Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318
1088/2631-8695/ad2f88
OPEN ACCESS
RECEIVED
3 November 2023
REVISED
23 February 2024
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
1 March 2024
PUBLISHED
18 March 2024
Original content from this
work may be used under
the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0
licence.
Any further distribution of
this work must maintain
attribution to the
author(s) and the title of
the work, journal citation
and DOI.
https://doi.org/10.
PAPER
Design and testing of an arc resistant power transformer with a
reinforced turret
Joakim Johansson1 and Samuel Brodeur2
1
Hitachi Energy Sweden AB, Ludvika, Sweden
2
Hitachi Energy Ltd., Varennes, Canada
E-mail: joakim.x.johansson@hitachienergy.com
Keywords: design, testings, Arc, resistant, transformer, reinforced
Abstract
This paper presents the design and testing of a full-scale 510-kV, 415-MVA HVDC converter
transformer prototype designed to withstand the resulting pressure of a 20 MJ low-impedance fault in
oil occurring inside a bushing turret, which is one of the major causes of transformer fires. In addition,
there is currently few studies and recommendation regarding this failure mode, which is the main
motivation for initiating this study. In total, two full-scale units were designed and built: First
consisting of a reinforced turret and a transformer tank designed for arc resistance using nonlinear
static finite-element analysis with design pressures retrieved from explicit dynamic simulations, and a
second reference unit, with a conventional turret design. Both units were then experimentally tested
with a methodology based on injecting pressurized air into the water-filled units, with test equipment
dimensioned and calibrated to achieve a linear injection of energy equivalent to a 23 MJ arc in oil in
100 ms. The reinforced turret and transformer tank was able to contain the arc energy and performed
as predicted by the nonlinear static and explicit dynamic simulations. The energy levels used in tests
are, to our knowledge, the highest reported for a low-impedance fault occurring inside a turret,
demonstrating the feasibility of designing a transformer to safely withstand mentioned faults without
rupturing. The suggested reinforced turret is a robust and maintenance free solution offering passive
protection against internal arcing, without the need of additional relive devices. It will significantly
reduce the risk of fires, improve overall safety of the substation, and has the potential to be optimized
for different arc energy levels and voltage class for turrets, cable boxes and chimneys.
1. Introduction
The explosion of power transformers due to internal low impedance arcing is a concern for manufacturers and
utility companies with a probability of transformer explosion failure leading to fire on the order of 0.1% per
service year [1]. Catastrophic consequences such as: oil leaks and toxic fires are a threat to personal safety, an
environmental concern, and potential economic losses. A rupture resistant tank, that contains the arc energy by
plastic deformation, has been proven to be a robust solution to mitigate the risk of fire if arcing occurs inside the
transformer tank [2]. However if high-energy arcing occurs in other oil-filled compartments such as bushing
turrets, which is one of the major causes of transformer fires according to [1], one must account for the local
peak pressures appearing at this fault location. These local pressure rises can, as will be shown in this paper by
simulation and experimental data, be much higher and faster than for an equivalent arcing energy inside the tank
[2], due to the smaller surrounding volume and stiffer geometry. At the same time there is currently limited
guidance in [1] and [3] on how to design turrets for internal arcing.
This paper is a continuation of previous work on rupture resistant tanks, but unlike [2] instead focusing on
internal arcing inside the turret and its failure mode. It presents the design and testing of a full-scale 510-kV,
415-MVA HVDC converter transformer prototype designed to withstand the resulting pressure of a 20 MJ low-
impedance fault in oil occurring inside the turret in 100 ms, as proposed by the IEEE guide for this transformer
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

