Interpretation of Sweep Frequency

Response Analysis (SFRA)

Measurement Results

By

Florian Predl
OMICRON Australia
 Interpretation of Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) Measurement
Results
Florian Predl
OMICRON Australia

This paper was presented in Techcon Asia-Pacific 2016.

Abstract
Power transformers are critical components in an electrical power network. Testing,
diagnostics and reliable condition assessment of power transformers becomes increasingly
relevant due to the aging of transformer fleets around the globe.
Transfer function measurements have been used as a diagnostic tool to detect mechanical
failures in power transformers. Geometrical changes in the transformer windings and core
due to mechanical stress can be reflected as a change in the RLC parameters of the
equivalent circuit of the power transformer. Such changes can be detected through the
change in the transfer function.
This paper discusses the measurement principle of sweep frequency response analysis (SFRA)
on power transformers and result interpretation, which is complimented with case studies.

Introduction

Transfer function measurements have extensively been used in the last years as a key
diagnostic tool on power transformers. The transfer function of a power transformer
winding is sensitive to mechanical and electrical influences. This diagnostic measurement is
based on the fact that a geometrical change in the transformer windings and core, as a
result of a mechanical impact is causing a change in the complex RLC network. Therefore, by
measuring the transfer function such changes to the network can be detected. The
measurement is conducted off-line, i.e. the power transformer under test has to be de-
energized and has to be taken out of service, though on-line measurements have also been
explored and studied [1], [2], [3], [4]. To date the suitability of the on-line applicability has
not yet been proven.

The first steps towards frequency response analysis (FRA) on power transformers were
made in Poland in 1966 [5]. The measurement method being utilized was the low voltage
impulse method (LVI). The method had been further refined in Britain and the United States.
The main motivation behind the LVI measurement method was to assist in determining
whether power transformers under short-circuit tests have passed or failed. The LVI method
is also known as the impulse frequency response analysis (IFRA).

Over the years the FRA method has been proven to be a powerful tool for detecting and
diagnosis of the active part of power transformers [6]. The sensitivity of the FRA method
allows to detect geometrical deformations in the windings of power transformers before the
occurrence of a major or even a catastrophic failure.

When talking about FRA it is important to distinguish between IFRA and SFRA (sweep
frequency response analysis).

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
As stated in [7] the sweep frequency method was invented by Dick and Erven of Ontario
Hydro Research Laboratories between 1975 and 1977.
IFRA versus SFRA

Considering that a power transformer corresponds to a linear time-invariant system, its

response can be studied by the means of its transfer function. The transfer function can be
measured in either time domain or frequency domain. This is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1
Response of a linear time-invariant system

The IFRA method has been further developed from the historical LVI. The IFRA method is
performed in time domain. Therefore the power transformer is excited with a broadband
impulse signal which is applied to one end of the winding under test. The response signal is
measured on the other end of the winding. Both signals are filtered with anti-aliasing filters
before they are transformed into frequency domain by the means of FFT. The complex
transfer function results from the quotient between the Fourier transformed output and
input signals, see Figure 2.

Figure 2
Principle operation of IFRA

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
SFRA proceeds by applying a sinusoidal signal of constant amplitude and variable frequency
to one end of the winding under test (U1(f)). The response is measured on the other end of
the winding (U2(f)). The response will vary in amplitude and phase. The transfer function
(H(f)) is a comparison of the applied signal and the response, see principle operation of SFRA
in Figure 3. As the SFRA method measures in frequency domain there is no further signal
processing by the mains of FFT required.

Figure 3
Principle operation of SFRA

As it can be appreciated, the measurement setup consists mainly in a network analyzer and
measurement cables. Given the fact that the cables have also a capacitance, these shall be
grounded. Ideally, braids are used for grounding the shield of the measurement cables. A
braid has a lower inductivity compared to a single wire with the same cross-section.
Furthermore, using single braided wires will reduce the impact of the skin effect on the test
results, especially at very high frequencies.
Usually, a measuring resistance is needed for producing the voltage drop U2(f). The wave
impedance of the measuring cables shall be the same as the resistance of the measurement
input. Figure 4 shows the test setup of the transfer function in frequency domain.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 4
Transfer function measurement in frequency domain on a power transformer

