E E E Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, NO.
1, January 1993 239
CALCULATION AND REDUCTION OF STRAY AND EDDY LOSSES IN
CORE- FORM TRANSFORMERS USING A HIGHLY ACCURATE
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING TECHNIQUE
D. Pavlik, D. C. Jdvlson
Science & Technology Center
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Pittsbvgh. PA. 15235
Abstract - This paper describes a method for the
automated and accurate calculation of the winding eddy
losses, as well as the stray losses in the tank walls,
core support frame, lockplates, and the core lamina-
tions in Core Form transformers. Comparisons between
this method, test values, and other analytical results
are presented for a number of commercial transformers.
These comparisons prove the validity of the method and
the superior accuracy it provides.
The new calculations provide an accurate estimate
for the relative contribution of the various loss com-
ponents to the total load losses of the transformer.
Hence, it can be used to accurately evaluate methods
of effectively reducing these losses. This capability
i s demonstrated in this paper.
Keywords: Transformer, stray losses, eddy currents,
finite elements, analysis.
INTRODUCTION
An important factor in the design of power trans-
formers is the high loss evaluation often imposed by
customers. Manufacturers make every effort to develop
improved methods of loss calculations and loss reduc-
tion.
The conventional formulas used to calculate stray
and eddy losses in transformers tend to be specific to
particular physical design configurations. Years of
experience and a large data base coupled with
regression analysis techniques allow the designer to
accurately predict the total losses in the
transformer. However, if significant changes are made
to the physical configuration of the transformer,
these calculation procedures can produce answers which
differ significantly from test results. Present
calculation methods are also characterized by an
inaccurate prediction of the relative contribution of
the individual loss components compared to the total
losses. Hence, attempts for effective reduction of
the eddy and stray loss generally fail to achieve
their full intent.
APPROPRIATE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The losses induced by the leakage flux is a 3-d
phenomenon and should correspondingly be modelled by a
3-d mathematical analysis. However, as Nevins[l]
(with shunt reactors), Mc Whirter[2], Scott[3] and
92 WM 247-7 PWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Transformers Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES
1992 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, January 26-
30, 1992. Manuscript submitted September 13, 1991;
made available for printing November 25, 1991.
0885-8977/92/$3.0001993 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
R. S. Girgis
A B 8 Power T&D Company
Muncie Indiana
others have shown, a very good approximation can be
achieved by using a series of 2-d solutions each of
which represent the appropriate leakage region
geometry in a series of projection planes and then
combining these to form a quasi 3-d representation.
Prior to the development of finite elements,
Billig[4], and Vogel and Adolphson[5] employed an
approach wherein they solved for the 2-d magnetostatic
field of a collection of conductors in an infinite
permeability magnetic box. The magnetostatic field
was then used to obtain estimates of the eddy losses
in the structural parts. This is similar in approach
to what has been done with the Finite Element (FE)
method, except that with this method: 1) Solutions of
much more complicated geometries can be obtained; 2)
Dynamic field (multi-path eddy current) solutions with
noninfinite permeability materials are possible; and
3) An accounting of certain 3-d phenomena can be
closely approximated.
A 2-dimensional (2-d), multipath eddy current,
Finite Element Model (FEM) was selected for the
analysis of the magnetic field distribution and
induced loss calculations. This model was chosen
because of its proven ability to accurately and cost
effectively predict eddy current losses and magnetic
field distributions in problems made up of material
regions in which both the magnetic permeability and
electrical conductivity are finite and influence the
answer. [2,3,6,7].
This new FE Model extends what has been done in