voltage class [3]. The transformer handles the resulting peak pressures by relying on a reinforced turret design. In
addition, an improved test setup compared to [2] was developed, which enabled experiments with higher power
and shorter duration.
Experiments are important for increasing overall knowledge and confidence in current design calculation
methods. To ensure that the latest knowledge was utilized when designing our test setup, a review of past
investigations and experiments was conducted.
An investigation on circuit breakers concluded that arc energy dissipation can be broken down into; loss at
contacts, radiated heat, oil heat to its boiling point, breakdown of oil into gas, heat of gas, expansion of gas and
dissociation of the hydrogen formed [1]. The authors also concluded that the average gas temperature is
approximately 2,000 °K and the gas generation rate can be considered as a linear function of the energy at
standard temperature and pressure. Its noteworthy to mention that more recent studies indicate gas
temperature in the range of 1,500–2,100 °K [4]. Other later arcing experiments [5] also includes more detailed
measurements of the released arc energy, showing a small pulsating behavior in an overall linear trend.
The pressure difference between the gas and the surrounding liquid creates pressure waves in the tank until it
stabilizes after a certain time. The authors of arcing tests on distribution transformers with high-speed
photography concluded that the pressure against the tank was due to gas bubble expansion and the kinetic
energy of oil movement [6, 7]. In addition, the impulse pressure immediately after the arc ignition produced a
rupture of the distribution transformers, with a shape similar to that of the turrets studied in this paper. Another
transformer arcing experiment showed a correlation between the gas bubble volume measured using a high-
speed camera and pressure sensors on the tank [5]. This means that the mechanical resistance of transformers
depends on the gas bubble pressure rise and its duration; other aspects of the arc energy dissipation mentioned
above are not relevant.
The energy generated by an arc in oil experiments is difficult to control, and there is a risk of damage to the
laboratory equipment and overall security. In addition, producing a transformer rupture requires a high-power
source, which limits the laboratory availability for energy levels upwards 20 MJ. The highest reported energy of
an arc in oil experiment was performed in a on-load tap changer oil compartment with an arc energy of 10 MJ
[8]. Other techniques have been used to simulate the gas bubble pressure rise from an arc in oil; for example, a
special powder combustion vessel has been used on a water filled 275 kV transformer up to an equivalent arc
energy of 11.2 MJ [9]. Another experimental approach is to suddenly discharge compressed gas in the
transformer, it has been first used in 1959 [10]. Subsequently, this experimental method showed good
agreement with electrical arc in oil tests on pole-type distribution transformers [11]. Finally, 210 MVA
transformer tests with sudden discharge of compressed gas have produced, to our knowledge, the highest
equivalent arc energy (up to about 30 MJ) and measured pressure rise (1,000 kPa) ever reported.
An important parameter which influences the pressure rise of transformers is the duration. For a while the
effect of the arcing duration was misunderstood. Note that the power industry references and practices such as
the proposed equation (2), which assumes isothermal expansion of the gas bubble generated in the oil, are based
on a short-duration arc of 50 to 100 ms because of circuit breaker response time [1, 12]. However, this topic was
investigated in 2020, and a numerical study [2] showed larger tank plastic work for shorter arc duration despite
similar maximum pressures; thus, short-duration arcs are more severe for mechanical structures. Thus, an
arcing test of 20 MJ in 50 ms is creating more structural damage than an arcing test of 20 MJ in 1 s. Therefore, the
speed of gas bubble expansion is important when analyzing and comparing transformer mechanical resistance.
Over the years several authors focused on transformers tank strength under internal arcing by experiments
[2, 5, 9, 10, 13–17] and numerical simulations [18–21]. Despite the catastrophic consequences of an arc located
in a turret is known, only a few studies are covering this topic. A first investigation of a turret failure suggests that
retrofitting designs mitigate the risk of turret projections based on numerical simulations [22]. Another
numerical study analyzed the resistance of a tank and bushing turrets for an arc of 4,8 MJ located at the windings
or at the tap changer. The results show the importance of the arc location where higher stress is observed on the
tank in comparison with the bushing turrets [23]. Moreover, a numerical model simulates an arc of 21 MJ in 59
ms at the entrance of a turret to reproduce a 415 MVA converter transformer accident. The results show a peak
pressure in the turret in about 10 ms where the maximum stress appears at the joint between the turret and the
tank [24]. A bushing turret failure to a 570 MVA GSU transformer highlight the vulnerability of an arc located in
this component [25]. An arc in oil test on a turret prototype submitted to energy of 3,54 MJ in about 150 ms
resulted in a peak pressure of about 1,75 MPa. A high pressure and temperature mixture of oil and gas was
discharged through the turret pressure relief devices, but their reducing effect is not clear since no test
comparison without devices are available.
The remainder of this paper presents the transformer design in section 2. and experimental testing of the
mechanical resistance by sudden discharge of compressed gas to produce high energy and pressure in section 3.
The paper is summarized and concluded in section 4.

2
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 1. Experimental test model compared with HVDC converter transformer rated at 415 MVA.

