,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0
Dynamic Response of Power Transformer Tanks
C.P. Coutinho; C. Novais; S.M.O. Tavares; M. Pinto; A. Vieira; C.C. Linhares; H. Mendes; R. Castro Lopes
Efacec Power Solutions
Porto, Portugal
en@efacec.com
Abstract—Noise reduction has been imperative in urban and
overall heavily populated areas, aiming to decrease the impact
of undesirable or unwanted sound in the human and wildlife’s
health and wellbeing. In addition, transformers need to be nearer
urban agglomerates, considering the current challenges in power
distribution networks due to increasing power needs and as more
energy is being produced, stored, and distributed closer to the
final consumer. This equipment should not impact significantly
people’s life, and so, lower noise levels are required, ensuring a
quieter performance.
Radiated noise from a power transformer is mainly due to
the induced vibrations in its active part, which are caused by
magnetostriction effects and Maxwell forces in the iron core
(no-load noise), and by Lorentz forces in the windings (load
noise). These vibrations promote a noise spectrum composed
by even harmonics of the power frequency, typically 50 Hz or
60 Hz. The transformer’s enclosure, tank and oil also have an
important impact, positive or negative, on the irradiated noise
to the environment.
This article addresses the vibration and harmonic response
of power transformers tanks, evaluating the effect of non-
conventional geometries on the radiated power level. Additionally,
based on the obtained results, the contribution of several tank
components is quantified, allowing the main irradiated power
sources to be identified.
Index Terms—power transformer, power transformer tank,
FEM, modal analysis, harmonic analysis; dynamic response
I. I NTRODUCTION
Environmental noise exposure can affect human and
wildlife’s health in general, thus being an increasingly more
concerning subject worldwide, [1]. Power networks systems
are associated to relatively low sound level in urban areas,
when compared, for instance, with traffic noise. Power sub-
stations - and power transformers in particular - produce a
continuously radiated audible discrete sound, [2], which can
cause harm through long term exposure. Different solutions
have been developed to mitigate the noise of power transform-
ers, however they often require extra elements, such as sound
barriers or dampers, [3]. Nonetheless, from the reliability
and manufacturability point of view, noise reduction obtained
through adequate design of relevant components will improve
the final solution.
Power transformer noise is generated mainly by the active
part vibration and cooling system. In the active part, vibrations
This work is supported by the project POCI-01-0247-FEDER-024035, with
the acronym Quiet Transformer 2, co-funded by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional
de Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) under the “Portugal 2020”
Programme.
k,(((
are instigated by magnetostriction effects and Maxwell forces
acting in the magnetic core, and by the Lorentz forces in the
windings, [4]–[6].
Other parameters that may influence the perceived noise
level, at a given distance from the transformer, include the oil
mass loading, tank design and reflection/absorption properties
of the surrounding structures. Therefore, the analysis of radi-
ated noise should comprise three major steps, as schematically
described in Fig. 1.
Structural Acoustic Sound Pressure
Vibration Analysis Level
Modal and Harmonic Radiation and dB Experimental
Analysis scale validation
Fig. 1: Major steps in the analysis of a power transformer
noise radiation.
The main contribution of the present study is the analysis
of the influence of tank design in its dynamic response
and radiated noise level. Through numerical simulations, the
structural performance and the sensitivity of the radiated power
level to an assumed harmonic loading are provided for an
innovative tank design. Obtained results are compared with
those of the standard design.
A. Tank Design Optimization and Noise Level Reduction
Traditionally, power transformer components, including the
tank structure, used to be continuously re-designed aiming
mass and cost reduction. Nowadays, a more structured and
complete approach is possible through a design optimization
process, based on the minimization of a multi-objective func-
tion which is subjected to several constraints. The commonly
used optimization objectives include the total weight, the
active part cost, the total owning cost, the material and/or the
manufacturing cost, [7].
From the structural point of view, the power transformer
tank is mainly composed by stiffened panels with diverse
geometries and configurations, having multiple restrictions,
for example, due to positioning of other sub-systems (often
electrical components and cooling systems). A proper design
and optimization of these plates and stiffeners makes possible
to increase the strength and/or stiffness of the panels with
same, or even less, weight, [8].
On the other hand, the acoustic performance of power trans-
formers has acquired rising importance when evaluating the
overall power transformer design. From previous researches,
 ,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0
tank surface velocity pattern, and its sound radiation, are
known to be influenced by the stiffness of the panels, type
of stiffeners, tank shape, and type of insulating fluid, [4].
According to authors, load noise can be magnified by as much
as 8 – 10 dB if a tank resonance exists in the neighborhood
of the dominant frequency of load noise. Novosel et al., [9],
performed eigenfrequency and harmonic response analyses of
a transformer tank. The obtained results allowed the identi-
fication of “weak point” with higher deformations. Based on
that information, by improving the tank stiffness, the sound
pressure (at 100 Hz, 200 Hz and 300 Hz) was reduced up to
8 dB(A).
B. Structural Harmonic Response
The motion of a dynamic system can be typically described
by the following general matrix equation:
[M ] {ü} + [C] {u̇} + [K] {u} = {F } (1)
where [M ], [C] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices; {ü}, {u̇} and {u} are the nodal acceleration, velocity
and displacement vectors; {F } is the applied load vector.
For linear structures undergoing steady-state vibration, si-
nusoidal variation at a given frequency ω, but not necessarily
in phase, is assumed for all loads and displacements:
{F } = ({F1 } + i {F2 }) eiωt
(2)
{F } = ({Fmax cos ψ} + i {Fmax sin ψ}) eiωt
{u} = ({u1 } + i {u2 }) eiωt
(3)
{u} = ({umax cos φ} + i {umax sin φ}) e iωt
where: subscripts 1 and 2 refer respectively to the real and
imaginary
√ components of the force and displacement vectors;
i = −1 is the complex operator; ω = 2πf is the imposed
angular frequency (rad/s); f is the imposed frequency (Hz); t is
time (s); ψ and φ are respectively the force and displacement
phase shift (rad). According to this notation, response lags
the excitation (in a given node) by a phase angle of φ − ψ.
Therefore, the equation of motion (1) can be re-written as:
 
