
transformer model to appear accurate from the distribution side of the substation.
However, the OpenDSS can represent the transmission system simultaneously and
it may be important for the transformer model to be accurate when looking from
both transmission and distribution sides of the substation.
 Most utility 3-phase distribution (service) transformers these days are made up of
either a bank of single-phase transformers or are 5-legged core padmounted
transformers. Nothing special needs to be done for these transformer designs for
the typical kinds of studies that OpenDSS can perform. Simply define the
transformer using the high-to-low leakage impedance from the test report or
nameplate. A special 5-legged core model may be important for time-domain (i.e.,
EMTP) studies such as ferroresonance, but rarely for OpenDSS studies. On the
other hand, I have encountered many 3-legged core dry-type service transformers
connected at primary distribution voltage levels. Some are owned by utilities, but
the majority were installed by end users. It usually doesn’t matter significantly for
power flow calculations, but these transformers can have an impact on the single-
phase fault current calculations and on any condition where one phase is open or
is otherwise grossly unbalanced. The latter is often quite important when
considering things that can go wrong with DG installations. The common Yg-Yg
transformer connection on a 3-legged core will behave as if it has a 3rd delta-
connected winding (called a “phantom” tertiary), which can lead to surprising
results.

Symmetrical Components and the OpenDSS Program

Many power engineers are accustomed to have fault current calculation tools that form
positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence networks and connect them in various ways to
compute fault currents and other quantities resulting from significant unbalances.
Unfortunately, in order to meet its analysis and modeling objectives, the OpenDSS
cannot use this approach. There are many system conditions such as unbalanced lines that
cannot be accurately studied with symmetrical component models – at least not easily.
Network unbalances result in coupling between the sequence networks. When the
networks end up coupled together, it is usually simpler to solve the system in phase
components, which is the OpenDSS approach. Also, the OpenDSS is capable of n-phase
models, not just 3-phase models. Symmetrical component transformations technically do
not apply to circuits with other than 3 phases (either more or less). For 1- and 2-phase
models, there are certain kluges1 that power engineers have applied that give approximate
answers.

1
Kluge = a workaround, a quick-and-dirty solution, a clumsy or inelegant, yet effective, solution to a
problem, typically using parts that are cobbled together. (Wikipedia)

Sept 2013 -8- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Per unit representations raise another issue. Per unit models were introduced into power
system simulation to be able to model multiple voltage levels without having to
specifically represent the transformer. The OpenDSS is capable of analyzing problems
where impedances span transformers, which are difficult to represent in per unit systems
without resorting to kluges. Two common examples are:

1. High-to-low capacitance in transformers for certain harmonics problems, and

2. The 69 kV overbuild falling into the 12.5 kV distribution line.

Also, the common split-phase 120/240V residential service transformer is not amenable
to per unit representation when there are both 120V and 240V loads. Which base do you
use?

Therefore, the OpenDSS represents everything in admittance matrices in units of actual

Siemens. Voltages and currents are likewise in units of actual volts and amperes. While
30 years ago this frequently resulted in a problem with numerical accuracy because of the
great differences in the numerical values at different voltage levels, modern numerical
methods with at least 64-bit floating-point arithmetic pretty much makes this a non-issue.
There are few distribution system circuit modeling conditions in which the equations are
sufficiently ill-conditioned to require remedial actions.

Both of the issues in the preceding paragraphs have a bearing on the transformer model in
the OpenDSS. As a Power Delivery element, a transformer is ultimately modeled by a
primitive Y matrix that embodies all impedances and winding connections. No attempt is
made to model the nonlinear portion of the magnetizing impedance within the
transformer model; it is modeled as a linear reactance, if specified at all - %imag defaults
to zero. The model is focused on the leakage impedance behavior, which has the most
impact on power flow, harmonics, etc.

The OpenDSS transformer model, like other models in OpenDSS, is a physically-based

model. Windings are modeled and connected as they would be in the actual transformer.
A split-phase service transformer is actually constructed as a 3-winding transformer and
must be modeled that way if necessary to capture the true behavior. In some analysis
programs, one might represent a phase shifting transformer by specifying the phase angle.
In the OpenDSS, you would define and connect the windings as the manufacturer would
when the phase shifter is built. With this is mind, let’s go back to the 3-legged core
transformer model.

Figure A-4 shows the schematic for a Yg-Delta-Yg transformer. If this transformer is
constructed from three single-phase transformers, a shell-type 3-phase transformer, or
even a 5-legged core 3-phase transformer, we generally do not worry about interphase
coupling of the magnetic circuit for the types of analysis performed with OpenDSS. Of
course, the delta winding provides coupling between the phases.

