See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305805453

Malfunction Detection of the Cooling System in Air-Forced Power

Transformers Using Online Thermal Monitoring

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · April 2017

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2016.2597296

CITATIONS READS

20 963

2 authors:

Mohammad Djamali Stefan Tenbohlen

Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG Universität Stuttgart
15 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS    378 PUBLICATIONS   3,688 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart Grids View project

Electromagnetic Compatibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Djamali on 20 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Malfunction Detection of the Cooling System in
Air-Forced Power Transformers Using Online
Thermal Monitoring
Mohammad Djamali, and Stefan Tenbohlen Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—In order to make the best use of the existing
assets, monitoring of power transformers provides the ability to
continuously assess the overload capability of transformers. This
can be more economically advantageous than the extension of the
network by installing a new transformer. During the overloading
periods, the cooling system of a power transformer plays a
decisive role to transfer the heat generated in the windings to the
surrounding ambient. The faulty operation of the cooling system
should be detected by an online monitoring system before the
transformer is overloaded. In this paper, an online algorithm is
presented for malfunction detection of the cooling system based
on the calculation of the standardized error in the calculated
top-oil temperatures. Moreover, for calculation of the top-oil
temperature, a new thermal model is proposed which uses a few
design-dependent variables and considers different heat transfer
modes inside a transformer. For validation of the algorithm, the
measured data during the normal operation of three transformers
are used, two of them experienced failures in a part of their
cooling system. The proposed model and algorithm can be easily
implemented and integrated into monitoring systems due to the
simplicity and good accuracy.
Index Terms—Online monitoring, thermal modelling, malfunc-
tion detection, cooling system, air-forced power transformer
I. I NTRODUCTION
VERLOADING of power transformers can become nec-
O essary with the integration of renewable energy tech-
nologies due to economic reasons or simply to make the best
use of the existing assets. However, without consideration of
technical issues, indirect costs may be imposed and conse-
quently affect the benefit of the operation due to accelerated
aging and damages during overloading [1]. The winding
temperature [2] and the performance of the cooling system
[3], [4] are important limiting factors for loading of power
transformers. If a transformer is overloaded, the temperatures
of the winding and the oil are near or, in some cases, over the
allowable temperatures corresponding to unity relative aging
rate determined by their thermal classes [4], [5]. Hence, for
prevention of the lifetime reduction of a transformer, it should
be ensured that the heat generated in the winding is properly
transferred to the surrounding ambient through the oil inside
and the air outside of the transformer. The transfer of the
heat to the surrounding ambient can be investigated using a
thermal model which determines how much and for how long
Manuscript received; revised
The authors are with the Institute of Power Transmission and High
Voltage Technology (IEH), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart 70569, Germany
(email: mohammad.djamali@ieh.uni-stuttgart.de; stefan.tenbohlen@ieh.uni-
stuttgart.de).
1
a transformer can be overloaded without suffering accelerated
thermal aging [6].
In transformers with air-forced cooling system, due to
the high air velocity, the air-side heat transfer coefficient is
increased; thus, compared to the natural air cooling, a smaller
temperature rise on the air-side will suffice for transferring
an equal quantity of heat [7]. In other words, in the case of
failure of a group of fans, the air-side heat transfer coefficient
decreases which causes an excessive oil temperature rise
and a consecutive reduction of the loading capability of the
transformer. Therefore, without failure detection of fans, the
temperatures of the oil and the winding may exceed the
allowable temperatures under a specific ambient temperature
resulting in lifetime reduction and, in some cases, production
of bubbles and gases in the oil [4]. Hence, the performance
of the cooling fans plays an important role to keep the
temperatures of the oil and the windings under a certain
value. Nonetheless, the failure detection of fans in real-time
operation of power transformers using a monitoring system
is still a challenging subject. The nominal thermal resistance
as a metric of the cooling efficiency has been used in [8] for
failure detection in the cooling system. Moreover, the detection
of changes in design-dependent parameters of a thermal model
during the real-time operation of transformers can also be
useful for fault detection and prognosis [9].
In order to monitor the status of fans in a power transformer,
a thermal model for calculation of the top-oil temperature
should be integrated into the monitoring system fulfilling
several criteria [10]:
• The model should use just a few design-dependent
variables. In other words, the model should be almost
independent of transformers.
• The model should be sufficiently accurate.
• The sensors which deliver the input values to the model
must be able to retrofit to transformers already installed
substations.
In order to describe the dynamic behavior of the temperature
change inside a transformer, different thermal models have
been proposed in the literature; among them, physical models
are the most commonly used and widely accepted models.
The basic principle of the dynamic calculation of the top-oil
temperature using physical models is based on the fact that
the heat generated inside the transformer due to no-load and
load losses is equal to the summation of the stored and the
dissipated heat [11]. This dynamic behavior can be described

