21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris
http://www.cigre.org 12-108
CONDITION BASED EVALUATION OF NET TRANSFORMERS – EXPERIENCE FROM
A NEW RANKING PROCEDURE.
L. PETTERSSON *
ABB PTP AB, Transformers
Sweden
N.L. FANTANA
ABB
CORPORATE RESEARCH
Germany
ABSTRACT
A new method for ranking Power Transformers with
respect to their suitability-for-use has previously been
developed and applied to Generator Transformers.
The method has now been adapted to Net Transformers
and in this report 13 Net Transformers (220 kV).
The evaluation method addresses the most important
aspects (short circuits aspects, loadability , ageing ,
electric aspects) that may endanger the transformer
performance and tries to evaluate the transformers with
respect to these aspects. The method involves in part
approximate reasoning making it possible to include
data and rules that are to some extent inexact in nature.
The input data stem from design, field influences and
from signs.
For the scrutinized transformers short circuit aspects
and loadability have the largest influences. The most
vulnerable transformers could clearly be identified for
each of these two aspects which, however, rank the
transformers in different order.
KEYWORDS: Power Transformer, Life Assessment,
Ranking, Condition Based Evaluation, Approximate
Reasoning, Fuzzy Logic, Transformer Diagnostics.
1. INTRODUCTION
In a time of stagnating growth of the electrical power
network the transformer population is ageing and many
transformers are approaching their “end-of-life” and
must in due time be relocated, repaired or replaced. To
take adequate measures the operating personnel of the
utility must have a good basis for decision [1,2].
*ABB Power Technology Products AB, Transformers,PO Box 702, S 771 80 Ludvika, Sweden
Session 2002
© CIGRÉ
J.O.PERSSON
SWEDPOWER AB
Sweden
K.I. WALLDÉN
VATTENFALL
Service
Sweden
In connection with this task, there are essentially three
major problems to solve – using three different
techniques :
- Detect and prevent an incipient failure – through
monitoring.
- Identify an already occurred malfunction – through
diagnostic evaluation.
- Strategic planning – through Condition Assessment
(or Life Assessment).
In this report we concentrate on Life Assessment with
the objective of finding the most vulnerable
transformers out of population so that proper measures
can be directed to these units. These activities could be
either suitable maintenance activities or other adequate
measures such as replacement or refurbishment.
To address this problem there are in principal two
different approaches:
- to estimate the remaining life of the transformers.
- to determine the present conditions and risks of the
transformers or its subparts.
To estimate the remaining life in absolute years is
however difficult - almost impossible - because it
involves many unknown assumptions, e.g. a clear
definition of “end-of-life” and a knowledge about future
stresses. Therefore, the second approach is a better
alternative - to focus on the transformer condition and
the possible risks of failure and to perform a relative
comparison between the transformers - a ranking of the
transformers [2].
Such a ranking can be performed at different ambition
levels depending on the need of the user [3]. The first,
most simple, ranking procedure is normally a screening
method based on easily available data – such as size,
time-in-operation, DGA and oil data. With such a
screening method the best transformers could be picked
out of a large population and be removed from the group
that needs further scrutiny.
In this report we do not discuss the simpler screening
methods. Instead, the evaluation method for ranking that
is used here is more advanced. It has three important
features:
- it is a unit oriented approach addressing the
possible risks that a transformer may experience
and focus on what is important for the transformer
function. Such risks can be related to short-circuit
aspects, loadability aspects, thermal aspects etc.
- it tries to perform a reasoning based known
transformer relationships.
- it can use vague or approximate data. The tool used
in this evaluation has the possibility to reason with
fuzzy sets. It can also handle a combination of fuzzy
sets and crisp data.
The method has previously been used to rank GSU
transformers [2]. Here the method is for the first time
applied to a set of system net transformers.
2. OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this investigation was two-fold;
- to check the applicability of this evaluation method
to net transformers.
- to rank a selection of transformers in order to find
which of these that need to be addressed first.
3. EVALUATION METHOD
3.1 APPROACH
When designing the evaluation method we concentrated
on the transformer function and asked which stresses
that could jeopardize the functionality (or
serviceability) of the transformer or in some other way
be potentially dangerous. The background philosophy is
that the “end-of-life” of a transformer is determined by
some technical or non-technical reason that may
endanger this functionality. Therefore, these reasons
define the stresses (or aspects) for which an evaluation
procedure should be defined. This approach is
fundamental since it links the evaluation of transformer
risks, condition of its subparts and end-of-life to the
possible external stresses.[2,4,5,6].
The parameters that we have focused on in this
investigation are the following important parameters:
- thermal aspects
- brittleness of aged paper
- general ageing of insulation (including oil)
- possible heating of core bandages
- electrical aspects
- general view based on influential
- factors including design ,ageing and sign
- mechanical aspects
- tilting (axial forces)
- buckling (radial forces)
- loadability
- short time emergency loading
- long time emergency loading.
Non-technical ”importance” parameters such as
economic aspects, safety aspects or noise aspects were
not addressed [7]. Neither is auxiliary equipment, such
as bushings and cooling equipment, treated.
With the separation of the total evaluation into several
evaluations, related to the various different faults and
problems in service, it is possible and meaningful to
perform partial rankings, e.g. rankings with respect to
only one of the various stresses at a time. For instance,
in this way the evaluation of short circuit risks are not
mixed with the evaluation of paper ageing.
In comparison with the investigation of the GSU
transformers the loadability aspects have been added
and some of the evaluation procedures have been
revised to fit a population of net transformers.
3.2 PROCEDURE
For the detailed evaluation of each of the various
aspects mentioned above a knowledge based, data-
driven, reasoning procedure has previously been devised
[2]. In these procedures, direct or pre-processed input
data are processed in an inference net to give an output
conclusion. The general idea is shown in figure 1.
Reasoning net - principle
Input data Inference net Conclusion
Evaluation value
-Data sources -Design
-Service (ageing)
-Diagnostic
-Rules -Formulas
-Weighting procedures
-Vague, approximate and linguistic statements
-Processing of data
-Conventional mathematics
-Approximate reasoning - Fuzzy logic
Fig. 1. The principle lay-out of the inference nets.
 Example - Fuzzy rule
RULE TYPES
I Rule T
Rule Matrix
FORMULAS Premise Conclusion
Current Temperature
VeryLow (VL) VeryLow (VL)
· h = k *t + …. Low (L) Low (L)
· DT = Gra d * I 16 + … Medium (M) Medium (M)
High (H) High (H)
LOGICAL CONNECTIONS VeryHigh (VH) VeryHigh (VH)
( conventional or fuzzy)
Output:
· IF “T is m e d iu m ” a n d “tim e is lo n g ” “Temperature is low towards medium”
THEN “re la xa tio n is h ig h ”.
WEIGHTING PROCEDURE
Temperature
· S CORE = S wIXI

