Improved Technique for Fault Detection Sensitivity in Transformer Maintenance Test

Essam Al-Ammar, Student Member, IEEE, George G. Karady, Fellow, IEEE, and Orlando P. Hevia, Member, IEEE
Abstract-- Transformer windings might be shifted because of short-circuit current, aging or impact during transportation. The shift modifies the dielectric space between the layers of the windings and may cause an insulation breakdown. Since transformers are expensive to replace, it is vital that their condition are determined accurately without having to dismantle the apparatus to inspect it visually. Generally, transformers test is performed for maintenance purposes, by either Low Voltage Impulse (LVI) test or Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) test. Both methods have been adopted within the industrial applications. Nonetheless, they have drawbacks, including limited frequencies range for LVI test and time-consuming measurements for SFRA test. To obtain better signature analysis and to increase the detection sensitivity in the transformer maintenance test, this paper suggests a new input signal using a Random Pulse Sequence (RPS) in the transfer function analysis. The results of RPS test are compared against the LVI and SFRA tests to complete the assessments. Index Terms-- EMTP, faults, FFT, LVI, pulse, random, RPS, signature analysis, SFRA, transfer function, transformer. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

RANSFORMERS can fail in different ways and for different reasons. Some causes of winding failures are the loss of mechanical strength produced by improper handling during transportation and by short-circuits between turns. When a transformer is transported from the factory to the substation, some loosening of coils or loss of clamping pressure may be produced and the windings can be displaced with possible deformation. The short-circuits between turns or layers created by faults shorts part of the distributed RLC winding circuit, modifying the input impedance of the transformer with a resulting change in current amplitude and frequency [1]. Although transformers are reliable and their performance is often taken for granted in the power system, when a fault occurs in a transformer it can develop catastrophic failures resulting in very expensive repairs. Therefore, monitoring of transformer conditions to provide an adequate maintenance schedule is of considerable interest among utilities. An early and periodic detection of changes within the transformer windings will predict the transformer condition and help to estimate a proper maintenance schedule [1, 2, 3]. The main driving forces are to reduce maintenance costs, prevent forced outages, with
Essam Al-Ammar and George G. Karady are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA (email: ealammar@asu.edu; karady@asu.edu). Orlando P. Hevia is an independent consultant, Gorostiaga 1483, 3000Santa Fe, Argentina (email: oph@eeug.org).

related consequential costs and to extend the life of existing equipment [4]. Winding faults in transformers are assessed by comparing transfer functions obtained from the transformer under different conditions [1, 2, 5]. Any significant deviations from the fingerprint, (i.e. factory tests), in the transfer functions may indicate the incidence of faults within the windings, e.g. short circuits, loose windings, and lose of clamping pressure [4]. The Transfer Function (TF) method was developed and applied successfully by utilities over many years. Instead of time domain analysis, which shows weak deviation from normal and fault conditions, Frequency Response Analysis (FRA) has been used widely to obtain transfer functions. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) has been the standard technique used in the frequency response analysis [1]. FRA is a generally well-known testing technique within the industry to determine a transformer winding deformation, e.g. coils, turns, layers, HV leads, .etc, owning to short-circuit currents (faults), impact during transportation and aging [6]. Dick and Erven were the first to use the FRA method to detect the transformer winding deformation in 1978 [2]. The conventional method for evaluating the transformer transfer function uses an impulse signal as the input stimulus [1, 2, 5].One of the drawbacks of the impulse testing method is that the input signal does not provide adequate excitation across the span of the passband of the transformer, (i.e. it is not persistently exciting). This problem could be alleviated with broadband signals designed to have injected energy across a wide range of frequencies. Sweep frequency, on the other hand, is the most comprehensive method of measuring a transfer function, since it injects wideband frequencies into a transformer. However, it has some drawbacks, such as measurements and processing of data are time consuming. This paper presents a new technique to improve the sensitivity of transformer winding fault detection using more complex excitation signals, termed Random Pulse Sequence (RPS).

II. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE Currently, there are two techniques which have been adopted within the industry that inject the range of necessary frequencies and determine a transformer condition: 1. Low Voltage Impulse (LVI) test. 2. Swept frequency method or Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA). The LVI test involves applying a short, low voltage impulse to one winding and recording the applied impulse and natural current or output voltage on another winding. Then,

1-4244-1298-6/07/$25.00 2007 IEEE.

the TF analysis is applied and the transfer function is determined. The standard impulse wave can be represented as double exponential waves defined by the following equation: v(t ) = V 0 (e t e t ) (1) where, V0 is in volts, and are constants. One of the downsides of the LVI method is that a limited frequency ranges is injected [7], as observed by taken FFT of Eg. (1), or 1 1 V ( ) = V 0 ( ) (2) + + Eq. (2) shows a high amplitude of the input signal at lowfrequency, while a low amplitude of the signal is injected at both mid- and high frequencies. However, there are practical problems with the application of this technique in terms of repeatability might be difficult to attain, especially in noisy field environments where noise affects the transfer function [8]. The impulse wave shape used for maintenance impulse testing of transformers is the ANSI/IEEE standard 1.250 sec full-wave lightning impulse described in IEEE Std. C57.98-1993 [9] and IEEE Std. 4-1995 [10]. The standard 1.2/50 sec, whose peak voltage is a 500V impulse will be used in the case study. Alternately, the SFRA method usually requires the use of a network analyzer to generate the signal, take the measurements and manipulate the results. The output amplitude of the sweep frequency sinusoid is a low voltage signal from the analyzer. One measuring input is connected to one end of the same phase winding (primary), while the other measuring input is connected to the other end of the same phase winding (secondary). The voltages and TF are then applied and determined [7, 11]. Although SFRA test is the most basic means of measuring a transfer function, which may be considered an advantage of this technique, measurements and processing of data are time consuming [7]. Besides, there are some complexities associated with this technique when it is applied to large power transformers. Since a network analyzer is used, high measurement error and poor repeatability often occur. Due to low signal levels in the response voltage. For example, the response of the primary current must flow over the length of the measurement cable back to the network analyzer which may result again in poor sensitivity in the upper frequency ranges. In addition, repeatability is difficult to maintain when using different measuring cables [8].

urement times, fast data collocation, repeatability and portability. Random Pulse Sequence (RPS) meets all the above specifications. Fig. 1 shows train of pulses, where d is pulse width and D is pulse separation. The ultimate objective of using RPS method is to monitor the condition of critical power transformers operating in the transmission and distribution network. It is noted that using RPS method for testing purposes is not a new one. In fact, it has been used widely to test communication cables [12, 13]. Relative changes in transformer characteristics will help distinguish between failure types and provide an indication of test repeatability. In the previous literature, the research was aimed at quantifying the relative change in amplitude (DA) and in resonant frequency location (Df). The relative changes are computed as: A An DA = i 100 (3) An
fi fn 100 (4) fn where An and fn are, respectively, the magnitude and resonant frequency location for the fingerprint. Ai and fi are the magnitude and resonant frequency location for all other simulated conditions [14, 15]. The resonant frequency is the frequency at which the peak of the spectrum occurs. From the past literature, it has been shown that the fault detection sensitivity is greatly improved using the transadmittance transfer function (ratio of FFT of primary current over FFT of secondary voltage) as compared to the selfadmittance transfer function (ratio of FFT of primary current over FFT of primary voltage). While self-admittance transfer function uses only one variable factor, which changes according to the simulated case and the primary voltage is relatively constant, the trans-admittance transfer function has two variables. For this reason, trans-admittance will be applied this analysis [15]. Df =

Voltage

Fig. 1. Sample of train of pulses.