with a simple first-order differential equation solved in each
time step. This principle has been used in the IEC [6] and
the IEEE [5] loading guides whose differences are in the
determination of the top-oil rise over ambient temperature at
the considered load and in the determination of the thermal
time constant. Moreover, other thermal models have been
proposed based on the loading guides with linear [12]–[14]
and nonlinear [14]–[17] relationship between heat and power
losses, and with constant [17]–[19] and variable [20], [21]
thermal resistances. Nevertheless, fluid flow occurring in the
windings during transient heating and cooling is an extremely
complicated phenomenon to be described by simple equations
[5]. Therefore, there is always a need to improve the accuracy
of thermal models while keeping them simple so that they can
be used in online thermal monitoring systems.
In this paper, an algorithm for malfunction detection of
the cooling system in air-forced oil-immersed power trans-
formers is presented which is based on the calculation of the
standardized error in the calculated top-oil temperatures. The
main contribution of this paper is to propose an allowable
band for the error in the calculated top-oil temperatures in
order to detect the malfunction of the cooling system. Based
on this band, the alarm signal can be triggered indicating
that a failure has been occurred. The proposed algorithm
can be easily implemented and integrated into monitoring
systems due to its simplicity. In addition, an accurate model
for calculation of the top-oil temperature using different heat
transfer modes inside the transformer is presented in this paper
which is based on the idea proposed by the authors in [22],
[23]. However, the thermal model proposed in this paper uses
another thermal-electrical analogy circuit, completely different
reference temperatures for the oil and air for calculation of the
thermal properties of the oil and air, and completely different
equations for calculation of some thermal resistances leading
to improvement of the model.
The proposed thermal model for calculation of the top-
oil temperature is presented in section II followed by a
description of the algorithm for malfunction detection of
fans in section III. The basic of the nonlinear least-squares
method for parameter estimation is presented in section IV.
The algorithm and the proposed model are validated using
measured data during operation of three power transformers
with Oil-Directed Air-Forced (ODAF), Oil-Forced Air-Forced
(OFAF), and Oil-Natural Air-Forced (ONAF) cooling system
presented in section V. Finally, section VI summarizes the
main achievements of this study.
II. T RANSFORMER T HERMAL M ODELING
Thermal models which are widely used for thermal monitor-
ing of power transformers during their normal operations are
based on the modeling of complex heat transfer phenomena
from top of the tank to the ambient with very simple equations.
However, their accuracy is limited in some cases because they
consider the thermal resistance of a transformer as a constant
value; therefore, there is a need to improve the accuracy of
this model with a more accurate determination of the thermal
resistance. The proposed top-oil temperature model in this
2
paper is based on the IEC 60076-7 top-oil temperature model
[6].
A. Thermal Modeling Concept According to IEC 60076-7
The differential equation corresponding to IEC 60076-7
for calculation of the top-oil temperature in oil-immersed
transformers is as follows:
dθto
K11 · τto · + θto − θa = ∆θto , (1)
dt
where θto is the calculated top-oil temperature (°C), θa is
the ambient temperature (°C), ∆θto is the top-oil temperature
rise over ambient temperature (K) at the considered load, τto
is the oil time constant (hours) at the considered load, and
K11 is the oil time constant correction factor, whose value
changes for different types of cooling system [6]. Moreover,
there are some recommendations in the IEC Loading Guide
[6] for choosing the value of K11 ; however, it can be estimated
based on measurements [24].
The top-oil temperature rise over ambient temperature at
the considered load (∆θto ) and the oil time constant at the
considered load (τto ) are calculated as follows:
∆θto = (P0 + PK · k 2 )x · Rth , (2)
∆θom · Cth
τto = , (3)
P0 + PK · k 2
where P0 is the no-load loss (W), PK is the short-circuit
loss (W) which depends on the temperature [17] and the tap
position [6], k is the load factor of the transformer (%), x is
the oil exponent, Rth is the thermal resistance (K/W), ∆θom
is the average oil temperature rise above ambient temperature
(K) at the considered load, and Cth is the thermal capacitance
(W·s/K).
As it was mentioned earlier, the thermal resistance is
considered as a constant value in the IEC model leading to the
limitation of the accuracy; nevertheless, it is affected by several
factors such as the number of running fans and pumps, the
load, and the ambient temperature. The accurate determination
of the thermal resistance leads to the more accurate calculation
of the top-oil temperature.
B. Determination of the Thermal Resistance
The proposed model in this paper is based on the modeling
of different heat transfer modes inside the transformer. Fig. 1
illustrates the oil flow path inside an OFAF, an ODAF, and
an ONAF transformer. The oil enters the winding at point
A and is heated within the winding, streams upwards due to
natural or forced convection of the oil and leaves the winding
at point B in Fig. 1. The OFAF cooling method is characterized
by the mixing of the oil heated up in the winding and the
oil streaming along the tank wall through the shunt path.
Therefore, the temperature of the oil entering the cooler (at
point C in Fig. 1) is lower than the maximum oil temperature.
Hence, in order to model the top-oil temperature precisely,
the oil mixture should also be considered. It is noteworthy
that due to the direct pumping of the oil into the winding,
the warm and cold oil are not mixed in the OD cooling type
 3

B B‘ Height [m] Dqto

C Dq w Dq BC
C Rair _ nat
Roil _ nat
Fan
B‘ B qw qB qc
R BC Rair _ forced
D Roil_ forced
A C th R radiation qa
Pump
D Ploss x
A Temperature [°C]

Roil _ nat Natural convection of oil R radiation Radiation

Fig. 1. Schematic of the oil flow path (left), and the oil temperature change Roil_ forced Forced convection of oil
(right) inside an OFAF power transformer (solid line), an ODAF power
Rair _ nat Natural convection of air
transformer (dotted line), and an ONAF power transformer (dashed line) [7]. R BC Oil mixture Rair _ forced Forced convection of air
Ploss Total losses C th Thermal capacitance
qa Ambient temperature qw Average Winding Temperature