Input: Current
“Current is somewhat higher than
low”

Fig. 2. Rule types used in the evaluation method and an example of a simple fuzzy rule.

Some of the relevant input data representing the case Figure 3 is an example of three evaluated transformers,
facts in the evaluation are linked to design, other data v1, v2, v3 – also showing the defuzzified values – to the
stem from service history or diagnostic measurements right of the respective figure. In this example, the more
and observations. to right a set is located (the higher the defuzzified value,
the abscissa is defined from 0-100 in this case) the
In real life it may be difficult to find all the important higher is the risk. Also, the broader the
pieces of information that are desired for an evaluation. resulting set , the larger is the uncertainty of the
Also, in some cases the exact relationships between evaluation.
different parameters are not known. A way to resolve
this problem and provide a mechanism for modelling is
to apply the theory of approximate reasoning and fuzzy
sets. Within this framework it is possible to make
inferences also from vague functional dependencies. Not
only standard mathematical expressions can be used but
also tools used for approximate reasoning.

The rules laid down in the knowledge base of the

reasoning method are defined by transformer experts
and consist of a combination of conventional formulas,
weighting procedures or logical connections of standard Fig.3. Example of results described by fuzzy sets and
or fuzzy type. Examples of how the evaluation method the corresponding defuzzified values.
can process the data in rules are seen to the left in figure
2. A simple example of a fuzzy rule is also shown in In the final top rule of an evaluation the defuzzified
figure 2– to the right - where the fuzzy sets are values or the crisp values from formulas or weighting
represented by a membership function m(x) which will be used for the ranking.
describes – on a scale 0 to 1 - the possibility that a value
x belongs do that set. The dotted figures are fuzzy We do not claim that we can deduce the absolute risk of
domains used in the design of the rules and the shaded failure from these values. We believe, however, that
areas identify the fuzzy subsets describing the values of there is a one-to-one correspondence between evaluation
the input and output variables. value and the risk of failure for the addressed evaluation
parameter.
In a calculation the fuzzy sets can also be transformed to
a crisp value through defuzzification. These defuzzified
values can then be used further in formulas, weighting
procedures, fuzzy rules or as the final output.
Fig. 4. Top of the inference net representing tilting

