2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018).

Ixtapa, Mexico

Comparative Study of Grain Oriented and Non–

Oriented Electrical Steels in Magnetic Shunts of
Power Transformers
Salvador Magdaleno-Adame Themistoklis D. Kefalas
Magnetic and Electromagnetic Researcher Hellenic Electricity Distribution
Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, USA Network Operator HEDNO S.A.
smagdalenoa@hotmail.com Athens, 10434, Greece
t.kefalas@deddie.gr

Anahita Fakhravar Juan Carlos Olivares-Galvan

Transformer Engineering Department Departamento de Energia
Arya Transfo Company UAM-Azcapotzalco
Semnan, 35715, Iran Ciudad de Mexico, 02200, Mexico
anahita_fakhravar@yahoo.com jolivare_1999@yahoo.com

Abstract—This paper presents a comparative study of the use magnetic devices depending on their magnetic and electrical
of grain oriented electrical steels (GOESs) and non–oriented properties. On the other hand, GOES laminations are mainly
electrical steels (NOESs) in magnetic shunts of power utilized to manufacture power transformer and distribution
transformers. The electrical steels are analyzed and compared in
magnetic shunts of a real 190 MVA three–phase, three–legged
transformers where low power losses and high magnetic flux
power transformer. 3–D finite element (FE) simulations are densities are required and desired [1]-[3]. GOESs present high
carried out to evaluate the stray loss and thermal impact of the permeability and low iron losses in rolling direction of the
GOES and NOES shunts in the power transformer. The shunts laminations and NGOESs present the same magnetic
are modeled utilizing their magnetization properties and the properties in any lamination direction. For example, some
structural elements of transformer are modeled utilizing surface GOESs present relative permeabilities between 50,000 and
impedance boundary conditions. To validate the simulation
results the load losses are measured and estimated without and
70,000 compared with some NOESs which present relative
with magnetic shunts and they are compared with FE simulation permeabilities between 4,000 and 10,000 in the same rolling
results. A difference of 9 % is calculated between measurements direction of laminations [4], [5]. Furthermore, the NOESs are
and simulations of stray losses in transformer with shunts. approximately 20–25 % cheaper than the GOESs and it can
Finally, a cost analysis is carried out to compare the material and lead to a significant saving of material costs in power
manufacturing costs of GOES and NOES shunts. The NOES transformers. Table I shows some common properties of
shunts produced 9 % more stray losses, 80 % more eddy current
losses, and they increased 2 % the weight of transformer
NOESs and GOESs: mass density ms, electrical conductivity
compared with GOES shunts. A maximum material cost σs, and lamination thickness tk [4], [5].
reduction of 26 % is obtained using NOES shunts. The
transformer did not present temperature problems with the use TABLE I. PROPERTIES OF GOESS AND NOESS
of NOES shunts. The results presented in this paper show that Electrical Steel σs (S/m) tk (mm) ms (kg/m3)
6
NOES shunts are as effective as conventional GOES shunts in M–3 (GOES) 1.96×10 0.23 7,650
reducing the stray losses, temperature, and costs in power M–4 (GOES) 1.96×106 0.27 7,650
transformers without putting in risk their operation. M–5 (GOES) 1.96×106 0.30 7,650
M–6 (GOES) 1.96×106 0.35 7,650
M–10 (NOES) 1.85×106 0.35 7,600
Keywords — power transformer; stray loss; non–oriented
M–15 (NOES) 2.00×106 0.35 7,650
electrical steel; grain oriented electrical steel; magnetic shunt; hot– M–22 (NOES) 2.00×106 0.47 7,650
spot M–36 (NOES) 2.32×106 0.47 7,770
M–47 (NOES) 2.70×106 0.64 7,750
I. INTRODUCTION
Non-oriented electrical steels (NOESs) and grain oriented Generally, the magnetic shunts utilized in power
electrical steels (GOESs) are employed to manufacture transformers are made of GOES laminations, which offer low
hundreds of electromagnetic and magnetic devices for reluctance paths to the stray flux produced by transformer [1],
different applications and industries around the world. NOES [2]. The magnetic shunts avoid the penetration of the stray
laminations are mainly utilized to build rotating electrical flux in steel structural elements of power transformers to
machines, small transformers, and other electromagnetic and prevent the induction of high eddy currents and the production

