Leakage Reactance - Paper

Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement On Transformers - Signi...
Page 1 of 24
Proceedings of the 1994 International Conference of Doble Clients - Sec 6-5
Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement

On Transformers - Significance and Application
Part I
Mark F. Lachman
Doble Engineering Company
* Part II of this paper will address transformers with winding configurations other than delta and wye.
Introduction
The process of energy transfer in a transformer is always associated with losses. These losses occur
due to the following imperfections in the transformer:
· Windings have resistance
· There is magnetic flux leakage
· An exciting current is required to produce the magnetic flux
· There are hysteresis and eddy-current losses in the core
· There are losses in the dielectric circuit
Transformer analyses are often performed using the equivalent circuits. Figure 1 shows a circuit that
for most practical purposes is equivalent to a two-winding transformer. To simplify the discussion a
turns ratio of 1:1 is assumed.
Contact Doble Engineering to request a printed copy of this image.
Equivalent Circuit For Two-Winding Transformer

FIGURE 1
The elements in Figure 1 represent the following:
RP-dc and RS-dc account for the dc resistance in the primary and secondary windings,
RL accounts for eddy-current losses caused by the leakage flux in conductors of both windings, and
surrounding structural parts (tank, clamps, and core),
X accounts for the voltage drop due to the leakage flux,
gc provides a path for the in-phase component of the exciting current and accounts for the hysteresis
and eddy-current losses in the core,
bm provides a path for the quadrature component of the exciting current. This component is
responsible for magnetizing the core.
It is convenient to show RL and X on the secondary side since the appreciable leakage flux is present
only when the transformer is loaded.
file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement On Transformers - Signi... Page 2 of 24
For the dielectric loss analysis the insulation is usually represented by the combination of a resistor
and capacitor, where the resistor represents the ability of insulation to dissipate electrical energy and
the capacitor - the ability to store it. At power system frequency these losses are usually ignored and
not shown in the equivalent circuit.
Although from the energy transfer point of view the elements of the equivalent circuit represent
transformer imperfections, they become very useful when measured for the purposes of the
transformer diagnostics.
Each of these parameters may be sensitive to various problems in the transformer; however everyone
of them has its own "claim to fame" - the specific type of the problems to which they are the most
sensitive to. For the dc winding resistance it is the continuity of conductors and the condition of
terminations. The measurement of the leakage reactance can reveal shifting of the windings, open
circuit or shorted turns1,2,16,20,21,23. The transformer capacitance (interwinding or winding-to-
ground) is sensitive to the changes in geometry of the internal components1,2,16,24. The measurement
of the exciting current can be very useful in locating problems such as defects in the magnetic core
structure, continuity of conductors, failures in the turn-to-turn insulation3, or problems in the tap
changing devices4,5. The dielectric losses or power factor measurement is a good indication of the
level of contamination in the insulation28.
The range of the diagnostic techniques used in the field is not limited to the measurement of the
elements in the equivalent circuit in Figure 1. Dissolved gas in oil analysis25, various tests on the
oil26,27, turns ratio and infrared28 have proved to be very effective. Acoustical and partial discharge
measurements have been used with various degrees of success7,20,29.
This paper will concentrate on the measurement of the leakage reactance, which is often referred to as
the short circuit impedance test. Part I of this paper deals only with delta and wye configurations.
Transformers with other configurations (for example, delta-zig/zag, wye-zig/zag, etc.) will be covered
in Part II.
Significance Of Leakage Reactance
The great majority of the text books treat the magnetic leakage flux phenomenon by separating the
leakage flux into two components: flux due to the current in the primary winding, that does not link
the secondary winding, and flux due to the current in the secondary winding that does not link the
primary winding. This leads to the introduction of two leakage reactances caused by the two flux
components. In the real power transformer, the actual magnetic flux distribution is rather complex
and does not easily submit itself to the "two leakage flux components" approach.
With no load applied the exciting current in the energized winding creates a magnetizing flux which
is almost entirely confined to the core. With the load present the secondary current creates a flux
which tends to oppose the magnetizing flux. The primary current increases, and the net flux in the
core is sufficient to balance the applied primary voltage. At the same time the combined action of
both currents results in some of the flux being present in the unit permeability space (Figure 2). The
unit permeability space (air/oil) includes the space between the windings, within the windings and
between the windings and the tank (or tank shield). The flux which is not confined to the core for
the entire length of its path can be defined as the leakage flux.
As Figure 2 shows, some of the leakage flux links (encircles) only some of the primary turns (line a),
another portion links all of the primary turns (line b), some of the flux links only some of the
secondary turns and all of the primary turns (line c), and some of the flux links only the secondary
turns (line d). It is clear that the separation of leakage flux components becomes a very challenging
exercise6. It can also be observed that the primary winding is linked by almost all of the leakage flux

in addition to the magnetizing flux, while the secondary winding is linked by the magnetizing flux,
but very little of the leakage flux. It would seem that the primary winding must have a greater voltage
induced in each of its turns under load than the secondary winding. This is, in fact, the case and we
can account for this voltage drop by introducing a leakage reactance.
Magnetic Leakage Flux Distribution Under Load

FIGURE 2
The magnetizing flux in an iron-core transformer is confined to the core. Due to the magnetic
nonlinearity of the iron, this flux is not directly proportional to the current producing it. The leakage
flux, however, is in air (oil) for a considerable portion of the length of its path. Hence the reluctance
of the iron portion of the leakage-flux path is small compared with the reluctance of the path in the air
(oil). Therefore,
· the reluctance that the leakage flux encounters is determined for the most part by the air(oil) portion
of its path and,
· in spite of the magnetic nonlinearity of the iron, the leakage flux is very nearly directly proportional
to the current producing it.
Due to the linear relationship between the current and leakage flux the ratio Λ L/I is independent of
the value of current. The Λ L is the difference in leakage flux linkage between the two windings.
Since this ratio is the definition of self-inductance, it is convenient to introduce inductance parameters
to account for voltage drop due to the leakage flux:
L = Λ L/I (1)
The corresponding leakage reactance X is obtained by multiplying the L by 2π f, and is shown in the
equivalent circuit in Figure 1.