−ω 2 [M ] + iω [C] + [K] {{u1 } + i {u2 }} = {F1 } + i {F2 }
(4)
where the dependence of time, being the same in both sides
of the equation, was removed.
1) Modal Analysis: Power transformer tanks, as every
structure, vibrate more significantly at given natural frequen-
cies. At each one of those values, the structure tends to
assume a characteristic shape of vibration: the mode shape.
If the dynamic loading frequency matches one of the natural
frequencies, an un-damped vibrating structure will acquire the
associated characteristic mode shape, theoretically with some
points undergoing infinite displacement, even for small load
values. This behavior is referred as a resonance.
In real structures, due to several sources of damping, the
resonance response is limited to finite displacements. The pri-
mary mechanisms of damping include: (i) internal damping (of
the material); (ii) structural damping (at joints and interfaces)
and (iii) fluid damping (through fluid-structure interactions).
Given the (un-damped) natural frequency, ωn , and the damping
ratio, ξ, the resonance frequency of damped systems can be
estimated as: ωd = ωn 1 − ξ 2 , [10].
The eigenvalue analysis, also referred as modal analysis, is
the procedure through which the vibration characteristics of a
structure are determined, in terms of natural frequencies ωi and
(mass normalized) modes shapes {Φi }, solving the governing
equation of the un-damped free (harmonic) vibration:
 
