An Alternative Measurement Approach to Sweep
Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) for Power
Transformers Fault Diagnosis
Anurag A. Devadiga Nouredine Harid
University of waterloo Khalifa University
Canada UAE
aadevadiga@uwaterloo.ca noureddine.harid@ku.ac.ae
Abstract— Power transformer failures can lead to power
outages and significant financial loss, particularly at high voltage
and medium voltage levels. Frequency response analysis (FRA) is
used to diagnose transformer faults and particularly so for
detecting mechanical displacements in windings and core.
However, such displacements or faults affect significantly the
electrical impedance of the transformer windings and challenges
remain in the correlation of FRA signature and fault type.
Furthermore, other factors such as the adopted measurement
method and practical test setup influence the FRA signature. This
paper investigates FRA responses of small laboratory test
transformers measured using an IEEE standard recommended
method and proposes a new generic test setup having additional
current measurement points and using precision lock-in
amplifiers. The results show the effect of change in the magnitude
of applied voltage levels on FRA signatures.
Keywords— Frequency response analysis, Transformer, FRA
signature, fault diagnosis, measurement.
I. INTRODUCTION
Electric power transformers are subject during their service
life to various operational stresses such as abnormal voltages
arising from transient events (e.g. switching and lightning) or
harmonics, short circuit currents, thermal stress and mechanical
stress due to installation and relocation. Each of these can cause
degradation and/or damage to the transformer core and
windings. Utilities periodically monitor the condition of
transformers to ensure reliable power supply. Currently, there
are a number of transformer monitoring techniques including (i)
dissolved gas analysis, (ii) partial discharge measurements, (iii)
recovery voltage measurement, (iv) dielectric response
measurement and (v) frequency response analysis. None of these
methods can independently detect all kinds of transformer faults.
While frequency response analysis (FRA) is very sensitive to
faults related to mechanical displacement (core and winding
deformation) and shorted/open turns, more work is required to
improve the precision of fault location and identification of fault
type with this technique [1]-[3]. 1 The transformer electrical
model consists of a network with elements of inductance
(mutual and self-inductance), capacitance (series and stray
capacitance) and resistance (windings and dielectric losses) [1]-
[10]. The electrical parameters of the transformer elements
depend on the windings, the core geometry, and their material
properties. Frequency response analysis involves energizing a
This work is supported by the APEC research center, Khalifa University of
Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi.
978-1-7281-3349-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Huw Griffiths Braham Barkat
Khalifa University Khalifa University
UAE UAE
huw.griffiths@ku.ac.ae braham.barkat@ku.ac.ae
selected winding of a transformer with a voltage under specified
conditions of the other windings, e.g. open circuit or short-
circuit. The test voltage is varied over the frequency range 20Hz
to 2MHz [1]-[3]. The applied voltage across the winding is
measured and divided by a voltage signal proportional to the
current in the winding and the ratio of these two voltages is
plotted as function of the test frequency to obtain a signature that
is known as the amplitude FRA. The FRA signature features
resonance peaks and valleys at frequencies according to its
electrical parameters. This signature is affected by changes in
geometrical and material properties that the transformer may
suffer due to the aforementioned operational stresses. Thus, a
comparison of FRA signatures over time or between a healthy
and potentially faulty sister transformer offers an effective
diagnosis tool.
FRA tests depend on the type of applied input voltage; (i)
sweep frequency response analysis (SFRA) and (ii) impulse
frequency response analysis (IFRA) tests [3]. For SFRA, a
sweep of sinusoidal signal is applied at the transformer input
terminal whereas for IFRA the applied voltage is an impulse
signal and an FFT of the measured signals provides the
frequency response. In the present paper the SFRA test is
employed under the following configurations of the secondary
windings (i) open-circuit and (ii) short-circuit configuration.
Such configurations are used to help detect different fault types
[1]-[3]. SFRA tests based on IEEE standard C57.149 are carried
out using a commercial tester (ISA SFRA 5000) [1].
Additionally, separate tests are carried out using a precision
signal generator, a wide-band power amplifier and two DSP
7280 lock-in amplifiers for noise and harmonics rejection. A
generic alternative test circuit with additional current
measurement points is used to obtain the FRA signature to study
the effect of measuring the output signal at either end of the
winding on the FRA signature. In addition, the influence of the
applied voltage magnitude is investigated.
II. FRA MEASUREMENT METHODS
A. Standard IEEE tests
The two main test measurements recommended by the IEEE
standard are the open circuit and short circuit tests as shown in
Figure 1. To implement these standard measurements, the ISA
SFRA 5000 test instrument was used. The ISA SFRA5000 has
an inbuilt signal generator (sine wave, 5Hz – 45 MHz) and two
measurement channels. The test parameters values and ranges and phase measurements using two DSP 7280 lock-in
for the instrument are shown in Table I. amplifiers. The adopted DSP 7280 lock-in amplifier settings are
R1 Y1 B1
shown in Table II. Preliminary tests using different filter settings
for lock-in amplifiers revealed that a filter setting of
I 12dB/octave was sufficient under laboratory conditions to
remove effectively the influence of background noise and
harmonics.
N1
ZOUT
N2
ZM Current probe 1 V3 I
VIN VOUT ZM R1 Y1 B1