Therefore, it is essential to have a new method which has the following properties: wide frequency range, short meas-

III. FREQUENCY RESPONSE ANALYSIS (FRA) Frequency Response Analysis (FRA) uses the ratio of the frequency response of an input voltage or current to an output voltage to obtain the impedance (or admittance) of transformer windings over a wide range of frequencies and compares the results of these measurements to a reference set. Any differences may indicate damage to the transformer, which can be investigated further using other techniques or by an internal examination (visual inspection) [11, 16]. In principle, the FRA is based on the equivalent circuit of transformer winding, which can be represented by a ladder network with series inductance and capacitance as well as parallel capacitance. Because the resistance is ignored, the equivalent circuit consists of series capacitance, ground capacitance and series inductance [17]. Frequency response of the transformer is sensitive to the physical parameters of the transformer, and it affects frequency response due to any changes in inductance or capacitance. Table I shows a conceptual review of possible relationships of transformer parameters and fault type [1, 18]. A

Time

breakdown between the turns or coils of the transformer, according to Table I, will result in shifting the resonant pole to another frequency or creation of a new pole. A partial discharge condition in the transformer will not considerably influence the resonant frequency of the affected pole, but the pole height will be reduced. Accordingly, a change of the resonant pole frequency indicates a breakdown in the winding insulation, but a reduction in the pole height shows partial discharge activity. The frequency range usually extends from 10 Hz to 1 MHz. Stray capacitance is affected only by high frequency [7, 19].
TABLE I RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSFORMER MODEL PARAMETERS CHANGES TO FAULTS TYPE [18]

resistance characterizes the total core losses in the transformer. Capacitors C1 and C2 are the total distributed elements between turns of each winding. C12 is the capacitance between the primary and secondary windings. The equivalent circuit for the model is shown in Fig. 2 [20].

V. CASE STUDY In order to demonstrate different signature analysis methods, a case study was considered. The parameters of the transient model of the transformer were taken from tested transformer rated at 55MVA 132/76 kV. The parameters of the transformer are shown in Table II. The concept of the case study is as follows: First, the LVI test is performed so that a standard voltage impulse of 1.2/50 sec, 500V is injected into the primary terminals of the transformer, and the primary voltage and current and secondary voltage are calculated using EMTP. Next, the SFRA test is performed by sweeping a frequency range, with amplitude of 500V, and the primary current and secondary voltage are determined, accordingly. At this point, an optimization process is made to find an optimum d (pulse width) and D (pulse separation) using a Uniform Pulse Sequence (UPS), based on the relative change factors, as calculated from Eqs. 3 and 4. Finally, the RPS method is run using the optimum point. Various electrical failures modes are then simulated in the same transformer model for LVI, SFRA and RPS tests.

Parameters Ls Cg Cs

IV.

TRANSIENT MODEL OF THE TRANSFORMER

L1 L2

0.88 mH 0.72 mH

Fig. 2. Transient model representation of the transformer.

Therefore, a transient model of the transformer is suggested, which is simple, comprehensive and can be implemented in software package, such as EMTP. The model consists of inductors, capacitors, resistors and an ideal transformer, as well as stray capacitances and inductances. L1 and L2 represent the primary and secondary leakage inductance, respectively. LM represents the magnetizing inductance. Resistors R1 and R2 represent the power loss in the primary and secondary winding, and Rc represents the core loss. The core loss

This fingerprint is unique to every transformer, and remains unchanged as long as the structure of a transformer winding remains unchanged. If a transformer experiences a fault, the parameters of the transformer may be affected and changed, too. Any physical change to the winding structure will cause the winding's inductive and capacitive properties to change consequently, e.g. a short circuit between the turns or a coil displacement would vary the inductances and capacitances of the transformer. In our study, in order to have a short circuit between the turns or coil displacement, a change in the value of transformer parameters must be assumed. 10% change is assumed here. Hence, six cases would be under consideration as follows: 1. Normal (healthy case or fingerprint). 2. A change in the primary inductance, i.e. L1 = 1.1 L1 . 3. A change in the secondary inductance, i.e. L2 = 1.1 L2 . 4. A change in the primary capacitance, i.e. C1 = 1.1 C1 .

