176 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO.

2, APRIL 2001

A Fundamental Approach to Transformer Thermal

ModelingPart II: Field Verification
Glenn Swift, Life Senior Member, IEEE, Tom S. Molinski, Member, IEEE, Ren Bray, and
Robert Menzies, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper has two main objectives. One is to show

that the top oil rise thermal model proposed in the companion
paper is valid, for a large power transformer in service. The second
is to show that there is a convenient way of estimating the param-
eters without removing the transformer from service. A Manitoba
Hydro 250 MVA OFAF transformer was chosen and instrumented
with data-gathering equipment. Two twenty-four hour test runs
were performed, one in February of 1999 and the other in July of
1999. The most basic parameter to be determined was the rated top
oil rise but also found were the top oil time constant and the non-
linearity exponent, commonly given the symbol . The results are
very positive.
Index TermsPower transformer protection, temperature,
thermal factors.

I. INTRODUCTION

I N THE companion paper [1] a new formulation of the gov-

erning differential equation was derived. It is important to
test the validity of the approach, preferably with a large power
transformer as the subject. To this end, special instrumentation
was installed on a 150/200/250 MVA OFAF transformer on the
Manitoba Hydro system. The transformer is shown in Fig. 1.
Some thermal parameters were known for this transformer;
others were not. Factory test records were available and detailed
in some respects but, for example, the top oil time constant had
not been measured during the factory tests in 1980. If planned or
unplanned overloading is anticipated for a transformer, the top
oil time constant is useful information, and is further incentive
for in-the-field testing, in this case.
In this paper, a new method of determining thermal param-
eters for a transformer in the field and without artificially ap-
plying a step load change (since this is often not possible) is
presented. The study is limited to top oil temperature; hot spot
temperature is not considered here.
II. INSTRUMENTATION
The input variables are load current and ambient temperature.
The output variable that is the object of the model is the top oil
temperature. A commercial T-PRO relay/recorder manufac-
tured by the firm employing one of the authors has the capability
of receiving not only load current (from the utilitys CTs) but
also ambient temperature and top oil temperature.
Manuscript received December 8, 1999.
G. Swift is with APT Power Technologies, Winnipeg MB, Canada
T. S. Molinski and R. Bray are with Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg MB, Canada
R. Menzies is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Manitoba Winnipeg MB, Canada.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8977(01)01542-4.
08858977/01$10.00 2001 IEEE
Fig. 1. 250 MVA transformer used for this study.
The ambient temperature information comes from
a 420 mA sensor mounted in the switchyard in a
meteorologically-approved manner. See Fig. 2. It is con-
nected to the relay by means of a shielded cable.
The top oil temperature information comes from a Qual-
itrol installation that replaces the normal liquid temperature
meter. This device also supplies a 420 mA signal to the relay.
In other installations, a simpler top oil sensor can be used, if
features such as LCD read-out and staged output alarms are not
required.
One of the functions of the relay is the capability to record
trend information: i.e., variables at a slow sampling rate (e.g.,
once per three minutes), over long periods (e.g., thirty days). For
this study, the data were downloaded via modem and telephone
link to a remote location and into a spread-sheet for analysis.
The instrumentation arrangement is shown in Fig. 3.
III. FIELD TESTS
The monitoring system was installed in mid-1998 and has
been logging ambient temperature, load current and top oil tem-
perature continuously, at three-minute intervals, for long-term
study purposes. Three transformers operate in parallel with the
subject transformer, all at about fifty percent peak load. In order
SWIFT et al.: A FUNDAMENTAL APPROACH TO TRANSFORMER THERMAL MODELINGPART II: FIELD VERIFICATION 177