the past by providing a more accurate representation
of the transformer physics and the induced losses. It
solves for the induced losses in all major structural
members with a single solution of one model instead of
through a series of solutions for each different loss
component.
The new FEM uses a 2-d solution for a series of 3
projection planes to approximate the 3-d field of the
transformer. Fig. 1 is a top view of a typical trans-
former arrangement illustrating the three projection
planes used for the analysis. There is one for the
end region view which accounts for the end of the
transformer and one each for the high voltage side and
low voltage side of the transformer. We used the work
of Kerr and Palmer[8] with closed form solutions and
Nevins with shunt reactors[l] as well as our own
investigations to reduce the number of projection
planes needed to accurately approximate the loss
variation in the depth of the model.
The selection of an appropriate 2-d FEM involved a
series of investigations to determine the most appro-
priate modelling technique. These included things
such as: Cartesian versus axisymmetric coordinate
system, material properties, the type and density of
the elements in the mesh, and accurate modelling of
the magnetic pressure ring.
 240
HV HV
n Tank
E ?
--
LV
1 LV
Figure 1 - Top view of a core-form transformer showing
. projection planes used to approximate 3-d
fields. .
TOPOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENTS
The FEM is generated by an automatic mesh generat-
ing program. A wide variety of different topological
arrangements can be generated by this program using an
interrogative decision tree format. The designer can
easily construct a model using "design sheet'' informa-
tion by answering the appropriate questions.
Fig. 2 shows a view of a transformer leakage flux
region which illustrates the options which can be
selected for modelling by the FEM. The model shown is
of the upper half of the transformer. This model
assumes that the lower half is symmetric about the
midplane line (x-axis).
A full height can be modelled, but this unnecess-
arily increases the computational time if the trans-
former is symmetric about upper and lower halves. The
most typical asymmetrical condition is when the
winding has different insulation clearance at the top
and bottom.
The automatic mesh generator can handle a wide
range of topological options. For instance, up to 10
different winding regions each having a different
strandi!g arrangement can be considered. Box, flat
plate, C , " and pLL" type end frames can be modelled
either with or without an eddy current shield. The
tank walls can also have shields of either the
conducting plate (one or two piece) or shunt bundle
type. Pressure rings (or flux shunts) can be included
as we1 1 .
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
c-
Wal 1s
I Lockplate
Icye 1 Box
End Frame
,Frome
Shleld
Pres.
Tank
Wall
Shleld
I
1
Figure 2 - View of a transformer leakage flux region
illustrating the various modelling options.
VERIFICATION TRANSFORMERS
Five transformers for which test data was avail-
able were selected to serve as test cases for the new
eddy and stray loss calculations. The comparison
between the total stray and eddy losses as calculated
by the new FEM procedure compared favorably with the
test data and conventional calculations as illustrated
in Fig. 3. The transformers ranged in rating from
33 MVA to 180 MVA on the "OA" rating. In all cases
only the high and low voltage windings were energized
and all turns were active. All of the transformers
used in the verification studies utilized both top and
bottom pressure rings.
Although the total stray plus eddy losses compare
very favorably between formulas and FEM calculations,
Fig. 4 shows that the two methods predict a distinct-
ly different distribution amongst the individual loss
components. The new FEM predicts generally 1 ower
winding eddy losses but higher tank, core edge, and
lockplate losses than the classical formulas.
The major advantages of the new FEM are 1) It
predicts the individual str'ay and eddy loss components
accurately and 2) The impact of changes in one
component (such as shielding the tank or end frame)
can be evaluated on the system as a whole. This
enables the designer to determine the true impact of
design changes and to make changes where they can do
the most good.
 24 1

