2276
5, OCTOBER 2015
Resonance Behavior and Sensitivity to Detect
Mechanical Change in Transformer Winding:
Shunt Current Versus Neutral Current
Saurav Pramanik
Abstract—Frequency-response measurement offers by far
the most sensitive known technique to detect any mechanical
deformation in transformer windings. By default, during this
measurement, the neutral or line current is considered as the
winding response. The overall sensitivity to detect a mechanical
change depends not only on the response quantity and the terminal
connections chosen, but, also on the arrangement of poles and
zeros of the system function. Some pole-zero arrangements are
inherently better suited to reveal mechanical changes. Because
of this, it is imperative to examine whether neutral current is
indeed the best response quantity to consider or if there exists
any other quantity, say, for example, total shunt current of the
winding (also referred to as the tank current), to accomplish this
task better. With this motivation, this paper compares the reso-
nance behavior of neutral and tank current. Based on analytical
derivations and actual experiments, it emerges that for detecting
simulated mechanical changes, the tank current seems to be a
more competent alternative compared to neutral current. It offers
enhanced detection sensitivity, especially for interleaved windings.
The possible reasons to explain why it is so are presented. The
author believes that this finding needs reinforcement by field trials
to ascertain its viability.
Index Terms—Frequency response, resonance, tank current,
transformer winding.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
T HE NEUTRAL current method was proposed by Ha-
genguth [1] in 1944, as a sensitive method to detect
dielectric faults occurring during a high-voltage (HV) impulse
test on transformers. Ever since then, it has come to be accepted
as the default quantity to be measured, and more important, is
the most sensitive means to detect faults [2], [3]. Later, there
was also a suggestion to measure tank current as an alternative
[3], [4]. But based on practical experience, it emerges that neu-
tral current gained popularity, thereby leading to its widespread
acceptance. Perhaps one can attribute the aforementioned fact
as a possible reason to explain why neutral current was an
automatic quantity of choice (as the output response) even in
low-voltage frequency-response analysis (FRA) measurements.
Manuscript received October 26, 2014; revised February 04, 2015; accepted
April 25, 2015. Date of publication April 29, 2015; date of current version
September 21, 2015. Paper no. TPWRD-01304-2014.
The author is with Corporate Research, ABB AB, Vasteras 72178, Sweden
(e-mail: saurav.pramanik@se.abb.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2015.2427772
0885-8977 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 30, NO.
Tank current actually happens to be the current to the tank
through all of the ground capacitances of the winding and,
hence, for convenience, this current (i.e., the shunt current)
henceforth will be referred to as the tank current of the winding
in this paper, as shown in Fig. 1.
Frequency-response analysis (often referred to as FRA or
SFRA) of the transformer winding introduced around the 1980s
([5], [6]) still continues to be a topic of interest [7]–[9]. One
basic task of FRA is to identify winding damage immediately
after it has occurred. So, FRA sensitivity in this regard is obvi-
ously very crucial. The higher the sensitivity, the possibility of
detecting/identifying winding damage or deformation increases.
Once the damage is detected, the diagnosis process can focus on
the next goal of assessing its severity and its localization along
the length of the winding, which can eventually provide valu-
able inputs to schedule maintenance work.
As far as the sensitivity of the FRA measurement is con-
cerned, all possible terminal measurements on the winding, line
current, neutral current, transferred surge, neutral-end voltage,
etc. have been examined [10], [11]. Based on experiments on
actual transformers, the best terminal connection for the tested
and nontested windings has been identified for achieving high
sensitivity [12], [13]. But to the best of the author's knowledge,
measurement of tank current has not been examined as an op-
tion for use in FRA measurements nor has the sensitivity it
can afford been analyzed so far. A careful perusal of the very
early literature [3], [14] on high-voltage (HV) impulse testing
of transformers reveals that even during those times, there was
considerable debate on which quantity would afford better sen-
sitivity and localization of dielectric faults occurring during the
full-wave and chopped-wave tests. It was concluded then that no
single quantity could be identified as the best for the task, and
simultaneously be suitable for all types of transformer wind-
ings [14]. Since contributions to the tank current are distributed
throughout the entire length of a winding, it intuitively seems
that tank current would contain identical winding-related infor-
mation similar to any other measured quantity. Hence, it would
be interesting to consider the feasibility of tank current for use
in the FRA method and investigate the following matters:
• resonance behavior of tank current;
• analysis of its sensitivity to fault conditions.