In summary:
· The leakage flux for all practical purposes is proportional to the current producing it, and the voltage
drop due to the leakage flux can be accounted for by introducing a series leakage reactance in the
transformer equivalent circuit.
· The leakage reactance for most transformers is constant and it can be measured without the presence
of the "full load" leakage flux that requires full load current. This allows us to perform the
measurement using convenient low test voltage and current.
· The leakage flux path includes the regions occupied by the windings. The leakage reactance may be
sensitive to the deformations in the windings.
Application Of Leakage Reactance Measurement30
When a system short circuit causes high current to flow through a large power transformer, the
windings and internal leads are subjected to extremely high mechanical forces. The total radial force
on a winding can be many millions of pounds and total axial force can be between one and two
million pounds. The overcurrent during the fault conditions is said to be a major source of mechanical
displacements and subsequent transformer failures13-15,19-21.
The current flowing in transformer winding conductors sets up an electromagnetic field in and around
the windings, as shown in the simplified sketches of Figures 3 and 4. Any current-carrying conductor
which is linked by this field experiences a mechanical force which is mutually perpendicular to the
direction of the current and the field.
In a core form transformer the forces act radially outward on the outer winding and radially inward on
the inner winding, but because of the radial fringing at the ends of the windings, there are also axial
force components which tend to compress the windings (Figure 3).
The common failure modes for a core form transformer are as follows:
1. Inward radial hoop buckling.
2. Outward radial hoop stretching.
3. Conductor beam bending from generated axial force.
4. Conductor tilting from cumulative axial force.
5. Coil end support instability produced by axial force.

Generated Forces in a Core Form Transformer

FIGURE 3
Whereas the principal forces in the core form design were radially directed, the principal forces in the
shell form are axially directed (Figure 4). They tend to separate the low-voltage winding from the
high-voltage winding, which pushes the low-voltage winding against the core. The high-voltage
winding is being crushed inward upon itself. There are modest radial force components as well which
tend to compress the pancake winding sections radially.
Generated Forces in a Shell Form Transformer

FIGURE 4
The common failure modes for a shell form transformer are as follows:
1. Conductor tilting from cumulative axial force.
2. Conductor beam bending from generated axial force.
3. Radial instability of the winding pancakes.
4. End support collapse (forces transmitted into the core).

The described winding deformations can affect the leakage flux path which in turn may result
in the change of the measured leakage reactance.
Leakage Reactance and Capacitance
Both leakage reactance and capacitance (interwinding and winding-to-ground) can be sensitive to
changes in the internal geometry of the transformer. The question, however, is - What is the
difference and is it useful to measure both parameters?
The leakage reactance is sensitive to the geometrical changes in the leakage flux path, which includes
predominantly space between the windings, space within the winding, and space between the winding
and the tank (or tank shield). The leakage reactance is not temperature sensitive and is not influenced
by the presence of contamination. The measurements can be routinely performed on a per-phase
basis.
The capacitance between the windings, and between each winding and the core/tank, is a function of
their geometric relations as well as the dielectric constants of the intervening insulation, such as the
winding insulation and the oil. It is known that capacitance may exhibit minor variations due to
temperature24 or serious contamination16. Unlike leakage reactance that can be easily measured on a
per-phase basis, a capacitance measurement test routinely involves all three phases.
Is it useful to measure both parameters? Absolutely! Sometimes a problem is more pronounced in

capacitance and sometimes in leakage reactance. As the Case Studies at the end of the paper show,
capacitance and leakage reactance can be influenced by problems to a different degree or can be an
adequate confirmation of each other.
Test Methods
Although the primary topic of this report is the measurement of the leakage reactance using single-
phase excitation, the understanding of the subject will be enhanced if this measurement is compared
with tests performed using three-phase excitation.
Two-Winding Transformers
Three-phase transformers
The distinction should be made between the following methods:
· impedance and load losses test - utilizes three-phase excitation and transformer rated current; result
is an average of three measurements;
· three-phase test - utilizes three-phase excitation; result is an average of three measurements;
· three-phase equivalent test - utilizes single-phase excitation; result is an average of three

measurements;
· per-phase test - utilizes single-phase excitation; results are on a per-phase bases.
The results of the impedance and load losses test, three-phase test, and three-phase equivalent test can
be compared with each other, but they sometimes differ from the results of the per-phase test.
Impedance and load losses test

During this test, which is usually performed at the factory, the line terminals on one side of the
transformer are short-circuited and the three-phase voltage at rated frequency is increased on its other
side until the input current attains the rated value7. The setup for one of the phases is shown in Figure
5. The voltage, current, and power input are measured. The instruments are usually placed on the high
side with the short applied across low side terminals. This is done because the higher number of turns
on the high side provides a better voltage regulation to achieve the desired rated current.

Impedance and Load Losses Test
FIGURE 5
The applied voltage, termed the impedance voltage, is only a few percent of the rated voltage. As a
result, the flux in the core is small and the required exciting current can be neglected. This is also
apparent from Figure 5 - the magnetizing branch is practically short-circuited by the branch with (RS-
dc + RL) and X. Reference 6 (pages 353, 354) gives a very good illustration of the magnetizing branch
contribution during the short-circuit test.
The impedance voltage consists of the resistive and inductive components (Figure 6).
Phasor Diagram Under Short-circuit Conditions

FIGURE 6
a) Resistive component of impedance voltage
The resistive component is the product of the total effective ac resistance and the rated current
(RP-dc + RS-dc + RL) I = VR (2)
The resistive component can be calculated from the measured watts losses and rated current
VR = P/I (3)
The measured watts losses include:
· I2R losses in conductors, as with dc current
The I2R losses are calculated from the conductor dc resistance and the current used in the impedance
measurement
I2R losses = I2(RP-dc + RS-dc) 4)
If the transformer did not have 1:1 turns ratio each resistance would be multiplied by the

corresponding primary or secondary current. The resistance should be corrected to the temperature at
which the impedance measurement was performed.
· the eddy-current losses caused by the leakage flux in conductors and

surrounding structural parts (tank, clamps, core)
The leakage losses can be calculated by subtracting I2R losses from the total watts loss measured
during the test
Pleakage = P - I2R losses (5)
b) Inductive component of impedance voltage
The inductive component of the impedance voltage is the product of leakage reactance and rated
current
VL = XI (6)
When the impedance voltage has been measured and the resistive component is determined using (3)
the inductive component can be computed as follows:
While the measurement of the real power will be the same value no matter which winding is short-
circuited, the impedance voltage will be the same, only when the windings involved have the same
rated voltage. The measured impedance voltage is therefore the impedance voltage of the transformer
as viewed from a particular winding. If the impedance voltage is expressed as a percentage of the
rated voltage of the corresponding winding then its value will be essentially the same for either
winding.
The short-circuit impedance and its components can be calculated as follows
where V, I and P are the voltage, current and real power measured during the test.
The short circuit impedance, comprising resistive and inductive components, can be expressed in
ohms just like any other impedance. However, the short circuit impedance can:
· vary over several orders of magnitude, depending on the capacity and rated voltage of the
transformer and,
· its value is not the same when measured from the different sides of the transformer.
That is why it is more convenient to express the transformer short circuit impedance in percent:
%Z =(ZM/ZB)100 = ZM(S3φ /V2L-L)100 = [(1/10)ZM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (9)
where ZM is the impedance calculated using the average of three measured phase voltages and the
average of three measured phase currents, ZB is the base impedance, and S3f and VL-L are the base
three-phase power and line-to-line voltage of the winding where the measurements are performed.