Regarding the lay-out of the reasoning procedure, it is is then very low. In this case no diagnostic
sometimes possible to structure the reasoning according measurements were available.
to the sources of input data, i.e. the inference net can be
split into three sub-groups, the two first groups based on In this inference net both crisp and fuzzy data and rules
design data and ageing data while the third sub-group is could be used. For other evaluation parameters other
related to possible diagnostic measurements. The results types of rule are used. For instance, formulas are used
from the diagnostic observation can then be used to for estimation of the brittleness of paper and weighting
modify the conclusion drawn from the design and ageing rules are used in the electrical nets (design, ageing or
aspects. An example of such a diagnostic measurement sign).
is for instance be interpretations of dissolved gas in oil
analysis.
4. TRANSFORMER EVALUATION
As an example of the lay-out of the evaluation procedure
figure 4 shows the top of the inference net for evaluating 4.1. EVALUATED TRANSFORMERS
the case associated with high axial short-circuit forces
and the risk of conductor tilting. The design aspect is The system net transformers that were investigated are
here associated with the assessment of as-designed short seen in table 1. All these transformers except one were
circuit strength and an estimation of the applied external manufactured by the same manufacturer. The rated
forces. These facts could either stem from a calculation power and rated voltage are seen in the table. All
or from the opinion of an expert. Together these values transformers but no 13 were equipped with OLTC. The
define an initial risk, dmc_aF. The ageing, aF_ag_eff, is age of the transformers ranged from 10 to 29 years.
not the classical loading-guide ageing. Instead it is
defined by the influences that may cause a decrease of Table 1. Evaluated transformers
the clamping force or a change of the ampere-turn Trafo_ident Rated Power, MVA Rated Voltage, kV Type Year of Manufacture Note
balance. In the figure the influential ageing factors are v1 315 220 SystemAuto 1979
v2 200 220 SystemFull 1971 A
not shown. They are related to the effect of past short- v3 75 220 SystemFull 1974
circuit events, transportation, average temperatures and v4 200 210 SystemFull 1983 B
time-in-operation. The diagnostic input data consists of v5 200 220 SystemFull 1969 A
v6 200 210 SystemFull 1974 C
a pre-processed value – based on e.g. FRA v7 100 220 SystemFull 1983
measurements or impedance measurements etc. v8 200 218 SystemFull 1979
v9 200 210 SystemFull 1974 C
v10 200 210 SystemFull 1983 B
Figure 4 also displays the intermediate fuzzy sets for
v11 200 210 SystemFull 1975 C
the hypothetical but trivial case that the initial design v12 63 210 SystemFull 1988
condition (dmc_aF) – the dark domain to the far right - v13 500 400 SystemAuto 1973
is very good and the historic ageing effect (aF_ag_eff) is The transformers denoted A have a similar or equal
very low. The deduced present risk of failure (rof_aF1) design. The same holds for the transformers denoted B
and for the transformers denoted C.
4.2 RESULTS
The transformers are evaluated and ranked with respect
to all the eight aspects mentioned in clause 3.1 above.
4.2.1 Thermal aspects
Paper ageing
The goal here was to determine the ageing of the
winding insulation at the hot spot determined by
temperature and chemical environment.
For all these net transformers the past loading has been
low, 30% -50% and with low average ambient
temperatures, the thermal stresses on cellulose and the
winding hotspot temperatures have been low. In
addition, since the chemical influences from oil ageing
and water was not aggressive the ageing of paper was
estimated to be very low for all the transformers –
irrespective if the oxygen concentration was high or low.
This conclusion, which was expected for net
transformers, was not contradicted by the dissolved gas-
in-oil analysis (DGA) results. Therefore, although a
strict ranking could be performed we did not regard it as
meaningful or appropriate to do that.
Based on this evaluation, the expected remaining life of
insulation is long.
General insulation ageing
The general insulation ageing is an evaluation of the
overall degradation of the solid and liquid insulation and
is based on DGA and oil analysis.
In this case it was possible to define three groups of
transformers having different overall ageing. This
ranking had a strong correlation to the age of the
transformers but did not strictly follow the age. For most
of the transformers the absolute ageing was small but
scrutinizing only the oil data it was found that some of
the transformers had an increased acid value and will in
a couple of years be candidates for oil reclaiming.
Core heating
This core heating deals with core bandages and a
possible risk that these will cause overheating. The risk
is determined mainly by design aspects but also to some
extent by time-in-operation and DGA.
It was possible to discriminate between the transformers
– in three groups - but the overall risk associated with
this type of heating is low for the investigated
transformers.
Combining all the thermal aspects it was possible to
determine that from thermal perspective the
transformers no v2, v6, v9 and v13 are the ones that
should be addressed first.
4.2.2 Electrical aspects
The evaluation of electrical aspects aims at defining the
overall electric condition. This evaluation is complex
and can take design aspects, ageing and diagnostic
observations into account. An inference procedure based
on the consideration of influential factors was applied in
this case.
For the investigated transformers , there are no signs of
any, present, electrical problem so the ranking is made
solely on design and on ageing of electrical
environment, and in these respects the transformers did
not differ very much. Also, the overall electrical
condition is good for all the units.
Therefore, as for the thermal aspects a strict ranking is
not very meaningful. Possibly, one could identify three
groups, where transformers no 1 (due to design aspects)
and no 10 (due to ageing aspects) are somewhat more
vulnerable than the main population of transformers and
transformers no 7 and no 12 are somewhat better ranked
than the remaining set of transformers.
4.2.3 Mechanical aspects – Short circuit stresses
This evaluation ranks the transformers with respect to
the possibility to sustain an external short circuit. The
transformer is then subject to both radial forces trying to
buckle an inner winding and to axial forces trying to tilt
the conductor strands. We assumed a 3-phase short
circuit and performed two sets of evaluations - one
assuming that the short-circuit power of the net was as-
specified and one evaluation assuming that the short-
circuit power of the net was the actual, present, one.
For radial forces under the first assumption the results
are shown in figure 5. For this type of stress mode the
ageing influence is very low and was not taken into
account. Thus, the ranking is based only on the expected
initial withstand.
It is clearly seen that it is possible to discriminate
between transformers. Transformers no 2 and no 5 have
the highest evaluation scores , i.e. are most vulnerable,
while transformer no 3 has the lowest value and thus is
the least risky. This difference between the highest
ranked and the lowest ranked is technically significant.
The reason for the better ranking of transformer no 3
depends to some extent on the fact that it has a larger
SC-impedance than the other transformers.
As expected, transformers of identical design, e.g. no 6,
9 and 11, get the same evaluation scores. In figure 5
there are eight different values of the evaluation values
so a strict ranking would yield eight ranking groups.
However , defining so many groups is not appropriate.
Instead, it is more reasonable to decrease the number of
groups to six by collecting no 3 and 12 in one group and
no 8 and 13 in one group.