Rc

1.60 k

R2

0.25

A transient model of the transformer is needed, so that a transformer can be simulated mathematically in healthy and faulty cases, using software packages such as EMTP, Electromagnetic Transients Program, or PSCAD, Power Systems Computer Aided Design. EMTP (or ATP) will be used next in the case study. There are many transformer models in the literature, but very few transformer models are available for computer and simulation modeling.

Faults Breakdown, short circuits, and disk deformation Moisture ingress, buckling due to large mechanical forces, disc movements, and loss of clamping pressure Aging of insulation

TABLE II TRANSFORMER PARAMETERS

Parameter R1

Value 0.23

Parameter C1 C2 C12 LM

Value 1.06 F 0.32 F 1.59 F 105.1 H

5. 6.

A change in the secondary capacitance, i.e. C 2 = 1.1 C 2 . A change in the capacitance between the primary and secondary windings, i.e. C12 = 1.1 C12 .

VI.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

small phase shift, in case of a change in the capacitance between the primary and secondary windings. The percentage difference for other faulty cases is within 1%, for both primary current and secondary voltage. Hence, it is difficult to quantitatively describe the difference in the current and voltage waveforms by visual inspection alone.

The following are the results generated from the simulation using the EMTP program. Firstly, a result of the LVI and the SFRA tests are outlined. An optimization process of a uniform pulse is presented, followed by the RPS technique which is injected into the same transformer and its results are investigated, too. A. LVI Test Figs. 3 and 4 show the primary current and secondary voltage waveforms in the time domain, generated from a standard 1.2/50 sec, 500V impulse voltage.

Fig. 3. Primary current of all cases.

Normal L1 L2 C1 C2 C12

Fig. 4. Secondary voltage of all cases.

B. SFRA Test By utilizing trans-admittance transfer function, clear differences are observed in some faulty cases, as shown in Fig. 6. In particular, a change in the primary and secondary inductances are affected during the test, but the method fails to show any difference in the change of capacitances, C1 and C2, in general. Table IV summarizes the consequences of the transfer function.

It can be observed that the secondary voltages and primary currents for the normal case and other faulty cases are very similar, though there is a slight difference in the peak and a

Fig. 5. Spectrum magnitude of the trans-admittance transfer function (LVI).

Once more, via the trans-admittance transfer function (ratio of FFT of primary current over FFT of secondary voltage) in the frequency domain or FRA technique, more remarked differences are observed, as shown in Fig. 5, especially a change in the primary inductance and capacitance, L1 and C1. Table III summarizes the consequences of the transfer function in frequency domain, where Am is the peak amplitude of the resonant pole. It is noted Df shows poor deviations in all faulty cases.
TABLE III SUMMARY OF TRANS-ADMITTANCE TRANSFER FUNCTION (LVI TEST)

Test

Am ( -1) 0.5019 0.2875 0.4783 0.3228 0.4269 0.4563

f (kHz) 6.5 6.125 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.125

DA (%) 42.7180 4.7021 35.6981 14.9558 9.1029

Df (%) 5.7692 0 0 0 5.7692

TABLE IV SUMMARY OF TRANS-ADMITTANCE TRANSFER FUNCTION (SFRA TEST)

Normal L1 L2 C1 C2 C12

Fig. 6. Spectrum magnitude of the trans-admittance transfer function (SFRA).

C. Pulse Optimization Process An optimization was made to determine the optimum size of d (pulse width) and D (pulse separation), as shown in Fig. 2. Ten uniform pulses were used. Fig. 7 shows an example of 3D surface plot DAL2 (relative change of amplitude factor of secondary inductance). Fig. 8 shows a flowchart, where ATP program was executed repetitively and d and D were changed in nested loops. Both, d and D, were changed from 1 sec to 500 sec. Using Egs. 3 and 4, the relative change factors are calculated for every scenario.