where point B and point C in Fig. 1 are assumed to be in the

same temperature. Afterwards, the heat is transferred to steel Fig. 2. Thermal-electrical analogy of the proposed top-oil temperature model.
plates of radiators. The steel plates are warmed up and the
absorbed heat is dissipated into the air by radiation, natural
and/or forced convection [7]. of the oil and the air, whose values change with temperature
The thermal-electrical analogy of the heat transfer modes [28].
inside a transformer proposed in this paper is depicted in Fig. 1) Oil-Side Thermal Resistances: Oil-side equations con-
2 in which all of the thermal resistances are temperature- sist of three parts, namely natural oil convection, contribution
dependent. The reference temperature for calculation of the of pumps representing forced convection, in addition to the oil
thermal resistances are affected by the number of running temperature drop due to oil mixture at the top of the tank in
pumps and fans as well as the load factor and the ambient an OFAF transformer.
temperature. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the heat generated The thermal resistance (K/W) corresponding to the natural
in the winding is represented as a current source [25] whose convection of the oil can be written as:
x
value is Ploss [15], [16], [26]. The heat is transferred from the 1
Roil,nat = , (4)
winding at the top height with temperature of θw to the oil with Aoil · αoil
the temperature of θB by either natural convection denoted by where Aoil is the surface of heat transfer (m2 ) of the oil which
Roil nat or forced convection denoted by Roil f orced . If there is a design-dependent parameter, and αoil is the heat transfer
are pumps in operation, the natural convection is negligible, coefficient (W/(m2 ·K)) for natural convection of the oil defined
since the oil flow due to the operation of pumps is significantly as follows [29]:
higher than the oil flow due to the natural convection; and if
λoil (T )
there is no pump in operation, the heat transferred to the oil αoil = · (qoil · (Groil (T ) · P roil (T ))poil ), (5)
soil
by natural convection [27]. In order to take into consideration
the temperature drop between the top of the winding and the λoil (T ) = 0.124 − 1.525 · 10−4 · T, (6)
cooler inlet line BC in Fig. 1 due to the oil mixture in an where λoil is the thermal conductivity (W/(m·K)) of the oil
OFAF transformer, a thermal resistance is considered in the which is a function of the temperature [28], T is the reference
model which is denoted by RBC . Neglecting the heat transfer temperature for calculation of the thermal properties of the oil,
by conduction in the steel plate of the radiator, the heat is soil is the characteristic length of heat transfer on the oil-side
dissipated from steel plate to the surrounding ambient by (m) considered as a design-dependent parameter, qoil and poil
radiation denoted by Rradiation and convection. It should be are empirical factors, Groil and P roil are the Grashof number
noted again that, with the same reason as is stated formerly for and the Prandtl number on the oil-side, respectively. The
the oil-side, either forced convection Rair f orced or natural Grashof and Prandtl numbers are also temperature-dependent
convection Rair nat should be considered on the air-side too. numbers described as follows [29]:
In the same way, if no fan is operative, the thermal resistance νoil (T ) · ρoil (T ) · cpoil (T )
corresponding to the forced convection will be eliminated. P roil (T ) = , (7)
λoil (T )
The heat generated in the windings is dissipated to the
g.βoil · ∆θw
surrounding ambient using two coolants, namely oil in the tank Groil (T ) = s3oil · 2 , (8)
and air outside of the tank. Hence, the governing equations of (νoil (T ))
24.736
·(T +273)−4.163
the oil-side and the air-side in the modeling procedure in this νoil (T ) = (ee − 0.7) · 10−6 , (9)
paper are separated with consideration of their mutual impacts ρoil (T ) = 887 − 0.659 · T, (10)
and interdependencies.
cpoil (T ) = 1960 + 4.005 · T, (11)
It is worthwhile to note that all of the thermal resistances
proposed in this model are dependent on the thermal properties ∆θw = gr · k y , (12)

where νoil is the kinematic viscosity (m2 /s) [28], ρoil is
the fluid density (kg/m3) [28], cpoil is the specific heat
(W·s/(kg·K)) [28], g=9.8 is acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 ),
βoil is the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient (1/K)
whose value is 8.6·10−4 [28], ∆θw is the temperature gradient
between the winding at the middle height and the oil at the top
of the winding (K), gr is the average winding to average oil
temperature gradient [K] at the rated load, and y is the winding
exponent. If the results of the heat run test of the transformer
are available, gr and y are known constants of the model, else
the former can be considered as a design-dependent parameter
and and the later as an empirical factor.
The thermal resistance of the forced convection of the oil
due to the operation of pumps is as follows [29]:
1 black body, respectively.
Roil,f orced = , (13)
Aoil · αoil,f orced
where αoil,f orced is the heat transfer coefficient by forced
convection defined as follows [29]:
λoil (T )
αoil,f orced = · Coil · (Rem n
oil (T ) · P roil (T )), (14)
soil
where Coil , m, and n are empirical factors, and Reoil is the
Reynolds number defined as follows [29]:
Vm,oil · doil
Reoil = , (15)
νoil (T )
where Vm,oil is the average oil velocity assumed to be propor-
tional to the number of running pumps with a proportionality
constant uoil considered as a design-dependent factor, and doil
is the characteristic diameter of the oil duct considered as a
design-dependent factor.
Moreover, the oil temperature drop between the top of the
winding and the cooler inlet (line BC in Fig. 1) which models
the oil mixture at the top of the tank in OFAF transformers
can be considered as a thermal resistance. If the temperature
rise along the parallel path (line DB’ in Fig. 1) is neglected,
the thermal resistance due to the oil mixture (RBC ) can be
calculated as follows:
′
(1 − x ) · (θB − θ ) B′
RBC = , (16)
(P0 + PK · k 2 )x
′
where x is the oil mixture weight considered as an empirical
factor whose value is less than 1 and indicates how the temper-
ature in the cooler inlet is affected by the top-oil temperature
and bottom-oil temperature, θB is the oil temperature at the
top of the winding corresponding to the point B in Fig. 1,
and θB ′ is the temperature of the point B’ in Fig. 1 which is
approximately equal to the bottom oil temperature.
The equivalent thermal resistance in the oil-side correspond-
ing to thermal-electrical analogy shown in Fig. 2 is as follows:
1 thermal expansion coefficient of the air (1/K) [29], ηair is the
Rth−oil = 1 + RBC .
Roil,nat + Roil,f1orced
2) Air-Side Thermal Resistances: The air-side equations
contain three thermal resistances corresponding to radiation,
natural convection, and forced convection due to the operation
of fans. The reference temperature for calculation of the
4
temperature dependent values is the average temperature of
the oil in the cooler and the air outside of the cooler.
According to Stefan-Boltzmann law, the thermal resistance
of the heat radiation is described as follows [29]:
1
Rradiation = , (18)
σ · ε · Arad · θo−a 2 + θa 2 · (θo−a + θa )