Sept 2013 -9- Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Figure A-4. Yg-Delta-Yg Transformer

There are 3 short circuit measurements between each pair of windings required to
construct the short circuit reactance matrix as depicted in Figure A-5. The OpenDSS can
take this matrix and construct a full 12x12 primitive Y matrix that represents the
transformer windings including the neutral point.2 (A dummy neutral point is generated
for the delta winding to satisfy an OpenDSS requirement that all terminals have the same
number of conductors. By default, it gets connected to ground and its current is zero.)

X1  2 
XSC  
X1  3 X 2  3

Figure A-5. Short circuit reactance matrix required to represent a 3-winding transformer (percent or
per unit values).

The OpenDSS transformer model provides the XHL, XHT, and XLT properties as a means
for specifying the reactances of a 3-winding transformer. Alternatively, users may use the
xscarray property, which accepts the short circuit reactances as an array representing the
lower triangle matrix depicted in Figure A-5.

Note that some data sources provide per unit or percent values for XH, XL, and XT to
represent a 3-winding transformer (Figure A-6). Keep in mind these values are for a
model that works for the special case of a 3-winding transformer. In reality, there are no
corresponding physical values for these reactances. A clue to this is that XL frequently
comes out negative.

XL
XH L
H

T
XT
Figure A-6. Three-branch per unit or percent model commonly used in power system analysis
programs.

The reactances arise from the leakage flux between pairs of windings. OpenDSS is
designed to model transformers of nearly arbitrary numbers of windings. All that is

2
R. Dugan and S. Santoso, “An example of 3-phase transformer modeling for distribution system
analysis”, IEEE T&D 2003 Conf Proceedings.

Sept 2013 - 10 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

required to construct the model are short circuit impedances between each pair of
windings. Very complex models can be constructed in this way depending on the ability
to compute or measure the short circuit impedances.

Phantom Windings
If the transformer is constructed around a 3-legged core, there is a complication to
specifying the short circuit impedances between the windings. As shown in Figure A-7,
zero sequence flux is in phase in each leg of the core and has to leave the core to
complete the magnetic circuit. The path is mostly “air core” (i.e., not in steel). Thus, the
magnetizing reactance to zero-sequence flux is considerably less than for other normal
mode fluxes (positive- and negative- sequence, for example). In fact, although it is larger,
it is of the same order of magnitude as the leakage (short circuit) reactances and often
cannot be neglected.

The net effect for a 3-winding 3-phase transformer is like having separate cores for each
phase but having a 4th delta-connected winding. In transformer literature, this is often
referred to as a “phantom” delta winding as depicted in Figure A-8. A 4-winding model is
required to construct a physically-based model of the Yg-Delta-Yg transformer if we
choose not to neglect the error introduced by neglecting, or approximating, the phantom
winding effect. Unfortunately, the phantom winding does not physically exist and a
measurement of the short circuit impedances cannot be made. Measurements can be
made only to the physical windings. However, some transformer design programs can
compute these values (I used to work for a transformer manufacturer and could obtain the
appropriate values from the Engineering Department on special occasions).

Figure A-7. Three-legged core zero sequence flux paths.

Sept 2013 - 11 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Figure A-8. The effect of the 3-legged core is like having an extra "phantom" delta-connected
winding

X1  2 
XSC   X 1  3 X23 

X

X
1
4

2
4

3
4
    

Figure A-9. Ideally, one would provide three additional short circuit measurements to the phantom
winding.

Modeling Options
Having a physical delta winding on the core will help with zero-sequence modeling. It
will naturally get the zero-sequence impedance in the ballpark of where it should be. But
the zero-sequence impedance still needs to be a little lower. Options for OpenDSS
modelers include:

 Define a 4 winding transformer in OpenDSS and estimate the 3 additional short

circuit measurements. Sometimes, these can be reasonably estimated from
transformer test reports, but not always. For modeling a 2-winding transformer on
a 3-legged core with this approach, you would define a 3-winding transformer and
estimate values for the XHT and XLT properties.
 If the physical delta winding is not to be loaded, one option is to define a 3-
winding transformer and reduce the values of XHT and XLT to more closely
match the zero-sequence short circuit measurements. XHL is specified as the
positive sequence value so that the basic power flow solution is correct. This
approximation is good enough for many studies.
 The transformer is defined as a 3-winding transformer and the positive-sequence
leakage impedance values are used for the XHL, XHT, and XLT properties. Then
add a separate Yg-Delta 2-winding transformer on the Low voltage Yg winding
with an appropriate impedance to bring the net zero-sequence impedance down
closer to the tested value. The additional transformer acts as a grounding
transformer. You could also define a zig-zag transformer, but a 2-winding
transformer is much easier in the OpenDSS. Again, this approximation is
satisfactory for many studies involving the distribution feeder. It may not be good
enough if impacts on the transmission system are critical.

Sept 2013 - 12 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

  The OpenDSS allows another modeling option not available in other programs.
You can define the transformer model using the zero-sequence model values and
then add a special positive sequence impedance in series with the High winding of
the transformer to make up the additional impedance seen by positive- and
negative-sequence currents.