The transfer function of a power transformer is measured according to (1):

H(f) = U2 (f) / U1 (f) (1)

There are a number of possible methods of presenting the results of measurements made
using the sweep frequency response method. The most widespread is to plot a graph of the
amplitude, as measured by the network analyzer, over frequency. Both linear and
logarithmic scales are used [8]. The amplitude is defined by:

k(f) = 20 * log10(U2 (f) / U1 (f)) (2)

The phase, as measured by the network analyzer, is defined by:

(f) = tan-1( U1(f) / U2(f)) (3)

This work will focus on the SFRA method only, since the SFRA method is superior to the IFRA
method. The IFRA method lacks of reproducibility for in-site tests. Another major
disadvantage is its low measurement resolution at very low frequencies.

Type of measurements

The SFRA measurement is typically performed on all accessible windings. The transfer
function of each test can be compared to reference data.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
The core and winding structure of a power transformer can be seen as a complex electrical
network of resistances, self-inductances, ground capacitances, coupling inductances and
series capacitances as schematically shown in Figure 5. The frequency response of such a
network is unique and can therefore be considered as a fingerprint of the power transformer
under test.

Figure 5
Simplified network behavior and equivalent circuit diagram of a transformers active part

For understanding the shape of the SFRA responses it is essential to have a clear idea about
the behavior of the transfer function. The transfer function is dependent on the
measurement resistance (R_m) which is usually 50 and the impedance of the power
transformer under test (Z_transformer):

H(f) = U2 (f) / U1 (f) = R_m / (R_m + Z_transformer) (5)

From an electrical point of view a power transformer is a combination of resistances,

inductances and capacitances. A first approach is necessary for distinguishing between the
effects of the core and the windings in the transfer function. The frequency response of the
iron core is a result of the magnetizing inductance (L_m), the core power losses (R_m) and
the parasitic capacitance coupled with the iron core (C_g1 and C_g2). The response prevails
at very low frequencies. The frequency response of the windings is a result of the cooper
losses (R_1 and R_2), leakage inductances (L_1 and L_2) and other parasitic capacitances
(C_s1, C_s2 and C_12). The response of the windings prevails as the test frequency is being
increased. This is due to the fact that the inductance and parasitic capacitance of the iron
core is much greater than the leakage inductivity and parasitic capacitances of the windings.
In Figure 6 a typical FRA response is described with reference to the parameters of the
equivalent circuit diagram of a power transformer. At low frequencies, typically between
20Hz and 1kHz (frequency ranges are depending on the transformer to be tested) the
magnetizing inductance dominates the response. The first parallel resonance frequency is

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
due to the resonance between the magnetizing inductance of the iron core and the parallel,
respectively parasitic capacitance of the power transformer. It can be seen that for both
phase A and phase C two parallel resonance points take place, whereas for phase B only one
parallel resonance takes place. This is due to the two magnetic paths in the iron core when
the test signal is injected at either phase A or phase C.
At medium frequencies, typically between 1kHz and 10kHz, the parallel capacitance and the
mutual inductances are dominating the response. The mutual inductances are due to the
mutual coupling effect between the high voltage (HV) and low voltage (LV) winding of a
power transformer. Hence, this frequency range is often referred to as the mutual coupling
frequency range.
At high frequencies, typically between 10kHz and 1MHz, the response is dominated by the
winding capacitances and inductances. Any mechanical change within the winding structure
would affect this frequency range. At frequencies of 1MHz and beyond, the effect of the
actual measurement setup will have a great impact the response. Therefore, it is not
standard practice to analyze traces at frequencies beyond 1MHz. The upper frequency limit
for analyzing purposes depends very much on the physical size of the power transformer
and is lower the bigger the transformer. Typically, for a large power transformer (>500MVA,
>400kV) the upper frequency limit is approx. 0.5MHz. For a small distribution transformers
(<5MVA) the upper frequency limit is approx. 4MHz).