978-1-5386-5935-9/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico
of high temperatures or hot–spots [1], [2]. Fig. 1 shows a
photo of magnetic shunts used in tank walls of a 30 MVA
transformer. As we mentioned above, the GOESs offer high
permeability and low iron losses and for this reason, the
transformer manufacturers prefer to use GOES shunts in
power transformers, but to the best of our knowledge, in the
past some transformer manufacturers in United States of
America utilized NOES shunts in shell–type power
transformers. Some manufacturers and designers remain
skeptical about the use of NOES shunts in power transformers.
For this reason, it’s important to evaluate and to compare
GOES and NOES shunts in power transformers to know their
advantages and disadvantages.
Fig. 1. Photo of magnetic shunts in a 30 MVA transformer.
Furthermore, authors found information on the use of
NOES shunts in air reactors, high current bus bar systems, and
rotatory electrical machines, but unfortunately the authors did
not find information on the use of NOES shunts in power
transformers. Lee et al. proposed magnetic shunts and
electromagnetic shields for air reactors. They proposed the use
of GOES, NOES, and alloy laminations to build magnetic
shunts and electromagnetic shields. In addition, they proposed
the use of composite shunts/shields combining alloy
laminations and GOES laminations. They found that GOES
and NOES laminations offer good shunt properties compared
with alloy laminations [8]. Bottauscio et al. proposed the use
of magnetic shunts and electromagnetic shields for high
current bus bar systems. They utilized GOES laminations,
NOES laminations, and low carbon steel plates. NOES and
GOES laminations presented good shunt properties compared
with low carbon steel plates [9]. Tashiro and Sasada proposed
a magnetic shunt system. This system consists of two
cylindrical magnetic shunts made of NOES laminations. This
system presented good shunt properties and it was compared
with a shunt system made of alloy laminations. The material
cost of both systems was compared. The cost of the alloy
shunts is twenty four times more expensive than NOES shunts
[10]. Dobzhanskyi et al. proposed the use of NOES shunts in
transverse flux machines. Transverse machines with NOES
shunts demonstrated better performance than the machines
without magnetic shunts. Authors found that NOES shunts
reduce the cogging torque and improve the magnetic flux
distribution in the transverse machines [11]. Finally, authors
found that NOES shunts increase the weight of the transverse
machines and complicate the manufacturing process.
In this paper, GOES and NOES shunts are analyzed and
compared in a real 190 MVA three–phase, three–legged
power transformer utilizing 3–D finite element (FE)
simulations. The tank walls of power transformer are shielded
with GOES shunts [12], [13]. FE simulations are performed to
calculate stray losses in the structural elements of transformer
under an increment in the load of the transformer of 12 %
(overload condition = 228 MVA). The magnetization curves
in the rolling direction of the electrical steels are employed to
model the magnetic shunts. The stray loss and temperature
impact of the use of NOES and GOES shunts in tank walls of
power transformer is presented, evaluated, and compared.
Finally, a cost analysis is presented to compare the use of
GOESs and NOESs in shunts of power transformers.
The main novelty of this paper is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the use of GOES and NOES shunts as
practical options to reduce stray losses and temperature
without putting in risk the integrity and operation of power
transformers.
II. FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATIONS
3–D FE nonlinear simulations are performed to compute the
losses in the transformer. Time–harmonic analyses at 50 Hz
are carried out to calculate the stray losses of a 190 MVA
three–phase three–legged transformer with M–5 shunts with
width–wise configuration. Fig. 2 shows the transformer with
magnetic shunts and Table II shows the characteristics of the
power transformer. This table includes the total load losses
measured and calculated in the transformer for overload
condition without and with M-5 magnetic shunts where Pload is
the total load loss of transformer, PHV and PLV are the total
ohmic losses in low voltage (LV) and high voltage (HV)
windings, Peddy is the total eddy current loss in windings, and
Ps is the total stray loss estimated as Ps=Pload− PHV− PLV−Peddy.
The Peddy are calculated using the leakage field distributions in
transformer windings during the design steps [14]. ANSYS
Maxwell software is employed to compute the stray losses in
the transformer with and without M–5 shunts under overload
condition [15].
 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico

mm, and thickness = 14 mm, and the dimensions of shunts

located in the end side tank wall are: height = 2,270 mm,
width = 240 mm, and thickness = 18 mm. The shunts are
designed to avoid their magnetic saturation under overload
conditions.
C. Eddy Current Losses in Magnetic Shunts
ANSYS Maxwell software utilizes a dynamic core loss
method to compute the core losses in rotatory electrical
machines and transformers with magnetic cores made of
electrical steels and amorphous steels [18]. This method is
utilized to compute the eddy current losses in the magnetic
shunts of power transformer. In general, the eddy current
losses in a magnetic shunt are computed in a 3-D transient
Fig. 2. Power transformer model with magnetic shunts in tank walls. analysis by [18]:
k c  dBx (t )   dB y (t )   dBz (t )   (1)
2 2 2
TABLE II. Pc (t ) =  + +
       
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER TRANSFORMER 2π 2  dt   dt   dt  
Transformer rating 190 MVA  
Core Core–type (three–legged) where kc is the eddy current loss coefficient given by [18]:
Impedance 12 %
π 2 σ s d 2
Phases 3 kc = (2)
Nominal low voltage current 7,949 A 6
Nominal high voltage current 457 A
Cooling System ONAN/ONAF
Furthermore, for a 3–D time–harmonic analysis, the eddy
High and low voltage (HV/LV) 240/13.8 kV current losses per volume unit in a magnetic shunt are
Operating frequency 50 Hz obtained assuming a magnetic flux density B(t) in each
Pload =560 kW, PHV = 212 kW, direction of the magnetic shunt:
Load losses without magnetic shunts PLV = 191 kW, Peddy =75.8 kW,
Ps = 81.20 kW Bx (t ) = Bm x sin ( ωt )
Pload = 487 kW, PHV = 212 kW
Load losses with magnetic shunts PLV =191 kW, Peddy = 75.8 kW, B y (t ) = Bm y sin ( ωt ) (3)
Ps = 8.20 kW
Bz (t ) = Bm z sin ( ωt )
A. Windings and Iron Core Modeling Substituting (3) in (1) and deriving it, the eddy current loss Pc
The HV and LV copper windings are modeled as solid is given by:
ω 2kc
2 ( mx
cylinders with a relative permeability µr = 1. The number of
Pc ( t ) = B 2 + Bm2 y + Bm2 z ) + .......
turns of HV windings is 58 turns and the number of turns of 4π
LV windings is 582 turns. Furthermore, the leakage flux in the
ω 2kc
2 ( mx
transformer is mainly produced in the regions between the HV B 2 + Bm2 y + Bm2 z ) cos ( 2 ωt ) = (4)
and LV windings. Generally, for 2–D simulations, the leakage 4π
flux is calculated omitting the iron core and utilizing specific  ω 2kc 
2 ( mx
boundary conditions in the region of windings, but for 3–D Pc + Re  B 2 + Bm2 y + Bm2 z ) e jωt 
simulations, the iron core should be modeled using a high  4π 
relative permeability to simulate its presence in the where
ω2k
transformer model [16]. The iron core acts as a natural
tangential magnetic boundary for the leakage flux and it must
Pc = 2c Bmx
4π
(
2
+ Bm2 y + Bmz
2
) is the average eddy current loss

