Eddy current losses and hot-spot evaluation in cover

plates of power transformers

J. Turowski
A.Pelikant

Indexing terms: Transformers, Power losses, Hot spot, Eddy current lossa

Abstract: Heavy current bushings passing

through steel cover plates and housing walls of
power transformers, generators and other large
power equipment are thermally hazardous
elements of construction and a source of
additional power losses. The safety and reliability
of such expensive objects and the safety of power
delivery often depend on the proper design of
these elements. A computer analysis, based on
Maxwell equations and analytical representation
of electromagnetic field has been carried out. The
nonlinear permeability of solid steel was
considered using an analytical approximation.
Eddy current losses have been calculated and
compared using different experimental and
calculation methods. Electromagnetic criteria
were used to forecast possible excessive heating
and hot spots. Various constructional means of Fig.2 Power loss density distribution on surface of' a flat cover plate of
Utransformer (21
loss and hot spot reduction were considered. d> A, ,U = constant, H S r m Overheating limit (see Fig. 6)

Since the first analysis [l], which was later confirmed

1 Method of calculating power losses in steel
plate
Heavy current bushings of power transformers (Figs. 1
and 2) are typical and one of the most hazardous ele-
ments of the structure. Even the local, pointwise
(Fig. 2) field concentration and overheating can
destroy the transformer oil and isolation, and in the
best case, it can actuate the protection system and dis-
connect the object from service.
by Pelz, Jovanic , Kaimierski and others, the physical
merit of phenomena and basic analytical formulae are
still useful in solving contemporary problems.
The basic phenomena are similar to those of induc-
tion heating but there are additional difficulties, for
example highly nonlinear permeability with large dis-
persion depending on material, steep field distribution,
inside wave interference, nonmagnetic inserts, plates of
different thickeness, etc.

u u u
Fig. 1 Field components of magnetic field on suvface oj u Jut cover plute
of a transformer (21 't
area of losses
dependent onplate
thickness

1- I I I
0IEE, 1997 0 50 100 150 200
IEE Proceedings online no 19971352 H
,, Alm( ~ 1 0 ~ )
Paper first received 26th July 1996 and in revised form 26th March 1997
Fi . 3 Influence of thickness d of sheet on the per unit active P, jkd)
The authors are with the Institute of Electrical Machines and Transform- an! reactive Q, (kd) power [2/
ers, Technical University of Lodz ul. Stefiinowskiego 18/22, 90-924 Lodz, Limiting thickness dperm of constructional steel sheet, below which powei-
Poland losses depend on the thickness of sheet ([Z], p. 332)

IEE Pvoc-Elecrr. Power Appl., Vol. 144, No. 6,November 1997 435
 The influence of the thickness d depends to a great p. 389) a greatly increased permissible magnetic field
extent on the magnetic field intensity H,, on the sur- on the steel surface (overheating criterion)
face (Fig. 3) and on the permeability p(H). The TT

stronger HmSover the region 5-1OAicm (lower p) is the

higher the equivalent depth of wave penetration 6 =
( 1 / u p ) d 2 / (ps
~ y), and the lower the eddy current losses
(in W/m2) grow in the steel wall. The method of calcu-
lating eddy current losses in covers, steel walls and
other constructional parts is based on Poynting’s theo-
rem, [I]. Turowski’s formula for active power P in
watts, dissipated in metal wall with the surface A has
the general form ([2], p.193)
(2)
where c = 1.26 m-If2,
At the highly nonuniform field and with a loss distri-
bution like that on the cover surface (Fig. 2), the reduc-
tion coefficient K = 0.5 - 0.7 [2]can be considered as a
safety factor.

p = .?EJ/’, ~lHms(x:,Y)12xdxdY
(1)
where kd =).I or [, respectively, are the screening coef-
ficients at symmetrical, both side field incidence on a
wall (Fig. 4); up = 1.4 linearisation coefficient of
changes p inside solid steel at the fields HmSon a sur-
face larger than 5Aicm ([2],p.71). At weaker fields or
px = const we can take up = 1, o = 2$, y = conductiv-
ity, also a semi-empirical correction coefficient x = 1
for nonmagnetic metals, and x = 1.05 to 1.14 for steel,
depending on the structure of the investigated element,
the structure of the field and type of steel ([2],p.68).
I

I t

Fig. 5 Heating of metal plates in ACfield Hms on its surface

Heat dissipation given permissible temperature t,, [2]

0 2 4 . 6
kd
Fig. 4 Influence of thickness d of sheet on the per unit active PI
and reactive Q (kd) power [2J
Screening coefficients of active and reactive li, power