Fig. 7. 3D plots of relative change factor of the DAL2.

Test

Am ( -1) 2.4424 2.9204 2.1694 2.5915 2.3508 1.8245

f (kHz) 3.0271 2.9810 2.9132 3.0271 3.0271 2.8909

DA (%) -19.5702 11.1765 -6.1026 3.7503 25.3001

Df (%) 3.6364 9.0909 0 0 10.9091

It was observed that the peak of DAL2 occurs at pulse width equal to 100usec and pulse separation equal to 325usec. That is, performing the test at these values would enhance fault detection sensitivity significantly for any change in the secondary inductance. It is noted, in addition, there are other peaks occurring in Fig. 7, but none of them is high as previous one.

Fig. 8. Flowchart of the optimization process.

An interesting observation was made after completing all simulations. Fig. 9 shows the contour plot of all relative change factors, where the absolute peak values are signed and marked in the pulse separation/width plane. DA and Df represent a relative change of amplitude and frequency factor, respectively. At each peak, the summation of pulse separation and pulse width (i.e. pulse period) is presented between parentheses. It is observed that the relationship between all peaks in the plane can be represented by the following equation: 1 d + D n (5) fr where d is pulse width, D is pulse separation, and fr is the primary resonance frequency, which was determined to be 3.55kHz. n is a selected number falls on the series (multiple of 0.5), e.g. 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0etc. It is noted that Eq. (5) suggests that pulse period ( i.e. d+D) of the peaks of the relative change factors is related perceptibly to the half (or multiple) or full (or multiple) of the inverse of the resonance frequency by choosing n. Next, this discovery will be used to effectively to form the RPS signals.

Fig. 9. Contour plot of all relative changes factor (10%).

D. RPS Test In order to demonstrate the RPS signals, the result of the optimization is utilized. Since Eq. 5 proposes that the fault detection sensitivity is enhanced greatly at the resonance frequency of the transformer, the pulse width and pulse separation can be generated as follows: 1 d = k n (6) fr
1 (7) fr where d is pulse width, D is pulse separation, and fr is the primary resonance frequency which was determined to be 3.55kHz. n is a randomly selected number from the following numbers only, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3. k is a random number between 0.001 to 0.999. D = (1 k ) n

Ten random pulses are used, as shown in Fig. 10. Figs. 11 and 12 show the primary current and secondary voltage waveforms in the time domain. It can be observed that the secondary voltages and primary currents for the normal case and other faulty cases are almost similar, though there is a difference in the peak and a small phase shift. In the case of change in the primary inductance and capacitance between the primary and secondary windings, the difference is about 5%. As was the case in the other methods, it is not easy to distinguish between the current and voltage waveforms by visual inspection alone for other faulty cases.

Fig. 11. Primary current of all cases (RPS). Fig. 10. RPS signals generated.

VII.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Fig. 12. Secondary voltage of all cease (RPS).

More remarked differences are observed, as shown in Fig. 14, in all cases amazingly, via the trans-admittance transfer function in the frequency domain. Table V summarizes the consequences of the transfer function in frequency domain using RPS method. It is noted all faulty cases are distinguishable, from the fingerprint.

Through the study of 55MVA power transformer using the LVI test, there is a very small difference in the time domain when comparing voltage or current waveforms from healthy to faulty cases. Using the transfer function in the frequency domain (or FRA technique), these deviations are obviously apparent in some faulty cases, but it is difficult to make a quantitative evaluation for a change in primary inductance and capacitance as illustrated in Table III. SFRA test shows a clear difference in the inductance change, but it fails to give any difference in the capacitances change. The optimization technique shows that there is a strong link between the resonance frequency of the transformer and the pulse period to differentiate faulty cases against the fingerprint, as well as to enhance fault detection sensitivity. The RPS technique is performed by employing this conclusion. Table V shows that the sensitivity of the failure detection is considerably improved by using the RPS technique, through comparing the relative change factors of the RPS method as compared to the LVI and the SFRA tests. Almost all faulty cases show apparent and considerable deviations. Fig.14 shows three different RPS signals, which are generated using Egs. 6 and 7. All of them lead to the exact transfer function, shown in Fig. 13. Consequently, RPS is a repeatable method. This is a very appealing result. Although the signals are randomly produced, they belong to the same equation (Eq. 5) as well as they relate to the transformer specifications (resonance frequency).