be modeled in 3–D. In this paper, the iron core is modeled  ω2k 

using a relative permeability of 50,000 [17].
B. Magnetic Shunts Modeling
The magnetic shunts are made of M-5 steel laminations
(GOES laminations). The magnetization curve for M-5 steel in
the rolling direction is utilized to model the shunts. M–5 steel
laminations have an electrical conductivity σs = 1.96 ×106
S/m, a thickness tk = 0.30 mm, and a mass density ms = 7,650
kg/m3 [4], [5]. The magnetic shunts located in LV and HV
tank walls have dimensions: height = 2,270 mm, width = 240
Re  2c ( Bm2 x + Bm2 y + Bm2 z ) e jωt  is the first harmonic term.
 4π 
In a 3–D FE analysis, the eddy current losses in magnetic
shunts are obtained integrating (4) in the volume of the
magnetic shunts.
D. Surface Impedance Boundary Conditions
The core clamps and tank walls of transformer are made of
low carbon steel with a relative permeability µrcs = 550 [1].
 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico

The value of electrical conductivity of the low carbon steel
depends on its operating temperature [19]. Temperatures
between 80°C and 100°C are expected in the transformer for
overload operation. An electrical conductivity σcs = 5.8×106
S/m is utilized in the clamps and tank for a maximum
temperature of 100°C.
The skin depth effect is defined as the depth below the
surface of the material at which the electromagnetic wave is
reduced to 1/e ≈ 0.37. In this case, the skin depth δcs for the
low carbon steel material is given by:
transformer. Fig. 4 shows the stray loss density distribution in
the tank with shunts. In this figure, one can see a significant
reduction of stray losses in the tank when magnetic shunts are
employed. A difference of 9.1 % is calculated between the
stray loss calculated in simulation and the stray loss measured
in transformer (8.20 kW), see Table II.

1
δ cs = (5)
π f σ cs μ rcs μ o

where µo is the vacuum permeability (=4π×10–7 H/m). At

frequency f = 50 Hz a skin depth δcs = 1.26 mm is calculated
for the low carbon steel structural elements of transformer. In
this case, the skin depth for the low carbon steel is small
compared with the dimensions of structural elements of Fig. 3. Stray loss density distribution (in W/m2) in tank without shunts.
transformer. A small skin depth implies the use of several
layers of small finite elements in the structural elements of the
transformer and the use of supercomputers to solve 3–D eddy
current models. To avoid it, surface impedance boundary
conditions are used to compute the stray losses in the
structural elements of transformer [20]. The stray losses Ps in
structural elements of transformer are computed using:

π f μ rcs μ o
Ps =
4σ cs S  H t • H t*dS (6)

where Ht is the tangential magnetic field, H t* is its conjugate,
and S are the surfaces of the structural elements of
transformer.
Some researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of
surface impedance boundary conditions in the computation of
losses in structural parts of transformers [20]-[22].
E. Transformer without Magnetic Shunts
A total stray loss Ps = 79.173 kW is calculated in the
structural elements of transformer without shunts. A stray loss
Ps = 71.268 kW is calculated in the tank of power transformer.
Fig. 3 shows the stray loss density distribution in the tank
without shunts. A difference of 2.5 % is calculated between
the stray loss calculated in FE simulation and the total stray
loss measured in transformer (81.20 kW), see Table II.
F. Transformer with Magnetic Shunts
A total stray loss Ps = 7.447 kW is calculated for the power
transformer with M–5 shunts. A stray loss Ps = 3.933 kW is
calculated in the tank and a total eddy current loss Peddy =
1.377 kW is calculated in the shunts. A stray loss reduction of
94.5 % is obtained utilizing shunts in the tank walls of
Fig. 4. Stray loss density distribution (in W/m2) in tank with shunts.
III. STRAY LOSS IMPACT OF GOES AND NOES SHUNTS
Four GOESs and five NOESs are analyzed in the magnetic
shunts of the power transformer. The magnetization curves in
rolling direction are utilized to model the different GOES and
NOES in the magnetic shunts of the transformer.
Table III show the stray losses calculated in the
transformer utilizing GOES and NOES shunts in the
transformer. This table includes the case for transformer
without shunts. From this table one can see that stray losses in
the core clamps do not change significantly with the use of
NOES and GOES shunts in tank walls. In addition, one can
see that eddy current losses increase five times in the NOES
shunts compared with the eddy current losses in GOES shunts.
From this table, one can see that the stray losses in the tank
increase for NOES shunts compared with GOES shunts. The
stray losses in the tank increase a maximum of 9 % with the
use of NOES shunts. One can obtain a maximum stray loss
reduction of 91.13 % using GOES shunts and using NOES
shunts one can obtain a maximum stray loss reduction of
 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico

88.44 %. It indicates that GOES shunts are 2.7 % more necessary to compute the temperature in the tank for M–47
efficient than NOES shunts. shunts to verify a possible presence of hot–spots or high
Fig. 5 shows the eddy current loss distributions in M–3 temperatures in the tank (T > 140°C) under overload condition
shunts and in M–47 shunts. From this figure one can see that (228 MVA). Hot–spots degrade the transformer oil and
there is a higher concentration of eddy current losses for M–47 produce serious failures in power transformers [22].
shunts compared with the eddy current losses for M–3 shunts. 3–D FE thermal simulations are carried out to compute the
M–47 shunts presented 80 % more eddy current losses than temperature distribution in the tank walls of the power
M–3 shunts. transformer. The methodology proposed in [22] is utilized to
compute the temperature in the tank walls of the transformer
TABLE III. STRAY LOSSES CALCULATED FOR GOES AND NOES SHUNTS utilizing thermal convection boundaries. The stray losses
IN POWER TRANSFORMER
Stray loss
obtained in the FE electromagnetic analysis are utilized in the
Magnetic Clamps Tank Shunts Total
Shunts (W) (W) (W) (W) reduction FE thermal analysis like heat sources to compute the
71,268
temperature distribution. Convection boundaries are
No shunts 7,905 − 79,173 −
M–3 2,095 3,769 1,159 7,023 91.13 % collocated in the surfaces of tank walls [22]. These boundaries
M–4 2,070 3,742 1,282 7,094 91.04 % require a heat transfer coefficient and a top oil temperature
M–5 2,137 3,933 1,377 7,447 90.59 % [23]. A heat transfer coefficient is calculated using the theory
M–6 2,067 3,742 1,566 7,375 90.68 %
4,091 2,764 88.44 %
of a vertical plate immersed in an oil medium [23]. A top oil
M–10 2,300 9,155
M–15 2,303 4,066 3,205 9,574 87.91 % temperature of 100°C for transformer overload condition is
M–22 2,358 4,180 3,622 10,160 87.17 % assumed. The properties of transformer oil at 100°C are
M–36 2,304 4,046 4,056 10,406 86.86 % shown in Table IV [24], [25].
M–47 2,291 4,096 5,817 12,204 84.59 %
TABLE IV. TRANSFORMER OIL PROPERTIES AT 100°C
Property Value
Mass density (mcs) 835 kg/m3
Thermal conductivity, (kcs) 0.1253 W/m°C
Kinematic viscosity, (υ) 2.87×10–6 m2/s
Prandtl number, (Pr) 41.75
Coefficient of thermal cubic expansion, (β) 8×10–4 °C–1
Temperature difference between tank and oil, (ΔT) 10°C
Standard Gravity, (g) 9.81 m/s2
Height of tank walls, (l) 4.2 m