The most effective of the above three at reducing

stray losses was the wound steel pressure ring. Table
1 shows that for the type of construction considered
the net stray loss was reduced by 50% with the
addition of the magnetic pressure ring.
Previous studies did not consider the impact of
the pressure ring on loss components other than the
stray loss components. This work has shown that the
pressure ring can also affect the winding eddy losses.
When a pressure ring is used, the total leakage flux
out of the coils is increased owing to the lower
reluctance magnetic circuit they create. However,
since this flux is diverted into the yoke away from
U'IT#l WIT#2 LNlT+3 WT#4 WT#5 the structural components, where it can induce eddy
currents, the net leakage flux influencing the

-
Figue 3
O F o R M l A

-
=FEM

Comparison of losses as calculated by

TEST transformer structure is reduced. This results in a
significant reduction in the stray eddy loss.
This increased leakage flux is predominantly
the new FEM formula. and test. vertical in nature and the vertical component of the
eddy loss is increased. At the same time, the
horizontal component of flux is decreased and this
0.40
component of winding eddy loss is reduced signifi-
n-
cantly. Whether or not the total winding eddy loss
is increased or decreased depends on the physical
dimensions of the strands and the coil arrangement.

Table 1 - Influence of the Pressure Ring on Stray

Losses (Verification Shop Order #3)
NO PRESSURE PRESSURE RATIO
COMPONENT RING RING w/wo
watts watts
~

TANK HV 3836 2582 0.673

LV 4544 3058 0.673
LNT- 1 . LMT- 2 . LNT- 3 . INIT- 4 . INIT- 5 END 4582 3084 0.673
Li;iiil~m - r u u m
FRyrE
B a
Lp
. 0 - END FRAME 17880 6705 0.375
-m
Figure 4 - Bar chart showing breakdown of loss
LOCK PLATE 3275 1546 0.472
components from formula and FEU CORE EDGE 8824 4315 0.489
PRES. RING 0 275 N/A
STRAY LOSS MINIMIZATION STUD1 ES TOTAL ABOVt 42941 21565 0.502
A series of stray loss reduction studies were
completed using the new method. These studies
evaluated how changes in the structural components in Next, moving the end frame was investigated. The
the leakage region affected the stray and eddy losses. end frame was moved vertically 2 inches away from the
The studies comprised 3 elements:
1) TOPOLOGICAL CHANGES - Variations in the shape
. pressure ring. The normal vertical spacing is 0.5
inches. At the 2 inch spacing, the end frame loss was
reduced by 50% of what it would have been if it were
and position of existing parts to lower the in its normal position. On shielded end frames,
1 oss. vertical movement away from the pressure ring resulted
in a loss reduction of 34% compared to that for one
2) SHIELDING - The use of new parts to alter the with normal cl earance.
leakage flux path as the result of flux shunting
or eddy current shielding. The spacing between the end frame and core yoke
also impacted stray loss. When placed close to the
3) SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - A determination of how yoke, the end frame acted like a shield preventing
sensitive the induced losses are to changes in flux from escaping the pressure ring and entering the
location and the material properties of the yoke laminations normal to their surface. This
structural components and shielding members. lowered the core edge loss but didn't appreciably
impact the end frame loss.
To~oloqical Chanqes
Shieldina and Shuntinq of Leakaqe Flux
Three topological changes were investigated: 1) The
addition of a wound steel pressure ring, 2) Moving the There were two types of shielding considered for
end frame axially away from the pressure ring, and 3) the tank walls and end frame: 1) magnetic shunts, and
Variations in the position of the end frame in relation 2) eddy current shields. The pressure ring is a
to the core yoke. magnetic shunt for the flux which would penetrate the

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 242
end frame and core edge. Verification transformers 4
and 5 were used for the shielding studies. Table 2 - Effect of Tank and End Frame Shields
on Verification Unit t4.
The tank walls were investigated first as they

I i
represent the largest single component of stray loss. COMPONENT FINITE ELEMENT
Both magnetic shunting and eddy current shields were watts
investigated. The eddy current shields were made of S H I E L D S
0.5 inch thick aluminum and ran along the length of NONE ALMN