2. Transformer design

The technical solution described in this paper relies on a reinforced turret design. An ideation process was
followed, and the stated solution was selected from several ideas; including venting by pressure relief devices,
rupture discs, and designing a turret with a greater possibility of expansion. The decision point during the
selection phase was that the arcing pressure rise is too fast to be discharged, the considered system region is too
small to absorb the energy via deformation, and the most efficient method is to reinforce the turret to contain the
extreme pressure, which peaks within the first cycle, without rupturing. This passive protection solution relies
on the turret handling this initial peak without the need for an additional relief device. This reinforced turret is
designed to resist an arc energy level by assuming normal circuit breaker operation on the network to interrupt
the power. Then, the transfer of pressure thru the lower turret flange into the transformer tank designed to
absorb energy by plastic deformation. Ultimately resulting in a uniform residual pressure within the transformer
which can later be vented by the tank pressure relief device.
The test objects included a turret, Resin Impregnated paper (RIP) bushing, mock-up active part and tank.
The test facility limitations and manufacturing costs had to be considered when deciding on the size of the test
tank; inner dimensions of 5 m length × 3 m width × 4 m height were used. Figure 1 compares the test setup with
the HVDC converter transformer rated at 415 MVA, where it can be observed that while the dimensions of
turret and tank height and width are equal, the length of the test tank is smaller. This will lead to a more
conservative test setup because the residual pressure will be higher owing to the lower tank volume.

2.1. Turret design

2.1.1. Design requirement
An arc within an oil-filled transformer non-tank component, such as a turret, generates a large amount of gas in
a small volume, which creates a significant and rapid peak pressure increase. This event is different from an arc
located in a tank; therefore, the proposed equation based on isothermal expansion of the gas bubble generated in
oil cannot be directly applied [26]. Consequently, the pressure needed to be withstood by the turret is
determined by explicit dynamic simulations, which have been shown to be an appropriate method to simulate
an arc in oil [22] and also provide good agreement with experimental testing of a transformer tank [2]. These
references provide a detailed description of the methodology applied here. The numerical model in figure 2
includes structural parts, a tank, and a turret. The last two are meshed by 2D shell elements and steel ISO
10025–2 grade S355J2 with nonlinear material properties are considered. The bushing and active part are
meshed by 3D solid elements with linear steel material properties (Structural Steel in figure 2).

3
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 2. Explicit dynamic model of the turret test.

The tank water is added to a Euler domain. Then, pressurized air was injected in 100 ms near the bottom of
the bushing, which is the most likely arcing location. The amount of air was controlled to be equivalent to the
volume created during an arc energy of 20 MJ in oil. The intention of the simulation was to replicate the loading
conditions used in the experiment. Note that rupture is not considered for this explicit dynamic analysis, and it is
assumed that the resulting pressure levels and distribution will be conservative for a design that ruptures. The
rupture failure mode was assessed by the static nonlinear finite element analysis described in section 2.1.2. The
numerical results in figure 3 show the expansion of the air bubble over time, displaying a significant fluid transfer
between the turret and the tank.
The pressure was monitored by gauges initially included in the model where the average pressure near the
turret cover reached a peak pressure of 7,942 kPa, as shown in figure 3. This peak pressure was used as the target
design value for the reinforced turret to withstand. Note, the pressure peak is reached before the full expansion
of the air bubble. In addition, a more uniform pressure distribution between the turret and tank is reached after
approximately 200 ms. Finally, pressure propagation result of the explicit dynamic simulation is shown in
figure 13 where it is compared with the experimental measurements.

2.1.2. Analysis methodology

The turret withstand capacity was assessed using static nonlinear finite element analysis in ANSYS®
Mechanical™, which has been used in the past for tank analysis [2, 19 ]. However, the design pressure to be
withstood by the turret is 7,942 kPa, which is the result of the explicit dynamic simulation.
Additionally, this pressure load was applied only to the inner surfaces of the turret. The tank bottom was
fixed to the ground and the model was split into two by a symmetry boundary condition. Most of the mesh, as
shown in figure 4, is made of 3D eight-node solid shell elements with sizes ranging from 5 mm to 40 mm, for a
total of over 80,000 elements.
The material properties include true stress–strain curves to consider the plastic deformation domain up to
the corresponding ultimate stress. The turret and tank are made of steel ISO 10025–2 type S355J2 and weld E70C
where the ultimate plastic strains are based on tension tests, as summarized in table 1. The fasteners are ISO 898
class 8.8 assume to have the same ultimate plastic strain as steel grade S355J2 because tension tests were not
available.

2.1.3. Result of a 550 kV turret

The first turret model is taken from the 415 MVA HVDC converter transformer reference design and installed
on a test tank. This conventional turret is further one denoted 550 kV turret, based on rated voltage of the
bushing. The turret diameter is 1.1 m and with a reduction of 850 mm near the tank to the accommodate
transportation clearance. The turret height was approximately 3 m. The M12 fasteners of the turret flanges were

4
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 3. (a) Air bubble evolution and (b) Pressure distribution in water over time.

Figure 4. Mesh of the tank with a turret model.

Table 1. Material properties.