Fig. 5. Evaluation results for buckling (radial
mechanical stresses). Specified SC-power of net.
For axial forces , which in addition to the design aspects
included the ageing phenomena determined by the
decrease of clamping force, eight strict ranking groups
were obtained but again these could be condensed to six
groups. As for the radial case, transformers no 2 and no
5 belong to the first group. For the net transformers
studied here no diagnostic data were available that
pointed to a decrease of the short-circuit strength. The
conclusion is therefore based solely on a combination of
design and ageing.
At an external short-circuit the transformer will have to
survive both the axial and the radial forces. A
mechanical ranking should therefore involve both these
aspects. To combine these two aspects is not trivial and
it can be done in several ways – but this problem is not
scrutinized here. However, it is clear from this
evaluation that the two most vulnerable transformers
from short circuit point of view are the transformers no
2 and no 5. It can also be shown that the transformers no
3 and no 12 have the highest strength against a short-
circuit failure.
If the actual SC-power of net had been used instead of
the “as-specified” SC-power the ranking had changed
somewhat but still the transformers no 2 and no 5 had
been regarded as the most vulnerable ones.
4.2.4 Loadability
The loadability of a transformer is determined by its
capability to take currents beyond nameplate rating.
There are two major types of overloading - short time
emergency overloading (STEL) and long time
emergency overloading (LTEL).
In short time overloading the currents and the winding
temperatures can be high during a short period of time,
typically an hour. The risk associated with this
emergency loading is that free gas bubbles may form,
due to local cooking. Our evaluation net for STEL is
based on this risk and takes the hot spot temperature,
moisture and gas pressures into account.
Long time overloading is associated with a lower
overload for a longer period of time, typically a couple
of months. LTEL is interesting in the case one
transformer has failed and a parallel transformer has to
take an increased load until a new transformer is
installed. The evaluation net for LTEL is based on
ageing of paper and the requirement that the paper
should not be degraded too far at the end of the
overload. Besides the hotspot temperature also the
moisture and oxygen contents will influence the results.
One has to check also that no free gas bubbles are
formed.
In the Swedish network STEL is normally not
considered a problem while LTEL is a possible
contingency and is a risk that has to be planned for.
Although not necessary but in order to test the
evaluation method we evaluated the net transformers
also with respect to STEL.
In the evaluations of LTEL and STEL one has to assume
not only the overload but also the conditions before the
overload, especially the pre-load, oil temperature,
ambient temperature, gas pressure and moisture content.
For LTEL an initial condition of the paper is assumed -
estimated as a DP (degree of polymerization) value.
Finally, one has to assume a given tap-changer position
during the overload. The tap-changer (TC)-position can
influence the estimated absolute temperatures and
therefore also the risk. The operating position of the TC
can be expected to be different for the various
transformers. However, in our evaluation we have
assumed that the transformers were all in the same
position. Two cases were examined – one with the TC-
position close to the position for maximum current at
rated power and one with the TC at neutral position. The
ranking will differ somewhat for these two cases – but
not much. The first case will give the highest absolute
temperatures and degradation – thus higher risks - and
the results shown below are given for the this case.
The results for some of the transformers when they are
evaluated with respect to LTEL are seen in figure 5
displayed as fuzzy sets and defuzzified values. A higher
evaluation value implies a higher risk, and a lower
ranking value. A strict ranking separates the
transformers into 13 groups - one for each transformer.
Again, as for the short-circuit evaluation, it is
technically more reasonable to condense the number of
groups into a smaller number, in this case into 5 groups.
For the transformers investigated here it turned out
however that no 3 had the least loadability, followed by
no 9 and 11.
4.2.5 Total ranking
Table 2 summarizes the results of the evaluation and
how the transformers are ranked with respect to the
various evaluation aspects. For each aspect, a low
ranking number means a higher vulnerability. However,
a ranking number for one aspect is not directly
comparable to a ranking number for another aspect.

