TRANSFORMER CONDITION ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE

William F. Griesacker
Orlando M. Pea
Doble Engineering Company

ABSTRACT

When a transformer experiences an event that calls into question its condition and suitability for service, experience
shows that careful consideration should be taken to verify its condition before making the decision to place the
transformer back into service. Two recent cases will be presented and discussed showing the steps taken, the
outcome and the lessons learned from the efforts to determine the condition of the transformers. The first case
involves a transformer that sustained a close-in through fault. The initial troubleshooting steps indicated that there
was probable winding movement. The second case is a transformer that experienced a shipping event that was
questionable but initially there were no signs of damage to the active parts. The diagnostic tests conducted,
inspections performed and evaluation of relevant details surrounding the events will be presented for each case.

INTRODUCTION

The process of performing condition assessment of equipment is applied differently based on need. This discussion
will focus on applying condition assessment methods to help determine if a transformer can be placed in service
after a known event. When the condition of a transformer is in question, all available means to collect and evaluate
relative information should be considered. There are a number of sources for information that should be included,
and will usually depend on the circumstances surrounding the event. For example, if a transformer is tripped from
service, the available records of devices that tripped or operated near or at the time of the event should be reviewed.
The operation of some devices may point to possible damage of the transformer, such as operation of the sudden
pressure relay or the transformer differential protection relay. It is normal to conduct some level of investigation to
verify if damage has occurred and to what extent.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The condition assessment process used to determine if a transformer can be returned to service after an event may
vary in the specific details for each case but the overall general process can be approached using similar steps to
help reach a decision. For discussion purposes, the process can be broken down into three general steps: collecting
information, troubleshooting and analysis of the information and results that have been collected to support a
conclusion.

Collecting relevant information should include historical data and records that provide both an accurate description
of the transformers condition up to the time of the event and information collected at the time of the event that will
provide an accurate assessment of what may have happened to the transformer, ultimately to provide an indication
of the transformers present condition. When searching for information, items on the following list should be
considered:

Known pre-existing conditions should be reviewed since they may be related to the problem.
Operating records and practices can give indication of how the transformer has been loaded, overloaded
and how long the transformer has been in service.
Maintenance records that show what has failed, what has been repaired, modified and/or replaced on the
transformer should be reviewed. Sometimes recent maintenance on equipment can be a source of later
problems and is a recommended area for investigation.
Field test records can be used to find out if there are existing conditions, their severity and if there is a
degenerating problem. This review should include all electrical tests performed on the transformer,


2011 Doble Engineering Company - 78
th
Annual International Conference of Doble Clients
All Rights Reserved


2-8
dissolved gas analysis (DGA), oil quality and any other available test information, for example partial
discharge, thermography and other special tests.
Factory test report may be used as a baseline for some tests and will have other relevant information that
may be useful.
System records of events including short circuits, lightning strikes, switching and overloading events can
be helpful to explain what transient and other events the transformer has been subjected to during its
service life.
Trip records at the time of the event can help explain the sequence of events and what the transformer was
subjected to that caused it to be removed from service.
Personnel knowledge of the equipment can be very helpful in some cases and should not be overlooked.
There may be cases where certain individuals such as maintenance personnel or operators, that have an
intimate knowledge of the history of the unit, may be able to add details that were missing or were not
obvious from the available historical records.

Troubleshooting steps usually start with non-intrusive methods that include electrical testing, dissolved gas analysis
(DGA) and other oil tests analysis. When non-intrusive methods either show that there is a problem that requires
further investigation or a lack of adequate conclusive evidence is available to make a proper/informed decision,
intrusive troubleshooting steps may be taken that can include an internal inspection. For example, in one case, the
transformers rapid pressure rise relay and differential protection both operated due to a known external fault. There
was concern that the transformer may have suffered a significant internal fault. Further investigation, including an
internal inspection, showed that a minor lead-to-ground fault caused the differential protection to operate and the
through-fault current tripped the rapid pressure rise relay. The following list gives common actions and testing that
are often used to help determine the transformer condition. Some of the test methods like power factor and DGA are
more general methods and probably should be conducted in most cases. Other tests, such as corrosive sulfur, would
probably be conducted only when they will help prove if a suspected condition is present.