To achieve this objective, the analytical expressions for the
neutral and tank current are determined, from which resonance
behavior is predicted. The ability of both these currents to
detect changes in windings is estimated by introducing a small
PRAMANIK: RESONANCE BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO DETECT MECHANICAL CHANGE
Fig. 1. Ladder network model of the transformer winding showing line
and . Furthermore,
perturbation in circuit elements of a section in the ladder
network and the quantum of change or deviations observ-
able in the pole-zero plots along with magnitude response
is determined. These predictions are verified by conducting
frequency-response measurements on actual transformer wind-
ings. For the sake of clarity in this study on tank current, only
a single, isolated air-cored winding was considered. Since
the actual mechanical deformations or displacements are not
easy to create in labs and they result in permanent damage
to the winding, rendering them useless, this paper considered
simulated localized mechanical faults by externally connecting
lumped capacitances in between disk pairs and between disks
and ground. Doing this creates a localized nonuniformity into
the corresponding ladder network. An actual mechanical fault
essentially creates such nonuniformities, although in a more
widespread and uncontrolled manner. Since the end result of
both processes are nearly similar, the former approach was
used in this investigation.
II. RESULTS FOR A FIVE-SECTION LADDER NETWORK
To investigate the following matter thoroughly, a single, iso-
lated, fully-coupled 5-section ladder network model was con-
sidered (see Fig. 1). For a healthy condition, all of the sections
are identical. After plugging in suitable numerical values for
all of the parameters, neutral and tank current magnitude re-
sponses (i.e., the ratio of output current spectra to the input
voltage spectra) were computed using MATLAB code, for a
unit step input and are plotted in Fig. 2. The parameters used
are as follows: 2 nF, 2 nF (per section values),
1/2 mH, 1/4 mH, 1/6 mH, 1/8
mH, 1/10 mH, and . From symmetry
considerations, the other mutual inductances can be found, such
as . This five-section model consid-
ered is only an example and was arbitrarily chosen to compute
and compare the neutral current versus tank current magnitude
responses. A summary of these results and the final observa-
tion are also expected to occur for any other number of sec-
tions and any other set of values of the circuit elements selected
for the ladder network in Fig. 1. This has been proved analyt-
ically by computing the necessary expressions and eventually
2277
, neutral , and tank currents. (Note: For identical sections
and so on).
Fig. 2. Computed (a) neutral-current and (b) tank-current magnitude response
of a five-section ladder network model (see Fig. 1).
all of these findings were experimentally cross-verified by con-
ducting measurements on two actual transformer windings. An
arbitrary choice of the circuit elements in a way also proves the
generic nature of the findings. Furthermore, by choosing appro-
priate values of the elements of the ladder network, one can rep-
resent any type of winding viz., a layer, continuous disk, or in-
terleaved disk. Since the tank current is actually the current dis-
tributed throughout the ground capacitances of the winding, it
was computed by subtracting the neutral current from the line
current.
Next, to simulate a fault condition, a small perturbation was
introduced later in the first section of the model by changing
and (i.e., shunt capacitance), from 2 to 1.5 nF and
from 2 to 3 nF, respectively. Neutral and tank current magnitude
responses were recomputed and are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4,
along with corresponding healthy responses.
All of these responses are compared with each other and the
following observations are possible:
1) For a healthy model, neutral current magnitude response
exhibits a total of five resonance peaks (Fig. 2), whereas
the tank current magnitude response exhibits only two of
them (viz., and ). Peaks are labelled in the figures.