1
the tank walls. Flux plots for three different trans-
former end region leakage views are shown in Fig. 5. TANK 7452 4221
The first is for the case of no shielding, the second TANK SHIELD 738
for aluminum tank shields, and the third utilizes END FRAME 131; 792
magnetic shunts on the tank walls. FRAME SHIELID 0 361
LOCK PLATE 3005
Rather than regenerate the FEM for the no shield CORE EDGE 1255
case, the permeability of the shield was set to that PRES. RING 57 57
of free space. This is why the outline of a shield
appears in Fig. 5 for the unshielded case.
These studies show that adding a tank shield may
decrease the losses in one component and increase them
Observe how the flux enters the core leg lamina- in another. Specifically, the addition of an aluminum
tions and compare the distribution for the different tank shield raises the flux and loss in the pressure
shielding arrangements. Since this is an end region ring and lockplate. The magnetic tank wall shield
view, the core leg laminations are on edge and acts to lower the lockplate, core edge and end frame
represent a very low reluctance path for the flux. loss. However, it also acts to increase the winding
When the aluminum shield is added, the flux lines eddy loss.
appear to be driven away from the tank wall and into
the end leg. This has the effect of decreasing the
horizontal flux in the outer winding and increasing it Table 3 - Effects of Tank and End Frame Shielding on
in the inner winding. When the wall shield is made of Verification Unit #5
a magnetic shunting material the flux appears to be
pulled toward the shunt. This reduces the horizontal COMPONENT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
flux density in the windings, but does increase the watts
overall 1 eakage flux somewhat. S H I E L D S
A side region view comparing both aluminum and
magnetic tank wall shields is shown in Fig. 6.
Observe how the flux appears to be pulled into the I CASE I ' 2 3 1
magnetic shield. TANK 21556 10013 6212
When aluminum shields were used the tank wall TANK SHIELD 0 1582 0
losses decreased by 43%. However, there were eddy END FRAME 7357 4333 3332
losses in the shield of roughly 13% of the no shield FRAME SHIELD 0 1526 1536
tank loss. When shield loss is included with the tank LOCK PLATE 7529 7892 7321
losses, the net loss reduction was only 30%. This CORE EDGE 5366 3468 2998
PRES. RING 295 366 227
I
represented a % reduction in total load loss (stray
plus eddy plus I R). EDDY LOSS 23883 23795 24713

When a magnetic shield was added, the tank loss
was reduced by 90% unshielded loss value. This
represented an 8% reduction in the load loss.
Tables 2 and 3 compare the stray losses with and
without shielding for verification units 4 and 5. In
the unit 4 only aluminum shields were considered. The
unit 5 studies considered both aluminum and magnetic
tank wall shields. The data in the tables reflects
aluminum shielding on the end frames for both cases.
There are other stray losses which were not
included with this work. These include the core
current, lead and cover, and circulating current
losses. These losses are a very small part of the
total stray loss in properly designed transformers.
When the end frame was moved to a distance of 2
inches away from the pressure ring its eddy loss was
cut in half. When an aluminum shield was added the
combined loss in the shield and end frame was reduced
by an additional 15%.
When a magnetic tank shield was added the end
frame loss was again cut in half. This illustrates
why the stray losses must be evaluated as a system.
Previously, when a shield was added the reduction in
stray loss was attributed to a reduction in the loss
in one component only.
CASE: 1) No Shields 2) Aluminum on End Frame and
Tank 3) Almn. on End Frame and Iron on Tank Walls.
The "core edge" and lockplate losses also varied
with the addition of end frame and tank shields.
"Core edge" is a misleading term, seeming to imply a
loss due to flux impinging in the edge of the
lamininations. In reality it refers to the loss setup
by flux impinging normal to the plane of the
laminations. This flux penetration establishes
current loops within the plane o f the laminations.
Due to depth of penetration phenomena the current and
loss are concentrated at the edges of the laminations
and hence the name "core edge" loss.
When end frame aluminum shields were added the
"core edge" losses decreased by 29%. When magnetic
tank shields were added the core edge loss went down
by an additional 55%. The lockplate loss was
relatively unaffected by end frame shielding. When
tank wall magnetic shields were added the lockplate
loss went down by 20% of the no shield value.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 243

NO SHIELD ALUMINUM SHIELD IRON SHIELD

-...

Figure 5 - Flux maps for different tank wall shielding arrangements in an end region view.