−ω 2 [M ] + [K] {Φi } = {0} (5)
which can be derived replacing F1 = F2 = ξ = 0 in (4).
2) Response Analysis based on Mode-Superposition: In
order to more easily solve the governing equation (1), a set of
modal coordinates is defined adopting the modal matrix [Φ] as
the transformation matrix between generalized {u} and modal
{y} coordinates:

n
{u} = [Φ] {y} = {Φi } yi (6)
i=1
In a first step, pre-multiplying (1) by the transpose modal
T
matrix [Φ] and applying coordinate transformation (6), and,
in a second step, considering the orthonormality conditions:
[Φ] [K] [Φ] = Ω2 
T T
[Φ] [M ] [Φ] = I, (7)
and the following relation:
[Φ] [C] [Φ] = α + βΩ2  = 2ξΩ
T
(8)
valid for Rayleigh (α-damping and β-damping) or constant (ξ)
damping, allows to derive a system of n uncoupled differential
equations, each of them being identical to the differential
equation of motion of a single degree of freedom:
ÿj + 2ωj ξj ẏj + ωj2 yj = fj = {Φj } {F }
T
(9)
The advantage of this approach is that, once the com-
putationally expensive eigenvalue analysis is performed, the
dynamic response to transient or steady harmonic excitations
can be more efficiently and inexpensively analysed in modal
coordinates. The geometric displacement {u} is recovered
using (6), which indeed is a superposition of the individual
modal responses yi , and hence the method is called ”mode-
superposition”, [11].
C. Noise radiation
Another concern when designing a transformer has to do
with noise emission or radiation. As previously stated, noise
control is an issue with growing concern. The sound associated
with power substations, particularly power transformers, is a
low frequency, continuous hum. Such a sound may be the
cause of a lot of discomfort, given that low frequency sounds
are more harmful than high frequency ones, according to some
studies [1], [12].
The acoustic power (W ) of a vibrating structure can be
calculated through the resistance of the structure’s irradiation
 ,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0

(R0 ) and the surface vibration velocity (v), as shown in (10), 30 mm as global element size. For the standard and curved
[13], [14]. design models, this mesh configuration created, respectively,
    46165 and 48358 elements, which correspond to 138667 and
2 2
W = R0 × |v| = (ρ0 c0 SW σ) × |v| (10) 144642 nodes. All parts in contact are assumed to be bonded
in the common surfaces. Regarding boundary condition, the
In this equation, ρ0 is the density of the medium, c0 is the tank base is considered simply supported.
speed of sound in the medium, SW is the  irradiating
 surface Therefore, initially, a static analysis provided the pre-stress
2
area, σ is the radiation efficiency and |v| is the space state to the modal analysis, through which the frequency and
average of the time-averaged square vibration velocity, which modes shapes were obtained. Hydrostatic pressure of the oil
can be defined as, [13]: (ρ0 = 880 kg/m3 ) was considered as loading condition.
    Δt Then applying the mode-superposition method, the frequency
2 1 1
|v| = vn2 dt dSW (11) response to uniform harmonic pressure loading was calculated;
SW Sw Δt 0 post processing of those results allows to predict the variation
in radiated power level (LW ) per unitary variation (1 Pa) of the
where Δt defines the considered time interval and vn is
referred excitation, given in function of the pressure loading
vibration velocity normal to the surface.
frequency.
II. C ASE STUDY C. Discussion of results
A. Introduction 1) Pre-stress (static) analysis: When compared with the
Conventional power transformer tanks are designed with a standard design, the results provided by the pre-stress analysis
prismatic shape and straight reinforcements (Fig. 2a). Aiming demonstrate that the tank with curved side panels has higher
to improve the tank current design, different alternative so- strength due to its increased joint flexibility. As expected,
lutions have been explored at Efacec. The development of a the global deformation is governed by the tank stiffeners in
lighter tank with the same or higher capacity to accommodate both cases; indeed, with the innovative design, the maximum
pressure variations was demonstrated previously through an displacement (transversally to the base plate) is reduced by
innovative tank design, [8]. This new design is based on the 3.3%; however, the average value increased 6.4%, due to the
use of curved panels manufactured from shells and curved inherent higher joint flexibility (of the panels interface) in a
(planar) stiffeners, as shown in Fig. 2b, allowing to increase curved design, as demonstrated by Fig. 3.
the wall bending strength with limited impact on total weight,
ensuring that the tank withstands pressure loadings imposed
from the manufacturing stage up to the use of the equipment.