An external inspection should be performed to identify any observable details that will help point to the condition of
the transformer. This inspection should be made as soon as possible to observe what devices have operated and note
the readings on gauges and devices.
Gauges and control devices such as temperature, liquid level and pressure/vacuum gauges can give
helpful information.
Signs of tank overpressure may be present; look for deformation of the tank and cracked welds. Tank
deformation due to an internal over-pressure may be localized and may not be immediately obvious so
careful examination may be necessary.
Inspect bushings and arresters for signs of damage or problem conditions.
Corrosion and leaks can indicate possible problems such as moisture ingress.
Load tap changer should be inspected for similar indications of problems.
Control cabinet and all other control devices should be inspected for problem conditions and stored
information that will help assess the condition of the transformer.

Internal inspections are usually performed when there is a known or suspect problem but the severity cannot be
determined by other non-intrusive means. In some cases the internal inspection is focused on a specific area based
on a known problem but often times the inspection is a general investigation to assess the condition of the active
parts. In both cases, the inspection should take advantage of the opportunity to observe the condition of the active
parts including the following items:

Coils
Core
Leads
Bushings
Load Tap Changer
De-energized Tap Changer
Core Clamp
Flux Shunts and Shields


2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
3-8

Electrical tests should be performed to help determine the transformer condition. It is sometimes helpful to conduct
tests that may not be related to a suspected problem but can help rule out that various conditions are not present.
Common electrical field tests are given in the following list.
Power Factor and Capacitance
Leakage Reactance
Exciting Current
Turns Ratio
Winding Resistance
Core and Winding Insulation Resistance
Sweep Frequency Response Analysis

DGA and oil testing has proven to be very helpful in assessing the condition of transformers. Given the wide range
of activity and conditions that DGA is capable of detecting, an oil sample should be taken for analysis in most cases
to help assess what indications are present in the oil. Other oil tests can also be performed as determined necessary.
Moisture
Corrosive Sulfur
Oil Screening Tests

Historical and troubleshooting information should be reviewed so that sufficient information is attained to make a
decision regarding the steps needed to either place the transformer back in service, make repairs or possibly continue
with collecting more information and troubleshooting steps.

Case 1 Transformer Trip on Through Fault

The subject transformer was a four winding design, designated HV, XV, YV, TV, with corresponding winding
connections of Y-Y-Y-D, with a base rating on the order of 50 MVA. The HV winding was the outer most winding
with the line lead at the center. The two low voltage windings, XV and YV, were stacked axially one on top of the
other and were located directly under the HV winding. The buried tertiary winding, TV, was on the inside next to
the core with a single corner grounded internally. This winding arrangement allowed equal impedances between the
HV and each low voltage winding.

The transformer was in service for about one year when there was a close in fault on the LV side of the transformer
due to a phase-to-ground fault that precipitated into a three-phase-to-ground fault. The fault was on equipment that
was estimated to be within about 100 feet of the transformer. The transformer tripped from service due to operation
of the rapid pressure rise relay at the time of the fault.

Following the trip of the transformer, field testing was conducted to help assess the condition of the transformer and
determine if it was suitable to be returned to service. Since it was known that the transformer was subject to through
fault current and the rapid pressure rise relay operated, the tests selected for troubleshooting were based on their
sensitivity to detecting mechanical deformation or general changes in the winding geometry. The primary tests used
in this case were sweep frequency response (SFRA), capacitance and leakage reactance.

The leakage reactance test was performed after the event and the results were compared to the nameplate impedance
tested in the factory at the time of manufacturing. The leakage reactance showed a difference of 3.2 % when
compared to the benchmark, which was greater than the +/- 3 % recommended limit [1]. By itself, this was viewed
by some to be close to the limit and possibly questionable since different test sets were used.

The SFRA testing in the field showed a change on the YV winding but there was no ideal reference for positive
comparision. There was SFRA test data from the factory but it was without oil, i.e. in the shipping configuration,
and therefore was not the best reference for comparison. Baseline SFRA testing was not performed at the site when
the transformer was in its initial in-service configuration.



2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
4-8
The winding capacitance from testing after the short circuit event was compared with the original factory acceptance
test results. The winding capacitance test results from the field acceptance testing (pre-energization) were also
included in the evaluation to help determine if any observed changes occurred before or after the transformer was
energized. Capacitance changes before energization would probably be associated with transportation while
changes after energization would be linked to the short circuit event. It can be seen in Figure 1 that the winding
capacitance values at the site acceptance testing given in blue were less than 5 % difference, and were considered
acceptable. It was clear that the difference in some of the post short circuit capacitance values in red were higher
than expected, indicating that there was movement in the windings. The CY capacitance showed the greatest change
and the associated capacitances of CHY and CY+CHY showed agreement, pointing to change in the geometry of the
YV winding.