Estimating Impedances to the Phantom Winding

For the case where you choose to estimate the impedance to the phantom delta winding,
the values of the short circuit reactance from the actual winding to the phantom winding
are typically in the range of 75 – 200 % on the main transformer’s kVA base. In parallel
with the physical Delta, for which the reactances are typically in the 7 – 30% range, this
reduces the net zero sequence impedance by 5-10% from the positive-sequence
impedance. To better understand what values to choose, it is necessary to understand
more about how transformers are constructed.

As shown in Figure A-10, the physical Tertiary winding is generally wound next to the
core. Then the Low voltage winding and the High voltage winding are wound on top of
the Tertiary in that order. The short circuit reactance is proportional to the physical space
between the winding. The greater the space, the higher the reactance is. Proportions vary
with designs. The default values in the OpenDSS transformer model are XHL=7%,
XHT=35% and XLT = 30%. The Low winding is closer to the Tertiary than the High
winding. Thus, XLT is lower than XHT. In another transformer (from the example in this
document) in which the Low is physically much closer to the Tertiary the values are XHL
= 8.98%, XLT = 7.3%, and XHT=13.32%.

For estimating the short circuit reactance to the phantom winding, we need to come up
with three values as indicated in Figure A-9. One might think of the phantom (4th)
winding as occupying the space inside the Tertiary winding. The Tertiary (3rd) winding is
closest, so X3-4 would be smallest of the three and X1-4 (High to phantom) would be the
largest. Knowing these proportions, we can make some educated guesses and can
generally match test results after a few quick iterations using OpenDSS scripts.

HIGH

LOW

TERTIARY

CORE

Figure A-10. Typical coil arrangement for a 3-winding transformer.

Sept 2013 - 13 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Examples
Two examples of modeling a 3-winding Y-D-Y 30 MVA transformer to meet the
following impedances:

Positive sequence: 10.79%

Zero Sequence:
XHL = 8.98%
XLT = 7.3%
XHT=13.32%

Both models use a bank constructed of 1-phase units for clarity, although a 3-phase
model could also be used.

Estimating Impedances to 4th (Phantom) Winding

In this case, the base 4-winding model is built using the positive-sequence short circuit
reactances. Then the impedances to the phantom (4th) winding are adjusted until the SLG
fault currents match the test results. Knowing the typical values were in the 75% to 200%
range, I started by guessing

X1-4 = 100%
X2-4 = 80%
X3-4 = 75%

This was based on my assumption of the construction of the windings (see above). This
turned out to be a good guess because I had only to drop the last two values slightly to
obtain the desired fault currents.

X1-4 = 100%
X2-4 = 70%
X3-4 = 65%

This took only 4 or 5 iterations using the script on the next page. Note that this script uses
the new XfmrCode object to define the transformer. If you get an error when you run this,
you will need to update your version of the OpenDSS.

Sept 2013 - 14 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Clear

!!!! Modeling Y-Delta-Y 3-legged core as 4-Winding Transformer

!!!! Values to the phantom delta winding are estimated
!!!! Uses a bank of 1-phase transformers

New Circuit.4Winding
~ BasekV=161 isc3=1000000 isc1=100000

New XfmrCode.4winding phases=1 windings=4

~ Wdg=1 %r=.2 Conn=Wye kV=(161 3 sqrt /) kVA=10000
~ Wdg=2 %r=.2 Conn=Wye kV=(13.8 3 sqrt /) kVA=10000
~ Wdg=3 %r=.2 Conn=Delta kV=7.97 kVA=10000
~ Wdg=4 %r=.2 Conn=Delta kV=7.97 kVA=10000 !!!! Phantom Delta winding
!!!! [X12 X13 X14 X23 X24 X34]
~ XSCArray=[10.79 15 100 7.3 70 65]

New Transformer.PhaseA xfmrcode=4winding

~ Wdg=1 Bus=SourceBus.1.0
~ Wdg=2 Bus=LowBus.1.0
~ Wdg=3 Bus=TertBus.1.2
~ Wdg=4 Bus=Phantom.1.2

New Transformer.PhaseB xfmrcode=4winding

~ Wdg=1 Bus=SourceBus.2.0
~ Wdg=2 Bus=LowBus.2.0
~ Wdg=3 Bus=TertBus.2.3
~ Wdg=4 Bus=Phantom.2.3

New Transformer.PhaseC xfmrcode=4winding

~ Wdg=1 Bus=SourceBus.3.0
~ Wdg=2 Bus=LowBus.3.0
~ Wdg=3 Bus=TertBus.3.1
~ Wdg=4 Bus=Phantom.3.1

Solve

New Fault.F1 Phases=1 Bus1=LowBus

solve

Show Currents Elements

Figure A-11. Model with three 1-phase 4-winding transformers

Sept 2013 - 15 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling

Sept 2013 - 16 - Multi-Winding Transformer Modeling