Table 2. Condensed evaluation groups. (Group 1 is

most vulnerable. rF=radial Forces, aF=axial Forces,
ltel=long time emergency loading, stel=short time
emergency loading, el1=electrical aspects, ppr=paper
ageing, gia=general insulation ageing, co=core heating.)
Evaluation with respect to
Trafo_ rF aF stel ltel el1 ppr gia co
id
v1 4 1 3 5 1 1 3 3
v2 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 1
v3 6 6 1 1 2 1 2 1
v4 4 6 5 4 2 1 2 3
v5 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 1
v6 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1
v7 5 4 3 5 3 1 3 3
v8 2 6 3 3 2 1 2 2
v9 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1
v10 4 6 4 3 1 1 3 3
v11 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
v12 6 5 3 6 3 1 3 2
v13 2 3 2 4 2 1 1 1

No of
groups 6 6 5 5 3 1 3 3

In table 2, it can be seen that the various stresses rank

Fig. 6. Evaluation results for long time emergency
loading (LTEL) Load assumed to change from 0.7 pu to
1.4 pu at an ambient temperature of 5 C. Load duration
90 days.
the transformers in different order. For instance, it is
seen that transformer no 3 is the best transformer from
short circuit point of view while at the same time its
loadability is lowest. Thus, if loading beyond nameplate
rating is the main concern for all the transformers, then
transformer no 3 is the first to check. If, on the other
hand, short-circuit aspects are the most important
aspects the transformers no 2 and no 5 are the most
vulnerable ones. Based on thermal evaluation and the
possible candidates for oil treatment other transformers
are the first to address.