test period, as described below. By this means the loading was

increased to a much higher value, though currents over one per
unit were not possible.
Field testing was done on two occasions: cold weather, Feb-
ruary 2021, 1999, and hot weather, July 34, 1999. In both
cases, the load was raised to as high a level as possible, by
switching out three transformers in parallel with the test trans-
former. Also in both cases, the loading was not high enough
throughout the test to keep the fans and pumps on, so these were
turned on manually since the objective was to find the model ap-
plicable during overloads, when of course, the fans and pumps
would be on. The tap position was also recorded, at regular in-
tervals, so that a correction factor could be applied to the results.
The purpose of the two tests, rather than just one, was to
see how well parameters determined under one condition (hot
weather) would apply under a quite different condition (cold
weather). The July test is taken as the standard since the same
loading level would result in higher temperatures than for the
February test, and therefore be closer to an overload condition.
The procedure for each of the two tests was as follows:
Fig. 2. Ambient temperature sensor (inside circular housing). 1) Select a week-end acceptable to the utility operators, and
in accordance with load-flow studies.
2) Start the 12-hour run-in part of the test at noon on
Saturday, by switching out a planned number of parallel
transformers, and manually turning on the fans and
pumps.
3) Record data for 36 hours, of which 12 hours would be the
run-in period, and the next 24 hours would be the data
used for analysis, i.e., for determination of the thermal
parameters required. Thus for each variable, the analysis
data would comprise 480 points, taken at 3 minutes per
point.
4) Download data for analysis.
The July test data is shown in Fig. 4. The data is shown for
two days. It is used as follows:
First 6 hours: pre-test period data, pumps and fans off, all
transformers on line (normal).
Next 12 hours: run-in period data, pumps and fans on, three
parallel transformers out.
Next 24 hours: actual test period data, ditto, pumps and
fans on, three parallel transformers out.
Last 6 hours: post-test period data, pumps and fans back to
automatic, all transformers on line.

IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

A. Differential Equation of the Top Oil Temperature Model
From the companion paper [1] for this study, the differential
equation for which parameters are to be estimated is as follows:

(1)

where
is time, the independent variable,
Fig. 3. Instrumentation. is the load current in per unit, a forcing function
variable,
to increase the loading to near-rated or above, all three of the is the ambient temperature, a second forcing func-
parallel transformers were removed from service during each tion variable,
178
Fig. 4. July 34 recorded test data. Measured load currentlight line; measured top oil temperatureupper heavy line; measured ambient temperaturebottom
heavy line.
is the top oil temperature, the solution variable,
is the ratio of copper loss to iron loss at rated load
( ),
is the rated top oil temperature rise above ambient,
is the top oil time constant, and
is an exponent due to the nonlinear heat transfer
relationship.
The corresponding difference equation, also from the com-
panion paper, is
(2)
where
is the small difference operator.
If no parameters are known, then the last four items of the
foregoing list of eight above, are to be found. For this study,
one of the parameters was known accurately a priori: the load-
loss-to-no-load-loss ratio from factory tests.
Thus the three parameters to be determined are
which can be compared with the factory test value,
which was not measured at the factory, and
which might be presumed unity, but not assumed so
here, as a matter of interest.
B. Parameter Estimation Method
The parameter estimation procedure is based on a nonlinear
integral-squared error objective function [2] defined by
(3)
where
is a vector whose elements are the three parameters
listed above,
is the top oil temperature at each time step as calcu-
lated from (2),
is the measured top oil temperature at each time
step, and
is the index for each 3-minute time step over the
24-hour period.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
Initial values for the sought parameters are guessed at and a
univariate search technique [3] is used. Each parameter is varied
one at a time until the objective function is minimized in that
direction. Then a new search is carried out in the nest parameter
direction starting from the previous minimum. This is repeated
over all three parameter directions until no further minimization
of the objective function takes place.
The starting value for , that is , is set equal to
the measured value of at the start of the 24-hour test period.
Incidentally, it turns out that the results are quite insensitive to
this value.
When (3) cannot further be minimized, the optimum values
of the parameters , , and have been found and can be
used for any ambient temperature or loading condition, provided
that the pumps and fans are on, and that the tap position is not
too far off (discussed below).
C. Results for July Test
The optimization procedure yielded the following values:
C
days hours
.
Fig. 5 shows the top oil temperature measured and calculated
curves. They are so close that it is difficult to distinguish them
at this scale resolution.
It was surprising that was 0.9 rather than 1.0, which is the
usual assumption for directed-flow oil cooling, as was the case
here. The optimization minimum occurred for ,
for both tests, so there is little doubt about the validity. The im-
plication is that the cooling is not as effective as one might as-
sume, for this transformer. The cooling is, however, adequate,
since the top oil rise agrees well with the factory value, as men-
tioned below.
D. Application to the Conditions of the February Test
The very good fit of the previous section is all very well, but
there needs to be a check under other conditions. Ideally, these
would be overload conditions, but that was not easily possible
because of system loading conditions at the time of the tests. In-
stead, a comparison is made under drastically different ambient
SWIFT et al.: A FUNDAMENTAL APPROACH TO TRANSFORMER THERMAL MODELINGPART II: FIELD VERIFICATION 179