where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (W/(m2 ·K4 )), ε
is the degree of blackness, Arad is the effective surface of
radiation (m2 ) considered as a design-dependent factor, and
θo−a is the logarithmic average temperature of the oil and
the air (K). It should be noted that for calculating the heat
transfer coefficient of the radiation, the transformer tank and
the surrounding ambient are considered as a gray body and a
The thermal resistance corresponding to the natural convec-
tion of the air can be written as:
1
Rair,nat = , (19)
Aair · αair
where Aair is the surface of heat transfer (m2 ) of the air
considered as a design-dependent factor, and αair is the heat
transfer coefficient for the natural convection of the air [29]:
λair (T )
αair = · (qair · (Grair (T ) · P rair (T ))pair ) , (20)
sair
λair (T ) = 0.02382 + 6.478 · 10−5 · T, (21)
where λair is the thermal conductivity of the air which is a
function of the temperature (W/(m·K)) [28], T is the reference
temperature for calculation of the thermal properties of the
air, sair is the characteristic length of the heat transfer (m),
qair and pair are empirical factors, Grair and P rair are
the Grashof number and the Prandtl number on the air-side,
respectively described as follows [29]:
g · βair (T ) · (θo−a − θa )
Grair (T ) = s3air · 2 , (22)
(νair (T ))
ηair (T ) · cpair (T )
P rair (T ) = , (23)
λair (T )
βair (T ) = 0.004 − 1.3 · 10−5 · T, (24)
2 −6
νair (T ) = (2.25 · T + 0.10 · T + 13.68) · 10 , (25)
ρair (T ) = 1.094 · 10−5 · T 2 − 0.004 · T + 1.278, (26)
−4 2
cpair (T ) = 4.12 · 10 · T + 0.02 · T + 1006, (27)
ηair (T ) = νair · ρair , (28)
where νair is the kinematic viscosity (m2 /s) of the air [29],
ρair is the fluid density (kg/m3) of the air [29], cpair is the
specific heat (W·s/(kg·K)) of the air [29], βair is the volumetric
(17)
temperature-dependent dynamic viscosity of the air (kg/(m·s)).
The thermal resistance of the forced convection of the air
due to the operation of fans is as follows [29]:
1
Rair,f orced = , (29)
Aair · αair,f orced
 5

where αair,f orced is the heat transfer coefficient by forced TABLE I

convection defined as follows [29]: S UMMARY OF THE EMPIRICAL AND DESIGN - DEPENDENT FACTORS USED
IN THE PROPOSED MODEL
λair (T ) ′
n′
αair,f orced = · Cair · (Rem
air (T ) · P rair (T )), (30) Equation(s) Description
sair
K11 1 oil time constant correction factor
where Cair , m′ , and n′ are empirical factors, and Reair is the x 2, 16 oil exponent
Aoil 4, 13 surface of convection heat transfer on the oil side
Reynolds number defined as follows [29]: soil 5, 8, 14 characteristic length of oil convection
qoil , poil 5 empirical factors of natural oil convection
Vm,air · dair gr , y 12 winding gradient at rated load, winding exponent
Reair = , (31) Coil , m, n 14 empirical factors of forced oil convection
νair (T ) uoil , doil 15 proportionality constant, characteristic diameter of oil ducts
x′ 16 oil mixture weight
where Vm,air is the average air velocity assumed to be pro- Arad 18 effective surface of radiation
Aair 19, 29 surface of convection heat transfer on the air side
portional to the number of running fans with a proportionality sair 20, 22, 30 characteristic length of air convection
qair , pair 20 empirical factors of natural air convection
constant uair considered as a design-dependent factor, and Cair , m′ , n′ 30 empirical factors of forced air convection
dair is the characteristic diameter of the air side considered uair , dair 31 proportionality constant, characteristic diameter of air path

as design-dependent factor.
The equivalent thermal resistance of the air-side can be
expressed as follows:
1
Rth−air = 1 1 1 . (32)
Rair,nat + Rair,f orced + Rradiation
3) Equivalent Thermal Resistance: Finally, the thermal
resistance between the top-oil temperature and the ambient
temperature is as follows:
∆θto
Rth = (Rth−oil + Rth−air ), (33)
∆θto + ∆θw + ∆θBC
where ∆θto is equal to θc − θa in the thermal-electrical
analogy circuit of Fig. 2, ∆θBC is the oil temperature drop
between the top of the winding and the cooler inlet. According
to the thermal-electrical analogy of Fig. 2, (33) indicates
that, if the temperature drop from top of the winding to the
ambient is equal to ∆θw + ∆θBC + ∆θto and the thermal
resistance existing between these two points is equal to
Rth−oil + Rth−air , the thermal resistance existing between
the oil in the cooler inlet with temperature of θc and the
surrounding ambient with temperature of θa is equal to Rth .
If one considers only the Rth−air , without considering the
Rth−oil , the interdependencies between oil-side and air-side
equations, and the effects of the air-side parameters on the
oil-side parameters and winding temperature will not be taken
into consideration. Therefore, with substituting of (33) in (2)
and using (1) and (3), the top-oil temperature is calculated
in each time step. The difference equation corresponding to
equation (1) for the ith measurement is as follows:
Dt 
x 
Dθto (i) = P0 + PK · k 2 · Rth − θto + θa ,
K11 · τto
Dθto (i) = θto (i) − θto (i − 1), (34)
where Dt is the time step between two sequential measure-
ments. It is worthwhile to summarize the parameters and
variables used in (34). The input variables are load factor (k),
ambient temperature (θa ), number of running pumps (affects
Rth ), number of running fans (affects Rth ), and time step
between two measurements (Dt). While, the constants of the
model are PK and P0 , and the output variable is top-oil
temperature in each time step (θto (i)).
Moreover, Table I summarizes the empirical factors and
design-dependent factors which are used in the proposed
model to calculate the thermal resistance (Rth ) and top-oil
temperature (θto ). Since, no design detail of the transformers
are available, the empirical factors and design-dependent fac-
tors should be estimated [6] using the data measured during the
normal operation of transformers. The least-squares method is
used for parameter estimation in this paper, which will be
explained in section IV.
III. P ROPOSED A LGORITHM FOR M ALFUNCTION
D ETECTION OF C OOLING S YSTEM
The proposed algorithm for malfunction detection of the
cooling system in power transformers using online thermal
monitoring is based on determination of the error in the
calculated top-oil temperature. If the top-oil temperature is
calculated accurately, this error will be low during normal
operation of the transformer. If a failure arises, the deviation
of the calculated temperature from the measured temperature
will increase. This deviation should be detected by the online
monitoring system. In this section, the error in the calculated
top-oil temperature is standardized and mapped into the in-
terval of (−2, 2). Thereby, the malfunction of cooling system
can be detected and the alarm signal can be triggered easily.
For online monitoring purposes, the standardized error (SE)
of the calculated temperature is determined as follows [30]:
Tto,j − θto,j
SE i = q ,
−1
σj · 1 + f ′ j (F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 ) · fj
i = 1, ..., m; j = p + 1, ..., m, (35)
where Tto is the measured top-oil temperature, θto is the
calculated top-oil temperature using (1), σ is the standard
deviation of the error, f is the Jacobian vector corresponding
to the measurement in the current step (j), F is the Jacobian
matrix corresponding to all of the previous steps, m is the
number of observations, and p is the number of empirical
or design-dependent parameters in the thermal model. The
−1
inverse of the information matrix (F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 ) as well as
the standard deviation can be calculated recursively for online
purposes as follows [30]:
−1 −1
(F ′ j · Fj ) = (F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 )
−1 −1
(F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 ) fj f ′ j (F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 )
− −1 , (36)
1 + f ′ j (F ′ j−1 · Fj−1 ) fj
 6