HV SIDE
1) **1* ALUMINUM SHIELD I . , . . . .". . . . . .*I

,
.,I.
IRON SHIELD

Figure 6 - Flux maps for different tank wall shielding arrangements in a side region view.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was used to determine how
precisely the position and material properties must be
known in order to accurately predict the induced
losses within a particular component. In these
studies, the material properties and position of a
particular component are varied over a range and the
induced losses tracked.
The core edge and end frame losses were tracked as
functions of the end frame position and electrical
resistivity. The loss in these components varied as
the square root of resistivity as required by theory.
The end frame and end frame shield losses were
sensitive to position with respect to the pressure
ring. Changing the position of the end-frame from 0.5
inches above the pressure ring to 2 inches away cut
the loss in the end frame and its shield in half.
When the end frame was moved away from the yoke its
loss didn't change much but the loss in the yoke was
sensitive to the position of the end frame.
The tank losses were sensitive to the permeability
of the magnetic shielding. In going from no shields
to a shield with a permeability o f 300 the loss in the
tank wall dropped by a factor o f 3. When the
permeability was increased to 2000 the tank loss

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 244
dropped by another factor of 3. The actual variation
in tank wall loss with shield permeability was
dependent on which wall was being evaluated [end or
side) and how close it was to the windings.
These studies show that the magnetic tank shields
must be designed so that they do not saturate if they
are to be effective.
Table 4 shows how the end frame, core edge, lock-
plate, and end frame eddy losses varied with changes
in the tank wall shielding for verification unit 14.
The end frame and "core edge" losses were very sensi-
tive to the tank wall shielding method. The end frame
shield loss was insensitive to the tank wall shielding
method.
The lockplate loss was insensitive to the high voltage
wall shield and fairly sensitive to the low voltage
wall shielding method. All values are expressed as a
The stray loss reduction studies have shown that
proper use of shielding can significantly lower the
stray losses in the tank, end frame, and core edge.
The lockplate losses are affected to a much smaller
degree.
REFERENCES
Nevins, R. L., "Extra High Voltage Shunt
ReactormLoss Calculation by the finite Element
Method, Thesis for Doctor of Engineering
Degree, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
August 1986.
J. Mc Whirter :User's Manual for TEDDY
Computer Program, Westinghouse R&D Center
Report December 1979.

1 1 11
fraction of the no shield value. The basis for the D.J. Scott, et al, "Calculation of Winding
lockplate loss i s the no shield low voltage side loss. Losses in Shell -Form Transformers for Improved
Accuracy and Reliability - Part 11", IEEE PES
Table 4 - Effect of Tank Wall Shielding on Other Stray 1986 Summer Meeting in Mexico City, Mexico,
Loss Components July, 1986.
~TA;;~;HIELD~ END
FRAME
FRAME
SHIELD
LOCKPLA;;
LV
;;;E E. Billig, "The Calculation of Magnetic Fields
of Rectangular Conductors in Closed Slots an!
Its Application to Transformer Windings,
NO SHIELD 1.000 1.00 1.000 0.967 1.000 Electrical Research Association (ERA) Report
ALUMINUM 0.600 1.15 1.063 0.995 0.737 Q/T106, London England, 1945.
MAGNETIC 0.193 0.90 0.709 0.869 0.306
F.J. Vogel, & E.J. Adolphson, "A Stray Loss
Problem in Transformer Tanks," AIEE Trans. on
Power Apparatus & Systems, p760, Part 3A, Vol
CONCLUSIONS 73, 1954.
Results of this work show that: (1) Although the O.W. Anderson, "Transformer Leakage Flu;
total stray loss predicted by design formulas [4,8,9] Program Based OR the Finite Element Method,
is reasonably accurate the distribution of the losses IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus & Systems,
amongst the various structural components can be (paper T72 411-7), 1972.
greatly improved; (2) Significant reductions in the
stray and winding eddy losses can be achieved through J. Brauer, "Finite Element Analysis of
the use of shielding and topological changes in the Electro- magnetic Induction in Transformers,
transformer geometry; and (3) The stray and eddy IEEE PES Winter Meeting, A77 122-5, 1977.
losses in transformers must be analyzed as a complete
system and not on an individual component basis. H.W. Kerr, & S. Palmer, " DevelopmenLs in the
Design of Large Power Transformers, Proc. of
The new calculation method more accurately the IEE Vol 111, No. 4, April 1964.
represents the physics of the leakage flux problem. It
accounts for the effects of eddy currents in the R.W. Bean, et. al., Transformers for the
conducting regions of the transformer and it utilizes Electric Power IndustrK, McGraw Hill, New
more appropriate permeabilities for the iron York, 1959.
components. In older FE models and closed form
solutions the transformer core and tank were
represented either as infinite permeability or
extremely high permeability boundaries. This resulted
in an excessive and an improperly distributed leakage
flux pattern. Empirical corrections to the loss
formulations were able t o correct for this inadequacy
in terms of the total loss. However, the individual
loss components were not quite right.