Change in Winding Capacitance When Compared to Factory Test Values
Figure 1

Additional field tests were also conducted to help collect information and identify if there were other possible
problems that may have been caused by the through fault event. The tests included transformer overall power
factor, bushing power factor, winding resistance, turns ratio, single phase excitation and dissolved gas analysis
(DGA). There were no indications from these additional tests that there was a problem with the transformer.

It was decided that the change in capacitance was too great to return the transformer to service without further
investigation; the transformer was returned to the factory for further testing and inspection. The transformer passed
all full voltage dielectric tests which included lightning impulse, applied and induced voltage tests. The standard
impedance voltage test was then performed as another check to confirm the indications from the field testing that
there were changes in the winding geometry. The tested impedance values were compared to the original factory
test values, see Figure 2. The full voltage impedance values were held to a tolerance of +/- 2 % [2] when comparing
the results since the tests were performed under the same conditions. This is a tighter tolerance than what is used in
the leakage reactance test when it is compared to the nameplate impedance, since these two tests are not identical.
The HV-YV impedance variance of more than 2 % was considered to be an indication that further investigation was
warranted.



2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
5-8














Change in Impedance When Comparing the Investigative Factory Tested Values to the Original
Factory Acceptance Test Values
Figure 2

The next step was removal of the core and coil assembly from the tank to allow inspection, since the internal
clearances did not allow good access. Upon initial inspection after removing the core and coil assembly, there was
some shifting noticed in the top block and ring items. In some areas small blocks between the coils and clamping
rings were shifted, see the left photograph of Figure 3. Some of the top ring and ring segments also showed shifting
as seen in the right photograph of Figure 3. It could not be verified if these items had shifted due to the short circuit
event, due to moving or shipping of the transformer or possibly it was originally assembled in this condition. The
shifted items appeared to be a relatively minor item of concern and did not directly explain the reason for the
changes in leakage reactance, SFRA, capacitance and impedance values that exceeded recommended or specified
tolerances.


Some Movement in the Top Blocking and Rings
Figure 3

The investigation proceeded with disassembly of the windings to continue searching for the source of the problem.
When the coils were removed from the core limbs, Phase 1 and 2 were removed without any difficulty but Phase 3
was stuck and required extra effort to remove it from the core leg. When the coils were separated it was obvious
that there was winding deformation on the YV windings of Phase 2 and 3. The YV winding of Phase 3 had more
severe deformation and some deformation was observed on the inside TV winding of this phase, which explained
why this phase winding assembly was stuck on the core leg. The damage on the Phase 2 and 3 YV windings was
similar. In the core window area where forces are often the highest, due to the high leakage flux, there was a
vertical buckling line that ran the height of the coil. The conductors were buckled inward and at some points had
been pushed out as well, see Figure 4. Figure 5 shows an example of conductor buckling after removal from the
coil.



2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
6-8


Examples of the Deformation on the Phase 2 and 3, YV Windings
Figure 4


Example of Conductor Buckling After Removal from the Coil
Figure 5

Review of the through-fault event showed that the short circuit current was not excessive in magnitude or duration.
A review of the short circuit design calculation method was conducted, which revealed that the transformer model
did not have adequate detail to give accurate results. The model was improved by adding more winding details; it
was then discovered that the short circuit forces increased by more than 50 % with the new model. This placed the
magnitude of the calculated forces well over the withstand strength of the winding conductors. This was considered
to be the root cause of the failure. The solution was to increase the conductor strength of the windings to meet the
new calculated short circuit forces.

Case 2 Low Speed Impact During Transportation

A transformer transported by rail car experienced shipping impacts that brought into question if there was damage
internal to the transformer that should be addressed before it was installed and energized for service. The newly
manufactured transformer was rated 450 MVA and was purchased as a spare for an aging GSU. While the
transformer was being transferred in a railroad switching yard, the rail car became derailed. The rail car was
traveling at a relatively low speed at the time of the derailment. The impact recorder measured about 3 G or less in
each direction. It was reported that the transformer and rail car traveled the length of about one railcar on the rail


2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
7-8
ties. It was believed that riding over the ties subjected the transformer to a brief but significant vibration event
caused by multiple low-level impacts in quick succession.

Following the derailment, one of the first objectives was to determine the condition of the internal active parts. The
transformer was in its shipping configuration: dry air filled, no bushings installed and no special SFRA test
bushings. This prevented most diagnostic electrical testing from being conducted without considerable effort to
configure the transformer, which may not have otherwise been necessary if it was later decided to ship the
transformer back to the factory for repairs.