Figure 6
Simplified network behavior and equivalent circuit diagram of a transformers active part

There are different types of FRA measurements. In the existing recommended practices [9]
and [10] different types of measurements have been standardized. According to the CIGRE
terminology these measurements can be subdivided into four groups:

End to end open circuit test

End to end short circuit test
Capacitive inter winding test
Inductive inter winding test

The most common type is the end to end open circuit test. This type of test provides
information about both the winding and the core. The end to end short circuit test is
normally performed for on-site measurements in which only problems in the winding
structure have to be identified. Inter winding tests have recently been introduced.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
Capacitive inter winding measurement seem to be a potential type of FRA measurements
due to its higher sensitivity in the detection of radial deformations.

Figure 7 shows the typical response of an end to end open circuit test on a YN connected
power transformer. The source (yellow) and the reference input (red) are connected to one
phase. The response (blue) is measured on the neutral as per the IEC 60076-18 standard
[11].

Figure 7
Typical response of an end to end open circuit test (left) and connection diagram (right)

Figure 8 shows the typical response of an end to end short circuit test on a YN connected
power transformer. A comparison between the response of a end to end open circuit test
and an end to end short circuit test is shown on the left hand side. At low frequencies the
differences between the two measurement methods is caused by the short circuit of the
magnetic core. At higher frequencies the response of both methods line up as the actual
winding structure is dominating the response at high frequencies. The end to end short
circuit test is very sensitive to any change in the leakage channels. Therefore, it is the
preferred method for detecting any axial or radial movements of the windings.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 8
Typical response of an end to end short circuit test (left) and connection diagram (right)

Figure 9 shows the typical response of the capacitive inter winding test. The capacitive inter
winding test has proven to be sensitive for detecting any radial deformations within the
power transformer active part. The test signal is applied to one phase on the high voltage
winding. The response is measured on the low voltage winding which corresponds to the
high voltage winding according to the power transformer vector group.

Figure 9
Typical response of a capacitive inter winding test (left) and connection diagram (right)

Figure 10 shows the typical response of the inductive inter winding test. This is the least
common test method. The measurement is carried out on two adjacent coils in order to
measure the transfer admittance of the power transformer. The test signal is applied to one
end of the high voltage winding. The other end of the high voltage winding has to be
connected to ground in order to allow for a magnetic flux to build up. The response is

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
measured on the corresponding low voltage winding. The other end of the corresponding
low voltage winding has to be grounded as well to be able to pick up the induced voltage.

Figure 10
Typical response of an inductive inter winding test (left) and connection diagram (right)

Interpretation of test results

SFRA is a comparative measurement method. This implies that any sort of reference data
has to be available in order to analyze the test results. This means results of an actual test,
which is usually a certain set of curves, are compared to reference baseline data. Three
methods are commonly used to assess the measured traces:

Time-based comparison
Current SFRA results are compared to previous results on the same power transformer
under test

Type-based comparison
Current SFRA results are compared to another power transformer of the same design
(sister unit)

Phase-based comparison
Current SFRA results of one phase are compared to the results of the other phases of the
same power transformer under test

Considering this fact, the very first question which has to be answered by the test engineer
is the following:

Is reference data available?

A key point for proper diagnostics is the correct documentation of the SFRA measurement in
regards to the way the test has been carried out. SFRA is very sensitive. The actual test

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
setup including the cable alignments, connection techniques, clamps, etc. have an impact on
the test results. Best practice is to take pictures of the test setup and save them together
with the measurement data. This significantly helps to achieve the highest possible degree
of repeatability while reproducing the same arrangement for the measurement. The
available data helps the engineer to get an idea of the expected results which is of vital
importance for avoiding measurement mistakes. Even differences considered to be minor
can have a huge impact on the test results, e.g. tap changer position. According to the
reason of the actual test additional measurements might be recommendable because
different types of SFRA measurements are best-suited for different types of investigations.
A time-based comparison is the easiest way to compare and assess the condition of the
transformer under test. Any change to the fingerprint results of the transformer have to be
further investigated.
If no historical data of the concerning transformer is available, the use of SFRA data from a
sister transformer, if available, can often be used. The approach is of analyzing the data is
generally the same as described for the time-based comparison. However, minor deviations
between curves of sister transformers can normally not be excluded [12].
Without any sort of reference data, neither a fingerprint nor from a sister transformer, it is
common practice to compare the phases of a transformer against each other. For three-
phase transformers it must be noted that the middle phase usually differs from the two
outer phases in the magnetic core region (low frequency range up to a few kHz) as well as in
the higher frequency regions which are related to the winding structure. It must be noted
that sometimes also healthy windings may not correlate well, according to their winding
design. In such cases further investigation, for instance a type-test comparison, is required.
It can be estimated that app. 90% of all SFRA measurements can be evaluated without
fingerprint data of the power transformer under test being available [12].