The Rayleigh number Ra is calculated by [23]:

 g βΔTl 3 
 ( Pr )
Ra =  (7)
 υ
2

and the Nusselt number Nu is calculated by [23]:
0.387 ( R a )
1/6
(a) 1/2
N u = 0.825 + (8)
[1 + (0.492 / Pr )9/16 ]8/27
and the heat transfer coefficient h is calculated by [23]:
N u kcs
h= (9)
l
a value Ra = 2.93×1013, a value Nu = 4,519, and a value h =
135 W/m2°C are calculated for this transformer under
overload condition. The low carbon steel tank walls present a
thermal conductivity of 45 W/(m·°C), a mass density of 7,872
kg/m3, and a specific heat of 481 J/(kg·°C) [22].
Fig. 6 shows the temperature distributions in the tank with
M–5 and M–47 shunts. The tank with M–5 shunts presented a
maximum temperature of T = 103.20°C and the tank with M–
(b)
Fig. 5. Eddy current loss distributions (in W/m3) for: a) M–3 shunts, b) M–47
47 shunts presented a temperature T = 104.31°C. The tank
shunts. regions covered by M–5 and M–47 shunts present an average
temperature of 100 °C.
Furthermore, the temperature distribution in the M–47
IV. TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS OF MAGNETIC SHUNTS magnetic shunts is computed. The anisotropic thermal
M–47 shunts presented the worst stray loss reduction in the properties of electrical steels of shunts are taken in account
power transformer (84.59 %), see Table III. Thus, it is [26]. Electrical steels present a thermal conductivity in the
 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico

different lamination directions [26]. For rolling and transverse
direction, electrical steels present a thermal conductivity of
21.0 W/(m·°C) and a thermal conductivity of 3.3 W/(m·°C) is
presented in normal direction (in the lamination stacking
direction) [26]. Fig. 7 shows the temperature distribution in
the M–47 shunts of power transformer. An average
temperature T = 102°C is calculated in the M–47 magnetic
shunts of the transformer. There is not presence of hot–spot or
high temperatures in the power transformer.
Table VI shows the cost reduction of the use of NOES
shunts instead GOES shunts. In this table one can see that the
use of NOES shunts reduces the material costs compared with
the use of GOES shunts in the power transformer. For
example, a maximum saving of 26.32 % can be obtained if
one utilizes M–47 shunts instead of M–3 shunts in the
transformer.
Furthermore, labor and energy costs do not change
significantly in the manufacturing process of GOES and
NOES shunts. During the lamination cutting process the labor
and energy costs are not affected, but during the lamination
stacking process the labor costs and manufacturing times can
be reduced between 5–10 % when workers stack NOES
laminations which have a greater thickness than the GOES
laminations.
Finally, the welding process costs of NOES and GOES
shunts are not increased.

TABLE V. COSTS FOR GOES AND NOES SHUNTS

Electrical End Side Shunts HV/LV Shunts Total cost
Steel (US$) (US$) (US$)
(a) M–3 1,031.51 4,813.72 5,845.23
M–4 994.00 4,638.67 5,632.67
M–5 975.25 4,551.15 5,526.40
M–6 937.74 4,376.11 5,313.84
M–10 819.82 3,825.80 4,645.62
M–15 806.45 3,763.45 4,569.90
M–22 787.70 3,675.93 4,463.63
M–36 781.01 3,644.70 4,425.70
M–47 760.00 3,546.65 4,306.64

TABLE VI.
PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SHUNT COST REDUCTION
(COMPARISON OF THE USE OF NOESS INSTEAD GOESS IN SHUNTS)
M–3 M–4 M–5 M–6

(b) M–10 20.52 % 17.52 % 15.94 % 12.58 %

Fig. 6. Temperature distributions in tank for: a) M–5 shunts, b) M–47 shunts.
M–15 21.82 % 18.87 % 17.31 % 14.00 %