is as follows:
σj = σj−1 + (Tto,j − θto,j ) .
2
(37) γ0 + = γ0 − = 0, (39)
+ +
γi = max(0, γi−1 + Zi − 2), (40)
The SE is a normally distributed random variable with zero − −
γi = min(0, γi−1 + Zi + 2), (41)
mean and standard variance SE ∼ N (0, σ 2 ); therefore, the
where γi + and γi − are the cumulative sum of the SE in
plot of the standardized error against time is expected to be
the case of exceeding and falling below the allowable band,
as a random scattering of the points above and below the line
respectively. The alarm signal is triggered if:
SE = 0 being within the band (−2σ, 2σ) corresponding to
the 95% confidence interval [31] which is shown in Fig. 3a. γi + > 2 ∨ γi − < −2. (42)
It has been shown in [32] that if the SE in the calcu- It should be noted that the upper and lower values of the
lated temperature is distributed normally
q with zero mean and band are chosen according to the 95% confidence interval.
2 |SE i |
standard deviation SE ∼ N (0, σ ), σj is very close This formulation leads to an easy automation of the malfunc-
to normal distribution with mean of 0.82218 and deviation tion detection of the cooling system as a part of an online
of 0.34914. Therefore, (38) is distributed normally with zero monitoring system.
mean and unit deviation (Z ∼ N (0, 1)). The flowchart of the proposed method for the monitoring
of the cooling system is illustrated in Fig. 4. Firstly, the
r 
 SE i  top-oil temperature should be calculated. Afterward, the error
 σj  − 0.82218 in the calculated top-oil temperature is calculated followed
Zi = . (38) by standardization leading to a normal distribution with zero
0.34914
mean and standard variance. Thereafter, the distribution of
The acceptable pattern of Z against time is shown in Fig. error is mapped into the normal distribution with zero mean
3b. and unit variance. Finally, the criteria for triggering the alarm
This pattern can be used to detect the significance of the signal are checked.
deviation of each single point from normal distribution with
IV. N ONLINEAR L EAST-S QUARES M ETHOD FOR
zero mean and unit variance. However, exceeding this band
PARAMETER E STIMATION
does not mean a catastrophic failure and the unnecessary
triggering of the alarm should also be avoided. As an example, According to the nonlinear regression theory, n observations
the unnecessary alarm signal may be triggered when external yielded based on measurements using an online monitoring
factors (e.g. sun intensity or wind speed) are not considered in
the thermal model which lead to an slight increase or decrease
in the temperature rise of the oil. Therefore, an appropriate Start
procedure is needed to properly trigger the alarm signal. In this
paper, if the error exceeds the allowable band −2 ≤ Zi ≤ 2 s0 + = s0 - = 0
for a series of consecutive times, the cumulative sum of the i = j = p +1
deviation from the band is calculated. The advantage of using Calculation of the top-oil
cumulative sum is to increase the sensitivity of the method temperature
by combining the evidence of the current standardized error
with that of previous errors. Such a procedure enables us to Calculation of the error between the
measured and the calculated top-oil
consider, not only the values of the last error but also the temperature
value of the last n errors for any n [32]. In the case of a
i=i+1 i=i+1
failure, the cumulative sum starts to increase for the upper (Next Calculation of the SE
(Next
value of the band and to decrease for the lower value of the Measurement) Measurement)
band. The mathematically equivalent scheme of this procedure
SEi
- 0.82218
sj
Zi =
0.34914
SE Z
g i + = max(0, g i+-1 + Z i - 2)
+2σ +2 g i - = min( 0, g i--1 + Z i + 2)

Time Time
g i+ > 2
Alarm=0 No g i - < -2 Yes Alarm=1
-2σ -2
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. The allowable band for standardized error (a) defined by (35); (b) Fig. 4. The flowchart of the proposed method for malfunction detection of
defined by (38). the cooling system.
 7

system (xi , yi ) from a fixed-regressor nonlinear thermal model
with a known functional relationship f (equation (34)) are
considered [33]. Hence:
yi = f (xi , φ∗ ) + εi ,
where xi is the input matrix of the model measured by
the online monitoring system during normal operation of the
transformer, yi is the measured top-oil temperature, the true
value φ∗ of φ which is known to belong to Φ -a subset of real
numbers ℜ- is the vector of the parameters to be estimated
(Table I), and εi is the vector of the error between the cal-
culated and the measured top-oil temperature whose expected
value is zero (E[εi ] = 0). The least-squares estimation of φ∗ ,
denoted by φ̂, minimizes the sum of squares of the error over
φ ∈ Φ as follows [33]:
X n h i2
2 Tr1, August for Tr2, and March for Tr3 are used. It should be
S(φ̂) = yi − f (xi , φ̂) =
y − f (x, φ̂)
.
(44)
2 ing these months. The difference between the parametrization
i=1
Gauss-Newton algorithm uses a Taylor series of f (xi , φ̂)
around the current estimation of the parameters (φ(a) ). Using
this approximation, the minimization problem described in
(44) is converted to a linear least-squares problem as follows
[33]:
 