Parameter Symbol ISO 10025–2 S355J2 ISO 898 Class 8,8 E70C

Density (kg/m3) ρ 7,860 7,860 7,860

Young’s modulus (GPa) E 200 200 200
Shear modulus (GPa) G 77 77 77
Yield stress (MPa) Sy 355 640 400
True ultimate plastic stress (MPa) Su 541 920 530
True ultimate plastic strain euP 0.14 0.14 0.10

5
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 5. (a) Stress of the 550 kV turret,(b) submodel mesh and (c) fastener strain result in a rupture.

modeled using 3D solid elements, and a preload force of 34.4 kN was applied to replicate the tightening torque in
the first step of the simulation. In the subsequent steps, pressure was applied to the inner surfaces of the turret.
The results in figure 5 shows the equivalent stress for a pressure load of 1.1 MPa. The result shows maximum
stress on the fastener near the tank wall; therefore, this region was subjected to further analysis. A submodel was
created, meshed by solid elements where the mesh size of the fastener is refined to 1 mm, as shown in figure 5. A
strain-based rupture criterion was used to predict the failure when the equivalent plastic strain eeP exceeded the
ultimate plastic strain euP throughout the thickness of the part under consideration. This criterion, equation (1),
has been validated by pressurized experiments on a tank wall [17] and recommended by a comparative
numerical investigation with other criteria [18]. The simulation results predicted a rupture when the turret
arcing pressure reaches 1,025 kPa.
eeP  euP troughout the thickness (1)

2.1.4. Result of the reinforced turret

A model of a reinforced turret was designed with the aim of resisting the arcing pressure of 7,942 kPa, equivalent
to an arc energy of 20 MJ in oil. As a constraint, the manufacturing process and overall dimensions, such as
internal diameter and height, were kept the same. The reinforcements were achieved by a series of modifications
to the 550 kV turret design, which comprised of larger fasteners and thicker turret shells and flanges. The final
reinforced turret design was determined based on a sensitivity study of the main parameters, by performing
multiple static nonlinear finite element analyses until the required bolt size was found to resist the arc pressure.
For simplification purposes, the model includes only the fasteners at the connection between the turret and tank,
as observed from previous calculations to be the weakest point. These M36 fasteners were modeled by 3D solid
elements with a preload force of 333 kN, a turret pressure load was applied to the subsequent steps.
Figure 6 show results of displacement, stress, and strain under an internal pressure of 8 MPa. It is observed
that the weakest point is located at the turret shell and a submodel analysis estimated a pressure of 8 MPa at the
rupture. The reinforced turret is approximately eight times more resistant than to the existing 550 kV turret
design.

2.2. Tank design

The ability of the reinforced turret design to contain extreme pressures relies on the arc energy being transferred
into a transformer tank. The tank has a much larger volume and can absorb arc energy by plastic deformation.

2.2.1. Design requirement

The tank was designed with optimized flexibility and governing principles described in full detail in [2],
dimensioned for a tank design pressure Pd (kPa) according to equation (2), based on the conservative
assumption of an isothermal expansion of the gas bubble generated by an arc energy of 20 MJ [26].
k·E
Pd = F ⎡100· 0.25 + - 50 ⎤ + P h (2)
⎢ 100 ·c ⎥
⎣ ⎦

6
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 6. (a) Displacement, (b) stress, and (c) strain results of the reinforced turret.

Table 2. Determination of tank design pressure.

Parameter/result Symbol Value

Fault energy level (kJ) E 20,000

Volume change at design pressure (m3) ∆V 4.56
Tank expansion coefficient (m3/kPa) c 0.01055
Dynamic amplification factor (-) F 1.52
Arc pressure (kPa) PS 432.6
Hydrostatic pressure at mid tank Ph 42.6
height (kPa)
Design pressure (kPa) Pd 475

where F is the dynamic amplification factor, k is the arc energy conversion factor (= 5.8 ×10−4 m3/kJ), E is the
arc energy to withstand (kJ), c is the tank expansion coefficient (m3/kPa), and Ph is the hydrostatic pressure (kPa)
at the middle height of the tank.

2.2.2. Analysis methodology

To determine the tank design pressure, a static nonlinear finite element analysis of the tank was performed,
which included both material and geometrical nonlinearities as described in section 2.1. The tank and turret are
made of steel ISO 10025–2 type S355J2 and all the welds of AWS E70C, with properties summarized in table 1.
The main step of the procedure consists of applying uniform pressure on all internal surfaces of the tank and
turret, which was increased linearly in incremental steps while measuring the change in ∆V , tank volume (m3).
The pressure was increased until Pd was resolved using equation (2). Submodeling techniques were used to
analyze the areas with the highest deformations to verify that the entire tank can withstand the design pressure.
Furthermore, these locations on the tank were subjected to a pressure higher than Pd until rupture occurred, to
ensure a sufficiently high safety margin.