2) It is very interesting to see that the tank current magnitude
response exhibits a peculiar pattern with only the alternate
resonance peaks (i.e., 1, 3, and 5) being observable.
2278
Fig. 3. Computed neutral current magnitude response of a five-section ladder
network model: (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
Fig. 4. Computed tank current magnitude response of a five-section ladder net-
work model: (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
3) Tank current, as an outcome of the fault, exhibits a new
pair of resonance peaks in the magnitude response (see
Fig. 4); a feature which is not observable in the neutral cur-
rent (Fig. 3). Besides this, existing peaks also experience a
change in position and magnitude.
In summary, it emerges that the tank current magnitude re-
sponse of a healthy model does not exhibit all of the resonances
in the magnitude response, but interestingly, most of them (if
not all) emerge distinctly as a consequence of a fault intro-
duced into the model. This particular feature, if possible to gen-
eralize, would definitely afford enhanced detection sensitivity
and, hence, the tank current measurement would perhaps be
a more competent alternative for fault detection compared to
the neutral current. Therefore, in the present context, it would
be worth investigating the following peculiarities of the tank
current:
1) Is the absence of alternate resonance peaks (i.e., dormant
or latent resonances) in tank current magnitude response a
generic property observable in any uniformly wound trans-
former winding? If so, why?
2) Do these dormant/latent resonances always reappear in
the magnitude response whenever there is a fault in the
winding?
In order to answer these generic questions, it will be beneficial
to switch to analytical derivations and this is continued in the
next section.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 30, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2015
III. ANALYTICAL EXPLANATION
To analytically explain the aforementioned results, a
three-section lossless (i.e., 0) ladder network model
was considered. Employing the well-known technique of the
node-admittance method, analytical expressions for neutral
current and tank current were computed in
s-domain using MAPLE (for performing symbolic computa-
tions), for a unit step excitation. The expressions are given
(1)
where,
and
(2)
Therefore
(3)
From the above, it is observed that the line and neutral current
expressions have four terms as follows.
• The first term is a constant term, comprised of only and
, and devoid of “s”.
• The second term is a purely inductive term (i.e., equivalent
inductance ).
• The last two terms are functions of all inductances and
capacitances.
The last two terms are actually the oscillating components
and describe the resonance behavior of the winding. Roots of
their denominator determine the resonance/natural frequencies
of the winding. An important observation in this regard is that
the second and fourth term in the line current expression are
exactly equal to the corresponding terms in the neutral current
expression and, hence, they are cancelled out while subtracting
one from the other to compute the tank current expression. This
PRAMANIK: RESONANCE BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO DETECT MECHANICAL CHANGE
Fig. 5. Neutral and tank current magnitude response and their corresponding pole-zero maps. (a) Pole-zero map and (b) magnitude response. (Note: Only one pole
or zero for each complex conjugate pair has been included here for the reader's convenience. The numbers identify the resonance peaks in the right-hand subplot
and their corresponding poles in the left-hand subplot.)
TABLE I
POLE-ZEROS OF TANK CURRENT OF THE
FIVE-SECTION LADDER NETWORK
is the reason why alternate natural frequencies are not excited
in the magnitude response and essentially remain dormant or
latent. This fact is also verified analytically up to a six-section
model and numerically up to 10-section model and found to be
consistent.
This fact is also true for a lossy ladder network, but the com-
putation does not readily permit the factorization of the oscil-
lating components into two parts, and the expressions also run
into several pages. Hence, they are not included here. But the
same has been verified numerically with the 5-section ladder
network. Poles and zeros for both neutral and tank current re-
sponse functions were computed and are plotted in Fig. 5 to-
gether with their corresponding magnitude responses.
Numerical values of the poles zeros are also listed in Table I.
The table clearly shows that for the healthy condition, every
alternate pair of poles and zeros (shaded) in the tank current
response function are exactly equal to each other and, hence,
are cancelled out. This explains why only alternate resonance
peaks are missing in the tank current magnitude response.
