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

net/publication/335601071

Optimum Shielding Design for Losses and Noise Reduction in Power

Transformers

Conference Paper · October 2019

DOI: 10.23919/ARWtr.2019.8930176

CITATIONS READS

3 738

3 authors, including:

Ali Al-Abadi Ahmed Gamil

HITACHI ENERGY Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg
40 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Al-Abadi on 24 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr) – Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019

Optimum Shielding Design for Losses and

Noise Reduction in Power Transformers
A. Al-Abadi, A. Gamil, and F. Schatzl

Φ
Abstract -- In the current study, intensive measurements
and finite element method (FEM) simulations to optimize the
application of magnetic shunts in power transformers are
performed. The investigation accounts the effective parameters
influencing the magnetic shunts design for the objective of
controlling the leakage flux to reduce the generated losses and
noise in transformers. Eventually, design rules for the tank and
yoke shunts are developed. The developed design tools are
applied on case study transformers with different designs,
ratings and short circuit impedances. Results show significant
reductions in the generated losses and noise during load
operation. The study gives the opportunity to optimize the final
power transformer design with saving in materials, and
therefore the total cost, while the design is still fulfilling the
market requirements for both losses and noise.
Index Terms-- Acoustic noise, Electromagnetic shielding,
Magnetic flux leakage, Magnetic losses, Magnetic materials,
Magnetic shielding, Power transformer.
I. INTRODUCTION
studied. In [11] a transient FEM analysis was used to optimize
the magnetic shunts for minimum eddy current loss and
temperature rise. Application of yoke shunts to control the
leakage flux on a case study transformer was presented by
[12]. Whereas, magnetic shunts for optimal position of the
given shunts’ topology within the entire electromagnetic
system for minimum loss was performed [13]. The material
of the magnetic shunts’ can additionally affect their
functionality of controlling the leakage flux. The use of grain-
oriented electrical steels (GOESs) and non–oriented electrical
steels (NOESs) in magnetic shunts of power transformers
showed the same performance in reducing the stray losses,
temperature, and cost in power transformers [14].
No study on the effect of the shielding on the noise
performance of power transformers has been found yet.
The current study presents a novel investigation and
optimization process on the effective parameters influencing
the magnetic shunts design for the objective of controlling the
stray flux to reduce the generated losses and noise in power

T HE markets requirement on power transformers losses,

noise, weight and size are one of the main drivers for the
manufacturers. However, fulfilling all requirements at a
transformers. Eventually, design rules for optimum tank and
yoke shunts are developed based on measurements and FEM
simulations. The developed design tools are applied on case
reasonable cost is the main challenge amongst competitors. study transformers with different designs, ratings and short
Normally reduction of losses and noise is associated with circuit impedances. Results show significant reductions in
adding materials in the transformer components. This is load losses and noise. Therefore, it is possible to optimize the
normally acting against the weight and size constraints. final power transformer design with saving in materials
Therefore, an optimization design process is crucial to satisfy without resulting in any impact on the losses and noise
all requirements. requirements.
Losses in the power transformer comprise of load and no-
load losses. Load losses usually dominate the total II. MEASUREMENTS
transformer losses. They consist of ohmic and stray losses.
For the experimental investigations, the magnetic flux
Stray losses generated by the stray flux cause part of these
measuring coils are placed on different transformer metal
losses inside the windings and the other part in other metallic
parts. Number of transformers are selected to perform the
parts outside the windings. Stray losses in metallic parts
measurements. Fig. 1 shows one of the case study
(leads, tank, and clamping structure) can be reduced through
transformers of 31.5 MVA nominal rating (SN) and 12.5%
control of the stray flux and the trade-off between different
short circuit impedance (uk).
electromagnetic materials, such as using magnetic shunts [1-
3]. The use of shielding helps to reduce the stray losses and
local hot spots in transformer metal components. Different
structures of magnetic shunts in power transformers are
studied [4], [5]. The effect of placing magnetic shunts on the
tank was proven to reduce the tank losses significantly [6]. In
addition, the horizontal mounted tank magnetic shunts were
proposed to reduce stray losses in power transformers and to
provide an effective cost-cutting method for magnetic
shielding material [7-9]. The magnetic shields were shown to
impact on the losses in different metal parts as well as on the
short circuit impedance [10]. The effect of adding yoke shunts
on the temperature rise in the metal parts was additionally Fig. 1. Case study transformer of 31.5 MVA and 12.5% uk