It can be easily shown18 that when expressed in percent (or in per unit) the short-circuit impedance,
short-circuit impedance voltage, and short-circuit impedance volt-amperes are all equal. The same
applies to their resistive and inductive components.
The result of the impedance test is stamped on the transformer nameplate and is given in the factory
test report supplied with the unit. Although this value is the short-circuit impedance, for all practical
purposes it can be considered to be equal to the leakage reactance (at least for modern transformers*)
- the resistive component when added in quadrature to the reactive component does not affect the total
impedance in any significant way.
The test positions of the De-energized Tap Changer (DETC) and the Load Tap Changer (LTC) are
indicated on the nameplate. If this information is not provided, it is safe to assume that the factory
measurements were performed with the DETC in the rated position and the LTC in the neutral
position. When the kVA base for calculating the % impedance is not specified it is normally self-
cooling kVA.
Three-phase test
As it was shown, the leakage reactance for all practical purposes is constant and can be measured
without presence of the "full load" leakage flux. When the I2R losses and leakage losses are not
required, the test can be performed using a low three-phase voltage. The test setup is the same as for
impedance and load losses test (Figure 5) with the exceptions that a much lower current is present (up
to several amps) and the power input is not measured. Equation 9 can be used to verify the
transformer nameplate value, or if ZM is calculated for each phase, the results can also be compared
between the phases.
Three-phase equivalent test
When the single-phase excitation is used, the equivalent of the impedance test and three-phase test
can be obtained if the following test procedure is used7. This method is applicable to both delta and
wye winding configurations. The neutral terminals, if present, are not used**.
* In distribution transformers, particularly the smaller kVA sizes, the reactance may be in fact less
than the resistance of the transformer11. In these cases both values should be indicated on the
nameplate.
** Reference 7 describes one more method which requires an opening of the delta winding. This
method can not be routinely used in the field and is not discussed here.
The three line terminals of one winding are short-circuited and single-phase voltage at rated
frequency is applied to two line terminals of the other winding. For a two-winding transformer this is
shown in Figure 7. Part II of this paper (see 1995 Doble Conference Minutes) describes the test set-up
using the M4000 analyzer. Three successive readings are taken on the three pairs of terminals, for
example, H1 and H2, H2 and H3, H3 and H1. The %X value is given by the following formula:
%X = [(1/60)Ζ XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (10)
where Σ XM is the sum of the individual reactance measurements, and S3φ and VL-L are the base
three-phase power and line-to-line voltage of the winding where the measurements are performed.
The X designation (instead of Z) is used since this test can be performed using M4000 analyzer which
calculates the leakage reactance. The equation (10) is derived in the Appendix. If the base values are
not indicated on the nameplate they can be selected as it is described in the section Impedance and

Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement On Transformers - Si... Page 10 of 24
load losses test.
The three-phase equivalent test, unlike the per-phase test, allows testing of transformers with
configurations Y-Y and ∆ /Y where the neutral is not accessible.

Three-Phase Equivalent Test For Two-Winding Transformer
FIGURE 7
Per-phase test
It is important to remember that the result of the impedance test available on the nameplate is based
on the average of individual phase impedances. Consequently, the purpose of the three-phase test and
three-phase equivalent test is to verify this number. However, it is possible that the average result can
mask a problem with the individual phase8. That is why it is recommended to supplement the three-
phase equivalent test with the measurement of the individual phases. The per-phase test results should
be comparable between the phases. The measurement becomes especially useful when any of the
"averaging" tests show abnormal results. For a two-winding transformer the test connections are
shown in Figure 8. Note that the shorted winding should be on the same core leg as the measured
winding.

Per-Phase Test For Two-Winding Transformer
FIGURE 8
The %X of the individual phase is calculated as follows:
· for the test performed from the delta-connected winding
%X = [(1/30)XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)] (11)
· for the test performed from the wye-connected winding
%X = [(1/10)XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (12)
where S3φ and VL-L are the base three-phase power and line-to-line voltage of the winding where the
measurements are performed. The equations (11) and (12) are derived in the Appendix. If the base
values are not indicated on the nameplate they can be selected as it is described in the section
Impedance and load losses test.
Example of calculating % leakage reactance for two-winding transformer
Unit tested (using M4000): General Electric, ∆ /Y, %Z = 5.51% @ 13.2/13.8 kV & 5 MVA
a) Three-phase equivalent test
The test is performed from the 13.2 kV side with X1-X2-X3 shorted. The measured reactances are:
XH1-H2 = 3.789 Ω , XH3-H2 = 3.776 Ω , XH3-H1 = 3.781 Ω .
Using (10)

%X = 1/60[3.789 + 3.776 + 3.781]5000/(13.2)2 = 5.426%
% deviation from the nameplate value:
(5.51 - 5.426)100/5.51 = +1.525%
b) Per-phase test
The test is performed from the 13.2 kV side. The measured reactances are:
XH1-H2 = 5.676 Ω , with X2-X0 shorted

Using (11)
%XH1-H2 = [(1/30)5.676][5000/(13.2)2] = 5.676(0.957) = 5.429%
%XH3-H2 = 5.659(0.957) = 5.413%
%XH3-H1 = 5.671(0.957) = 5.425%
Maximum deviation between the phases is
(5.429 - 5.413)100/5.413 =+0.3%
Single-Phase Transformers
Two methods are applicable for a single-phase unit:
· impedance and load losses test
· per-phase test (Figure 8c)
The discussion for the three-phase transformers applies to single-phase units with two exceptions:
· both methods utilize single-phase excitation
· the %X (or %Z for the impedance test) is calculated for both tests as follows:
%X = [(1/10)XM][S(in kVA)/V2(in kV)], (13)
where S and V are the base power and voltage of the winding where the measurements are performed.
Three-Winding Transformer
In a three-winding transformer the leakage reactance associated with each pair of windings must be
considered. The equivalent circuit that takes into account the leakage reactance associated with three
windings on a common magnetic core ignores the exciting admittance and winding resistances is
shown in Figure 9.