VS 50
(V2) V1
Current
R2 Y2 B2 DSP 7280 Lock-in
Short-circuit probe 2
SFRA device amplifier N1
test
Device N2
ZOUT (V4)
Fig.1 Standard FRA test circuit
VS V5 50
TABLE I. ISA SFRA 5000 TEST PARAMETER VALUES AND RANGES

Parameter Value/range R2 Y2 B2
Voltage 20 V peak-to-peak
Channel input impedance 50 Ω
Range Auto-range Fig. 2. Generic test circuit to obtain transformer FRA
50 Hz – 2 MHz, 1000 steps,
Frequency
logarithm scale
TABLE II. SETTINGS FOR DSP 7280 LOCK-IN AMPLIFIER

 Open-circuit measurements Parameter Selection

In the open circuit test the voltage is applied at one phase Voltage 10 V – 280 V peak-to-peak
(e.g. R1) of the primary winding and the input voltage (VIN) is Input coupling Fast
measured at the terminal end of that winding. The response Input Shield Float
voltage (VOUT) is measured at the neutral end of the same Filter Slope 12 dB/octave
winding while all other terminals are floating. VOUT is measured Filter time constant 5 ms
across a measuring impedance ZM=50, and hence this signal Sensitivity 100 nV to 1V
gives a measure of the current flowing out of the neutral-end of AC gain 0 dB to 66 dB
the primary winding. Frequency 50 Hz – 2 MHz, 1000 steps,
logarithm scale
 Short-circuit measurements
Time per step 0.1 s
The short circuit measurement involves application and Signal channel impedance 100 MΩ // 25 pF
measurement of the input voltage at the terminal end of the
transformer primary winding and measurement of response III. FRA MEASUREMENT RESULTS
voltage at the neutral end of the same winding while the SFRA tests were carried out on two similar ‘sister’
terminals of the secondary winding are shorted. transformers. One transformer is deemed a healthy transformer
B. Generic Test Circuit (Transformer I) while the other has been designated as ‘faulty’
due to a previously noted but undiagnosed insulation problem
Figure 2 shows the generic test circuit to obtain the (Transformer II). The specifications for each of the transformers
transformer FRA. The generic circuit involves application of an is shown in Table III.
ac input voltage across one winding using a signal generator and
a power amplifier. The input voltage (V1) along with four output TABLE III. TRANSFORMER NAMEPLATE PARAMETERS
signals were measured: Two signals at the input-end (V2, V3)
measured using a Tektronix TCPA 300 current probe and a low- Parameter Selection
inductive series resistor respectively, and two signals measured Rated Power 10 kVA
at the neutral-end (V4, V5) using similar current probe and Phase Type Three Phase
series resistor. The voltage signals across the windings and non- Frequency 50 Hz
inductive resistors were measured using Rhode and Schwarz Connection Type 1:1, YY
RT-ZD01 100:1 differential probes. The current probes have DC Rated Voltage 400 V
– 100 MHz bandwidth and 2.5 A/V sensitivity. Rated Current 14.4 A
The measured signals were recorded using a digital
oscilloscope simultaneously with frequency-selective amplitude
A. Standard FRA test on transformers I and II
Figures 3 and 4 show the amplitude FRA measured using
standard FRA method for the same winding of transformer I and
transformer II under open circuit and short circuit configurations
respectively according to the test set-up shown in Fig. 1. The
amplitude FRA is obtained by
𝑉𝑂𝑈𝑇
𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (𝑑𝐵) = 20 log ( ) (1)
𝑉𝐼𝑁
with the standard method that recommends the use of the output
signal measured from the ‘neutral-end’. It is believed that the
‘input-end’ signal will also include the effect of the capacitive
current component due to earth leakage capacitance of the
winding. Figure 5 shows the FRA curves measured with these
two test circuits. Clearly, for the small test transformer used
here, the stray capacitance is small and does not influence the
FRA signature.