(a) Standard design (b) Curved design

Fig. 3: Deformed shape of the stiffeners in the oXZ plane
(same color scale and amplification factor).

On the other hand, from a local point of view, the total

(b) Curved design deformation of the tank wall, in addition to the stiffeners
(a) Conventional design
deflection, is also governed by the base plate behavior. For the
Fig. 2: Transformer tank geometry. loading and boundary conditions of the presented simulation,
the innovative curved design allowed to reduce in 20.5% and
5.6%, respectively, the maximum and average total deforma-
B. Model Description
tion of the panels base plates.
For this new configuration, a vibration analysis was per-
As just described, introducing a curvature radius in the
formed with the objective to evaluate the tank forced harmonic
side panels allowed not only to achieve higher overall tank
response. This study was performed using the finite element
structural stiffness and local panels joint flexibility, but also
code Ansys Workbench.
a significantly lower deformation of the base plate between
The transformer tank was modeled considering elastic me-
stiffeners. As a result, the average value of the equivalent stress
chanical properties of the steel (E = 210 GPa; ν = 0.28,
state was reduced in 4.5%, 7.6% and 6.1% in the stiffeners,
ρ = 7850 kg/m3 ) for all parts. The models were meshed with
base plates and overall structure, respectively.
quadratic shell elements (referred as SHELL281), imposing
 ,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0

2) Modal analysis: A modal analysis was performed for

both structural solutions, taking into account the pre-stress
state of the oil hydrostatic pressure. The obtained natural
frequencies are plotted, up to 600 Hz, in figure 4. The observed
modal density is similar for both tank structures.

600

500

400
(a) 1st mode shape, f1 =63.1 Hz (b) 2nd mode shape, f2 =71.2 Hz

300

200

100
Standard Design
Curved Design
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Fig. 4: Evolution of the natural frequencies up to 600 Hz.

(c) 3rd mode shape, f3 =92.7 Hz (d) 4 mode shape, f4 =92.8 Hz
th

Additionally, the first 6 mode shapes of the curved design

are shown in Figure 5. Through a detailed mode-by-mode
analysis of the first 20 mode shapes, similar lower order
shapes of vibration were identified in the analysis results of
the standard design. As presented in Table I, there are some
shifts in the mode shapes order for the first 20 modes. Also
depicted in Figure 4, the curved design has significantly less
modes of vibration under 90 Hz (only 2), when compared with
the standard design (which has a total of 14). As expected, (e) 5th mode shape, f5 =95.2 Hz (f) 6th mode shape, f6 =95.3 Hz
in the lower frequency range, these modal results reflect the
higher stiffness of the overall tank structure. Fig. 5: Modes of vibration of the curved tank design.