Three-Winding Transformer Leakage Reactances Diagram
FIGURE 9
One should not be led to think that the star diagram shown in Figure 9 is a three-phase Y-diagram, for
it is not. It is a single-phase network with the three windings, 1, 2, and 3, on the same phase.
Since there are three windings, three short-circuit tests are needed on each phase to obtain the
necessary data. These tests are as follows:
· Measurement of X12 - apply voltage to winding 1 with winding 2 short-circuited and winding 3
open.
open.
open.
Since only two windings are involved in each test, the test connections are the same as shown for
two-winding transformer (Figures 7 and 8), assuming that the third winding (which is open) is not
shown. Equations (10), (11), (12), and (13) can be used to calculate %X with one exception: S3φ or S,
depending on the manufacturer, could be the power rating of the short-circuited winding or power
rating of the primary winding.
Four-Winding Transformer
In a four-winding transformer the leakage reactance associated with each pair of windings must be
considered. The equivalent circuit of a single phase that takes into account the leakage reactance
associated with four windings12 on a common magnetic core, ignores the exciting admittance and
winding resistances, is shown in Figure 10.
Four-Winding Transformer Leakage Reactances Diagram

FIGURE 10
Since there are four windings, six short-circuit tests are needed on each phase to obtain the necessary
data. These tests are as follows:
· Measurement of X12 - apply voltage to winding 1 with winding 2 short-circuited and windings 3 and
4 open.

4 open.
2 open.
4 open.
3 open.
3 open.
Since only two windings are involved in each test, the test connections are the same as shown for a
two-winding transformer (Figures 7 and 8), assuming that the other two windings (which are open)
are not shown. Equations (10), (11), (12) and (13) can be used to calculate %X with one exception:
S3φ or S, depending on the manufacturer, could be the power rating of the short-circuited winding or
power rating of the primary winding.
Autotransformer
An autotransformer can be tested with its internal connections unchanged (Figure 11). Equations (11),
(12), (13), and (14) can be used to calculate %X.

Three-Phase Equivalent Test and Per-Phase Test for an
Autotransformer Without Tertiary
FIGURE 11
Autotransformer With Tertiary Winding
An autotransformer with tertiary winding may be tested using the same test procedure as is described
for a three-winding transformer. The test connections for electrically connected windings (for
example, H and X) are shown in Figure 11.
Short-Circuiting Conductors and Considerations for Selection
Resistance
When the impedance and load losses test is performed at the factory the conductors used for
short-circuiting the windings have a cross section equal to, or greater than the corresponding
transformer leads. The accuracy of the measurement is improved if these conductors have a resistance
that is low relative to the resistance of the winding conductor being short-circuited. These precautions
are important since part of the test is to measure watts losses at rated current which are used to
calculate I2R losses in conductors and the losses due to the leakage flux.
When the low-voltage short-circuit impedance test is performed in the field the measured
impedance includes both resistive and inductive components. Since the resistive component is usually
significantly smaller than the inductive one, the analysis of the test results assumes that the leakage
reactance is equal to the measured impedance. Consequently, it becomes very important to have the

resistance of the short-circuiting conductors low relative to the resistance of the winding conductor
being short-circuited.
When the test is performed using the M4000, the instrument measures the angle of the impedance
which is used to obtain an exact value of the leakage reactance. Does it mean that the short-circuiting
conductors can have any high resistance value without affecting the accuracy of the measurement?
The answer is no, because then the high resistive component may determine the measurement range
which may not give the best accuracy for the inductive component. The recommendation is to use
the short-circuiting conductors with resistance smaller than the measured leakage reactance,
referred to the transformer side where the measurement is performed. (To minimize the
resistance of the circuit the contacts should be clean and tight.) This value can be determined
before the test using the nameplate information as follows:
· for the three-phase equivalent test or per-phase test performed from the wye-connected side
R < (1/100)Z(in %)V2L-L/S3φ (14)
· for the per-phase test performed from the delta-connected side
R < (1/100)Z(in %)3V2L-L/S3φ (15)
· for the test performed on a single-phase unit
R < (1/100)Z(in %)V2/S, (16)
where Z in % is the value given on the nameplate, R is the resistance of the short-circuiting conductor
in ohms, VL-L, S3φ , V and S are as explained for equations (10), (11), (12) and (13).
Inductance
Since we are measuring an inductive reactance it is worthwhile to consider the effect of inductance of
the short-circuiting conductors. Let us consider a #2 stranded conductor, which is commonly used by
some utilities.(When tested with M4000 this size can be reduced due to the low testing current.) From
the reference 17, Table 4-27, the series inductive reactance at 60 Hz of a #2 stranded conductor is
0.574 Ω per mile per conductor. The 8 foot long short-circuiting conductor introduces into the
measurement the inductive reactance of 0.870 mΩ . In the previous example of test results calculation
for a two-winding transformer, XH1-H2 = 3.789 Ω . In that test the above short-circuiting conductor
would account for 0.023 % error. At the same time a #1000 stranded conductor with 0.4 Ω per mile
per conductor would account for 0.016 % error.
To minimize the effect of the inductance of the short-circuiting conductors it is recommended:
· to minimize their length
· to make connections so that conductors are as straight as possible
· to use conductors with a lower inductive reactance.
Selection Of Test Method
The following approach to leakage reactance testing using single-phase excitation seems logical and
practical:

1. On a new (rebuilt) transformer or during the initial test on a used transformer a three-phase
equivalent test and per-phase tests should be performed. This allows the comparison with the
nameplate value, between the phases and provides a benchmark for the future tests.
2. The initial tests should be performed on all the DETC positions. It is conceivable that throughout
its service life a transformer may be energized in several DETC positions. When units trip off line the
service personnel may be reluctant to change the DETC positions solely to perform a test in positions
in which the initial leakage reactance measurement was performed.
3. Once the comparison with the nameplate is verified, the follow-up tests can include per-phase tests
only. Besides being a more searching test it allows the comparison not only with the previous test
results but between the phases as well.
Interpretation Of Test Results
The winding deformation that leads to the immediate transformer failure may be a result of several
overcurrent events. The probability of overcurrent conditions is not very high and, as a result, the
transformer can stay in service with partially deformed windings; however, the reliability of such a
transformer is reduced19. A study performed by Babare et al. shows the relationship between winding
deformation and the number of overcurrrent events20.
It should be understood that mechanical deformation is not the result of the insulation aging
which develops during the life of the transformer but the change of mechanical pressures and
component locations which can result from mechanical forces occurring in service. Many of the
transformer failures are initiated by the mechanical deformation but eventually occur for electrical
reasons. Consequently,the mechanical condition monitoring should be given a very serious
consideration, and even small changes in the measured leakage reactance (or capacitance) should be
treated with the utmost respect.
Over the years as the accuracy of the available instrumentation has been improving the limits for
acceptable change in the measured leakage reactance have been decreasing. An example of
discussion8,9,10 that played a role in influencing that trend took place in 1971 (the subject of
discussion was whether 5% change in the measured value is an acceptable limit). Further experience
was reported in 197922. Today experience of some utilities in the U.S. shows that changes in excess
of +/-3% are significant and should be investigated. The accuracy of the instrument should also be
taken into account.
The three-phase equivalent test results should be compared with the nameplate values or with the
previous tests. The per-phase test results should be compared between the phases and with the
previous tests. As the case studies below show, sometimes it is useful to compare the per-phase
results with the nameplate value (or three-phase equivalent test) for the difference can be very
significant, indicating a problem. The analysis should be performed considering leakage reactance
and the results of other tests, especially capacitance. If more than one characteristic gives evidence of
change, the source of the change should be investigated. The combination of 2.3% leakage reactance
change plus a 10% capacitance change could be cause for investigation to establish a reason for these
simultaneous changes.
Investigators outside of the U.S. use comparable limits. Babare et al. reports that ENEL in Italy
performs leakage reactance test on all transformers over 100 MVA every three years. ENEL's
experience indicates that changes over 2.5% are very important and require more frequent leakage
reactance tests combined with insulation tests. At more than 5% variation, an immediate outage of the
transformer is required for winding inspection20.

Sokolov et al. reports that ZTZ-Service in Ukraine uses a 3% limit as a part of a comprehensive
method that allows them to make a judgement about the nature of the deformation based on the sign
(positive or negative) of the percent variation19,23.
Case Studies
The following examples are intended to illustrate the practical application of the leakage reactance
test and its relationship with other types of measurements. It may be observed that in all cases the
leakage reactance change exceeded 2% of the measured value. In all the cases where the capacitance
measurement was performed, except case V, the capacitance change confirmed the presence of
mechanical deformation. In case V the significance of leakage reactance change was confirmed by
DGA and TTR tests. In case VII it was confirmed by the low-voltage exciting current and TTR.
Case I
Unit tested: Autotransformer, McGraw-Edison, 138/69/12 kV, 60 MVA, 1963.
This case was presented by Ruggles in 19841. Over a period of 17 years, the interwinding capacitance
has changed by 92.4% and leakage reactance by 31% (Table I).
TABLE I
Measured 1965 1968 1974 1982 Change

from 1965
Current (mA) 10.0 10.4 14.0 19.0
Watts (W) 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.61
Power Factor (%) 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.32
Capacitance (pF) H/X-Y 2650 2756 3710 5100 +92.4%
Leakage reactance (%)

NP
H-Y 4.2 3.9 3.3 -15.4%
X-Y 2.9 2.9 2.0 -31.0%
H-X 4.7 4.35 5.0 +14.9%
The interwinding capacitance (CHT) was measured from the series (HV) and common (LV) windings
to the tertiary (TV) winding. The capacitance has increased indicating motion of the LV and TV
windings toward each other. As test results show, the problem is confirmed by both leakage reactance
and capacitance tests. It should be noted that if analyses were performed based on the power factor
alone the problem could have been overlooked.
The unit disassembly revealed the following: "All three common (LV) windings experienced
conductor beam failures along the length of each coil. The buckling distortion formed two parallel
troughs along radial spacer lines. The pressboard barriers between HV and LV, and between LV and
TV windings were crushed and buckled. The TV windings were buckled to a lesser degree and had
rotated 3/4" to 1.5" at the bottom. The series (HV) windings were not noticeably damaged1." There
was no carbon contamination since the problem was detected before an electrical failure had
occurred.
Case II

Unit tested: Autotransformer, McGraw-Edison, 138/69/46 kV, 50 MVA, 1965.
This case was presented by Ruggles in 19872. Over a period of 20 years, the interwinding capacitance
between the LV and TV windings has changed by 44.4% and leakage reactance by 15.7% (Table II).
As test results indicate, the problem is confirmed by both leakage reactance and capacitance tests. The
unit disassembly revealed the following: "The HV windings were only slightly displaced. From the
top, the LV and TV coil buckling was visible. Shredded insulation lay on the top of the windings.
With the HV coils removed, the LV coils exhibited full-length buckling. The winding tubes were
crushed and the coils had rotated about 3/4" off the bottom clamping blocks. The TV coils were also
exposed, showing distortion matching the LV coils2."
TABLE II
Measured 1965 1968 1974 1980 1985 Change

from 1965
Capacitance (pF)
H/X-Y 5830 5830 6810 6710 8390,8420 +44.4%
Leakage Reactance (%) NP
NP
H1H0-X1X0 4.48 4.79 4.94 +10.3%
H2H0-X2X0 4.8 4.48 4.79 5.06 +12.9%
H3H0-X3X0 4.48 4.63 4.91 +9.6%
H1H0-Y1Y2 7.0 6.35 6.20 6.0 -4.4%
H2H0-Y2Y3 6.35 6.20 5.92 -6.8%
H3H0-Y3Y1 6.35 6.40 6.10 -3.9%
X1X0-Y1Y2 4.4 4.20 3.54 3.73 -11.2%
X2X0-Y2Y3 4.20 3.91 3.54 -15.7%
X3X0-Y3Y1 4.20 3.91 3.79 -9.8%
Case III
Unit tested: Allis Chalmers, 115/34.5 kV, 67 MVA, 1973.
The power factor test that followed a bushing repair revealed an 8.94% increase in the interwinding
capacitance (Table III). In 1990 the leakage reactance was measured at 6.12%, which is 4.08% higher
than the nameplate value of 5.88%. It was decided to keep the transformer in service for several
months under close observation before it was replaced. The teardown inspection revealed that the C
and B phase low-voltage windings were severely distorted.
TABLE III