2279
Next, the faulty case was examined with the corresponding
new set of poles and zeros (for tank current) along with the cor-
responding magnitude response (see Fig. 6). This figure depicts
how the poles and zeros in every alternate pair are separated
(also evident in Table I), and now manifest themselves as new
resonance peaks in the magnitude response. The occurrence of
these new resonance peaks implies that the tank current is more
sensitive to faults in comparison to the neutral current which ex-
periences only a change or shift in existing peaks. When com-
paring frequency responses, the emergence of new peak/trough
is obviously a more significant event than a mere shift in existing
peaks/troughs. Now, the next obvious question which arises is:
Is this observation of tank current resonance behavior generic
for any kind of fault in the winding? If so, then a fault condi-
tion can be inferred by merely counting only the new resonance
peaks appearing in the subsequently measured magnitude re-
sponse in comparison with the reference or healthy FRA. If not,
then are there any specific conditions which might prevent the
emergence of new resonance peaks in tank current magnitude
response?
To probe this matter further, a three-section ladder network
model with all distinct parameters was considered and the
analytical expressions in (1)–(3) were recomputed. The expres-
sions are very long and so are not included here, but they reveal
the fact that there exist few particular fault-condition scenarios
where pole-zero cancellations for alternate resonant peaks
occur, if and only if, the following conditions are satisfied:
• and/or;
• and/or;
• .
2280
Fig. 6. Simulation results of (a) the pole-zero map and (b) tank current magnitude response for the five-section ladder network with a fault.
The aforementioned conditions suggest that the introduced
faults are identical and symmetrically located (i.e., equidistant
from the line end and neutral end, respectively) and are of equal
magnitude. Under this hypothetical condition (which is easy to
implement in simulations), it emerges that the tank current re-
sponse fails to exhibit emergence of new resonance peaks, as ob-
served previously. Only a shift of peaks/troughs is observable,
and that is very similar to what is revealed by the neutral cur-
rent response. The author hastens to add that encountering such
a scenario in practice, in all likelihood, is extremely remote, if
not impossible, and so it should not be construed as a limitation
of the detection abilities of the tank current method. Moreover,
all of the aforementioned conditions are further rigidly bound
by another condition, that is, , failing which will re-
sult in the emergence of new resonance peaks in tank-current
magnitude response. However, if the changes are pertinent to
only one section, then all types of changes will result in per-
turbation to the tank-current magnitude response, except,
and/or in the middle section which is further restricted by
the condition . Therefore, in final summary, these
particular fault condition scenarios could be of only theoretical
interest but are extremely remote in practice. Consequences of
all the aforementioned conditions were individually verified by
performing several simulations and analytical calculations for
several models. These findings were experimentally validated
by conducting measurements on actual transformer windings
by introducing simulated mechanical faults, and the pertinent
results are reported in the following section.
A. Validity for the Three-Phase Scenario
This unique resonance behavior of the tank current discussed
before for a single isolated winding representation has been
found to remain unchanged even when a three-phase winding
model is considered. Simulation studies conducted on a three-
phase winding modeled as three individual mutually coupled
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 30, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2015
ladder networks, each interconnected to the other by appropriate
inter-winding capacitances, reveals identical tank current be-
havior. This indicates that the tank current feature that is being
dealt with here is not a freak phenomenon, but is a salient char-
acteristic of the winding, and it is worthy of further studies and
investigation. Perhaps, in the future, it will emerge as a better
candidate for fault diagnostics, at least, in some select types
of windings, if not all. This can only be answered with more
studies.
IV. EXPERIMENTS ON ACTUAL WINDING
A. Interleaved Disk Winding
To conduct the experiment initially, a single, isolated,
air-core, fully interleaved-disk winding was considered. The
winding had a total of 16 disks with 10 turns per disk. Height,
inner and outer diameters are 225 mm, 260 mm and 350 mm
respectively. Two aluminum foils were concentrically placed
inside and outside the winding to represent the ground planes
similar to core and tank respectively, in an actual transformer.