It can be seen from the figures that the FRA signatures show
some differences at frequencies in the range 80kHz–2MHz
according to the condition. Over this frequency range, the open
circuit FRA is influenced predominantly by the magnetizing
inductance, whereas, for the short circuit FRA, it is the leakage
inductance effect that dominates.
In the low-frequency range and up to about 80 kHz, the FRA
signatures are almost identical apart from a small frequency shift
at the first resonant valley and some amplitude differences at the
second and subsequent valley resonant frequencies. It is not
possible to ascertain clearly whether these differences are due to
the so-designated healthy and faulty conditions of the Fig. 5. FRA plots measured at input-end and neutral-end of R1 winding
transformer or small differences in the materials and/or of transformer I using series resistor, open circuit test condition.
geometry between the two similar transformers.
For the output signal measured at the input-end using a series
resistor, the amplitude FRA is obtained by
𝑉
𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (𝑑𝐵) = 20 log ( 3) (2)
𝑉1

For the output signal measured at the neutral-end using a

series resistor, the amplitude FRA is obtained by
𝑉
𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (𝑑𝐵) = 20 log ( 5) (3)
𝑉1

Table IV shows the percentage difference in frequency and

Fig. 3. ‘Healthy’ and ‘faulty’ transformer FRA comparison using
magnitude at the first, second, and third resonance valley
standard SFRA method by SFRA 5000 under open circuit condition. frequencies of amplitude FRA measured at (i) at the input-end
of the winding and (ii) the neutral-end of the winding using the
generic test circuit method. The results show that there is a small
percentage deviation in frequency at the first resonance valley
frequency while at the second and third resonance valley
frequencies, the percentage deviation of frequency is not
evident.
TABLE IV. PERCENTAGE DEVIATION COMPARISON
Resonance % Deviation
Frequency Frequency Magnitude
First Resonance 4.3 0.5
Second Resonance 1.1 0.4
Third Resonance 0 4.8

Fig. 4. ‘Healthy’ and ‘faulty’ transformer FRA comparison using C. Comparison between the SFRA5000 and the lock-in
standard SFRA method by SFRA 5000 under short circuit condition.
amplifiers results
Figure 6 shows the SFRA plots obtained using (i) the SFRA
B. Comparison between FRA signatures obtained with ‘Input- 5000 device and (ii) the lock-in amplifier. For the output signal
end’ and ‘Neutral-end’ signal measurement measured at the neutral-end using the current probe, the
The generic test circuit shown in Fig. 2 was used to assess amplitude FRA is obtained by
the effect of obtaining a voltage output signal proportional to the 𝑉
current measured at the ‘input-end’ of the winding as compared 𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (𝑑𝐵) = 20 log ( 4) (4)
𝑉1