2.2.3. Result
The global model was analyzed, and the tank design pressure was established. The result can be seen in table 2.
A submodel analysis of the areas with the highest deformation confirmed a safe design at a design pressure
equivalent to a fault of 20 MJ. The highest strain was obtained at tank cover weld, which is the first rupture point
at an energy level >20 MJ with a good safety margin. The overall strain and stress levels at the tank walls and
cover also displays safe values at design pressure as can be seen in figure 7.

3. Experiments

3.1. Test plan and objectives

The objective of the tests is to replicate a 20 MJ arc in two different turret designs:

7
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 7. (a) Strain and (b) stress of the test object at tank design pressure.

Figure 8. Test setup including both test objects and part of gas injection equipment.

550 kV Turret Test: Testing of a conventional 550 kV turret subjected to an energy level of 20 MJ to produce a
rupture as predicted by static nonlinear finite element analysis.
Reinforced Turret Test: The reinforced turret subjecting to an arc energy of 20 MJ will, according to the static
nonlinear finite element analysis, handle the resulting pressures without ruptures, which will be proven by the
experimental test. The success of the reinforced turret test was based on the absence of ruptures or leakages from
the turret or from anywhere else in the transformer. The explicit dynamic simulation results were compared
with pressure measurements.
The total test objects will include a turret, RIP bushing, mock-up active part, and a tank, which is required to
capture the correct pressure propagation. Figure 8 compares the two test objects, and it can be observed that the
main reinforcement consists of an increase in the size of all ISO 898 class 8.8 bolts from M12 to M36, and an
increase in shell thickness from 6 to 8 mm. But as well an increase in flange thickness to handle the higher bolt

8
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 9. Schematic cross section view of test setup including test object and gas injection equipment.

pretension and decrease the risk of leakage. One can also see the pressure sensors P1—P13 which are mounted in
the same locations on both test objects.

3.2. Methodology
The experimental method used in our study reproduced the effect of an arc in oil by injecting the corresponding
mechanical energy, which leads to a pressure rise. Only part of the electrical energy from a fault is transferred to
mechanical energy owing to various dissipative mechanisms. Approximately 24% [1] of the electrical energy
Eelec (MJ) is converted to gas bubble enthalpy; mechanical energy Emech (MJ) which leads to a pressure rise within
the transformer.
Emech
= 0.243 (3)
Eelec

To reproduce an arc in oil with 20 MJ of electrical energy, the experimental setup needs to inject a gas equivalent
to 4.86 MJ of mechanical energy.

3.2.1. Test setup

The arcing load was simulated by injecting highly pressurized air thru the turret into a water-filled test object.
Figure 9 shows the experimental test setup, where the main components can be seen. The test equipment was
dimensioned to achieve a linear injection of energy obtained by a pressure vessel with a volume Vpv of 1.06 m3
and a pressure rating of 210 bar. The pressure vessel was connected to the test object by an almost 10 m long pipe,
which was designed with a reducing internal diameter along the flow direction. Nominal internal diameter was
reduced in smooth steps from 189.2 mm down to 97.18 mm, resulting in the smallest cross-sectional area
directly before injection location inside the turret. This method provides a choked flow with a constant velocity
equal to the speed of sound in air. The internal pressure inside the pipe decreased along the injection trajectory,
therefore pipes and components close to pressure vessel was dimensioned for a working pressure of 210 bar,
while the pipe section after the mechanical valve had a pressure rating of 150 bar.
To ensure the highest health and safety standards the test was performed in a restricted area with remote
control of all the equipment. The main test process consisted of pressurization of the vessel using a compressor,
while having the gate valve closed. When the desired pressure had been reached, the gate valve was opened, and
the air was then kept inside the vessel by two rupture discs. The pressure in the chamber between the two discs
was measured and controlled and the injection was initiated by decreasing this pressure by venting air thru a
solenoid valve, which created a pressure difference on the first rupture disc larger than the burst limit. The

9
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Table 3. Test parameter.

Description Symbol Target value Average values from calibration

Pressure drop in Vessel [kPa] ∆P 1,889 2,150

Mechanical Energy released from Vessel [MJ] Δ Emec 5.01 5.69
Equivalent Arc Energy injected [MJ] E 20 23.45
Injection Duration [ms] t 100 104

injection started and air flowed thru the 10 m long pipe into the test object. A pressure sensor in the pressure
chamber registers the initiation and triggers a signal to stop the airflow after approximately 100 ms, which was
performed by a mechanical valve. The later consisted of a 6-inch class 1500 swing check valve, which was
modified with an electromagnet, allowing minimum flow restrictions in open position and a controllable and
fast closing mechanism. Valve is closed by the air flow and closing time is estimated to be in the range of a couple
of milliseconds. The test was monitored using seven pressure sensors on the tank and six were located on the
turret. A high-speed camera documented the planned sequence of events during the tests.