from 1973
Capacitance (pF) 12190 12340 12200 13280 +8.94%
Case IV
Unit tested: McGraw-Edison, 115/34.5 kV, 80 MVA, 1974.
A routine power factor test in 1984 showed an increase in the interwinding capacitance of 8.03%
(Table IV). The leakage reactance test revealed a 2.64% change as compared with the 5.68%
nameplate value.
TABLE IV
Measured 1974 1979 1984 1985Change

from 1974
Capacitance (pF) 15635 15750 16890 17340 +10.91%
Leakage reactance(%) NP=5.68 5.83 5.91 +4.05%
The unit was supplying an electric arc furnace and was not designed for this application. It was left in
service for another 18 months, under close observation, before it was replaced. The internal
inspection revealed that the B phase low-voltage winding was severely distorted.
Case V
Unit tested: General Electric, 134.55/39.4/13.8 kV, 25 MVA, 1964.
As a result of the arrester failure on the neighboring voltage regulator, the transformer was taken out
of service by a differential protection relay. When the crew arrived the gas collector relay on the
transformer indicated 450cc of combustible gas. An oil sample was taken for DGA. The results
(Table V) indicated a sharp increase in the amount of acetylene and hydrogen, an indication of high
energy arcing in the oil. A review of the history of DGA data shows that something very serious
began between the August and November tests in 1990.
TABLE V
8/3/90 8/20/90 11/26/90 8/12/91 9/3/91

H2 197 169 245 275 740
CH4 434 423 598 706 735
CO 61 68 124 212 381
C2H6 113 107 159 190 178
C2H4 374 355 504 599 615
C2H2 3 2 18 34 155
The transformer was left de-energized and further testing revealed normal power factor, capacitance,
and exciting current (performed from the high side) test results. The power factor test showed no tip-
up when the tests were performed at the various voltages 0.5, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 kV. The TTR between the
H- and Y-windings revealed 1.5% deviation from the calculated nameplate voltage ratio. The leakage

reactance test results shown in Table VI clearly indicate a problem in Y3Y1 tertiary winding.
TABLE VI
NP = 10.25% NP = 7.71% NP = 3.43%

H1H0-X1X0 = 10.16% H1H0-Y1Y2 = 7.74% X1X0-Y1Y2 = 3.08%
H2H0-X2X0 = 10.15% H2H0-Y2Y3 = 7.77% X2X0-Y2Y3 = 3.11%
H3H0-X3X0 = 10.13% H3H0-Y3Y1 = 148.09% X3X0-Y3Y1 = 140.69%
Based on the DGA, TTR, and leakage reactance test results, an internal inspection was scheduled.
The client's report on this transformer states the following: "Externally, no indications of failure could
be seen. The crew had opened the filters used to remove the oil and they appeared clean, indicating
little carbon contamination. Internally, the unit appeared quite clean. A slight odor of combustible gas
was present. An amount of fine copper beads was noticed on the upper collars of the Phase 3 coil. A
small amount of burned paper was also noticeable on top of the core and the coil blocking of the
Phase 3 windings. Copper beads to a lesser degree were also noticeable on the tank floor below the
H3 bushing. More copper beads could be seen on the HV side of Phase 3 than on the LV side. Most of
the copper particles were noticed in the oil cooling outlet ducts which might indicate problems deeper
into the windings. No signs of movement or shifting blocking were noticed. The 13.8 kV delta
connected winding was opened at the bushing and resistance measurements were made. A high
resistance reading was obtained across Y1-Y3 winding. It was therefore surmised that some of the
strands of the Y1-Y3 winding have burned open probably due to the short circuit forces caused by the
failure of the 13.8 kV feeder regulator. The previous gassing problem may have been early
indications of winding movement or touching of strands which precipitated into the present failure."
Note:
The exciting current test will be sensitive to the open circuit in the tertiary winding, if the test is
performed from the tertiary side. Obviously, this is possible if the test set is capable of exciting the
winding.
Case VI
Unit tested: Autotransformer, McGraw-Edison, 135.4/69.5/13.09 kV, 130 MVA, 1975.
A routine power factor test revealed an 11.9% increase in the interwinding capacitance (Table VII).
TABLE VII
from 1978
Capacitance (pF)
H/X-Y 4240 4320 4743 4743 11.9%
The capacitance shown in Table VII was not recorded during the test, but was calculated based on the
measured total current. The results of the leakage reactance test performed in 1991 are shown Table
VIII. The teardown inspection at the factory confirmed the mechanical failure of the tertiary winding.
TABLE VIII

NP = 4.1% Change NP = 2.9% Change
from NP from NP
H1H0-Y1Y2 = 4.82% +17.56% X1X0-Y1Y2 = 3.18% + 9.66%
H2H0-Y2Y3 = 4.9% +19.51% X2X0-Y2Y3 = 3.19% +10.0%
H3H0-Y3Y1 = 4.87% +18.78% X3X0-Y3Y1 = 3.21% +10.69%
Case VII
Unit tested: Autotransformer, McGraw-Edison, 135.4/69.5/46.2 kV, 75 MVA, 1970.
This unit failed as a result of the static wire falling into the 69 kV line. The results of electrical tests
before and after the failure are shown in the Table IX.
The power factor and capacitance measurements were not performed after the failure. As the test
results show, the problem with phase 3 was confirmed by all three tests:
· excessive exciting current is measured in all windings of phase 3
· leakage reactance variation is -10.08% for H/Y measurement and -18.3% for X/Y measurement
when comparison is made between the phases
· TTR variation when compared with the previous test is H/X = 3.6%, H/Y = 13%, and X/Y = 15.8%.
TABLE IX
Low-Voltage Exciting Current (mA) @ 260 V (* @120 V)
Test Date H1-H0 H2-H0 H3-H0 X1-X0 X2-X0 X3-X0 Y1-Y0 Y2-Y0 Y3-Y
1974 4.75 3.6 4.75 14.2 10.7 14.3 11.5 8.8 11.6
1992 6.17 6.15 760.0* 18.25 18.22 182.0* 14.57 14.57 105.0*
Leakage Reactance
Test Date 1974 1992 1974 1992 1974 1992