2 Overheating hazard

From eqn. 1 and the thermal equilibrium equation tperm ,“C

(Fig. 5) P1 = a’@,where: P1 = power losses in W/m2, Fig. 6 Heating of metal plates in ACfield H,, on its surface
Heat dissipation given permissible field Hmsperm on a surface of thick (d > A)
a’ = coefficient of heat dissipation by convection and steel plates
radiation, 0 = t - to temperature t rises with regard to
the ambient temperature to, it follows that the value of
H,, on a metal heating surface is adequate for the solid The formula for a maximum permissible bushing cur-
metal. This value is therefore considered [Z] to be a cri-
terion of local overheating hazard (Fig. 6). If the thick-
ness d < Amet or d < de,, the power losses are
correspondingly reduced by coefficient < 1 (Fig. 4)
and the criteria in Fig. 6 can be much eased. In the
rent I-.,

I,,,, < 24.6 102a * 14

in flat cover (Fig. l ) is ([21, p.391)
r l

1 T)
+ 3.9 (1 + 2.4& -
-
11

transformer covers and walls made of steel, usually d > (3)

Amet, and the ease is mainly due to the stronger satura-
tion of iron (Fig. 3) or a better heat outflow. If we
assume that the power loss distribution in Fig. 2 can be
approximated as an exponential curve P I = Aedrl from
the solution of P I = a’@ equation, we obtain ([2],
436
3 Calculation of losses in transformer cover
plates
Since the strength of magnetic field Hm, on a metal sur-
face (Figs. 5 and 6) is first of all responsible for the
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 144,No. 6, November I997
losses and heating of the metal, its calculation is the
main element of this analysis. Nowadays, there are at
least 15 basic methods for field computation [2]; the
finite element (FEM), finite difference (FDM), bound-
ary element (BEM) and equivalent reluctance network
(RNM) ([4], p.145) methods are the most popular.
Every method has its specific advantages and disadvan-
tages.
While choosing the most convenient method for a
particular task, one has to consider the ability of the
method to satisfy the criteria such as: easy to use with
medium-sized (PC) computers; will yield useful data
with graphic presentation; flexibility can be maintained
with minimum costs in time and effort; the ability to
take into account complicated 3D geometry, three-
phase heating effects, nonlinear permeability etc. The
numerical-analytical method, (NAM) based on the
Biot-Savarth law has proved to be the most appropri-
ate in this case.
1 I
t racy of the calculatioins. The accuracy of results for
I I D
r)--ct-
A
-l
elaborated. Using it, four basic models presented in
Figs. 1, 2, 7 and 8 were analysed
(i) A flat cover with three-phase bushings, without gaps
between holes (Figs. 1 and 2)
(ii) Like (i), but with nonmagnetic metal inserts of
width B between holes (Fig. 7)
(iii) Like (i), but with metal turrets (Fig. 8)
(iv) Like (ii), but with metal turrets (Fig. 8)
The basic dimensions shown in Figs. 7 and 8 can be
changed in the course of interactive analysis and opti-
misation of the geometric structure. Six different covers
(Table 1) of various dimensions, nonmagnetic gaps, dif-
ferent material parameters and bushing currents were
investigated. The calculated results were compared with
the measurement, made by Turowski [l, 21. The analy-
sis has shown (Figs, 9 and 10) the importance of select-
ing a proper semi-empirical correction coefficient x in
the basic eqn. 1. The value of x follows from the ana-
lytical approximation (of magnetisation curves of solid
steels ([2], p.329). This time it was selected as x = 1.04.
The results shown in figs. 9 and 10 confirmed the accu-
covers, from Figs. 7-12 is similar

Fig.7
1I Computation model of'trunsJbrmer cover
/ A

I HI

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Fig.8 Computation model of transformer turrets turret current, A
Fig.9 Comparison of lossa: in cover plute no. I of three-phase trans-
former, (model I, Jut without gups)
After the numerical integration of eqn. 1 with the 0 measurement
help of Simpson's method, with a variable integration A linear calculations
nonlinear calculations
step, the interactive user friendly software package was + nonlinear with correction

Table 1: Comparison of calculated and measured losses in flat covers of three!-phase transformers
Model XL YL A D YB DP CT AP measured AP Lin' AP Nlint
NO. (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (1o6s/m) I (A) (W) (W) (W)
I 1350 650 130 56 180 5 6.8 600 87 98.7 113
800 147 174 172
1000 225 27 1 239
1500 368 610 438
II 1350 650 200 56 180 5 4.8 600 165 145 172
800 260 257 256
1000 372 402 348
1500 639 904 602
111 1500 700 250 70 220 7.5 6.8 1000 246 33 1 32 1
1500 487 745 624

2000 917 1320 1030

2500 1442 2070 1530
* Lin calculated with eqn. 1 at prs = 500 = constant; Nlin calculated using eqn. 1

IEE Proc.-Elecfr. Power Appl., Vol. 144, No. 6, November 1997 431
 rE
'oooi
800

600
ffl
ffl
-0
t2 400
U

200

I I

0 1 I / I / I j I / 1 1
I

600 800 1200 1000

1400 1600
turret current,A
Fig.10 Comparison of losses in cover plate no. 2 of three-phase trans-
former, (model I, flat without gaps)
0 measurement
A linear calculations
nonlinear calculations
1) nonlinear with correction