Due to ease in accessing the core ground bushing, the core insulation resistance test was performed to help
determine if shifting and grounding of core laminations had occurred. The core insulation resistance results were
acceptable indicating that the core insulation was intact as detectable by the test.

It was decided to proceed with an internal inspection to make visual verification if there was any internal damage to
the active parts of the transformer. Since the transformer was to be opened up for internal inspection it was also
decided to install temporary leads to perform SFRA testing. SFRA testing was then performed with the temporary
test leads connected internally to the bushing leads that were secured for shipping. There were no previous SFRA
test results for comparison, so analysis was based only on the test results after shipment. There were no indications
of problems with the transformer and the results were considered inconclusive.

The internal inspection did reveal that there was looseness in the windings since top and bottom blocking was loose,
some blocks were shifted and some blocks were displaced from their position. This was considered a problem since
looseness would leave the windings susceptible to possible damage under short circuit forces. Displaced items were
considered a problem since they could possibly cause thermal problems by blocking off cooling ducts or cause
dielectric problems by possibly becoming lodged in a location of high electric field stress creating a creep surface
that was not intended or creating some other problem.

After some attempts to repair the condition at the site, it was decided that further inspection and repairs would be
required at the factory to restore the transformer to an acceptable condition for service. The transformer coils were
tightened adequately for shipment and returned to the factory for repairs.

SFRA tests were performed on the transformer after repairs. Comparison of the before and after repair SFRA tests
did not show that the SFRA test was able to detect looseness in the coils. Since the coils were epoxy bonded CTC
there was probably minimal change in the winding geometry with loose blocks since the epoxy would tend to
constrain relaxation of the coils with reduced clamping pressure.

CONCLUSION

When there is an event that results in the transformer condition coming into question regarding its suitability for
service, the steps in determining its condition may vary but the general process is similar. All accessible sources of
information should be used to help support the final decision of returning the transformer to service or to justify
taking other steps. There is often pressure to move ahead with project schedules, given the high stakes that are
usually tied to meeting them. The two cases discussed in this paper demonstrate that sometimes extra steps are
justified to attain the information needed to make a technically sound decision.

REFERENCES

[1] Doble Test Procedures 72A-2244-10 Rev. C, Copyright 2009, Doble Engineering Company.

[2] IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006, IEEE Standard for Standard General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed
Distribution, Power, and Regulating Transformers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New
York, NY.

[3] Ladroga, R. K., Corsi, D. E. and Griesacker, W. F. Transformer Transportation Damage, A Case Presentation of
a Low Impact Event, 77
th
International Doble Client Conference, Copyright 2010, Doble Engineering Company.


2011 Doble Engineering Company -78
th
Annual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
8-8
BIOGRAPHY

Bill Griesacker is a member of Doble Global Power Services, employed as a transformer engineer working on
projects that include factory inspections, condition assessment, design reviews, failure analysis and general
consulting. He previously worked for Pennsylvania Transformer Technology Inc., where he held various positions
including Engineering Manager. His work included high voltage insulation design, transient voltage modeling of
power transformer windings and various LTC and DETC switch development projects. Prior to this, he was
employed by the Westinghouse Electric Company, working on synchronous generator projects as a member of the
Generator Engineering Department. Bill started his career with Cooper Power Systems in large power transformers
and later worked in the Kyle Switchgear, Vacuum Interrupter Department. He has earned a M.S. degree in electric
power engineering from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from
Gannon University. Bill is an active member of the IEEE, PES Transformers Committee where he holds positions
in several working groups and subcommittees.

Orlando M. Pea is currently a Field Engineer for the Doble Engineering Company. As a member of Doble Global
Power Services, Mr. Pea performs field testing and provides engineering support on the interpretation of field-test
data for transformers, motors and generators. Mr. Pea routinely performs on-site electrical tests in substations,
power plants and in manufacturing settings. Mr. Pea is also involved in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) and
Partial Discharge (PD) testing. He previously worked as a Test Engineer for Barr Associates, Inc. His work
included maintenance and internal/external calibration of all test equipment, creation of technical procedures, and
developing solutions to improve the accuracy of test methods. Mr. Pea has earned a B.S. degree in Electrical
Engineering from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, and is currently pursuing a M.S. degree in Power
Systems Management from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He is an active member of the IEEE.