Finally, both the inner and outer Al-sheets were connected
together to represent a common ground plane. If the core is
present it may alter the flux distribution ([15], [16]) but is
unlikely to introduce any non-uniformity to the distribution of
winding parameters. This means that the core may introduce
a change in inductances and capacitances but the changes will
be uniform throughout the length of the winding. Thus, all the
sections of the equivalent model will still remain identical to
each other (as in Fig. 1) and, hence, the basic findings of the
present work will not be altered. Input voltage, neutral current
and tank current magnitude responses (i.e., healthy responses)
were measured using sweep frequency method by employing
the following setup.
PRAMANIK: RESONANCE BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO DETECT MECHANICAL CHANGE
Fig. 7. Measured (a) neutral current and (b) tank current magnitude response
of an interleaved disk winding for a healthy case.
• An arbitrary waveform generator, capable of producing
a maximum 20 Vp-p sinusoid with a frequency range of
0–80 MHz
• A 200-MSamples/s, 8-b digital oscilloscope
• A clamp-on current probe with a sensitivity of 2 mA/mV,
bandwidth: 450 Hz-60 MHz.
• coaxial cables
The winding was excited with a sinusoidal source with variable
frequency, and for each frequency, the input and output signals,
viz., input voltage, line current, and neutral current were ac-
quired directly with the digital oscilloscope using coaxial
cables. However, the tank current or shunt current was obtained
by subtracting the neutral current from the line current using
a “Math” operation available in the oscilloscope. To achieve
a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the signals were measured
using the “average” mode option and the lowpass filtering op-
tion available in all modern digital oscilloscopes. All frequen-
cies and the corresponding magnitudes of all the waveforms
were used later in Matlab to compute the magnitude responses
(i.e., the ratio of the output current to the input voltage at each
frequency point). Measurement was considered up to the last
distinctly observable peak/trough which corresponds to the res-
onance characteristics of the winding. The measured responses
are plotted in Fig. 7.
The actual measurement of tank current in Fig. 7 reproduces
similar tank current resonance behavior of the ladder network
demonstrated above in Section II. Neutral current magnitude
response exhibits a total of five resonance peaks, whereas the
tank current magnitude response exhibits only two of them.
Other resonance peaks (i.e., the alternate peaks) are conspicu-
ously missing but remain dormant. They reappeared in the mag-
nitude response when a fault was introduced in the winding and,
hence, tank current proved to be very sensitive to any mechan-
ical change of the winding. Mechanical faults actually cause
nonuniformity to the distribution of winding parameters, that
is, inductances and capacitances and the same was implemented
here by adding external lumped capacitances to the winding. Se-
ries capacitance of the winding was changed by adding an ex-
ternal lumped capacitor of 0.98 nF between the 5th and 7th disk
of the winding and similarly, ground capacitance was changed
by adding another lumped capacitor of 0.033 nF between the
2281
Fig. 8. Measured neutral current magnitude response of an interleaved-disk
winding: (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
Fig. 9. Measured tank current magnitude response of an interleaved-disk
winding. (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
7th disk and ground. This was purposefully made just to avoid
the permanent damage of the winding. This fault is also meant
to be very localized and minor in nature. Corresponding neutral
and tank current magnitude responses were measured and are
plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 along with their healthy responses.
As a consequence of this fault, neutral current magnitude re-
sponse suffered only a change/shift in resonance frequencies
followed by a minor change in their magnitudes (see Fig. 8).
The same also applies to the existing resonance peaks in tank
current magnitude response, but in addition, it exhibits two new
resonance peaks marked as 3 and 5 in Fig. 9. Tank current mea-
surement in this regard seems to be more sensitive to fault de-
tection than the conventional neutral current measurement.
B. Continuous Disk Winding
A similar experiment was also conducted for an actual con-
tinuous-disk winding in the presence of inner and outer Al-foils.