3.2.2. Calibration of test equipment

The theoretical test parameters to reproduce 20 MJ of electrical energy in 100 ms were controlled by the main
parameter ΔP, the pressure-drop in pressure vessel (Pa). Our experimental method assumes a test equipment
containing an ideal gas undergoing an adiabatic process, with no heat exchange with the outside, and that all the
energy leaving the pressure vessel enters the test object at the end of the injection system. Considering these
assumptions, the change in internal energy can be express as ΔE (J) [27]:

P2 V2 - P1 V1
DE = (4)
g-1

Where P1 and P2 are initial and final vessel pressures respectively (Pa); V1 and V2 are initial and final vessel
volume respectively (m3) and γ is the perfect gas constant for air (1.4). In our model, ΔE represents the
mechanical energy leaving the pressure vessel, and is denoted ΔEmec (MJ). Additionally, both V1 and V2 can be
substituted by Vpv and equation (4) can then be written as:
(P2 - P1) Vpv
∆Emec = (5)
g-1

By rearranging (5) and substituting (P2 - P1) with ΔP one can express the corresponding pressure drop in the
pressure vessel as a function of mechanical energy as:

∆P = ∆Emec (g - 1) / Vpv (6)

Finally, using (6) one can calculate the required pressure drop needed to inject 4.86 MJ as 1,834 kPa.
The required pressure drop does not vary with P1, but the mass flow rate out of the vessel is a function of this
initial pressure. Therefore, the required injection duration will be influenced by P1. The burst pressure of the
rupture discs was 162 bars, and for this reason P1 was maintained at approximately 165 bar during the entire
calibration and both tests.
The required pressure drop according to (6) assumes, as mentioned, that all the mechanical energy leaving
the pressure vessel enters the test object at the end of the injection system. This would be true if the pressure
vessel could inject directly into the test object; however, in practice a 10 m long pipe was used with a non-
negligible volume (0.1 m3) and friction; therefore, a small portion of the energy will not reach the test object.
This effect was validated by explicit dynamic simulations of the test equipment where the initial pressure of the
pressure vessel was released through the piping and closed after 100 ms. First, the simulation could not
reproduce the pressure drop due to components of the piping system (valves) or friction in the piping. Thus, the
piping diameter of the model is adjusted by trial and error until it fits the mechanical energy leaving the vessel
measurement of a calibration test, the pressure drop recording is used with the calculation of (6). Second, from
the numerical simulation results, the difference between the energy leaving the pressure vessel and that leaving
the end of the piping is approximately 3%. Therefore, the targeted mechanical energy released from the vessel
was increased to 5.01 MJ to achieve an injection of 4.86 MJ. The target test parameters are listed in table 3. The
acceptance criteria for the calibration were specified as an acceptable accuracy of ±20% with respect to the of
injection duration and arc energy injected. And with an acceptable reproducibility between trials of
maximum 10%.

10
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 10. (a) Ruptured M12 stud bolts from lower flange connection. Vertical position of the turret assembly; (b) Initial, (c) 30 ms
after bolt ruptured and (d) at maximum displacement.

3.2.3. Calibration result

Over 30 calibration trials were performed to fine-tune the energy, duration, and repeatability. Incremental
changes and improvements in the test equipment were required to obtain an acceptable behavior, and finally five
consecutive trials were performed with injection duration and energy within allowable tolerances. The average
results of these trials are summarized in table 3, where one can see that the calibration result predicted an energy
of approximately 23 MJ to be injected in the test instead of initially targeted 20 MJ. Based on these five trials,
calibration was concluded to be successful with an accuracy of injection duration of 4% and a precision of
reproducibility within ±9%. The accuracy of the injected equivalent arc energy was 16% with a precision of
reproducibility within ±9%. Both were within the accepted tolerance of ±20% and precision of reproducibility
within ±10%. The final average injection capacity of the test equipment could be expressed as an average power
of 225 MW during the injection duration. This is a fourfold increase in power compared to [2] (55 MW) which is
due to the larger pressure vessel and internal pipe diameters, allowing for a higher mass flow rate. At the same
time, a fast injection duration was achieved by using rupture discs for flow initiation and the modified swing
check valve, which allowed for a controllable and fast closing mechanism.