M–22 23.64 % 20.75 % 19.23 % 16.00 %

M–36 24.29 % 21.43 % 19.92 % 16.71 %
M–47 26.32 % 23.54 % 22.07 % 18.95 %

VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Fig. 7. Temperature distribution in M–47 magnetic shunts.
V. COST ANALYSIS OF MAGNETIC SHUNTS
The costs of GOES and NOES shunts for power
transformer are presented in this section. Table V shows the
costs calculated for GOES and NOES shunts. These costs are
determined using actual prices of GOESs and NOESs in the
actual steel market. In this table one can see that the cost of
the shunts is reduced when NOES are employed.
A total stray loss reduction of 91 % was obtained utilizing
GOES shunts and a total stray loss reduction of 89 % was
obtained utilizing NOES shunts in the power transformer. The
authors concluded that GOES shunts are 3 % more efficient
than NOES shunts.
Furthermore, NOES shunts presented high eddy current
losses compared with eddy current losses obtained with GOES
shunts. NOES shunts present 50–80 % more eddy current
losses than GOES shunts for the same induction levels.
A difference of 1°C is estimated in the tank of the
transformer using GOES and NOES shunts. GOES and NOES
did not produce high temperatures or hot–spots in the power
transformer.
 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC 2018). Ixtapa, Mexico
Moreover, NOES shunts increased 9 % the stray losses in
the tank compared with the stray losses in the tank permitted
by GOES shunts.
Furthermore, the material costs are reduced around 26 %
using NOESs. In addition, transformer manufacturers can
reduce 10 % the manufacturing times and manufacturing costs
of NOES shunts compared with the costs to manufacture
GOES shunts.
Finally, NOES shunts increase 2 % the weight of power
transformer.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The use of GOES and NOES shunts in a real three–phase,
three–legged power transformer has been analyzed and
compared in this paper. Authors demonstrated the
effectiveness of the use of GOES and NOES shunts in power
transformers. The authors demonstrated that GOES and NOES
shunts reduce stray losses and temperature without putting in
risk the integrity and operation of the power transformer.
Furthermore, the use of NOES shunts permits to reduce
material costs, manufacturing costs, labor costs, energy costs,
and manufacturing times compared with the use of GOES
shunts, but NOES shunts produce more power losses in the
transformer and they add more weight to the transformer.
The results presented in this paper, can be utilized to decide
on the use of GOES and NOES shunts in power transformers,
but the authors recommend carrying out numerical simulations
and laboratory tests to estimate the correct selection of GOESs
or NOESs and shunt dimensions to avoid magnetic saturation
and temperature problems in future designs of power
transformers with different magnetic shunt topologies.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Moghaddami, A. I. Sarwat, and F. de Leon, “Reduction of stray loss
in power transformers using horizontal magnetic wall shunts,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1–7, 2017.
[2] M. Moghaddami, A. I. Sarwat, “Effective magnetic shielding in electric
arc furnace transformers using interphase wall shunts,” IEEE
International Electric Machines and Drives Conference (IEMDC), pp.
1–6, 2017.
[3] T. Gunes, “Numerical and experimental analyses of the deterioration in
magnetic flux density distribution on perforated transformer core steels,”
International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks,
Devices and Fields, e2452, 2018.
[4] CARLITE Grain oriented electrical steels M–3, M–4, M–5, M–6–
product data bulletin, AKSteel, West Chester, Ohio, USA, 2012.
[5] Armco Nonoriented electrical steel– product data booklet, Armco Inc,
Middletown, Ohio, USA, 1974.
[6] S.E. Zirka, Y.I. Moroz, S. Steentjes, K. Hameyer, K. Chwastek, S.
Zurek, R.G. Harrison, “Dynamic magnetization models for soft
ferromagnetic materials coarse and fine domain structures,” Journal of
Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, vol. 394, pp. 229-236, 2015.