Figure 11 shows the SFRA traces of a 10MVA, 33kV / 2x1.31kV transformer which has been
investigated. There were no reference data available at the time. Therefore a phase-based
comparison was the only option. On the left hand side the SFRA traces of the high voltage
phases are displayed and on the right hand side the SFRA traces of the low voltage phases
are displayed.

Figure 11

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Phase-based comparison of a 10MVA, 33kV / 2x1.31kV transformer being investigated

It can be seen, that the three phases of the HV winding are matching up quite nicely. In
particular the serial and parallel resonance frequencies are very similar which is an indicaton
that the phases are symmetrical and the winding is healthy. The SFRA traces for the LV
winding show some deviations, especially for phase w-n, in the higher frequency range. This
could actually indicate a problem within the winding structure. However, an actual problem
in the winding structure of the LV winding should also be reflected in the response of the HV
winding in the mutual coupling frequency range. It was decided to measure a sister
transformer to be able to give a more reliable judgement on the test results.
In Figure 12 a comparison of the suspicious phase w-n on the low voltage winding is shown.
The reference trace is from the same phase on a sister transformer (type-based
comparison). The two responses match up very nicely. The transformer was assessed to be
healthy based on the SFRA test results.

Figure 12
Type-based comparison of a 10MVA, 33kV / 2x1.31kV transformer being investigated

Above mentioned example highlights the importance of having proper reference data
available and accessible in order to be able to reliably assess the condition of the power
transformer under test. A phase based comparison can be quite challenging as obvious
differences in between two traces can either be indicating a serious issue within the winding
structure or it can be simply caused by a slight different design between the phases.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
Standards and guidelines

The first valid standard in the world for FRA testing was established in China. The standard,
named DL 911/2004, only refers to SFRA measurements. The standard covers subjects
including the test principle, requirements for testing instruments, testing methods and the
analysis of the results. An example is the measurement for star connected windings, for
which the standard requires the injection of the signal into the neutral terminal and the
measurement of the response at the phase terminal. In two appendices, various test
examples are given The standard evaluates a frequency range between 1kHz and 1MHz and
is unique in that it gives a rule about how to judge test results based on a calculation of
covariance [13].

In 2002 the IEEE established a Task Force concerned with FRA and followed it up with a
Working Group founded in 2004. The scope of this Working Group is the creation of a guide
for the application and interpretation of FRA for oil immersed transformers. As with the
Chinese standard, the IEEE recommends a three lead test system for source, reference and
measurement. This is in accordance with common scientific knowledge and is supported by
all SFRA test instrument manufacturers [10]. The standard, named IEEE Guide for the
Application of Frequency Response Analysis for Oil-Immersed Transformers IEEE Std.
C57.149 was released in 2012.

The CIGRE Study Committee A2 Transformers decided in 2003 to establish a Working

Group on application of FRA on power transformers. This working group A2/26 with the title
Mechanical Condition Assessment of Transformer Winding using Frequency Response
Analysis (FRA) started its work in 2004 and ended with the publication of the CIGRE report
No 342 [9] in April 2008. During this period, besides regular meetings the Working Group
organized two FRA test workshops. During these workshops a large number of practical
investigations were performed. The main results and conclusions from the comparative tests
were as follows:

All test equipment produced essentially the same measured responses of the test
objects over a mid-range of frequencies from about 10kHz to 500kHz. After the
standardization of good cabling practices was agreed by the Working Group members, it
was possible to get perfectly reproducible results at the same test object up to approx.
1.5MHz, even with different test instrument vendors. This is sufficient for a reliable
condition assessment.

The impulse method (IFRA) was unable to reproduce the low frequency response
because of digitizers set to acquire only the higher frequencies.