Fig. 6. SFRA plots obtained with 5000 device and Lock-in amplifier for
healthy transformer I, open circuit condition. Output signal measured at
neutral-end using current probe.
The figure shows that there are some small differences
between 1kHz and 12kHz and also approaching 2MHz. The
results from the SFRA 5000 device yielded some discontinuities
in the SFRA curve and further work is required to investigate
the reasons for this and whether or not the lock-in amplifier
provides a more accurate FRA curve.
D. Effect of variation in test voltage magnitude on SFRA
signature
Figure 7 shows the influence of applied voltage on amplitude
FRA results using the generic circuit measurement method
under open circuit terminal condition. The amplitude FRA is
obtained by using (3). The change in voltage appears to affect
the FRA signature over a low frequency range (50Hz to about
10kHz) and also at the high end of the testing range (1-2MHz).
Specifically at the first resonance valley, the increase of applied
voltage leads to a decrease in resonance frequency and an
increase in resonance magnitude. The results indicate that it may
be very important to control carefully the applied voltage while
testing a transformer over time, as its magnitude has significant
effect on the SFRA signature.
Fig. 7. Influence of applied voltage on FRA response obtained with
lock-in amplifier, open circuit condition. Output signal measured at
neutral-end R2 using series resistor.
IV. CONCLUSION
The FRA characteristics of two small test transformers have
been measured out using the IEEE recommended methods under
short circuit and open circuit configurations and using a
commercial test instrument (ISA SFRA 5000). The same
transformers were also tested using a newly proposed generic
test arrangement and employing specially assembled test
instruments that included a precision signal generator, a wide-
band power amplifier and measuring lock-in amplifiers. Small
differences were evident in the FRA signatures of transformers
I and II but it cannot be concluded definitively that such
differences are due to the suspected defect on one of the
transformers. Small differences in FRA signatures were also
noted between tests carried out on Transformer I using the
standard method and the proposed method. The differences were
manifested in terms of magnitude at the resonant frequencies
and a shift in those frequency peaks. Further work is needed to
determine whether these differences are due to the fact that the
generic test method included stray capacitive current or whether
other effect including the influence of noise and harmonics may
also have influence.
The tests investigating the effect of voltage source
magnitude showed that there is a significant effect on the SFRA
signature evident over both a low frequency range and at high
frequencies. These findings call for the need to explore fully the
reasons for these differences. However, this may point to the
need for very careful control of voltage magnitude for FRA in
testing of actual transformers. This laboratory-based research
work is currently being extended to test larger transformers with
a view to carrying out on-site testing on service transformers in
the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is carried out under APEC research Centre,
Khalifa University. The authors thank Mr. A. Ibrahim for
providing technical support during transformer tests.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Guide for the Application and Interpretation of Frequency
Response Analysis for Oil-Immersed Transformers, IEEE Standard
C57.149™-2012, Dec. 2012.
[2] IEC Standard: Power Transformers - Part 18: Measurement of
Frequency Response, IEC Standard 60076-18, Edition 1.0, Jul. 2012.
[3] CIGRE Report: Mechanical Condition Assessment of Transformer
Windings using Frequency Response Analysis (FRA), CIGRE Working
Group A2.26, 2008.
[4] E. Gomez-Luna, G. Aponte, C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. Pleite, "Current
status and future trends in frequency-response analysis with a transformer
in service," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 28, pp. 1024-1031, Apr.
2013.
[5] D. A. K. Pham, T. M. T. Pham, H. Borsi, and E. Gockenbach, "A new
diagnostic method to support standard frequency response analysis
assessments for diagnostics of transformer winding mechanical failures,"
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 30, pp. 34-41, Mar./Apr. 2014.
[6] E. P. Dick, and C. C. Erven, "Transformer diagnostic testing by frequency
response analysis," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-
97, pp. 2144-2153, Nov./Dec. 1978.
[7] S.A. Ryder, "Diagnosing transformer faults using frequency response
analysis," IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 19, pp. 16-22,
Mar./Apr. 2003.
[8] V. Behjat, A. Vahedi, A. Setayeshmehr, H. Borsi, and E. Gockenbach, "
Sweep frequency response analysis for diagnosis of low level short circuit
faults on the windings of power transformers: An experimental study,"
Electric Power and Energy Systems, vol. 42, pp. 78-90, 2012.
[9] T. Leibfried, and K. Feser, "Monitoring of power transformers using the
transfer function method," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 14, pp.
1333-1341, Oct. 1999.
[10] E. Rahimpour, J. Christian, K. Feser, and H. Mohseni, "Transfer function
method to diagnose axial displacement and radial deformation of
transformer windings," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 18, pp. 493-
505, Apr. 2003.