[7] S.E. Zirka, Y.I. Moroz, P. Marketos, A.J. Moses, “Loss separation in
nonoriented electrical steels,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 46, no. 2, pp.
286-289, 2010.
[8] S.Y. Lee, Y. S. Lim, I. H. Choi, D. I. Lee, and S. B. Kim, “Effective
combination of soft magnetic materials for magnetic shielding,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 4550–4553, 2012.
[9] O. Bottauscio, D. Chiampi, D. Chiarabaglio, F. Fiorillo, L. Rocchino,
and M. Zucca, “Role of magnetic materials in power frequency
shielding: numerical analysis and experiments,” IEE Proceedings–
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 104–
110, 2001.
[10] K. Tashiro and I. Sasada, “A low–cost magnetic shield consisting of
nonoriented silicon steel,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 10, pp.
4081–4083, 2005.
[11] O. Dobzhanskyi, R. Gouws, E. Amiri, “On the role of magnetic shunts
for increasing performance of transverse flux machines,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 53, no. 2, Feb. 2017.
[12] J.M. Díaz-Chacón, C. Hernandez, and M.A. Arjona, “Finite element and
neural network approach for positioning a magnetic shunt on the tank
wall of a transformer,” IET Electric Power Applications, 10(9), 827-833,
2016.
[13] C. Hernandez, M. A. Arjona, and J. P. Sturgess, “Optimal placement of
a wall–tank magnetic shunt in a transformer using FE models and a
stochastic-deterministic approach,” 12th Biennial IEEE Conference on
Electromagnetic Field Computation, pp. 468–468, 2016.
[14] O.W. Andersen, “Transformer leakage flux program based on the finite
element method,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
PAS-92, no. 2, pp. 682-689, 1973.
[15] “User’s Guide – Maxwell 3D/ANSYS Maxwell v.15,” REV6.0 ed.
ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012.
[16] M. F. Cabanas, F. Pedrayes, M. G. Melero, C. H. Rojas, G. A. Orcajo, J.
M. Cano, and J. G. Norniella, “Insulation fault diagnosis in high voltage
power transformers by means of leakage flux analysis,” Progress In
Electromagnetics Research, vol. 114, pp. 211–234, 2011.
[17] Branimir Cucic, “Magnetic field in the vicinity of distribution
transformers,” International Colloquium Transformer Research and
Asset Management, pp. 1–8, Cavtat, Croatia, Nov. 2009.
[18] D. Lin, P. Zhou, W. N. Fu, Z. Badics, and Z. J. Cendes, “A dynamic
core loss model for soft ferromagnetic and power ferrite materials in
transient finite element analysis,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 2, pp.
1318–1321, 2004.
[19] A.N. Bhagat, S. Ranganathan, and O. N. Mohanty, “Electrical resistivity
studies in low carbon and HSLA–100 steels,” Materials Science and
Technology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 343–346, 2003.
[20] J.C. Olivares–Galvan, S. Magdaleno–Adame, E. Campero–Littlewood,
R. Escarela–Perez, P. S. Georgilakis, “Techno–economic evaluation of
reduction of low–voltage bushings diameter in single–phase distribution
transformers,” Electric Power Components and Systems, vol. 39, no. 13,
1388–1402, 2011.
[21] A. Najafi, O. Ozgonenel, and U. Kurt, “Reduction stray loss on
transformer tank wall with optimized widthwise electromagnetic
shunts,” 10th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics
Engineering (ELECO), pp. 1–5, 2017.
[22] J.C. Olivares–Galvan, S. Magdaleno–Adame, R. Escarela–Perez, R.
Ocon–Valdez, P. S. Georgilakis, G. Loizos, “Reduction of stray losses
in flange–bolt regions of large power transformer tanks,” IEEE Trans.
Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 8, 4455–4463, 2014.
[23] J. P. Holman, Heat transfer, McGraw–Hill Company, Singapore, 1986.
[24] D. Susa, M. Lehtonen, and H. Nordman, “Dynamic thermal modeling of
power transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 197–
204, 2005.
[25] I. Fofana, and J. Sabau, “Application of petroleum-based oil in power
transformer,” Natural Gas Research Progress, 2008, p. 23.
[26] S.A. Ryder and I.J. Vaughan, “A simple method for calculating core
temperature rise in power transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
19, no. 2, pp. 637–642, 2004.