Some swept frequency methods also did not have sufficient dynamic range to reproduce
the typical 90dB minimum obtained with a 50 measuring impedance [9]

Finally, the Working Group worked out the best practice to take full advantage of the proven
sensitivity of FRA for condition assessment of power transformers. The resulting document
is a valuable source of information and a helpful guide for the practical application of FRA.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
In 2009 the IEC started to establish a Working Group to develop a standard for FRA testing
[11]. The standard, named IEC 60076-18 Power transformers - Part 18: Measurement of
frequency response, was released in July 2012.
The standard addressed important topics such as the measurement method, the frequency
range which has to be covered and the density of measurement points and technical
specifications for the measuring equipment. In Annex A the measurement lead connections
are discussed. Contradict to the Chinese standard, the IEC standard requires the injection of
the test signal into the phase and the measurement of the response at the neutral terminal.

Factors affecting the reproducibility

The SFRA method is a very robust test method which also provides unique information on
the integrity of the active part of the transformer. However, it is important to know that
different effects can have an impact on the reproducibility of the test results [14], [15] and
[16]. Below list summarizes the most common effects affecting the reproducibility:

Connection of non-tested windings

Connection of the open delta winding
Temperature and moisture
Tap position
Bushings (connections, contact resistances, etc.)
Insulation oil condition
Core grounding (whether core is grounded or not)
Tank (whether tank is grounded or not)
Measurement mistakes
Point of injection of the test signal (phase vs. neutral)
FRA instrument
Connection technique
Arrangement of cables
Type of measurement (IFRA vs. SFRA)
Measurement impedance (50 vs. high impedance input)
Measurement cables (wave impedance, etc.)
Electromagnetic interferences
Residual magnetism of the iron core

Due to the effects that these factors may have in the results, it is crucial to document the
measurement setup and conditions as good and complete as possible.

The example in Figure 13 below shows the impact of residual magnetism of the iron core on
the SFRA test results. One can clearly see that a magnetized core will affect the low
frequency range where the magnetizing inductance of the iron core is dominating the
frequency response. The magnetizing inductance of the iron core is heavily influenced by
residual magnetism.
Residual magnetism is causing the main inductivity to decrease. According to Thomsons
formula this will result in a higher resonance frequency:

f_resonance = 1 / 2 * * L * C (6)

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
This shift in the resonance frequency can clearly be seen in case of a magnetized core in
below comparison.

Figure 13
Effect of residual magnetism on the SFRA test results

The effect of the tertiary winding treatment can be seen in Figure 14. The power
transformer which was investigated had an open delta tertiary winding. According to
international standards and the CIGRE guideline the open delta winding has to be closed but
not connected to ground for all SFRA measurements. The medium frequency range which is
dominated by the mutual coupling is affected most in this example. The mutual coupling
between the winding to be tested and the tertiary windings changes depending on the
tertiary winding treatment. Hence, differences in the SFRA response can be expected in the
medium frequency range.
A radial or axial movement of either the HV or LV winding would have a similar impact on the
winding to be tested. Therefore, it is very important to pay particular attention to the
tertiary winding configuration to make sure that a change of the SFRA response in the
mutual coupling frequency range is not misinterpreted.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 14
Effect of tertiary winding treatment

If the power transformer under test has a tap changer for regulating either voltage or phase
shift the tap changer position, the winding was tested at, has to be documented. In Figure
15 the impact of the tap changer position can be seen. The tap changer position can affect
the entire frequency range relevant for the assessment. When adding or removing turns it
will not just affect the copper losses, leakage inductances, parasitic capacitances of the
individual turns, but also the magnetizing inductance and parasitic capacitance coupled with
the iron core. This explains why the response changes over the entire frequency range
rather than just a portion of the range.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 15
Effect of tap changer position

Case studies

Case study #1: Power Transformer 150kV/20kV 30MVA

A power transformer (150kV/20kV 30MVA) was investigated after it tripped on the tank
pressure relay. Additionally, the Buchholz relay was giving an alarm. The first visual on-site
inspection on the bushings, cooling system, OLTC and mechanical structure of the main tank
did not reveal any obvious faults. The DGA result of the oil sample was revealing a high
concentration of carbon-monoxide (CO) of 935ppm. A decomposition of the transformer
paper insulation was suspected. The test results for tan delta and capacitance was not
indicating any severe problem. Interestingly, the winding resistance measurement on phase
B and phase C of the HV winding were aligning quite well. However, it was not possible to
obtain any readings for phase A. It appears that the primary winding has an open circuit. It
was decided to follow-up with an SFRA measurement. There were neither benchmark data
from the same transformer nor a sister transformer available, thus the only option was a
phase-based comparison. In Figure 16 the SFRA response of all three HV phases are shown.
It can be clearly seen that phase A (H0 H1) shows capacitive behavior at low frequencies
rather than inductive behavior. This is a clear indication of an open circuit in the winding.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 16
SFRA response of the HV winding