Fig. 14. Repeated RPS signals (3 tests). Fig. 13. Spectrum magnitude of the trans-admittance transfer function (RPS). TABLE V SUMMARY OF TRANS-ADMITTANCE TRANSFER FUNCTION (RPS TEST)

VIII. PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR RPS METHOD IN THE SITE The following are proposed procedures to perform the RPS method on a tested transformer: 1. Prior to installation, perform a frequency scan of the tested transformer at the factory, and determine the resonance frequency. 2. Obtain the transfer function of the transformer at the factory, (i.e.fingerprint). It is noted that the transfromer has to be off-line (de-energized). 3. Obtain the transfer function after installation at the site, and verify any deviation from the fingerprint.

Normal L1 L2 C1 C2 C12

Test

Am ( -1) 0.1709 0.1395 0.1489 0.06762 0.1879 0.02513

f (kHz) 2.824 2.779 2.728 2.699 2.825 2.801

DA (%) 18.3943 12.4746 60.4345 -9.9137 85.2279

Df (%) 1.5625 3.3854 4.4271 0.0354 0.5208

4.

Periodically obtain the transfer function following a predetermined maintenance schedule, or after a short circuit. Deviations from the fingerprint will indicate possible winding abnormalities and may suggest a appropriate maintenance work.

IX. CONCLUSION This paper presents a new technique to improve the sensitivity of transformer windings fault detection using Random Pulse Sequence (RPS) signals in the transformer maintenance test. The RPS method combines the advantages of the LVI and SFRA methods. Not only does the RPS method have the required specifications to detect the faults for the maintenance test, but it is also a repeatable method. Procedures to perform RPS in the site are proposed. By applying RPS technique, no need to use complex signal-processing methods, such as Wavelet Transform (WT), to enhance the fault detection sensitivity. No attempt was made to correlate the results with any experimental verification of the transformer. This may be the subject of the further investigation. The authors hope that the RPS method will help to reduce inaccuracy of the subjective judgments of technicians when drawing conclusions about changes in the winding structure of the transformer. Finally, this research will be an advancement of maintenance techniques which can be adopted by utilities.

[13] E. Murphy and C. Slattery, Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) controls waveforms in tests, measurements, and communications, Analog Dialog 39-08, Aug. 2005. Available at: http://www.analog.com/library/analogdialogue/archives/38-08/dds.html [14] E. Al-Ammar and G. Karady, Transfer function analysis using STFT for improvement of the fault detection sensitivity in transformer impulse test, in Proc. IEEE Summer Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 1855-1862, June 2005. [15] G. Karady, M. Reta-Hernandez, F. Amarh, and G. McCulla, Improved technique for fault detection sensitivity in transformer impulse test, in Proc. IEEE Summer Meeting, vol. 4, pp. 2412 -2416, July 2000. [16] J. Lapworth and T. McGrail, Transformer winding movement detection by frequency response analysis (FRA), in Proc. IEEE sixty-sixth Annual International Conf. of Doble Clients, Boston, MA, sec. 8-14, April 1999. [17] R. Malewski and B. Poulin, Impulse testing of power transformers using transfer function method, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 476-489, Oct. 1998. [18] J. Zhijia, Z. Minglin, and Z. Zishu, Fault location of transformer winding deformation using frequency response analysis, in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulating Materials, pp. 841-844, Nov. 2001. [19] J. Bak-Jensen, B. Bak-Jensen, and S. D. Mikkelsen, Detection of faults and ageing phenomena in transformers by transfer functions, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 308-314, Jan. 1995. [20] E. Al-Ammar and G. Karady, "Simplified transient model of the transformer during impulse test," Accepted at Ninth (IASTED) International Conf. on Power and Energy Systems (PES2007), no. 539-046, Clearwater, Florida, Jan. 2007.