TABLE I: Analysis of the first 20 mode shapes, including the

identification of some mode shifts. results, for both tank designs, and for different excitation
frequencies: 100 Hz, 200 Hz and 300 Hz.
Curved Design Standard design
Mode Frequency Mode Frequency Despite some conclusions may be taken based on visual
number, i fi [Hz] number, i fi [Hz] observation, representing these results as function of the
radiated power level (Fig. 7, 8 and 9) allows a more objective
Global reso- 1 63.1 2 70.3
nance discussion. The relation between the velocity field and the
1st cover 2 71.2 1 69.7 equivalent radiated power W is given by (10).
resonance A first global analysis of the results, based on Fig. 7, allows
1st lateral 3/4 92.7 / 92.8 5 73.3
panels mode to conclude that the overall (total) radiated power in both,
2nd cover 5 95.2 19 95.7 standard and curved, designs is mainly due to the (side) panels.
resonance Also in both designs, the cover is the main source of radiated
1st front 6 95.3 3 72.9
panels mode power only for excitation frequencies close to 70 Hz, which
2nd front 7 95.3 4 73.0 as previously depicted in Table I, corresponds to the 1st cover
panels mode resonance. In the remaining analysed frequency range, not
Higher-order 8 - 20 95.7 - 107.3 6 - 18 and 20 73.4 - 97.2
modes only the cover but also the stiffeners contribution is small or
even negligible.
It is highlighted that, for example, the 2nd cover resonance
3) Harmonic response analysis: Through the superposition (Fig. 5e), at around 95 Hz, for both designs, is not excited
method applied to the previously obtained modal basis, the by the applied uniform pressure; indeed, the pressure loading,
response to harmonic and unitary (1 Pa) pressure loading was being applied in “opposite” directions in each of the front
simulated, considering frequency excitation up to 350 Hz. In panels does not allow in-phase movement of those panels (this
the context of this research, the velocity response is among is, in the same direction), as required by the shape mode shown
the most interesting outputs. Figure 6 presents some of those in Fig. 5e.
 ,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0

Detailed analysis of the main source, through the results

in Fig. 8b, reveals that the power level of the side panels is
mainly due to the front panels. Indeed, the contribution from
the lateral panels is relevant only in a small bandwidth of
excitation frequencies: 72 Hz - 86 Hz and 128 Hz - 150 Hz,
respectively for the standard and curved designs.
80
(a) Standard design, f = 100 Hz (b) Curved design, f = 100 Hz All Panels
75 Front Panels
Lateral Panels
70

65

60

55

50
(c) Standard design, f = 200 Hz (d) Curved design, f = 200 Hz 45

40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(a) Standard design

80
All Panels
75 Front Panels
Lateral Panels

(e) Standard design, f = 300 Hz (f) Curved design, f = 300 Hz

70

65
Fig. 6: Velocity contour map of the front panels for different
60
excitation frequencies, f (same color scale for both designs).
55

50

45

40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
80 Overall
All Panels
Cover
Stiffeners (b) Curved design
70
Fig. 8: Detailed analysis of the radiated power sources in the
60
side panels.
50
As a complementary analysis of the results, the comparison
40 between both designs, for each radiated power source, is
provided in Fig. 9. Given that the side panels are the dominant
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 source of radiated power, Fig. 9a allows to conclude that
the tank design with curved panels provides increased overall
(a) Standard design stiffness and strength, without a negative impact in the power
80 Overall transformer radiated power level.
All Panels
Cover

70
Stiffeners III. C ONCLUSION
The presented research provided a detailed analysis regard-
60
ing the vibration response of a curved tank design and com-
50
pared the results with those of the equivalent standard design
solution. The simulation was performed in three sequential
40 steps.
The first was a pre-stress (static) analysis, whose results
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 demonstrated that the innovative design allows to achieve
higher strength due to its increased joint flexibility. Although
(b) Curved design the maximum displacement of the stiffeners is reduced only
Fig. 7: Global analysis of the radiated power sources in the by 3.3%, the maximum and average total deformation of the
transformer tank. base plates were reduced in 20.5% and 5.6%, respectively.
The average stiffeners displacement is 6.4% higher, due
to the increased local flexibility of the panels joints. The
 ,(((WK3RZHU,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG0HDVXUHPHQW0HHWLQJ (3,0