In Figure 17 the SFRA response of the LV windings can be seen. The response of the LV
winding is confirming the findings of response of the HV winding. Phase A of the LV windings
shows huge differences in the mutual coupling frequency range, indicating a problem at the
HV winding on phase A.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 17
SFRA response of the LV winding

It was decided to open the transformer tank and inspect the active part of the power
transformer. It was found that the lead connecting the main winding to the tap winding was
interrupted (Figure 18), which had caused the capacitive rather than the inductive effect at
low frequencies [17].

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 18
Fault on the lead connecting the main winding to the tap winding

Case study #2: Power Transformer 115kV/34.5kV 30MVA

A power transformer (115kV/34.5kV 30MVA) tripped out on differential protection after one
115kV overhead line was falling on top of the 34.5kV line. The protection tripped first on
phase B, shortly followed by the other two phases. The DGA was indicating a high
concentration of Acetylene (C2H2) of 21ppm, indicating arcing in oil or overheating of the
cellulose material. It was agreed to perform an SFRA measurement to check the integrity of
the active part. A phase-based comparison was to be conducted as there was no fingerprint
or sister unit available at the time. Figure 19 and 20 show the response of the HV winding
and LV winding respectively.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 19
SFRA response of the HV winding

The response of the HV winding is not indicating any severe deviations. All three phases line
up nicely in the mutual coupling frequency range and the winding frequency range.

Figure 20
SFRA response of the LV winding

It can be clearly seen in Figure 20 that phase B shows some significant differences in the
resonance frequencies compared to phase A and phase C. All main resonance frequencies in
the winding frequency range are shifted towards lower frequencies. In the CIGRE report this
behaviors has been classified as buckling effect [9]. Buckling effect can happen due to
Lorenz Force when there are high short-circuit currents involved. There are two types of
winding buckling: forced buckling and free buckling. Free buckling can happen when there is
no mechanical support for the winding, where the mechanically weakest point of the
winding can start to buckle. Forced buckling can happen when there is mechanical support
for the winding. The conductors can bend between the supports all along the circumference.
It was decided to pull-out the active part of the power transformer for further inspection.
A visual inspection of the active part confirmed buckling on phase B (Figure 21). The burn
marks on the cellulose material where caused by the welding machine used to open the lid
of the transformer tank.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 21
Buckling on phase B

Case study #3: Power Transformer 69kV/23kV 33MVA

After a fault event a power transformer (69kV/23kV 33MVA) on a mobile substation was
investigated. A time-based comparison was possible. The power transformer passed all
standard electrical tests such as winding resistance, turns ratio, capacitance and tan delta
measurements.
In Figure 22 a comparison with the fingerprint (red plot) of the HV phase A-B is shown. The
differences at lower frequencies are to due residual magnetism in the iron core. No obvious
deviations can be seen.

In Figure 23 a comparison of the suspected LV phase B is shown. There are obvious

deviations in the high frequency part which is dominated by the parasitic capacitance and
leakage inductance of the winding (red plot). The differences at very low frequencies are due
to residual magnetism which causes a change in the magnetizing inductance.

Based on the SFRA results it was decided to ship the transformer back to the factory for a
closer inspection, despite the fact that all other standard electrical tests did not indicate any
problem. The visual inspection of the active part revealed a mechanical problem of the
secondary lead holder. The lead holder supporting the leads to the tap winding slipped down
which caused a change in the response at high frequencies on the LV winding.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 22
SFRA response of the HV winding phase B

Figure 23
SFRA response of the LV winding phase B

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
 Figure 24
Secondary lead holder slipped down on phase B

Conclusion

The SFRA measurement is a powerful method for detecting and diagnosing defects in the
active part of a power transformer. Reliable information about the mechanical and electrical
condition of the core, windings, internal leads and contacts can be gathered using the
described diagnostic method. No other single test method for the condition assessment of
power transformers can deliver such a diversity of information.
On the other hand, the engineer relying on this method has to be aware of its limitations as
well. The key for a successful application is the reproducibility. Therefore particular attention
would be required on the test setup. A lot of work has been put into the international
standards and the CIGRE guide for SFRA measurements.