Fig. 5. Measured (jagged trace) and Model (smoother trace) top oil temperature.

Fig. 6. July TestFebruary Test comparison. Upper curves: July Measured (jagged) and Model (smooth). Lower curves: February Measured (jagged) and Model
(smooth) using July parameters.

conditions, which occur in February, because in the Winnipeg where

area there are extreme differences between summer and winter
ambient temperatures.
If the same values of the three parameters are used with the
February load current and ambient temperature input data, the
result is as shown in Fig. 6, where the curve for the July test is
repeated so as to make the comparison clear.
If the three parameters are optimized for the February test
alone, the results are:
C Since the factory test top oil rise for the case of the tertiary
days hours
. for comparison is 37.1 C
With these values, the measured and model curves for Feb-
ruary (lower curves of Fig. 6) become as indistinguishable as
those for the July test (upper curves of Fig. 6), but of course a
single set of the parameters must be used for all cases. Using
only the July results, it can be seen in Fig. 6 that the worst
error in the February plot is about one degree, which is certainly
acceptable.
E. Comparison with Factory Measurement
The factory measurement of the top oil rise was made with
the tertiary winding loaded whereas the installed transformer
tertiary is not loaded. A correction factor can be derived from
the companion paper [1, (6)]:
known losses for desired case, tertiary unloaded,
711 kW (from test report),
known losses for base case, tertiary loaded,
768 kW (from test report).
Therefore, the correction factor here is
loaded was 37.1 C, it follows that the temperature to be used
C.
This is considered to be in relatively good agreement with the
result for the July test, 33 C.
As mentioned before, there is no factory test data for the time
constant, which is a good reason for conducting tests like the
one described here.
One other factor for this transformer is the position of the
on-load tap changer position. The range was neutral eight
positions. The factory tests were done for the neutral position.
During the July tests the position was 1 and for the February
tests the position was 2. These correspond to increases in the
losses of about 2.5% and 5% respectively, which affects the ap-
parent error negligibly.
Incidentally, the losses for this transformer are relatively
flat for positive-going tap positions, but rise sharply for
negative-going tap positions. At a tap position of 8 the
180
load-loss-plus-core-loss is 30% higher than it is for the neutral
position. This means that corrections should be made if it
is known that the tap position will be well into the negative
region, for this transformer.
F. Practical Benefits
Loss of Life as a Replacement Criterion: Manitoba Hydro is
actively pursuing use of the latest recommended loss of life (of
the cellulose insulation) calculation procedures as a criterion for
transformer replacement [4]. According to the latest Guide [5],
it is no longer recommended that typical values of the thermal
parameters be used. This makes the on-line determination of
parameters attractive, especially when some of the parameters
are not known from factory tests.
The Manitoba Hydro methodology is to predict the optimum
replacement date for a particular transformer using predicted
load growth and historical ambient temperatures, with hourly
data that takes into account daily, weekly and annual patterns.
Ideally, the thermal model for such calculations should change
as the cooling mode changes, as triggered by hot spot tempera-
ture sensor, that is, winding temperature indicator settings.
Using this methodology along with such precautions as
on-line dissolved gas analysis, transformers may be replaced
safely at a date a few years beyond the date determined by
the present rather conservative approach. Many thousands of
dollars are saved for each such delayed replacement, without
significant increase in risk [4].
Failure or Degradation of the Cooling System: The method
of determination of thermal model parameters would be quite
practical for an on-line parameter determination calculation
that automatically and continually estimates the key thermal
model parameters. There might be three models, one applicable
to each of the cooling system modes, for example: no forced