85
Standard Design
transformer tank. Additionally, the front panels contribution
80
Curved Design
was also observed to be significantly higher than that of the
lateral panels, except in specific small bandwidths of excitation
75
frequencies: 72 Hz - 86 Hz and 128 Hz - 150 Hz, respectively
70 for the standard and curved designs.
In addition to the side panels, secondary sources of radiated
65
power include the tank cover and the stiffeners. Indeed, the
60
cover becomes a relevant source only for excitation frequen-
cies close to 70 Hz, which corresponds, in both designs, to its
55
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1st resonance. In the remaining analysed frequency range, not
only the cover but also the stiffeners contribution are small or
(a) All panels even negligible.
80
Standard Design
Curved Design Additional numerical simulations of the vibroacoustic re-
70 sponse, including for example: the oil mass loading, detailed
acoustic power excitation, as well as the inclusion of the active
60
part, may be necessary to more realistically reproduce the
operating conditions of a power transformer. Nevertheless,
50
the present research allowed to conclude that the curved
40
tank design is a better solution from several points of view;
when compared with the standard design, it provides increased
30 overall stiffness and strength, without impacting people’s life
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
with increased noise pollution.
(b) Stiffeners R EFERENCES
80
Standard Design
Curved Design
[1] L. Goines, L. Hagler et al., “Noise pollution: a modern plague,” Southern
70
Medical Journal-Birmingham Alabama, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 287–294,
2007.
[2] E. Csanyi, “Problems with audible substation noise and what you can
60 do about it,” EEP - Electrical Engineering Portal, 2017.
[3] I. StdC57.136, Guide for Sound Level Abatement & Determination for
50 Liquid-Inmersed Power Transformers and Shunt Reactors Over 500kVA,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Std., 2000.
[4] R. S. Girgis, M. Bernesjo, and J. Anger, “Comprehensive analysis of
40
load noise of power transformers,” in Power & Energy Society General
Meeting, 2009. PES’09. IEEE. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–7.
30 [5] M. Ertl and H. Landes, “Vibroacoustics and sound emission character-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
istics of thin-walled, oil-immersed transformer vessels,” in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Acoustics NAG/DAGA 2009, Mar.
(c) Tank cover 2009.
[6] M. Beltle and S. Tenbohlen, “Vibration analysis of power transformers,”
Fig. 9: Comparison between the standard and curved designs, in 18th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, ISH2013,
for each radiated power source. 2013.
[7] H. Mehta and R. M. Patel, “A review on transformer design optimization
and performance analysis using artificial intelligence techniques,” Inter-
national Journal of Science and Research, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 726–728,
research results showed that this also has a positive impact 2014.
in the structural strength of the curved tank design. Indeed, [8] H. F. G. Mendes, C. J. P. Coutinho, S. M. O. Tavares, L. M. R. Félix,
and A. N. Martins de Matos, “Advanced modeling and experimental
the average value of the equivalent stress state was reduced in validation of an optimized power transformer tank,” in Proceedings of
4.5%, 7.6% and 6.1% in the stiffeners, base plates and overall the ASME 2018 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
structure. Exposition, IMECE2018, Nov. 2018.
[9] J. Novosel, B. Bošnjak, F. Kelemen, K. C. Bikić, H. Pregartner, and
J. Case, “Influence of the power transformer tank design on the sound
The second step consisted in a modal analysis up to 600 Hz, level,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 202, pp. 280–287, 2017.
whose results predict similar modal density for both design [10] L. F. Braña, H. M. Campelo, and X. M. López-Fernández, “Quiet trans-
options. The innovative tank geometry has significantly less formers: Design issues,” Advanced Research Workshop on Transformers
(ARWtr), 2013.
modes of vibration under 90 Hz (only 2), when compared with [11] D. Ewins, Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and Application, 2nd ed.
the standard design (which has a total of 14). These expected Research Studies Press Ltd., 2000.
modal results, in the lower frequency range, reflect the higher [12] H. Leventhall, “Low frequency noise and annoyance,” Noise & Health,
vol. 6, no. 23, p. 59, 2004.
stiffness of the overall tank structure. [13] M. Kozupa and K. Kolber, “Radiation efficiency as a crucial parameter
in transformer noise evaluation,” in Forum Acusticum, 2014.
Lastly, the third step predicted the tank radiated power, up [14] T. A. Fiorentin, L. F. Lopes, O. M. da Silva Junior, and A. Lenzi,
to 350 Hz. Results of these response analyses showed that “Vibroacoustic models of air-core reactors,” International Journal of
the main source of radiated power are the side panels of Acoustics and Vibration, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 453–461, 2016.