Acknowledgements

This work is dedicated to my good friend, who also happens to be my co-worker, Wenyu
Guo. It is his knowledge and passion for sweep frequency response analysis convinced me to
write a paper about it.

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
References

1. T. Leibfried, K. Feser, Off-line- and On-line-Monitoring of Power Transformers using the

Transfer Function Method, Conference Record of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium
on Electrical Insulation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 16-19,1996.

2. R. Wimmer, K. Feser, "Calculation of the transfer function of a power transformer with

online measuring data", APTADM Wroclaw 2004.

3. T. Leibfried, K. Feser, Monitoring of Power Transformers using the Transfer Function

Method, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No. 4, October 1999, pp.1333-
1341.

4. L. Coffeen, J. McBride, D. Cantrelle, Initial Development of EHV Bus Transient Voltage

Measurement: An Addition to On-line Transformer FRA, EPRI Substation Equipment
Diagnostics Conference Orlando, FL March 2008.

5. R.C. Degeneff, "A General Method for Determining Resonances in Transformer

Windings", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 96-2, 1977, pp. 423-
430.

6. Frequency Response Analysis on Winding Deformation of Power Transformers, The

Electric Power Industry Standard of Peoples Republic of China, Std. DL/T911-2004,
ICS27.100, F24, Document No. 15182-2005, June 1st, 2005.

7. S.A. Ryder, Diagnosing Transformer Faults Using Frequency Response Analysis, IEEE
Electrical Insulation Magazine March/April 2003. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.16-22.

8. S. Ryder, S. Tenbohlen, A comparison of the swept frequency and impulse response

methods for making frequency response analysis measurements, Doble Conference,
2003.

9. CIGRE WG A2.26, "Mechanical condition assessment of transformer windings: guidance,

FRA standardization, further improvements", 2008.

10. IEEE C57.149-2012, IEEE Guide for the Application and Interpretation of Frequency
Response Analysis for Oil-Immersed Transformers

11. IEC 60076-18 Edition 1.0 2012-07 Power transformers Part 18: Measurement of
frequency response

12. Alexander Kraetge, Michael Krger, Juan L. Velasquez, Maximilian Heindl, Stefan
Tenbohlen, Experiences with the practical application of Sweep Frequency Response
Analysis (SFRA) on power transformers

13. A. Kraetge, M. Krger, P. Fong, Frequency Response Analysis Status of the worldwide
standardization activities

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
14. N. Abeywickrama, Y.V. Serdyuk, S.M. Gubanski, Effect of Core Magnetization on
Frequency Response Analysis (FRA) of Power Transformers, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008.

15. S. Tenbohlen, R. Wimmer, K. Feser, A. Kraetge, M. Krger, J. Christian, The influence of

grounding and connection technique on the repeatability of FRA-results, Proceedings of
the XVth International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, University of Ljubljana,
Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 27-31, 2007.

16. Frequency Response Analysis on Winding Deformation of Power Transformers, The

Electric Power Industry Standard of Peoples Republic of China, Std. DL/T911-2004,
ICS27.100, F24, Document No. 15182-2005, June 1st, 2005.

17. H.I. Septyani, H. Maryono, A.P. Purnomoadi, U. Sutisna, Sweep Frequency Response
Analysis for Assessing Transformer Condition after an Incident

Biography

Florian Predl (12 November 1986) is currently employed as an Field Application Engineer at
OMICRON Australia. He commenced with OMICRON Austria in 2007 as an application
engineer with special focus on advanced instrument transformer diagnostics within the
Engineering Services team. In 2013 Florian joined the OMICRON team in Australia.

florian.predl@omicronenergy.com

www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com
www.omicronenergy.com | info@omicronenergy.com