Ali Al-Abadi, Ahmed Gamil, and Franz Schatzl are with SGB Power
Transformers (SGB-SMIT Group), Ohmstr. 10, 93055, Regensburg,
Germany. (e-mail: ali.al-abadi@sgb-smit.group).

978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf 1

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr) – Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019

The unit in Fig. 1 will be referred in the context as unit A. Flux density in yoke shunts and press beams
The second case study of 77 MVA SN and 27.7% uk will be 1.6
I_N ONAN I_N ONAF plus min
1.4
referred in the context as unit B.
1.2
Fig. 2 shows the measuring coils plan for two transformers
1.0
A and B. Coils placed on the tank shunts are used to measure

B [T]
0.8
the leakage flux towards the tank, whereas coils placed on the
0.6
yoke shunts are used to measure the leakage flux towards the
0.4
clamping structure (press-beams and flitch-plates).
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9 10 11
Shunt no.
(b)
Fig. 3. Measured flux density in tank shunts (a), yoke shunts and press beams
(b) of unit A

For the Unit B the distortion caused by getting closer to

(a) Unit A saturation is not considered because of using multimeters in
measuring the induced voltages in the measurement coils.
The FEM simulations are used to identify the non-linear
factors of the distorted flux within the saturation region as
will be shown later. Results shown in Fig. 4 (b) are corrected
flux densities based on FEM calculated non-linear factors.
Measured Flux density in tank shunts
1.6
1.4 100% I_N 50Hz 75% I_N 50Hz 50% I_N 50Hz
Pos_1 (+) 50Hz Pos_25 (-) 50Hz 100% I_N 60Hz
1.2
1.0
B [T]

(b) Unit B 0.8

Fig. 2. Designed measurement coils for measuring the flux density in tank 0.6
shunts (left) and in yoke shunts and press beams (right) for two case study
transformers (a) Unit A and (b) Unit B. 0.4
0.2

The magnetic flux densities in tank and yoke shunts as per 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
the designed measuring coils at different percentage of the SHUNT NO.
nominal currents IN of 100%, 75% and 50%, tap positions (a)
(nom, plus & min) and frequencies of 50/60 Hz are calculated Measured Flux density in yoke shunts
2.0
from the measured induced voltages in the coils placed on the
1.8
shunts and press beams. 1.6
Measurement results are shown in Fig. 3 for unit A and in 1.4
Fig. 4 for unit B. For unit A, the flux densities calculated from 1.2
B [T]

1.0
the measured induced voltages in the coils placed at the axial 0.8 100% I_N 50Hz 75% I_N 50Hz 50% I_N 50Hz
center of the tank shunts as depicted in Fig. 2 (a) (left), which 0.6
Pos_1 (+) 50Hz Pos_25 (-) 50Hz 100% I_N 60Hz

are numbered 1-19, are shown in Fig. 3 (a), and for the yoke 0.4
shunts and press beams as depicted in Fig. 2 (a) (right) which 0.2
0.0
are numbered 1-11, are shown in Fig. 3 (b). For unit B, the 1 2 3 4
flux densities calculated from the measured induced voltages SHUNT NO.
(b)
in the coils placed at the axial center of the shunts as depicted Fig. 4. Measured flux density in (a) tank shunts and (b) yoke shunts of unit
in Fig. 2 (b) (left) which are numbered 1-12, are shown in Fig. B.
4 (a), and for the yoke shunts as depicted in Fig. 2 (b) (right),
which are numbered 1-4, are shown in Fig. 4 (b). III. FEM SIMULATIONS
Flux density in tank shunts 3-D FEM simulations are performed with ANSYS-
1.8
1.6 I_N ONAN I_N ONAF plus min Maxwell© to first validate the indirect measured fluxes in
1.4 different shunts. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the validation of the
1.2 flux densities calculated with FEM in comparison to the flux
1.0 densities calculated from measured voltages in different tank
B [T]