H1H0-X1X0 4.11 4.27 H1H0-Y1Y2 10.5 10.71 X1X0-Y1Y2 7.78 7.80
H2H0-X2X0 4.05 4.21 H2H0-Y2Y3 10.5 10.71 X2X0-Y2Y3 7.78 7.76
H3H0-X3X0 4.05 4.22 H3H0-Y3Y1 10.5 9.63 X3X0-Y3Y1 7.78 6.34
Low-Voltage TTR
Test Date 1974 1992 1974 1992 1974 1992

H1H0-X1X0 1.995 1.996 H1H0-Y1Y2 1.731 1.732 X1X0-Y1Y2 0.868 0.867
H2H0-X2X0 1.997 1.997 H2H0-Y2Y3 1.733 1.733 X2X0-Y2Y3 0.869 0.867
H3H0-X3X0 1.996 2.069 H3H0-Y3Y1 1.731 1.510 X3X0-Y3Y1 0.868 0.732

The teardown inspection revealed that the phase 3 low-voltage winding failed mechanically and
electrically. The location of the severe electrical failure was in discs ##43-52 (of the total of 72 discs)
in the core window area. Practically every conductor strand (there are 15 conductors) in these discs
was burned open, and the discs were mechanically distorted around the entire circumference.
Conclusion
The low-voltage single-phase leakage reactance test is a very useful tool for detecting winding
deformation in transformers. It should be emphasized that the type of excitation, accuracy of
instrumentation, selection of short-circuiting conductors, and quality of connections can affect the
accuracy of the measurement. Improper selection of the base values for % reactance calculations can
lead to erroneous results. The method is simple, has a good repeatability of test results, and gives a
reliable indication that a problem exists if the measured value shows a change of a certain magnitude.
However, it should be remembered that it is just another tool, and that it does not replace the other
measurements routinely performed in the field. An intelligent decision about the presence of winding
deformation in the transformer can be made only if results of other tests, especially capacitance, are
considered.
It is believed that the full potential of measuring the effects of leakage flux phenomenon has not been
utilized yet. There must be more to analysis of the measurement than simply making a judgement
based on the result exceeding a predetermined limit. Relating the sign of leakage reactance change to
internal geometry of the windings, understanding the differences between single- and three-phase
excitation, correlation of leakage reactance change with the measured capacitance, and analyzing the
relationship between the leakage reactance and test voltage frequency could be some of the steps in
exploring the subject.
Acknowledgements
The Doble Engineering Company gratefully acknowledges the cooperation it has received from the
following:
American Electric Power Service Corp. - Harry A. Ruggles

Appalachian Power - Sam G. Canode
Baltimore Gas and Electric - H. Carl Manger, E. Michael Paulsen, Jr., David M. Wetzel
Bonneville Power Administration - Pamela C. Odam
City Public Service of San Antonio - Aubrey J. Herry
Columbus Southern Power - Alan W. Whitlow, Curtis M. Auel
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - Robert C. Morse, Jr.
Ohio Power - Dennis M. Monter
The author wishes to acknowledge Messrs. Jim Bodah, Philip von Guggenberg, Anthony L. Rickley,
Robert Ryan, and David Train of Doble Engineering Company, and William J. McNutt of Berkshire
Transformer Consultants, Inc. for their comments and suggestions.
References
1. Ruggles, H. A. "Mechanical Collapse of Autotransformer Low-Voltage Winding Found by Change

of Interwinding Capacitance," Minutes of the Fifty-First Annual International Conference of Doble
Clients, 1984, Sec. 6-501.
2. Ruggles, H. A. "Interwinding Capacitance Change Accompanies Collapse in Low-Voltage

Windings", Minutes of the Fifty-Fourth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1987, Sec.
6-601.

3. Rickley, A. L., Clark, R. E., and Povey, E. H. "Field Measurements of Transformer Excitation
Current as Diagnostic Tool," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-100, #4,
April 1981, pp. 1985-1988.
4. Lachman, M. F. "The Influence of Transformer Load Tap Changers on Single-Phase Exciting-

Current Test Results," Minutes of the Fifty-Ninth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients,
1992, Sec. 6-6.1.
5. Lachman, M. F. "Field Measurements of Transformer Single-Phase Exciting Current as a

Diagnostic Tool, and Influence of Load Tap Changers," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.
9, #7, July 1994.
6. Staff of the Department of Electrical Engineering MIT, "Magnetic Circuits and Transformers," a
book, 12th printing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958, "Magnetic Leakage in Transformers", "Leakage
Inductances" Sections.
7. "IEEE Standard Test Code for Liquid-Immersed Distribution, Power, and Regulating
Transformers," ANSI/IEEE C57.12.90-1987, pages 25-27.
8. Gillies, D. A. "Discussion of the W. F. True and R. B. Pherson paper "Transformer Short Circuit
Standards and Tests" and of the W. J. McNutt paper "Power Transformer Short Circuit Strength,"
Minutes of the Thirty-Eighth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1971, Sec. 6-601A.
9. Pherson, R. B. "Closure of the W. F. True and R. B. Pherson paper "Transformer Short Circuit
Standards and Tests," Minutes of the Thirty-Eighth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients,
1971, Sec. 6-601B.
10. McNutt, W. J. "Closure of the W. J. McNutt paper "Power Transformer Short Circuit Strength,"
Minutes of the Thirty-Eighth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1971, Sec. 6-601C.
11. "Distribution Systems", a book, First Edition, Westinghouse, 1965, page 214.
12. "Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference Book," "Power Transformers and Reactors"
Section, Westinghouse Electric Corp., 1964, page 137.
13. Analysis of Replies to the 1991 Technical Questionnaire on Power Transformer Failures and
Troubles, Minutes of the Fifty-Eighth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1991, Sec.
6-2.1A.
14. Analysis of Replies to the 1992 Technical Questionnaire on Power and Transformer Failures and
Troubles, Minutes of the Fifty-Ninth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1992, Sec. 6-
2.1A.
15. Analysis of Replies to the 1993 Technical Questionnaire on Power and Current Transformer
Failures and Troubles, Minutes of the Sixtieth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients,
1993, Sec. 6-2.1A.
16. Dawes, C. L. "Displaced and Damaged Transformer Coils and Their Detection," Minutes of the
Thirty-Ninth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1972, Sec. 6-1001.
17. Fink, D. J. and Beaty, H. W. "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers," 12th Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1987, "Properties of Materials" Section, Baker, M. A. "Conductor Materials".
18. Blume, L. F., Boyajian, A., Camilli, G., Lennox, T. C., Minneci, S., Montsinger, V. M.