2 perature which have been measured during normal operation
min
r(a) − F (a) . φ̂ − φ(a)
, (45)
2 of the transformer in July as well as the calculated temperature
where r(a) = y − f (x, φ(a) ) and F (a) is the Jacobian matrix
in the current iteration. Substituting in (44) leads to estimation
of the parameters in the next iteration as follows [33]:
 ′
−1 ′ the end of the month. The same plots are illustrated for Tr2
φ(a+1) = φ(a) + F (a) .F (a) .F (a) .r(a) . (46)
This provides an iterative scheme for estimation of the
parameters based on measured data.
V. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS
In this paper, the proposed thermal model and algorithm are
applied on three transformers; whose characteristics are listed
in Table II. Tr1 and Tr2 experienced failures in a part of their
cooling systems due to failure of the power supply which were
not in accordance with the information supplied by the control
A. Validation of the Proposed Thermal Model
In order to use a thermal model in an online monitoring
system, its performance and accuracy should be firstly vali-
(43) dated.
Regarding the fact that, the failures in the cooling system
occurred in December and January, respectively for Tr1 and
Tr2, the thermal model is parametrized here using data set
measured hourly during normal operation of the transformers
in June and July, respectively. Whereas, Tr3 is parametrized
using the data set measured in February. This procedure
guarantees that the thermal model is able to calculate the
temperature under different operating conditions e.g. winter
and summer.
In order to validate the model in this paper, the measured
data during normal operation of the transformers in July for
noted that, no failure was reported for these transformers dur-
and the validation of the thermal model is that the measured
top-oil temperature is used for parametrization whereas the
calculated top-oil temperature in the previous step is used for
the validation.
Fig. 5 illustrates the load factor, the ambient temperature,
the number of running pumps and fans, and the top-oil tem-
using the proposed model for Tr1. As can be seen from this
figure, the proposed model is able to calculate the top-oil
temperature in different operating situations even when the
ambient temperature and the load factor increase rapidly at
and Tr3 in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. As can be seen from
Fig. 5 to Fig. 7, the model can calculate the top-oil temperature
for ODAF, OFAF, and ONAF transformers with acceptable
accuracy under different operating conditions.
To compare the performance of the model with the con-
ventional models such as IEEE C57.91 clause (cl.) 7 [5]
and IEC 60076-7 model [6], the error duration curve is used
in this paper. This curve is the sorted absolute error in the
90
60
[%]

systems. It is worthwhile to note that, the measured data set 30

0 Load Factor
of three transformers are used for validation of the proposed 40
30 Ambient Temperature
thermal model, but for validation of the proposed algorithm,
[°C]

20
10
the measured data of Tr1 and Tr2 are used. since no failure
Number of Running Pumps Number of Running Fans
was reported for Tr3. 8
[1]

6
4
2
0
TABLE II Measured Top Oil Temperature Calculated Top Oil Temperature
50
C HARACTERISTICS OF THE TRANSFORMERS UNDER STUDY
45
[°C]

Tr1 (Single Phase) Tr2 (Three Phase) Tr3 (Three Phase) 40

35
Cooling System ODAF OFAF ONAF
Power (MVA) 333 600 80 30
Nominal Voltage (kV) 400 400 400
25
No-Load Loss (kW) 47 300 10 01−Jul 07−Jul 13−Jul 19−Jul 25−Jul 31−Jul
Short Circuit Loss at 75°C (kW) 510 1550 80
Total Mass (T) 250 485 184
Mass of Oil (T) 50 89 39
Thermal Capacitance (W·s/K) 199050 372310 117968 Fig. 5. The calculated and the measured top-oil temperature for Tr1 during
Total Number of Fans 8 6 2 the normal operation of the transformer in July.
 8

90 10
Load Factor Tr1
60
[%]

8 IEC 60076−7
30
0 6 IEEE C57 cl. 7
40 Proposed Model
4
30
[°C]

20 2
Ambient Temperature

Sorted Absolute Error (K)

10 0
Tr2
Number of Running Pumps [1] Number of Running Fans [1] 12 IEC 60076−7
8
IEEE C57 cl. 7
[1]

6 8
4 Proposed Model
2 4
0
55 Measured Top Oil Temperature Calculated Top Oil Temperature 0
6
50 Tr3 IEC 60076−7
[°C]

IEEE C57 cl. 7

4
45 Proposed Model
2
40
01−Aug 07−Aug 13−Aug 19−Aug 25−Aug 31−Aug 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (%)

Fig. 6. The calculated and the measured top-oil temperature for Tr2 during
the normal operation of the transformer in August. Fig. 8. Error duration curve of the proposed model, the IEC 60076-7 model,
and the IEEE C57.91. cl.7 for the transformers in Table II.
95
Load Factor
90 depends on the temperature and load whereas in conventional
[%]

85
models, the thermal resistance is a constant value for every
80
Ambient Temperature loading condition and temperature. Therefore, the accuracy
20
and the simplicity of the proposed model ensures that the
[°C]

10
0 model can be used in an online monitoring system.
−10
2
[1]

Number of Running Fans B. Online Malfunction Detection of the Cooling System

0
Through two different scenarios it is shown that the pro-
60 Measured Top Oil Temperature
55
Calculated Top Oil Temperature posed algorithm is able to detect both the failure in fan
[°C]

50
operation and the clearing of the failure.
45
1) Detection of a failure in the fan operation: A failure
40 in fan operation for Tr1 occurred on December 21st at 6:00
01−Mar 07−Mar 13−Mar 19−Mar 25−Mar 31−Mar
when the control system aimed to switch on two additional
fans in order to reduce the oil temperature. However, due to
Fig. 7. The calculated and the measured top-oil temperature for Tr3 during the failure in the power supply of the fans, they did not start to
the normal operation of the transformer in March.
run. The site check revealed later that two out of six fans failed
to operate while the pump related to the failed fans kept in
calculated temperature in Kelvin against the time sorted by operation. This was not in accordance with the data acquired
error in percent representing the mean absolute error and by the monitoring system.
maximum error of prediction introduced in [34]. Fig. 8 depicts Fig. 9 shows the standardized error Zi for Tr1 in December
the error duration curve of the proposed model, the IEC calculated using (38) at each time based on the information
60076-7 model, and the IEEE C57.91 cl.7 for validation of previous time, the number of running fans in the month of
data set measured during normal operation of Tr1 in July, December, and the alarm signal triggered using the proposed
Tr2 in August, and Tr3 in March. Moreover, the accuracy algorithm. As can be seen, before the switching event, Zi is
indices, namely mean absolute error and maximum error of in accordance with the pattern depicted in Fig. 3. Nonetheless,
the temperature calculation are listed in Table III. in some points, Zi does not satisfy the allowable band defined
as −2 ≤ Zi ≤ 2, but according to the criteria prescribed by
As can be seen obviously, the accuracy of the proposed
(42) they are recognized as normal error and hence, the alarm
model is better than the IEC 60076-7 and IEEE C57.91
signal is not triggered for these points.
cl. 7 models for all of the considered cooling systems. In
On the contrary, after failure of the two fans, the calculated
the proposed model, the thermal resistance of a transformer
temperature start to deviate from the measured temperature
indicating that a failure occurred in the cooling system. The
TABLE III standardized error Zi exceeds the maximum allowable value
I NDICES OF ERROR IN THE CALCULATION OF THE TEMPERATURE USING and the criteria prescribed by (42) leads to triggering the alarm
THE IEC 60076-7, THE IEEE C57.91 CL .7, AND THE PROPOSED MODEL signal on December 21st at 9:00. In other words, the failure in
the cooling system is detected three hours (three steps) after
Accuracy Metrics IEC 60076-7 IEEE C57.91 cl.7 Proposed Model
Tr1 Tr2 Tr3 Tr1 Tr2 Tr3 Tr1 Tr2 Tr3
the occurrence.
Mean Absolute Error (K) 3.7 5.8 1.0 3.4 3.5 1.9 1.1 1.4 0.6 Finally, it should be shown that the conventional models
Maximum Error (K) 8.6 13.7 5.3 9.6 10.9 6.3 4.1 6.2 4.3
such as IEC60076-7 and IEEE C57.91 cl.7 model have some
 9