0.8
shunts of unit A and unit B, respectively. As shown in the
0.6
0.4
figures the deviation between the fluxes are within ±0.1 T.
0.2 Based on that, the confidence on the FEM tools in calculating
0.0 the flux density in the shunts is considered to be high and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 therefore it can be used for further investigations of the
Shunt no.
(a)
effective parameters on the shunts design.

978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf 2

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr) – Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019

Flux density in tank shunts at 100% IN Fig. 8 shows the FEM calculation of the flux in the yoke
1.2
shunts at the same three different loadings 50, 60 and 130%.
Measured FEM
1.0 At 60% IN the bottom yoke shunts begin to saturate. This is
0.8 because the distance from bottom shunts to windings is lower
than that from upper shunts to windings.
B [T]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Shunt no.
Fig. 5. Measured versus FEM calculated flux densities in tank shunts of unit
A.

Flux density in tank shunts at 100% IN

1.4
Measured FEM (a)
1.2
1.0
0.8
B [T]

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Shunt no.
Fig. 6. Measured versus FEM calculated flux densities in tank shunts of unit
B. (b)

The FEM simulations are used to calculate the flux in the

shunts and to indicate the onset of flux saturation as a
constraint option for the shunts design during the overloading
condition.
In order to calculate the flux in the yoke shunts within the
saturation region, FEM simulations at different percentage
loadings (25, 50, 60, 75, 100 and 130%) on unit B are
performed. Fig. 7 shows 3-D FEM flux calculation in the
shunts for three different loadings 50, 60 and 130%. (c)
Fig. 8. FEM calculated flux density in upper (blue) and lower (red) yoke
shunts for different percentage loading (a) 50%, (b) 60% and (c)130% IN of
Unit B

The calculated flux in the yoke shunts at all different

percentage loading is shown in Fig. 9. The flux linear, non-
linear and saturation regions are clearly recognized. The
nonlinear flux within the yoke shunts region is shown to be
from 50-60% IN.
Tank shunts
2.5
Linear Non-linear Saturated
(a) (b) 2.0

1.5
B [T]

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
RATING %
Fig. 9. FEM calculated flux density in yoke shunts at percentage loading of
25, 50, 60, 75, 100 and 130% IN on unit B showing the three important flux
regions linear, non-linear and saturated regions, respectively.

(c)
Fig. 7. 3-D FEM simulation of the flux density in the tank and yoke shunts
After gaining a high confidence level of the FEM
for different percentage loading (a) 50%, (b) 60% and (c)130% IN of Unit B. calculations (meshing fidelity and convenient specified

978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf 3

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr) – Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019

boundary conditions) versus measurements, a mass of FEM

simulations is further used to calculate the stray losses in 1.2
Tank shunts
different metal parts (press-beams, flitch plates and tank
1.0
walls) and to investigate the parameters influencing the
design of tank and yoke shunts. 0.8

B [T]
The flux densities in tank and yoke shunts are found to be
directly related to the short circuit impedance (uk%), Fig. 10. 0.6

The importance of using the impedance is because it has the 0.4

information of the magnetic energy and directly indicates the
leakage flux towards the tank and the clamping structure. 0.2
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
2.0
Tank-shunts cross sectional area [mm2]
(b)
1.5 1.8
Yoke shunts
B [T]