BIOGRAPHIES
Essam Al-Ammar (S'01) was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his BS degree (honor) in Electrical Engineering from King Saud University in 1997. From 1997-1999, he worked as a Power/software engineer at Lucent Technologies in Riyadh. He worked as an Instructor at King Saud University between 1999-2000. In 2003, he received his MS degree from University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. He is currently a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University. His current research and academic interests include dry-band arcing on fiber-optic cables, faults detection in the transformer, high voltage engineering, power system transmission, distribution and protection. George Karady (SM'70, F'78) received BSEE and Doctor of Engineering degree in electrical engineering from Technical University of Budapest. Dr. Karady was appointed to Salt River Project Chair Professor at Arizona State University in 1986. Previously, he was with EBASCO Services where he served as Chief Consulting Electrical Engineer. He was Electrical Task supervisor for the Tokomak Fusion Test reactor project in Princeton. He worked for the Hydro Quebec Institute of Research as a Program manager. He also worked for the Technical University of Budapest as Deputy Department Head. Dr. Karady is a registered professional engineer in New York, New Jersey and Quebec. He is the author of more than 100 technical papers. Orlando P. Hevia was born in the province of Crdoba (Argentina), in 1947. He graduated from the Escuela Industrial Superior, and from the Universidad Tecnolgica Nacional (Facultad Regional Santa Fe) as Electrical Engineer in 1976. Since 1968 to 1995 worked for Empresa Provincial de la Energa de Santa Fe in different positions. Since 1996 is working as independent consultant, and as ATP developer.

X. REFERENCES
A. J. Vandermaar, Transformer condition monitoring by frequency response analysis, EPRI Substation Equipment Diagnostics Conf. VI, Sep. 1998. [2] E. P. Dick and C. C. Even, Transformer diagnostic testing by frequency response analysis, IEEE Trans. Power, Apparatus and Systems, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 2144-2153, Dec. 1978. [3] T. Leibfried, Monitoring of power transformers using transfer function method, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1333-1341, Oct. 1999. [4] G. Karady, M. Reta-Hernandez, and F. Amarh, Transformer winding fault detection using broadband excitation signals, Tech. Rep., Tempe, AZ, July 2000. [5] M. Stace and S. M. Islam, Condition monitoring of power transformers in the Australian State of New South Wales using transfer function measurements, in Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. Properties Application Dielectric Materials, Seoul, Korea, May 1997. [6] L. Coffeen, J. Britton, and J. Rickmann, A new technique to detect winding displacements in power transformers using frequency response analysis, in Proc. IEEE PowerTech, Bologna, vol. 2, June 2003. [7] R. Breytenbach, Frequency response analysis (FRA) for transformer testing using FRAMIT: its application and interpretation, in Proc. TechCon 2000, North America. [8] J. A. Britton, Transformer maintenance and diagnostics using frequency response analysis, Article presented at Electric Energy T&D Magazine, Feb. 2004. Available at: http://electricenergyonline.com/article.asp?m=5&mag=19&article=145 [9] IEEE guide for transformers impulse tests, IEEE Std. C57.98-1993. [10] IEEE standard techniques for high-voltage testing, IEEE Std. 4-1995. [11] J. A. Britton and M. Dowiak, Frequency response analysis of power transformers: practical aspects of FRA testing and interpretation, in Proc. NETA Annual Tech. Con., New Orleans, LA, March 2005. [12] L. O. Hoeft, R. J. Karaskiewicz, J. S. Hofstra, W. D. Prather, and W. R. Ayres, Effect of charge, feed, and test cable lengths on R2SPG waveforms, in Proc. IEEE Intern. Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, pp. 31-36, Aug. 1991. [1]