3.3. Test result and comparison with simulations

3.3.1. 550 kV turret
Test object was subjected to air injection equivalent to an arc energy in oil of 23.27 MJ during 105 ms. Turret
rupture occurred at the lower flange connection as predicted by the static nonlinear finite element analysis.
During failure, the internal pressure on the turret cover creates an upwards lifting force. The lower flange
connection to the tank cover consists of 20 studs M12 (ISO 898 class 8.8) and figure 10 shows four of these studs
ruptured. The force results in a substantial vertical displacement of the entire turret, as shown in figure 10, where
initial and maximum vertical position are compared. Vertical movement has been limited by two steel supports,
the injection pipe and additional lashings. None of these are used in service, and a real turret subjected to the
same energy would be less restricted and cause additional damage to personal and nearby equipment. This is in
line with observations from real arc failures, for example, the side turret described and analyzed in [22].
The high-speed recording was used to estimate the moment of rupture to occur within the first 10–20 ms of
the arcing event. This is also supported by the pressure measured by the six sensors on the turret during the first
120 ms, as shown in figure 11. The average pressure at the turret top (P12 & P13) peaked at 10 ms and the level at
this moment was well above the rupture pressure of 1,025 kPa predicted by the static nonlinear finite element
analysis.
After 96 ms the data transfer from the pressure sensor located at the lower flange connection (P8) was
stopped. Examination showed damage to the cable connection caused by evacuated water and turret
displacement. Approximately 5 m3 of fluid was evacuated during the explosion. Thus, such transformer rupture
would result in catastrophic consequences, because warm oil sprayed with massive force and exposure to oxygen
leads to a high potential for fires.

3.3.2. Reinforced turret

Test object was submitted to air injection equivalent to an arc energy in oil of 22.85 MJ in 101 ms. The turret
successfully contains and transfers all injected energy to the tank, this last show walls and the transformer cover
resist without leakages or ruptures anywhere in the system. Figure 12 shows the measured pressure from the six
sensors on the turret during the first 120 ms. The maximum measured turret pressure occurs at the turret top
cover (P13) after 10 ms and peaks at a value of 6,655 kPa, with a good safety margin to the rupture pressure

11
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 11. 550 kV turret test pressure measurements.

Figure 12. Reinforced turret test pressure measurements.

estimated by the static nonlinear finite element analysis. This peak pressure, occurring after approximately 10
ms, which is later followed by decreasing pulsations, is in good agreement with real arc in oil experiments at
lower energy levels [5].
Figure 13 compares the measurements at the top and middle of the turret with the explicit dynamic
simulation during the first 60 ms. The first pressure peak appears in the middle of the turret at the arcing
location, and one can later follow the pressure propagated with a peak pressure of 8,323 kPa appearing a couple
of milliseconds later at the locations of sensors P12 & P13. The FEA peak is approximately 20% higher than the
measurements, with a delay of about 4.5 ms. One reason for the slight delay was because injection system was not
considered in the explicit dynamic simulation model. In general, the simulation results overestimate the
measurement in the turret, which should be considered safe for the design. Finally, the peak of 6,655 kPa is more
than six times higher than the peak pressure (1,000 kPa) measured during the test [2] with similar arc energy,
where the injection location was inside the transformer tank.
Figure 14 shows the evolution of the average pressure measured by the six sensors in the turret and the seven
sensors on the tank during the first 200 ms of the reinforced turret test. The average turret pressure reached a
maximum of 2,563 kPa while the maximum average tank pressure measured in the test was 405 kPa. The tank
pressure continued to rise for approximately 100 ms which was almost 10 times slower than the reinforced turret
pressure rise (10 ms). Additionally, it is worth noting that the maximum average tank pressure was
approximately 14 times lower than the average value measured near the reinforced turret cover (5,532 kPa).
Figure 15. shows the pressure evolution from seven sensors on the tank (P1-P7) as well as their average. This
figure also shows the average tank pressure obtained from the explicit dynamic simulation, as well as the tank

12
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 13. Reinforced turret test comparison between pressure measurements and simulation.

Figure 14. Reinforced turret test comparison between average turret and tank pressure measurements.

Figure 15. Reinforced turret test comparison between Tank pressure measurements and simulation.

13
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

Figure 16. Reinforced turret test tank deformation (a) before injection and (b) after, with arcing and hydrostatic pressure removed.