This winding was actually removed from an old discarded trans-
former and the LV winding, which is layer type, was shorted
and grounded and was intentionally kept inside it to resemble
the practical situation. The winding was comprised of 46 total
disks and had a height of 395 mm. Inner and outer diameters
were 250 mm and 305 mm, respectively. Responses were mea-
sured using the same setup and they are plotted in Fig. 10.
The continuous-disk winding also produces a tank current
resonance behavior, that is, in principle, similar to what was
2282
Fig. 10. (a) Neutral current and (b) tank current magnitude response of a con-
tinuous disk winding for the healthy case.
Fig. 11. Measured neutral current magnitude response of a continuous-disk
winding. (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
Fig. 12. Measured tank current magnitude response of a continuous-disk
winding. (a) Healthy. (b) Faulty.
observed in the interleaved disk winding [Fig. 10(b)]. As an-
ticipated, alternate resonance peaks are missing in the tank cur-
rent magnitude response in comparison to the neutral current
magnitude response. A small kink is observable in between the
nd and th resonance peaks [as numbered in Fig. 10(b)] and
this could be explained due to the inherent nonuniformity in
the actual winding. Both of the responses were measured again
after introducing a fault to the winding by adding external ca-
pacitances, that is, a 0.49-nF capacitor between disks 20 and
24 as well as 0.98- and 0.18-nF capacitors between the ground
and disks 13 and 21, respectively. The measured responses are
plotted in Figs. 11 and 12.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 30, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2015
Fig. 12 illustrates how the dormant natural frequencies have
now resurfaced even for a localized and relatively minor change
in the winding, resulting in new resonance peaks in the tank
current magnitude response. It is obvious that the magnitude
of these new resonance peaks depends on the severity of fault
and its extension along the length of the winding. A shift in
position and magnitude of the existing resonance peaks in tank
current magnitude response is also noticeable as an outcome of
the fault. However, the corresponding neutral current magnitude
response (in Fig. 11) experienced only a change in position and
magnitude of the existing resonance peaks but did not result in
any additional peak.
All of the experimental results were consistent with what was
predicted by the simulation studies in Section II, and they cor-
roborated well with the predictions arising from an analysis of
the analytical expressions of neutral current and tank current
[(2) and (3)]. The feature of dormant (or nonexcitable) natural
frequencies in a healthy winding and their resurfacing under a
fault condition was conspicuously observable in both types of
windings studied. It is important to mention here that in the case
of the fully interleaved winding, this peculiar feature is very
dramatically seen during experiments. The main contribution
of this paper is to highlight this peculiar feature of the tank cur-
rent, which hitherto was not noticed, and the other fallout of
it is the discovery of a quantity which affords improved sensi-
tivity to fault detection, at least for interleaved windings, com-
pared to the traditional neutral current. Information on natural
frequencies is usually considered the most valuable input for
FRA diagnostics and, hence, the task is always difficult for the
interleaved-disk winding since it possesses only a few reso-
nance peaks in FRA measurements. In this regard, tank current
measurement seems a more useful alternative for interleaved
disk winding in fault detection compared to the neutral current
measurement.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper highlighted a unique feature of tank current res-
onance behavior of the transformer winding and its possible
application to improve the fault detection sensitivity in FRA
measurements. This was demonstrated by simulation results and
measurement on actual windings. The behavior was explained
using the analytical expressions for both neutral current and tank
current response functions, followed by their pole-zero distri-
butions. The difference between the tank current and neutral
current resonance behavior actually lies in the difference be-
tween their pole-zero distributions and this paper highlighted
this particular feature to explain the uniqueness of tank current
resonance behavior. Employing this unique tank current reso-
nance behavior, one can easily identify any change in trans-
former winding in practice by counting only the additional or
new resonance peaks in the magnitude response that emerge
during a subsequent FRA measurement. This seems to be the
usefulness of tank current measurement over the conventional
neutral current measurement, insofar as the interleaved winding
is concerned. This feature appears to be beneficial, especially for
interleaved windings, since they exhibit very few natural fre-
quencies in comparison with continuous-disk windings. There-
fore, in summary, the overall sensitivity afforded by the tank
PRAMANIK: RESONANCE BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO DETECT MECHANICAL CHANGE
current measurement is found to be better than the conventional
neutral current measurement to detect a fault in the transformer
winding. The author opines that these results need to be rein-
forced by extensive measurements, and the possibility of con-
sidering tank current in FRA measurements must be explored
by power utilities and industry alike.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank to Prof. L. Satish, HV Labo-
ratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, IISc., Bangalore,
India, for his valuable comments and suggestions during the
preparation of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Hagenguth, “Progress in impulse testing of transformers,” Elect.