1.0 1.6

Yoke-shunt_bot
1.4
0.5 Yoke-shunt_top

B [T]
Tank-shunt
1.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1.0
uk%
Fig. 10. Short circuit impedance (uk%) versus flux density in the tank and 0.8
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
yoke shunts. m(SN uk%)
(c)
The distances between the winding to the tank and yoke
shunts are important factors, since the distance decides the Fig. 12. Parameters influencing tank shunts (a, b) and yoke shunts (c) design.
leakage flux attracted by the shunts. The distance ratio is
investigated, and the non-linear exponents of the tank and The investigated parameters influencing the design of tank
yoke fluxes are found, Fig. 11. and yoke shunts for losses and noise reduction are formulated
1.8 based on their weighting and exponent factors as follows.
1.6 Yoke-shunt
1.4 Tank-shunt Calculation of tank and yoke shunts cross-sectional areas
1.2 based on their mutual effect,
1.0
B [T]

0.8 = ( , , , , , , [ ], [ ]) (1)
0.6
0.4
0.2
= ( , , , , , , [ ], [ ]) (2)
0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 , cross-sectional area of tank and yoke shunts,
Distance ratio (Tank/yoke)
respectively,
Fig. 11. Tank/yoke to winding distance ratio versus flux densities in tank
and yoke shunts. [ ], [ ] vectors of weighting and exponent factors of
yoke shunts parameters, respectively,
In order to optimize the tank shunts for minimum losses [ ], [ ] vectors of weighting and exponent factors of
while limiting the tank size (compact design), parameters tank shunts parameters, respectively,
influencing the tank shunts design are investigated. These , magnetic flux in tank and yoke shunts,
parameters are: the distance from winding to tank, the cross- respectively,
section area of the tank shunts, rated power and impedance. , distances from winding to tank and yoke
Relations are shown in Fig. 12, respectively. All exponents shunts, respectively.
are found as per relation.
1.05
Tank shunts Based on the optimum calculation of the shunts cross-
1.00 sections (1) & (2), the generated noise in dB is calculated as,

0.95
= 10 + (3)
B [T]

0.90
where ,… are constants of the related parameters.
0.85

The investigated parameters influencing the shunts design

0.80
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 have been first driven by a case study transformer Unit A. The
Winding-Tank distance [mm] developed formulas based on the studied parameters are
(a) applied to a range of transformers with different rated powers

978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf 4

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr) – Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019

and short circuit impedances. With the developed design

formulas, it is possible to optimize the design of the tank and
yoke shunts. The magnetic flux density in each shunt can be
adjusted for the design goal. This gives the designer the
possibility to trade-off between minimum losses design
(efficient) or compact design (economical). Applying the
design formulas on a case study transformer Unit B shows a
significant reduction of the flux density in tank shunts when
adding yoke shunts as compared to flux density in tank shunts
without adding yoke shunts, Fig. 13.

Fig. 14. The effect of adding yoke shunts on stray losses in clamping
structure (press beams and flitch plates) without yoke shunts (lift) and with
yoke shunts (right).

IV. VALIDATION ON CASE STUDY UNITS

Results are applied on a series of case study transformers
to optimize the design of tank and yoke shunts for minimum
losses and noise.
Fig. 13. Flux density in the tank shunts without adding yoke shunts The original design was only with tank shunts. Optimizing
(left) and with adding yoke shunts (right).
the tank shunts and additionally using of optimized yoke
shunts on 5 units with the currently developed rules result in
The eddy current losses in the magnetic shunts are
obvious reduction in the load (short circuit) losses (Psc) Fig.
computed with FEM by the 3-D transient analysis model [14,
15.
15],
4%
( ) ( ) ( )
( )= + + (4)
3%

Assume the magnetic flux density B(t) in each direction of

Psc%

the magnetic shunt as 2%

( )= sin( ) (5) 1%

Substituting (5) in (4) to calculate the average eddy current

0%
loss of the first harmonic term, 1 2 3 4 5
Units
( )= + + 1+ (6) Fig. 15. Percentage reduction in the measured load losses.