cooling, pumps and half fans, and pumps and all fans. A sudden
change in the value of one of the parameters, e.g., the rated
top oil rise, could indicate that the fans or pumps have failed.
A gradual increase in the calculated rated top oil rise might
indicate that the radiators are becoming increasingly fouled in
some way.
V. CONCLUSION
A fundamental thermal model for top oil temperature deter-
mination is shown to be valid for a 250 MVA transformer.
The parameters for the model can be found from a test that
does not involve removing the transformer from service, namely
minimization of the integral-squared-error over one day of test
data.
The parameters found under one condition of ambient tem-
perature are found to be valid under a radically different ambient
temperature as well.
The agreement with factory tests is good.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, APRIL 2001
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank J. Kane, Network Studies
Engineer at Manitoba Hydro, for his system studies prior to the
tests. The authors would also like to thank J. Rempel, Protection
Maintenance Technical Officer and his colleagues at Manitoba
Hydro, for their valuable support both during installation of the
test apparatus and during the tests.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Swift, T. Molinski, W. Lehn, and R. Bray, A fundamental approach
to transformer thermal modelingPart I: Theory and equivalent cir-
cuit, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 16, no. 13, 2001.
[2] A. O. Converse, Optimization, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970,
p. 83.
[3] G. S. G. Beveridge and R. S. Schecter, Optimization: Theory and Prac-
tice, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1970, p. 363.
[4] T. J. Molinski and G. W. Swift, Reducing the life-cycle cost of power
transformers, in CEPSI1 Proceedings, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct.
2125, 1996.
[5] IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Transformers, IEEE
Standard C57.91, 1995.
Glenn Swift (M56SM75LM96) is part of the research team at APT Power
Technologies in Winnipeg. He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the
University of Alberta, and the Ph.D. degree from the Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology. He is a Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar in the Department of
Electrical Engineering at the University of Manitoba. His industrial employment
has included Westinghouse Canada, Federal Pioneer Electric, Ontario Hydro,
Manitoba Hydro and Metropolitan-Vickers Electrical Co. Ltd. in the United
Kingdom.
Tom S. Molinski (M93) received the B.Sc. and M. Eng. degrees in electrical
engineering (1975 and 1985, respectively) from the University of Manitoba. He
was a member of the System Performance Department at Manitoba Hydro for
twenty years, working mainly on the analysis of protective relaying systems. In
1995, he became the Supply-Side Enhancement Engineer with the same utility,
responsible for overseeing supply-side efficiency improvements, investigating
distributed generation technologies, as well as procurement and inquiries re-
garding nonutility generation for Manitoba Hydro. He is an Active Member of
the Winnipeg Chapter IEEE Power Engineering Society.
Ren Bray received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering (1988) from the
University of Manitoba. From 1988 to 1998, he was with Federal Pioneer Ltd.,
now Pauwels Canada Inc. where he was the Manager and Design Engineer
with the Quality Assurance and Test Department. In 1998, he joined Manitoba
Hydro where he is responsible for apparatus procurement, including specifica-
tion, tender evaluation and witness tests.
Robert Menzies (M67SM75) received the B. Eng. degree in electrical engi-
neering from McMaster University and the Ph.D. degree from the University of
St. Andrews. Since 1967, he has been with the University of Manitoba where he
is presently Professor and Head of the Electrical and Computer Engineering De-
partment. He has worked with Westinghouse Canada on large induction motor
optimization, with Brown Boveri, Switzerland on inverter locomotive drives and
the control of static compensators, and with ABB Drives on large GTO inverter
drives. His research interests include the design of electric machines and the ap-
plication of power electronics to power systems.