Eng., vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 999–1005, Dec. 1944.
[2] H. C. Stewart and J. E. Holcomb, “Impulse failure detection methods
as applied to distribution transformers,” Elect. Eng., vol. 64, no. 9, pp.
640–644, Sep. 1945.
[3] E. Stenkvist, “Study of fault detection and failure location during surge
testing of transformers,” CIGRE rep. 12–129, 1952, pp. 1–31.
[4] C. K. Roy and J. R. Biswas, “Studies on impulse behavior of a trans-
former winding with simulated faults by analogue modeling,” Proc.
Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen. Transm. Distrib, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 401–412,
Sep. 1994.
[5] R. Maleswski and B. Poulin, “Impulse testing of power transformers
using transfer function method,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 3, no.
2, pp. 476–489, Apr. 1988.
[6] E. E. Dick and C. C. Erven, “Transformer diagnostic testing via fre-
quency response analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-97,
no. 6, pp. 2144–2153, Nov./Dec. 1978.
2283
[7] D. A. K. Pham, T. M. T. Pham, H. Borsi, and E. Gockenbach, “A new
diagnostic method to support standard frequency response analysis as-
sessments for diagnostics of transformer winding mechanical failures,”
IEEE Elect. Insul. Mag., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 34–41, Mar./Apr. 2014.
[8] J. C. G. Arispe and E. E. Mombello, “Detection of failures within trans-
formers by FRA using multiresolution decomposition,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1127–1137, Jun. 2014.
[9] Guide for the Application and Interpretation of Frequency Response
Analysis for oil Immersed Transformers, IEEE C57.149-2012, 2012.
[10] K. Ragavan and L. Satish, “Construction of physically realizable
driving-point function from measured frequency response data on a
model winding,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 760–766,
Apr. 2008.
[11] S. Pramanik and L. Satish, “Enhancing physical resolution of con-
structed ladder network for an interleaved winding,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf., Kolkata, India, Dec. 2013, pp. 60–65.
[12] L. Satish and A. Saravanakumar, “Identification of terminal connection
and system function for sensitive frequency response measurement on
transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 742–750,
Apr. 2008.
[13] J. A. S. B. Jayasinghe, Z. D. Wang, P. N. Jarman, and A. W. Darwin,
“Winding movement in power transformers: a comparison of FRA
measurement connection methods,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Elect.
Insul., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1342–1349, Dec. 2006.
[14] “CIGRE report on the discussions of transformers group 12,” in Proc.
CIGRE Conf, May 31, 1952, pp. 147–203.
[15] E. E. Mombello, “Impedances for the calculation of electromagnetic
transients within transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 17, no.
2, pp. 479–488, Apr. 2002.
[16] K. G. N. B. Abeywickrama, A. D. Podoltsev, Y. V. Serdyuk, and S. M.
Gubanski, “Infuence of core characteristics on inductance calculations
for modeling of power transformers,” in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Ind. Inf.
Syst., Sri Lanka, Aug. 2006, pp. 24–29.
Saurav Pramanik was born in 1984. He received the B.E. degree in electrical
engineering from the Jadavpur University, Jadavpur, Kolkata, India, in 2006 and
the M.Sc.(Engg.) and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
Since 2014, he has been with Corporate Research, ABB, Vasteras, Sweden.
His research areas include condition monitoring and diagnostics of high-voltage
power apparatus and magnetics of power transformers.