Abstract- This paper presents some case studies on the effects of terminal connections that affect Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) results. Wrong or different terminal connections might lead to confusing SFRA results which could be misinterpreted in the assessment of transformer winding conditions. Effect of grounding the tertiary winding, opening the tertiary winding, and connecting the neutral point in the terminal connections are highlighted in this work. I. INTRODUCTION Many problems can happen to power transformers in their life- time starting from the moment they are shipped to site until the moment of achieving their end-life (ageing or failures) [1, 2]. Also, many competitions are happening in the world and every industry and manufacture wants to make the transformer as less costly as possible with as much high quality as possible. Because of those reasons, there is a need for evaluating and testing the transformer to assess its condition either before connecting it to the power network during commissioning stage or during its maintenance phase. Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) is a global technique used by many industries and manufactures to assess the mechanical integrity of the core, winding, and clamping structure of power transformers. This is usually done by injecting a low voltage signal (2-15V) with the sweeping frequency from 20Hz to 2MHz into a transformer terminal and measuring the response at another terminal as shown in Fig.1 [1]. The amplitude and phase transfer function of SFRA are determined by Fourier analysis. Fig. 1: Basic principle of SFRA There are some standards as well as ongoing work to publish a standard related to the SFRA. The existing standards are the China national standard since 2005 [3], and the CIGRE standard since 2008 [4]. The active projects to publish a standard are the IEC [5] and the IEEE [6]. As we can see from the above standards and dates, SFRA is a new area and has been investigated by many researchers [713]. SFRA test is carried out in many conditions of transformer. First, it is used to test a new transformer at factory to check its quality and to create the reference fingerprint. Second, it is used during the commissioning stage to check its condition after transportation. Third, it is used during the service stage to check its healthiness. Finally, it is used after special cases such as earthquake, lightning, and faults to check its condition. According to IEC draft standard 60076-18 [5], each frequency response can be divided into three regions as depicted in Fig.2. The information for each region is given as follow: The lower frequency region dominated by the core. The middle frequency region dominated by the interactions among the windings. The higher frequency region controlled by the individual winding structure internal connections. The highest frequencies region (usually above 1MHz) dominated by the measurement set-up and connection leads. Note that the starting and ending frequencies of the different regions can vary from transformer to transformer. The method to analyze the transformer conditions is commonly based on the waveform comparison [1]. There are three methods of waveform comparison: 1. Time-based (a comparison between current SFRA results with previous results of the same unit). 2. Type-based (a comparison between SFRA of one transformer with another sister unit). 3. Design-based (a comparison between the three phases of the same transformer). Fig. 2: General relationship between frequency response, transformer structure, and machine set-up The test engineer can follow the same order as mentioned above to test the transformer conditions. In this case, he should start with the time-based comparison if previous SFRA results are available. Note that the terminal connections have to be the same with the previous measurement to achieve a good comparison. To avoid different connections and wrong result interpretation, it is necessary to take photos of the connections for future tests. Fig. 3 shows a time-based comparison of the 40 MVA transformer after shifting it to another substation. The results indicate that the waveforms are matching except for the core region. This is because the winding resistance test was carried out before shifting which magnetized the core (core remanence). Fig. 3: a time-based comparison of the same transformer after shifting. If the previous results are not available, a type-based comparison is recommended. Fig. 4 shows a type-based comparison of four 40MVA transformers. Fig. 4: A type-based comparison between four sister transformers. If there is neither previous result nor sister unit to compare with, a design-based should be the solution. Fig. 5 shows a design-based comparison of the three phases of 40 MVA transformers. In the low frequency region (core region), the middle phase is different than the other two phases which is a normal condition. Also, the variations above 1 MHz (connections region) is normal as well. It is worth to mention that the test engineer can combine two methods or more for better condition assessment such as a combination between type-based and design-based comparisons. Fig. 5: A design-based comparison between the three phases of the same transformers. Deviations of SFRA traces due to terminal connections can be as big as the one caused by a fault. This could lead to misinterpretation of the results (e.g. internal faults happened whereas it is just a different or wrong connection). To avoid misinterpretation of the results, special connection consideration must be taken into account while doing the SFRA test. Before shifting (without DC injection) After shifting (with DC injection) II. SFRA CONNECTIONS- CASE STUDIES Commonly, there are four SFRA tests on the three-winding transformer. The tests include: 1. Injecting into HV winding while LV winding is open, and tertiary winding is closed [HV_LV (OC)]. 2. Injecting into HV winding, LV winding is shorted (without including the neutral), and tertiary winding is closed [HV_LV (SC)]. 3. Injecting into LV winding, HV winding is open, and tertiary winding is closed [LV_HV (OC)]. 