where kc is the eddy current loss coefficient. The reduction in the load losses is mainly due to the
reduction of the stray losses (Pstray) Fig. 16.
Equation (6) represents the average eddy current loss in the
first harmonic term. In 3-D calculation, the eddy current
25%
losses in magnetic shunts are obtained by integrating (5) in
the volume of the magnetic shunts. The stray losses in the 20%
structural parts, such as tank and clamping structure are
calculated by applying the surface impedance boundary 15%
Pstray%

conditions [16], which is calculated as,

10%

= ∙ (7) 5%

0%
Ht tangential magnetic field, 1 2 3 4 5
Ht` conjugate of tangential magnetic field, Units
S surfaces of the structural part. Fig. 16. Percentage reduction in the measured stray losses.

FEM result shows a significant effect on the stray losses in Reduction in the measured load noise is proven on the same
the clamping structure when adding yoke shunts, Fig. 14. 5 case study units as shown in Fig. 17.

978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf 5

2019 6th International Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers (ARWtr)
4 Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-101, no. 8, pp. 2995–3000, Aug
3
dB
2
1 large power transformer", IET Generation, Transmission &
0 [12]
1 2 3 4 5
Units
Fig. 17. Reduction in measured load noise (sound level in dB).
V. CONCLUSIONS
Investigation and optimization processes on the effective
parameters influencing the magnetic shunts design to reduce
the generated losses and noise in power transformers are
done. The investigation involves FEM simulations and
validation against measurements to develop design tools. The
developed design tools have proven their reliability in
optimizing the shunts for losses and noise reduction through
the application on case study transformers with different
power ratings and short circuit impedances. The FEM
simulations are successfully used to calculate the flux in the
shunts and to indicate the onset of flux saturation as a
constraint option for the shunts design during the overloading
condition. Using the currently developed design rules,
significant reductions in load losses and noise are achieved.
Therefore, it is possible to optimize the final power
transformer design with saving in materials while fulfilling
losses and noise requirements.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] C. C. Adalja and M.L. Jain, "Analysis of Stray Losses in Power
Transformers by 3-D Magnetic Field Simulation", Fifteenth National
Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008.
[2] K. V. Dave, S. M. Kanani, "Use of FEM for Reduction of Transformer
Stray Loss", International Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology Research (IJSETR), vol.5, issue2, 2016.
[3] C. Hernandez, M. A. Arjona, and J. P. Sturgess, "Optimal placement of
a wall-tank magnetic shunt in a transformer using FE models and a
stochastic-deterministic approach", 12th Biennial IEEE Conference on
Electromagnetic Field Computation, 2006.
[4] C. Yongbin, Y. Junyou, Y. Hainian, and T. Renyuan, "Study on eddy
current losses and shielding measures in large power transformers",
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.30, no.5, pp.3068–3071, 1994.
[5] Z. Song, Y. Wang, S. Mou, Z. Wu, Y. Zhu, B. Xiang, and C. Zhou,
"Tank losses and magnetic shunts in a three-phase power transformer",
Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), International Conference,
Aug 2011.
[6] Y. Wang, Z. Song and J. Chi, "Effect of Magnetic Shunts on the Eddy
Losses of a Transformer Tank", Advanced Materials Research, ISSN:
1662-8985, Vols. 482-484, Trans Tech Pub., Switzerland,2012.
(doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.482- 484.1126).
[7] M. Moghaddami, A. I. Sarwat, and F. de Leon, "Reduction of Stray
Loss in Power Transformers Using Horizontal Magnetic Wall Shunts",
DOI 10.1109/TMAG.2016.2611479, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2016.
[8] M. Djurovic and J. Monson, "3-dimensional computation of the effect
of the horizontal magnetic shunt on transformer leakage fields," IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1137– 1139, 1977.
978-84-09-11168-8 /19 © 2019 Red iNtransf
View publication stats
– Cordoba - Spain, (6)7-9 October 2019