Standardized Error (Zi) Standardized Error (Zi) using IEC 60076−7

6 Alarm Signal Alarm Signal using IEC 60076−7
Standardized Error (Zi) using IEEE C57 cl.7 21−Dec, 6:00
Number of Running Fans
Alarm Signal using IEEE C57 cl.7
21−Dec, 6:00 6 Number of Running Fans
4
08−Dec, 4:00
4
[1]

[1]
2

0
21−Dec, 9:00 0

−2
−2

05−Dec 10−Dec 15−Dec 20−Dec 25−Dec 30−Dec 05−Dec 10−Dec 15−Dec 20−Dec 25−Dec 30−Dec

Fig. 9. Standardized error Zi and alarm signal triggered using the proposed Fig. 10. Standardized error Zi and alarm signal triggered using the proposed
algorithm with the proposed thermal model for Tr1. algorithm with IEC 60076-7 and IEEE C57.91 cl.7 thermal model for Tr1.

limitations for malfunction detection of the cooling system.

The limitation of the conventional models roots back to the
limited accuracy in the calculation of the top-oil temperature.
Fig. 10 illustrates the standardized error Zi calculated accord-
ing to the proposed algorithm in Fig. 4 using IEC 60076-7 and
IEEE C57.91 model for Tr1 in the same operating situation as
Fig. 9. As can be seen, the standardized error lies in allowable
band after December 21st at 6:00 and no alarm signal has been
triggered. Because before failure occurrence, the big deviation
between measured and calculated temperature leads to recog-
nition of the error after failure occurrence as normal error,
and consequently the standardized error is in allowable band.
Moreover, a false alarm signal has been triggered when no
failure has been occurred. With the same reason, IEEE model
has some limitations for malfunction detection of the cooling
system. As can be seen from Fig. 10, the standardized error
lies within the allowable band before December 8th, when the
ambient temperature starts to decrease significantly leading
to a remarkable deviation of the calculated temperature using
IEEE model from the measured temperature and consequently
false triggering of the alarm signal. Therefore, an accurate
thermal model is the necessary part of an online monitoring
system for the cooling system of power transformers.
2) Detection of the failure clearance of fan operation:
Economically, the detection of failure clearance of fan opera-
tion is important because it ensures that the cooling power is
completely available and the load of transformer can be normal
or may exceed the nameplate value again without reducing the
nominal lifetime of the transformer. Therefore, the algorithm
of January to middle of March. Before the switching of the
fans, the standardized error Zi lies in the allowable band
−2 ≤ Zi ≤ 2. However, after the switching of the fans
on January 21st at 14:00, the error in the calculation of the
top-oil temperature increases resulting in the exceeding of the
standardized error Zi from the allowable band indicating that
a failure has been occurred in the fan operation.As can be seen
in Fig. 11, the failure of fans is detected one hour (one step)
after the occurrence.
Moreover, the failure of the power supply was cleared
on February 25th at 10:00 and four out of six fans were
operating. As can be clearly seen, the standardized error Zi
lies again within the allowable band indicating that the failure
has been cleared and the error in the calculation of the top-
oil temperature is again normally distributed. This clearance of
the failure is detected with the proposed algorithm on February
25th at 12:00 or in other words, two hours (two steps) after
the clearance.
21−Jan, 14:00
6
4
25−Feb, 10:00
25−Feb, 12:00
[1]

2
should be able to detect the clearance of the failure. 21−Jan, 15:00
For Tr2 which is an OFAF transformer, the control system
Standardized Error (Zi)
of the fans switched on two additional fans, in order to control 0 Alarm Signal
the temperature under specified loading condition on January Number of Running Fans

21st at 14:00. Nevertheless, due to the failure in energy supply,

−2
which was later revealed by site check, three out of six fans
failed to operate which was not in accordance of the data 14−Jan 24−Jan 03−Feb 13−Feb 23−Feb 05−Mar 15−Mar
provided by the monitoring system.
Fig. 11 illustrates the standardized error Zi , the number of Fig. 11. Standardized error Zi and alarm signal triggered using the proposed
the running fans and the alarm signal for Tr2 from middle algorithm with the proposed thermal model for Tr2.

VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, an algorithm is proposed for malfunction
detection of the cooling system in air-forced power trans-
formers which can be used in an online monitoring system.
The algorithm is based upon the error in the calculation of
the top-oil temperature. If the standardized error exceeds an
allowable band, the alarm signal will be triggered indicating
that a failure has been occurred in the cooling system. In
order to determine the top-oil temperature, a thermal model
is proposed in this paper which uses different heat transfer
modes. The performances of the proposed thermal model and
the proposed algorithm were validated using the data measured
during normal operation of three transformers with AF cooling
system. Two out of three transformers experienced failures
in operation of their fans which could be detected with an
online monitoring system. The results show that the proposed
thermal model can calculate the top-oil temperature more
accurate compared with the IEC 60076-7 and IEEE C57.91
cl.7 loading guides and the proposed algorithm can detect
the occurrence and the clearance of the failure in the cooling
system immediately. Due to the simplicity and the accuracy of
the proposed thermal model and algorithm, they can be used
and integrated in an online thermal monitoring system.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Humayun, M. Degfa, A. Safdarian, and M. Lehtonen, “Utilization
improvement of transformers using demand response,” IEEE Transac-
tions On Power Delivery, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 202–210, Feb 2015.
[2] V. M. Montsinger, “Loading transformers by temperature,” Transactions
of the American Institute of Electrical Engineering, vol. 49, no. 2, pp.
776–790, April 1930.
[3] Z. Radakovic, M. Sorgic, W. Van der Veken, and G. Claessens, “Ratings
of oil power transformer in different cooling modes,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 618–625, April 2012.
[4] IEC 60076-2: Power Transformers- Temperature rise, International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Std., 1993.
[5] IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral- Oil-Immersed Transformers and Step-
Voltage Regulators, IEEE Power & Energy Society Std., 2011.
[6] IEC 60076-7: PowerTransformers- Loading Guide for Oil-Immersed
Power Transfomators, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Std., 2005.
[7] K. Karsai, D. Kerenyi, and L. Kiss, Large Power Transformers. Elsevier,
1987.
[8] S. Tenbohlen, T. Stirl, G. Bastos, J. Baldauf, P. Mayer, M. Stach, B. Bre-
itenbauch, and R. Huber, “Experienced-based evaluation of economic
benefits of on-line monitoring systems for power transformers,” in Cigre
Session, 2002.
[9] W. Zhan, A. E. Goulart, and P. R. Falahi, M., “Development of a low-cost
self-diagnostic module for oil-immerse forced-air cooling transformers,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 129–137,
February 2015.
[10] S. Tenbohlen, T. Stirl, and M. Stach, “Assessment of overload capacity
of power transformers by on-line monitoring systems,” in IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 329–334.
[11] W. H. Cooney, “Predetermination of self-cooled oil-immersed trans-
former temperatures before conditions are constant,” Transactions of
the American Institute of Electrical Engineering, vol. 44, pp. 611–618,
January 1925.
[12] B. C. Leisture, W. H. Hagman, and J. L. Kirtley Jr., “An improved
transformer top oil temperature model for use in an on-line monitoring
and diagnostic system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 12,
no. 1, pp. 249–256, January 1997.
[13] D. Tylavsky, Q. He, J. Si, G. A. Mcculla, and J. R. Hunt, “Transformer
top-oil temperature modeling and simulation,” IEEE Transcations on In-
dustry Applications, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1219–1225, September/ October
2000.
View publication stats
10
[14] R. Vilaithong, S. Tenbohlen, and T. Stirl, “Improved top-oil temperature
model for unsteady-state conditions of power transformers,” in 14th
International Symposium on High Voltage Enginnering, 2005.
[15] G. Swift, T. S. Molinski, R. Bray, and R. Menzis, “A fundamental
approach to transformer thermal modeling. part i: Theory and equivalent
circuit,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 171–
175, April 2001.
[16] G. Swift, T. Molinski, R. Bray, and R. Menzis, “A fundamental approach
to transformer thermal modeling. part ii: Field verification,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 176–180, April
2001.
[17] D. Susa, M. Lehtonen, and H. Nordman, “Dynamic thermal modelling
of power transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 197–204, January 2005.
[18] M. Degfa, R. J. Millar, M. Lehtonen, and O. Hyvoenen, “Dynamic
thermal modeling of mv/lv prefabricated substations,” IEEE transaction
on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 786–793, April 2014.
[19] W. H. Tang, Q. H. Wu, and Z. J. Richardson, “A simplified transformer
thermal model based on thermal-electric analogy,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1112–1119, July 2004.
[20] Z. Radakovic, D. Jacic, J. Lukic, and S. Milosavljevic, “Loading of
transformers in conditions of controlled cooling system,” International
Transactions on electrical Energy Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 203–214,
2014.
[21] Z. Radakovic and K. Feser, “A new method for the calculation of the
hot-spot temperature in power transformers with onan cooling,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1284–1292, October
2003.
[22] M. Djamali and S. Tenbohlen, “A dynamic top oil temperature model for
power transformers with consideration of the tap changer position,” in
The 19th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering (ISH),
2015.
[23] S. Tenbohlen and M. Djamali, “A dynamic top-oil temperature model
for online assessment of overload capability of power transformers,”
in CIGRE SC A2 COLLOQUIUM 2015:” Challenges of the future for
transformers & other substation equipment, September 2015.
[24] D. Susa and H. Nordman, “Iec 600767 loading guide thermal model
constants estimation,” European Transactions On Electrical Power,
vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 946–960, February 2012.
[25] K. R. Shah and D. P. Sekulic, Fundamental of Heat Exchanger Design.
John Wiley & Sons, INC., 2003.
[26] V. M. Montsinger, “Effect of barometric pressure on temperature rise of
self-cooled stationary induction apparatus,” Transactions of the Amer-
ican Institute of Electrical Engineering, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 599–633,
January 1916.
[27] Y. A. Cengel, Heat Transfer: A Practical Approach, ser. Mechanical
engineering. McGraw-Hill, 2003.
[28] R. L. Grubb, H. Hudis, and A. R. Traut, “A transformer thermal duct
study of various insulating fluids,” IEEE Transactions on Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS-100, no. 2, pp. 466–473, February 1981.
[29] VDI, VDI Heat Atlas, 6th ed. Springer, 2006.
[30] R. L. Brown, J. Durbin, and M. Evans, J., “Techniques for testing the
constancy of regression relationships over time,” Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 149–
192, 1975.
[31] J. O. Rawling, S. G. Pantula, and D. A. Dickey, Applied Regression
Analysis: A Research Tool. Springer, 1998.
[32] J. S. Galpin and D. M. Hawkins, “The use of recursive residuals in
checking model fit in linear regression,” The American Statistician,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 94–105, May 1984.
[33] G. A. F. Seber and C. J. Wild, Nonlinear Regression. John Wiley &
Sons, INC., 2003.
[34] D. Tylavsky, Q. He, G. A. Mcculla, and J. R. Hunt, “Sources of error
in substation distribution transformer dynamic thermal modeling,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 178– 185, January
2000.