4. Injecting into Tertiary winding while HV winding and LV winding are open [TV_LV and HV (OC)]. Figs. 6 to 9 show each of the cases. The difference between the above tests is the terminal connection and each case has its own graph different than the others. One of the problems that occur while doing the SFRA tests is that the test engineer may make different or wrong connections. This problem may affect the result interpretations. For example, keeping the tertiary winding grounded or opened instead of closing it (in normal practice, the tertiary winding must be closed), or including the neutral when shorting the LV side in the second case of the testing as shown in Fig. 7 (in normal practice, neutral is not included in the shorting) Fig. 6: Injecting in HV winding, LV winding is open, and tertiary winding is closed [HV_LV (OC)]. Fig. 7: Injecting in HV winding, LV winding is shorted (without neutral), and tertiary winding is closed [HV_LV (SC)]. Fig. 8: Injecting in LV winding, HV winding is open, and tertiary winding is closed [LV_HV (OC)]. Fig. 9: Injecting in Tertiary winding, HV winding and LV winding are open [TV_LV and HV (OC)]. III. EFFECT OF GROUNDING THR TERTAIRY WINDING The normal practice while doing the SFRA test is to close the tertiary winding. However, if the tertiary winding is grounded, which is a T-bar connecting the tertiary busing to the transformer tank as shown below in Fig. 10, then the result may vary. Fig. 10: tertiary winding grounded Figs. 11 to 13 illustrate the different cases of SFRA testing with the tertiary winding closed and grounded: A. Injecting in HV, LV open circuit, (Tertiary closed vs. Tertiary Earthed) as shown in Fig. 11. B. Injecting in HV, LV Short circuit, (Tertiary closed vs. Tertiary Earthed) as shown in Fig. 12. C. Injecting in LV, HV open circuit, (Tertiary closed vs. Tertiary Earthed) as shown in Fig. 13. Source Reference Response Ground Connection Tertiary closed Fig. 11: Injecting in HV, LV open circuit: a. Tertiary closed, b. Tertiary closed and earthed. Fig. 12: Injecting in HV, LV short circuit: a. Tertiary closed, b. Tertiary closed earthed Fig. 13: Injecting in LV, HV open circuit: a. Tertiary closed, b. Tertiary closed and earthed It is obvious, from Figs. 11 to 13, that the grounding of the tertiary winding has more effect when the voltage source is injected in the low voltage side as shown in Fig.13. The reason is that the low voltage winding is close to the tertiary winding. IV. EFFECT OF KEEPING THE TERTAIRY WINDING OPENED Apart from keeping the tertiary grounded, keeping it opened also has an effect on the result. The following two cases were taken for 40MVA transformers: A. Injecting in HV, LV open circuit, (Tertiary closed vs. Tertiary opened) as shown in Fig. 14. B. Injecting in LV, HV open circuit, (Tertiary closed vs. Tertiary opened) as shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 14: Injecting in HV, LV- OC, (Tertiary closed Vs. Tertiary opened) 1U IV 1W 1U IV 1W a. b. 1U IV 1W 1U IV 1W a. b. 2u 2v 2w a. 2u 2v 2w b.
Fig. 15: Injecting in LV, HV- OC, (Tertiary closed Vs. Tertiary opened) Apart from the variations on the high frequency region as shown in Fig. 15, in the middle region (indicated by the circle), one can see a double peak for the tertiary opened, while a one peak is present in the case for the tertiary closed. This is consistent for the three phases of the transformer when each phase is tested separately. V. EFFECT OF INCLUDING THE NEUTRAL IN THE TERMINAL CONNECTION In normal practice, the terminals are short circuited but not connected to the neutral point when the voltage source is injected in the HV side and LV side is short circuited. Fig.16 shows the difference between including and excluding the neutral while shorting the LV side. It is worth noting that if the neutral is included in the shorting in previous tests, then it should be included also while repeating the test in the future. In this case, a fair comparison and right conclusions about the healthiness of the transformer can be achieved. For this reason, it is recommended to take photos of the terminal connections to avoid such problems. Fig. 16: Injecting in HV, LV short circuit: with and without neutral VI. SPECIAL SFRA CONSIDERATIONS TO ACHIEVE RELIABILITY The following procedures are helpful to obtain better SFRA results, prevent SFRA future interpretations problems, and get reliable results [1, 14, 15]: The SFRA test has to be done with the same transformer conditions (e.g., assembled, oil filled) to get reliable results. The transformer should be isolated. Meaning that all connections from the transformer (except the tank) and auxiliary connections should be removed. Cleaning of the bushings contacts and tightening the connections clamps should be done to assure reliable contact. Three shielded high frequency cables should be used (source, reference, and measurement). The test leads should be as short as possible. Ground extension of the test leads has to be of low inductance. Ground extensions of the measuring cable shields should not have electrical contacts with the terminal contacts. Noises should be eliminated and grounding to be checked before SFRA test since noisy curves may result from poor grounding. SFRA test should be the last test before transportation and the first test after the transportation. The status of the transformer should be noted (e.g., transformer age, number of failures, type of failures, etc). If reference data is available, the results should be available hardcopy and softcopy in case it needs to be uploaded for easy comparison during future tests. Tap changers position, core being magnetized or not (e.g., after winding resistance test), whether the oil is presented or not, and whether the oil is recently drained or not should be documented and available during the SFRA test. Photos of the SFRA terminal connections should be taken and available for any future SFRA tests. The same connections should be used for other repeated SFRA tests. It is better to use the same instrument while repeating the test to achieve good repeatability. Otherwise, using an instrument with the same frequency range, accuracy range, settling time, and applied voltage is recommended.