The FEM developed for this program shows good

agreement with test data. It also accurately predicts
the percentage loss reduction for changes in the
transformer configuration.
The studies clearly show that the structural
components are closely related and changes in one area
affect the losses in other components. Magnetic tank
shields have a significant impact on lockplate, end
frame, and core edge losses. They can also impact the
winding eddy losses. This clearly illustrates the
advantages of the systems approach to analyzing the
stray and eddy losses.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Discussion
L. W. Pierce (General Electric Company, Rome, Ga.) I commend the
authors for sharing this very interesting work with the industry. Calcu-
lation of stray and eddy losses in power transformers is a very
complicated problem. The results shown in Tables 1 thru 4, Figures 5
and 6, and the discussion of the results concisely demonstrates the
necessity to perform an analysis of the complete system and not just
individual components. The results will be studied closely by other
manufacturers and compared with their investigations. I have the
following comments and questions for the authors to consider in their
closure:
The authors describe their finite element method as “new” however
it is not clear what is “new”. The method appears to be a refinement
of the authors’ internal design procedures and not a new finite
element method. Turowski et. al. [lo] for example has performed a
complete 3-D analysis of this problem using a PC and claims only 14
seconds of running time. The projection planes shown in Figure 1
appear to be obvious. What direction relative to Figures 1 and 2 is the
“depth” direction referred to by the authors? It was disappointing that
about one additional page was not used to describe the method in
more detail. A number of commercial finite element programs claim
the ability to solve this type problem. How does the authors’ finite
element method compare with commercial programs such as WEMAP
sold by the primaxy authors’ company?
Why wasn’t the tank cover included in the analysis shown in Figures
5 and 6 As shown by Turowski et. al. there is a possible overheating
hazard of flanged joints due to the leakage field.
Figures 3 and 4 are an almost useless display of the results. Figure 3
includes the sum of 12R and eddy and stray losses. 12R loss comprises
the major component of load loss and is easily calculated. The authors
should subtract the tested 12R from the tested load loss to obtain
tested stray and eddy loss to compare with the calculation. The display
as shown gives an erroneous indication of the accuracy of the authors’
calculation method. The bar chart shown in Figure 4 is impossible to
read for specific values. The authors claim an accurate calculation of
the individual stray and eddy loss components, however, no test values
were obtained for the individual loss components. Would the authors
present tables of values to replace figures 3 and 4 in the closure?
Would the authors give the ratings of all the verification units used in
the paper along with tested 12R and stray and eddy losses?
Some of the authors’ references were not identified in sufficient
detail. Page numbers for transactions were not given. For example,
reference [3] omitted the IEEE paper number or an IEEE transaction
reference. These omissions add difficulty for those who desire to
review background material and must order papers from libraries. The
following details are supplied to assist other researchers: [3] IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, No. 2, April 1987, pp.
404-410. Note Part I is pp. 398-403. [4] Proc. IEE., Vol. 98 Part IV.
1951 starts p. 55. [5] pp., 760-764. [6] Published in IEEE Trans. on
Power Apparatus & Systems, Vol. 92, 1973, pp. 682-689. 181 pp.
823-832. [9] This book is out of print. What pages are relevant to the
authors’ paper?
In conclusion, I commend the authors for their work and if the
above comments could be addressed in the closure it would add to the
value of the paper.
References
[101 J. Turowski, M. Turowski, and M. Kopec, “Method of Three
Dimensional Network Solution of Leakage Field of Three-phase
Transformers”, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, Vol 26, No. 5 , Sept.