[9] M. Djurovic and J. E. Monson, "Stray losses in the step of a transformer
yoke with a horizontal magnetic shunt, " IEEE Transactions on Power
1982.
[10] M. A. Tsili, A. T. Souflaris, and D. G. Paparigas, "Geometry
Optimization of Magnetic Shunts in Power Transformers Based on a
Particular Hybrid Finite-Element Boundary-Element Model and
Sensitivity Analysis", IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1776–
1779, 2005.
[11] H. Yang and Y. Zhang, "Analysis on the magnetic shunt structure of
Distribution, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 2755-2761, 2018.
(doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.1490)
Leonardo Štrac, "Three-Phase Shunts for Stray Magnetic Field",
Procedia Engineering 202, pp. 183–188, 2017.
[13] J. Smajic, B. Cranganu-Cretu, A. Köstinger, M. Jaindl, W. Renhart, and
C. Magele, "Optimization of Shielding Devices for Eddy-Currents
Using Multiobjective Optimization Methods" IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.
45, no. 3, March 2009.
[14] S. Magdaleno-Adame, T. D. Kefalas, A. Fakhravar and J. C. Olivares-
Galvan, "Comparative Study of Grain Oriented and Non–Oriented
Electrical Steels in Magnetic Shunts of Power Transformers", IEEE
International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing
(ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico.
[15] Lin, D., Zhou, P., Fu, W. N., Badics, Z., Cendes Z. J., "A dynamic core
loss model for soft ferromagnetic and power ferrite materials in
transient finite element analysis". IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 1318–1321, (2004).
[16] Olivares–Galvan, J. C., Magdaleno–Adame, S., Campero–Littlewood,
E., Escarela–Perez, R., Georgilakis, P. S., "Techno–economic
evaluation of reduction of low–voltage bushings diameter in single–
phase distribution transformers", Electric Power Components and
Systems, vol. 39, no. 13, (2011).
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Ali Al-Abadi graduated from the University of Baghdad, Iraq in 1997 for
B.Sc. and in 2000 for M.Sc. He received his Dr.-Ing. degree from Friedrich-
Alexander-University, Erlangen, Germany. From 2010 to 2015 he worked as
research assistant and research associate at the same University. He was
responsible for industrial projects. Ali joined SGB Power Transformers
(SGB-SMIT Group) located in Regensburg, Germany in 2015. Since then,
he has been working as a Senior Expert and Team Leader of R&D Projects.
His main experiences are vibro-acoustics, thermo-fluids, losses and
magnetic-field calculations of power transformers. Ali is an active member
of IEEE, DAGA and ASME, and a participant member in the CIGRE
working groups. He has been publishing, presenting and reviewing many
scientific and technical papers in the international conferences and peer
review journals. Ali is an active contributor in power transformers and wind
energy sectors.
Ahmed Gamil received his B.Sc. degree from Zagazig University, Egypt in
1999 (Electric Machines) and his M.Sc. degree from RWTH Aachen,
Germany in 2004 (High Voltage Technology). Ahmed worked previously in
development of differential protection system and battery technology before
joining SGB. In 2010 he joint SGB with the target of building R&D
department from technology and management point of view. In the last years
as a head of R&D he added contributions in transformer design optimization
through improvements in losses, noise and thermal behavior of power
transformers. His new approach to determine the average oil temperature rise
(G-Approach) was one of the reasons to nominate him in “IEC Call for
Experts” as a member of MT 60076-2 for the revision of IEC 60076-2:2011.
Franz Schatzl graduated from the University of Vienna in the field of
electrical power engineering in 1998. In 1999 he joined Siemens
Transformers Austria (STA) AG as an electrical design engineer. He was
responsible for special applications like low noise transformers and the use
of alternative liquids. From 2007 to 2009 he has overseen the electrical
design department. Since 2010 he is Technical Manager at SGB Regensburg
in Germany in the power transformer division. Franz is also member of IEC
and CIGRE working groups and is author of several papers in different power
transformer subjects.
6