"Transformer Engineering," a book, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd edition, 1954, pp. 65-66.
19. Sokolov, V. V., Tsurpal, S. V., Konov, Y. S., and Korolenko, V. V. "Detection of Winding
Deformation in Large Power Transformers", Electrical Stations, #6, Moscow, 1988, pp. 52-56.
20. Babare, A., Cannata, F., Carpio, G., Sacchetti, S., and Zafferani, G. "ENEL - Diagnosis of On-
and Off-Line Large Transformers," Proceedings of CIGRE Berlin Symposium on Diagnostic and
Maintenance Techniques, 1993, Sec. 110-04.
21. Pratt, F. C. "Diagnostic Methods for Transformers in Service," Proceedings of CIGRE

International Conference on Large High-Voltage Electric Systems, 1986, Sec. 12-06.
22. Analysis of Replies to the 1979 Technical Questionnaire on Transformers, Minutes of the Forty-
Sixth Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, 1979, Sec. 6Z, Question #5.
23. Sokolov, V. V., First Discussion Meeting "Transformers", Proceedings of CIGRE Berlin
Symposium on Diagnostic and Maintenance Techniques, 1993, Sec. 110-00, page 41.
24. McDermid, W. "Discussion of the H. A. Ruggles paper "Interwinding Capacitance Change

Accompanies Collapse in Low-Voltage Windings", Minutes of the Fifty-Fourth Annual International
Conference of Doble Clients, 1987, Sec. 6-601A.
25. Griffin, P. J. "Criteria for the Interpretation of Data for Dissolved Gasses in Oil from
Transformers (A Review)", Electrical Insulating Oils, STP 998, H. G. Erdman, Ed., American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 89-106.
26. Griffin, P. J., Bruce, C. M., and Christie, J. D. "Comparison of Water Equilibrium in Silicone and
Mineral Oil Transformers", Minutes of the Fifty-Fifth Annual International Conference of Doble
Clients, 1988, Sec. 10-9. 1.
27. Griffin, P. J. "Testing of Electrical Insulating Oil", Minutes of the Fifty-Eighth Annual
International Conference of Doble Clients, 1991, Sec. 10-3.1.
28. Osborn, S. H. and Barker, R. L. "Diagnostic Testing of Power Transformers", Proceedings of

CIGRE Berlin Symposium on Diagnostic and Maintenance Techniques, 1993, Sec. 110-21.
29. Lundgaard, L. E. "Partial Discharge - Part XIV: Acoustical Partial Discharge Detection - Practical
Application", IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, Vol.8, #5, September/October 1992.
30. McNutt, W. J., Transformer Tutorial given at Doble Engineering Company on January 18-20,
1994.
Biography
Mark F. Lachman received his Electrical Engineer degree in 1977 from the Polytechnical Institute
in Riga, Latvia. Since 1988 he has been employed by Doble Engineering Company as a Principal
Engineer consulting on electric power equipment insulation testing and maintenance. Mr. Lachman is
a Registered Professional Engineer.
Copyright, 1994 Doble Engineering Company
All rights reserved
This paper was prepared for, and presented at, the Annual International Conference of Doble Clients. It is for the exclusive use of organizations that
subscribe to Doble Engineering Company's consulting services (i.e., Doble clients), and is not to be copied or distributed outside a Doble client's
organization without written consent of the Doble Engineering Company
The Doble Engineering Company does not necessarily agree with, and takes no responsibility for, statements appearing in papers prepared for the

International Conference of Doble Clients, except for those which were made by members of its own staff.

Leakage Reactance - Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leakage Reactance - Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement On Transformers - Signi...

Proceedings of the 1994 International Conference of Doble Clients - Sec 6-5

Low-Voltage Single-Phase Leakage Reactance Measurement

· Windings have resistance

· There is magnetic flux leakage

· An exciting current is required to produce the magnetic flux

· There are hysteresis and eddy-current losses in the core

· There are losses in the dielectric circuit

Contact Doble Engineering to request a printed copy of this image.

Equivalent Circuit For Two-Winding Transformer

The elements in Figure 1 represent the following:

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Significance Of Leakage Reactance

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Magnetic Leakage Flux Distribution Under Load

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Application Of Leakage Reactance Measurement30

1. Inward radial hoop buckling.

2. Outward radial hoop stretching.

3. Conductor beam bending from generated axial force.

4. Conductor tilting from cumulative axial force.

5. Coil end support instability produced by axial force.

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Generated Forces in a Core Form Transformer

Generated Forces in a Shell Form Transformer

1. Conductor tilting from cumulative axial force.

2. Conductor beam bending from generated axial force.

3. Radial instability of the winding pancakes.

4. End support collapse (forces transmitted into the core).

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Leakage Reactance and Capacitance

Is it useful to measure both parameters? Absolutely! Sometimes a problem is more pronounced in

The distinction should be made between the following methods:

· three-phase test - utilizes three-phase excitation; result is an average of three measurements;

· three-phase equivalent test - utilizes single-phase excitation; result is an average of three

· per-phase test - utilizes single-phase excitation; results are on a per-phase bases.

Impedance and load losses test

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Contact Doble Engineering to request a printed copy of this image.

Phasor Diagram Under Short-circuit Conditions

a) Resistive component of impedance voltage

(RP-dc + RS-dc + RL) I = VR (2)

The measured watts losses include:

· I2R losses in conductors, as with dc current

I2R losses = I2(RP-dc + RS-dc) 4)

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

· the eddy-current losses caused by the leakage flux in conductors and

Pleakage = P - I2R losses (5)

b) Inductive component of impedance voltage

The short-circuit impedance and its components can be calculated as follows

%Z =(ZM/ZB)100 = ZM(S3φ /V2L-L)100 = [(1/10)ZM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (9)

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

Three-phase equivalent test

%X = [(1/60)Ζ XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (10)

file://C:\Program Files\Doble\Doble Conference Proceedings\DCP\94html\6_5\6_5.ht... 11/08/2008

load losses test.

Contact Doble Engineering to request a printed copy of this image.

Contact Doble Engineering to request a printed copy of this image.

The %X of the individual phase is calculated as follows:

· for the test performed from the delta-connected winding

%X = [(1/30)XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)] (11)

· for the test performed from the wye-connected winding

%X = [(1/10)XM][S3φ (in kVA)/V2L-L(in kV)], (12)

Example of calculating % leakage reactance for two-winding transformer