1990, pp. 2911-2919.
Manuscript received February 21, 1992
D. PAVLIK, D.C. JOHNSON (Westinghouse Electric,
Pittsburgh, PA.), and R.S. GIRGIS (AB6 Corporation,
Muncie IN.) The authors wish to thank the discussor
for his comments and identification of several points
which he feels should be made more clear.
At no point in the paper was “new” used in
Ceference to the finite element METHOD. The word
new” was clearly defined as applying to specific
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 20:22:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
245
“new” Finite Element MODELS (FEMs) and calculation
procedures. The authors feel that the use of “new” is
entirely appropriate given the wide scope of design
technologies available to them.
The WEMAP finite element based computer code is a
highly versatile general purpose magnetic field analy-
sis code. It can be used in the stand alone inter-
active mode or it can be linked directly to a user
defined model generator (preprocessor) and data
analyzer (postprocessor) as was done for the work
described in this paper.
The transformer ratings ranged from 33 MVA to 180
MVA on the OA basis as prevously given in the paper.
Figures 3 and 4 represent a clear and accurate
presentation of the losses in the verification units.
The important feature of figure 4 (which can easily be
read to within 2% on an 1I.R basis) is that the new
procedure gives a significantly different and more
accurate indication of the stray losses than conven-
tional formulations. The assessment of accuracy is
admittedly based on inference and can not be verified
by direct measurement owing to the fact that the indi-
vidual stray loss components can not be isolated by
measurement. The authors claim of accuracy is based
on several factors: 1) The calculated losses match
with the total measured loss in the verification units
and subsequent production designs; 2) The losses are
calculated directly without a resort to regression
analysis; 3) The loss calculations presented in this
work have accurately predicted the stray losses over
the wide range of differing design technologies now
available to AB6 for evaluation.
The point of this paper is that the various loss
components are directly coupled, therefore, changes in
one area of the transformer affect the electrical
losses in the other areas. Unless these losses are
analyzed as a system, a regression analysis may give
the correct total loss while giving erroneous conclu-
sions about the distribution of the individual compon-
ents. The discussor seems to indicate that he has a
method for the measurement of individual loss compon-
ents. Such a method would be of great interest to the
authors as well as the rest of the community. Would
the discussor be willing to share this new method of
isolating loss components by test?
The intent of Figs. 5 and 6 was to show how dif-
ferent tank wall shielding techniques affect the flux
distribution in the winding, pressure ring, core, and
end frame. To more clearly illustrate the leakage
flux in those regions a blowup of the full model was
used in these figures. In answer to the reviewer‘s
question, a full model including the tank covers was
used in the analysis but not shown in the figures.
The authors thank the discussor for his clarif ica-
tions to the list of references. The lack of page
numbers is entirely due to an oversight of the primary
author. We agree that reference [ 9 ] is out of print
but fail to see the significance. Chapter 6, pages
121 thru 133, which covers load losses is the relevant
chapter.
The paper by J. Turowski, et. al. which the
discussor has been so kind to include as reference
[lo] is very interesting and the authors believe it to
be useful for its intended purpose. However, its
relevance to stray loss calculations is questioned.
The computer program presented in that paper deals
with a method of calculating the leakage field to
determine if shields should be used in different
locations and if certain overheating hazards may be
present. The Turowski paper never claims it to be a
method for calculating losses. Although it may be a
a o p d indicator for potential overheating hazards it is
hardly relevant to this work.
Manuscript received A p r i l 8 , 1992.