2801

3,001

240- . . . . . . . .

r2 200-
ffl
-0
L
0
2 160-
U

120--

I
~
. 4
I

The analysis has also shown (Figs. 11 and 12) that

the increase of the distance A between the bushings
increases the cover losses and decreases the losses in the
~
I
i turrets, especially in external ones. On the other hand,
...............i... .....!.. ..............1 ............... i .............. ~
the increase of the diameter of holes significantly
reduces the losses in a flat cover (Fig. 13), but the
increase of the turret diameter increases the losses in
external turrets (Fig. 14). This is evident from the com-
parison of the calculated field H,,, distribution on a
cover surface (Figs. 15 and 16). The application of non-
magnetic gaps between holes filled with nonmagnetic
steel causes part of the main magnetic voltage drop on
I a gap (Figs. 17 and 18). Due to this, the H,$ on the
I
i I steel surface is dramatically reduced, considerably less
j i than without the gap. At the same time the significant
0 ) I , , I I / 1 1 ,
increase of magnetic field intensity H,, on a nonmag-
50 100 150 200 250 300
turret distance A , mm netic metal surface does not cause noteworthy losses
Fig. 12 InJuence of distance A between bushings on power losses because they are proportional to the root of permeabil-
Model IV with turrets, at 800A ity p (see eqn. 1). It is here 1000 or more times smaller
A central turret
E outside turret than on the steel surface (Fig. 1) without a gap.
438 IEE Proc -Electr Power A p p l , Val 144, No 6, November 1997
Fig. 15 Influence of hushing distance A on mugnetic,field distribution on
surface of steel cover
Fig. 16 Influence of hushing distance A on mugnetic,field distribution on
surface of steel cover
Fig. 17 Magnetic field concentrution on nonmagnetic gaps 47"
steel cover
Interesting results of loss calculation in bushing tur-
rets of 360MVA, 500kV transformer, using BEM have
been presented [7]. They are 2.62kW without screens,
2.16kW with A1 screens and 1.86kW with Cu screens.
The order of losses is comparable.
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 144, No 6, November 1997
Fig. 18 Ma netic field concentration on nonmagnetic gaps 84" of
steel cover (&Lent scale)
Turowski's [2] approximate formulae for full cover
losses can provide a quick parametric answer.
io-31~ I
P = m .5.5.
(+ 0.01121)
D
(4)
where m = 1 or d3 for single or three-phase cover,
respectively, ([2], p.331) or
for three-phase and
P E 3 . 5 . 1 0 r 2 I 2E l n g
for one-phase, both with gap B ([2], p.288).
4 Conclusions
A 3D analytically numerical approach based on the
Biot-Savart law and ninmeneal integration (eqn. 1) of
the analytically expressed Poynting's vector is the most
effective engineering tool for the problems considered
in this paper.
The designed programme has delivered a lot of prac-
tical information in the form of numerous families of
graphs. It gives the possibility of carrying out a fast
interactive analysis and optimisation of the structure,
taking into account various parameters, materials,
geometry, excitation currents, iron saturation, skin-
effect and local overheating hazard.
The calculations have been confirmed by many
detailed measurements on practical models as well as
by analytical approximating formulae ([2] p.33 1). Hav-
ing the field Hm,(x, y ) . the distribution (Figs. 15 and
of 16) and graphs in Fig. 6 we can easily find a hot-spot
of excessive temperature on the cover and/or on turrets
surface.
5 Acknowledgments
The work was supported by a state research grant from
KBN (Polish State Committee for Scientific Research)
for which the authors are grateful.
439
6 References 4 PAWLUK, K., SIKORA, R., STOLL, R.L., SYKULSKI, J.,
TUROWSKI, J., and ZAKRZEWSKI, K.: ‘Computational mag-
netics’ (Chapman and Hall, London, 1995), extended translation
1 TUROWSKI, J.: ‘Losses in cover plates of single- and three- from TUROWSKI, J. (Ed.): ‘Ossolineum’ (Wroclaw, 1990), in
phase power transformers’, Rozpr. Elektrotech., 1959, 1, pp. 87- Polish
119 (in Polish)
2 TUROWSKI, J.: ‘Elektrodynamika techniczna’ (WNT,
Warszawa, 1993, 2nd edn.)
3 YANG YUNYOU, CHEN YONGBIN, TANG RENYUAN,
and LI YAN: ‘Application of high precision boundary element
method of 3-D eddy current fields due to leads in transformer’.
Proceedings of Int. Conference on Electromagnetic Field Problems
and Application, ICEF’92, Hangzhou, China, 1&16 October 1992,
paper OB2-2, pp. 97-98

440 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 144, No. 6, November 1997