In figure 6 there is a difference in ranking between units
of similar design, no 4 and no 10. These have the same
estimated overload temperatures but yet the ranking
differs. This is due to differences in moisture and
oxygen concentration. If transformer no 10 would have a
drier insulation its ranking position would improve.
The evaluation with respect to STEL also yields 8 strict
ranking groups, which may be condensed into 5 groups.
To combine the ranking of LTEL and STEL to an
overall loadability ranking is not straightforward
because it depends on which emphasis the owner of the
equipment puts on the two types of emergency loading.
A consequence of the different rankings is that an
overall ranking based on some averaging procedure
must be done with care.
It can also be seen in the table that some transformers
perform well in all evaluation categories and fall into the
average or better ranking group for all of them. For
instance, transformers no 4, 7, and 12 do that. These
transformers could then be removed from further
investigations. In table 2, ppr and co are written in
italics to indicate that these evaluation aspects turned
out to be of lower absolute importance for the
investigated transformers.
5. BENEFITS AND FINAL REMARKS
From a utility point of view a successful ranking is
important in the strategic planning because economic
incentives push for better scheduling of equipment and
delaying of investments. This calls for an individual,
unit based, approach to the evaluation directed towards
possible risks. Some benefits of such a structured
ranking method:
- If you know the weak points you can adjust the
operation of the network, relocate transformers to
other sites or take calculated risks.
- In the network planning this tool will be useful as it
will give recommendations in selecting the right
transformer to exchange. There will be no exchange
just due to the “old and dirty unit” concept.
- The planners knowledge level and understanding
that all transformers are individuals will be
improved
From a maintenance point of view, to be able to use a
ranking method is also important since there is a trend
from general time-based maintenance towards condition
based maintenance. Therefore, also in this respect an
evaluation method aiming to rank units and identify the
weak units can be very useful.
A benefit of the presented evaluation method will be the
feedback to the utilities so that they can identify possible
general “mistakes” in former technical specifications
(like too low network short circuit power levels). As the
old oracles / gurus are successively retiring from both
the utilities and the manufacturers and there is only little
help in finding knowledge about old transformers this
tool will be a useful assistance to the younger generation
in judging the status of the transformers.
Another advantage of the presented method is the
possibility to use fuzzy rules for approximate reasoning
because this possibility increases the amount of data that
can be used for reasoning. In many cases “fuzzy” and
linguistic input will be the only type of information one
will have access to.
Further benefits will be achieved when the evaluation is
completed with status judgement of accessories like
bushings, On Load Tap Changers, coolers as well as the
availability of spares and technical support for such
items.
Considering the large number of transformers
approaching the ”end of life” and the possibilities of
using new diagnostic tools, the ranking method is a
valuable tool. This may show up in a near future when a
great number of diagnostic data shall be analyzed and at
the same time the utilities have a limited number of
personnel with the necessary knowledge to make a
proper judgement of the status of a transformer.
In this report we have successfully evaluated and ranked
a number of system net transformers. It was clearly
possible to identify the most vulnerable transformers
under the given service conditions. The evaluation
method is structured, i.e. the transformers can be ranked
with respect to different types of stresses. The results
showed that the different types of stress rank the
transformers in different order. As presented here we
have compared a transformer population. However, in
the future it might even be unnecessary to run a
complete ranking. Instead, in order to decide the relative
status of a certain transformer a comparison can be
made against a suitably selected population of
previously ranked transformers.
A pre-requisite for a successful evaluation is that enough
data are available – both from design, service records
and diagnostic measurements. It was our experience that
this part could sometimes be difficult and cumbersome
if old, structured, archives and files are lacking.
However, in the future the amount of data – both fuzzy
and crisp - will surely increase as more and more
diagnostic tools are introduced on the market.
6. REFERENCES
[1] C.Bengtsson: Status and Trends in transformer
Monitoring (IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol
11, No 3, July 1996, p1379)
[2] L.Pettersson, N.L.Fantana, U. Sundermann,: Life
Assessment:Ranking of Power Transformers Using
Condition Based Evaluation. A New Approach.
(CIGRÉ Paper 12-204, 1998.)
[3] M.Perkins, L.Pettersson,N.L.Fantana, T.V.Oommen,
S.Jordan: Transformer Life Assessment Tools With
Specific Application To Nuclear Power Station
Generator Transformers. (’99 EIC/EMCW Exposition,
Cincinnati , Oct. 26-28, 1999)
[4] L.Pettersson: Estimation of the Remaining Life of
Power Transformers and Their Insulation. (Electra No
133, Dc 1990, pp 65-71.)
[5] CIGRÉ Working Group 12-09 on Thermal Aspects –
Lifetime Evaluation of Transformers (Electra No 150,
Oct. 1993, pp 39-52.)
[6] N.L.Fantana, L.Pettersson: Condition Based
Evaluation: A New Platform for Power Equipment Life
Management. (ABB Review, No 4 2000,pp 45-54)
[7] C.Bengtsson, J.O. Persson, M. Svensson:
Replacement and Refurbishment Strategies for
Transformer Populations (CIGRÈ Transformer
Colloquium, June 18-20, 2001)