VII. CONCLUSION The effect of terminal connections on SFRA results of three- winding transformer has been presented and discussed. The terminal connections include grounding the tertiary winding, opening the tertiary winding, and connecting the neutral point in the connections. Wrong or different terminal connections might lead to different waveform of SFRA and Without Neutral With Neutral misinterpretation of the results. One of the main conditions to achieve good waveform comparisons and avoid misinterpretation is to have the same terminal connections for the previous, current, and future tests. REFERENCES [1] Kraetge, M. Kruger, M.Viljoen, and A. Dierks, Aspects of Practical Applications of Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) on Power Transformers. 6 th Southern Africa Regional Conference, CIGRE 2009. [2] M. de Nigris, R. Passglia, R. Berti, L. Bergonzi, and R. Maggi, Application of Modern Technologies for the Condition Assessment of Power Transformers. CIGRE 2004. [3] The Electric Power Industry Standard of Peoples Republic of China, Frequency Response Analysis on Winding Deformation of Power Transformers, DL Standard, DL/T911-2004, ICS 27.100, F24, Document No. 15182-2005, June 2005. [4] CIGRE Working Group A2/26, Mechanical condition Assessment of Transformer Windings using Frequency Response Analysis (FRA). Paris, April 2008. [5] IEC 60076-18 Ed.1: Power Transformers-Part 18: Measurement of Frequency Response. 2009 (not yet published). [6] IEEE PC57.149TM/D4 Draft, Trial-Use Guide for the Application and Interpretation of Frequency Response Analysis for Oil Immersed Transformers, 2007 draft version (not yet published). [7] L. Satish, and A. Saravanakumar, Identification of terminal connection and system function for sensitive frequency response measurement on transformers, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol.23, no.2, April 2008. [8] N.Abeywickrama, Y.V.Serdyuk, and S.M.Gubanki, High-frequency Modeling of Power Transformers for use in Frequency Response Analysis (FRA), IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., Vol. 23.No.4, October 2008. [9] R. Ragavan and L. Satish, An Effective method to compute transfer function of a Transformer from its equivalent circuit. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol.20, no2, pp.780-788, April 2005. [10] M. Florkowski and J. Furgal, Detection of transformer winding deformations based on the transfer function Measurements and simulations. Meas. Sci. Technol., vol.14, pp. 1986-92, Sep. 2003. [11] M. Wang, A. J. Vandermaar, and K. D. Srivastava, Improved Detection of Power Transformer Winding Movement by Extending the FRA High Frequency Range, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., Vol. 20 .No.3, July 2007. [12] A. Shintemirov, W. H. Tang, Q. H. Wu, A Hybrid Winding Model of Disc-Type Power Transformers for Frequency Response Analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., Vol. 24.No.2, April 2009. [13] K.G.N.B. Abeywickrama, Y.V. Serdyuk, and S.M. Gubanski, Exploring possibilities for characterization of power transformer insulation by frequency response analysis (FRA). IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol.22, no.3, pp.1375-1382, July 2006. [14] M. Wang, John Vandermaar, and K.D. Srivastava, Transformer Winding Movement Monitoring in Service- Key Factors Affecting FRA Measurements. IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine Vol. 20, No. 5. September/October 2004. [15] M. Karlstorm, P. Werelius, M. Ohlen, L. Adeen, and E. Brynjebo, Considerations to Ensure Measurement Repeatability when using SFRA on Transformers, 2008.
Interpretation of Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) Traces For The Multiple Winding Faults Which Are Practically Simulated On The 10 KVA Power Transformer
International Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)