design pressure calculated by (2). The maximum average tank pressure from the simulation was 369 kPa,
whereas the maximum average tank pressure from the test was 405 kPa; a difference of approximately 10%. The
tank design pressure of 475 kPa, calculated by nonlinear static analysis and (2), displayed a good safety margin
and confirmed it as a safe method for designing tanks against internal arcing. As shown in figure 15 there are
multiple peaks above the design pressure, with a maximum tank peak pressure of 867 kPa, observed on the back
wall (P6) after 81 ms. However, these short duration peaks, lasting roughly 2–4 ms, are not a concern for tank
integrity, which is proven by the experiment. This result is in good agreement with section 2.2.1in [1], indicating
that the tank can withstand very high local peak pressures for shorter times, since it is the displacement of the
tank walls causing the ruptures, not the pressure itself. According to the high-speed recording, the tank wall
displacement reached its maximum after approximately 200 ms. This is well in line with the average tank
pressure measurements in figure 15, which displayed a rather stable and uniform residual pressure of 275 kPa
after 200 ms.
The remaining overpressure was released through the Pressure Relief Device (PRD). Figure 16 shows the
remaining deformation of the tank when the arcing and hydrostatic pressures were removed. The tank
displacement was measured at multiple points along the tank height, with a maximum at the center of the tank
wall with a permanent displacement of 87 mm, whereas the maximum displacement from the nonlinear static
analysis was 109 mm. The high-speed video recording indicates a similar PRD activation time for both tests, and
in the 550 kV turret test, it occurred after the rupture of the bolted connection. This is also in good agreement
with a previous tank test [2] with a recorded PRD activation time of approximately 57 ms. The discharge of water
was observed after about 300 ms, then the measurement show a slow relief of the pressure where after 5 s the
average pressure in the tank was 225 kPa and after 10 s it was reduced to 180 kPa. Finally, it is safe to assume that
the PRD had no impact on reducing the peak pressure inside the turret because it occurred already after 10 ms.

4. Conclusion

This study focusing on high-energy low-impedance faults occurring inside a transformer turret, which is one of
the major causes of transformer fires [1]. The governing design principle proposed is based on a reinforced turret
that contains the extreme initial pressures and transfers the arc energy into a transformer tank designed to resist
the load. The reinforced turret was dimensioned for a peak pressure obtained by an explicit dynamic analysis,
and later verified by nonlinear static finite-element analysis and proven experimentally with, to our knowledge,
the highest arc energy level ever performed in a transformer turret, equivalent to an electrical arc in oil of 23 MJ
in 100 ms.
Some of the main findings from simulations and experiments are:

• Resulting peak pressure of 6,655 kPa for an arc inside the turret is roughly six times higher than an arcing
location inside the tank.

14
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

• Experimental tests of the original 550 kV turret and the reinforced turret, with the same arc energy levels,
demonstrated the robustness of the new design.
• In general, the simulation results overestimate the measurement in the turret. While this demonstrates a safe
and conservative design approach, it also indicates possibility for future improvements in the method.
Finally, we concluded that suggested reinforced turret makes it is feasible to design a rupture resistant
transformer that will significantly reduce the risk of fires and improve overall safety of the substation, while
offering:
• A robust and maintenance free solution offering passive protection without the need of additional relive
devices.
• Potential to be optimized for different arc energy levels and voltage class for turrets, cable boxes and chimneys.
• Possibility for retrofit. Which assumes tank has already been designed to handle the arc energy and will require
minor welding work at site to change mounting flange on transformer cover.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the entire Hitachi Energy Power Transformer factory in Ludvika for their
contributions in designing and manufacturing the test setup and performing the experiments.

Data availability statement

The data cannot be made publicly available upon publication because they contain commercially sensitive
information. The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the
authors.

ORCID iDs

Joakim Johansson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3529-4072

Samuel Brodeur https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-3725

References
[1] 2013 Guide for Transformer Fire Safety Practices Technical Brochures 537-2013 CIGRÉ
[2] Brodeur S and Dastous J-B 2020 Design and testing of an arc resistant power transformer tank IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 35 669–706
[3] 2016 IEEE Guide for Tank Rupture Mitigation of Liquid-Immersed Power Transformers and Reactors IEEE Std C57.156-2016 pp 1–26
[4] Yan C et al 2021 Experimental study on the gas bubble temperature around an Arc under insulation oil IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 36
1245–8
[5] Yan C, Xu C and Liu H 2023 Research on oil pressure rise and fluctuation due to arcing faults inside transformers IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery 38 1483–92
[6] Barkan P, Damsky B L, Ettlinger L F and Kotski E J 1976 Overpressure phenomena in distribution transformers with low impedance
faults: experiment and theory IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 95 37–48
[7] Cuk N P 1990 Oil tank explosion resistance Canadian Electrical Association, Technical Report 149 D491
[8] Zhao Y et al 2022 Study on pressure spread characteristics of Arc fault in the oil compartment of OLTC 2022 IEEE Int. Conf. on High
Voltage Engineering and Applications (ICHVE) pp 1–4
[9] Kawamura T, Ueda M, Ando K, Maeda T, Abiru Y, Watanabe M and Moritsu K 1988 Prevention of tank rupture due to internal fault of
oil-filled transformer CIGRE 12-02_1988
[10] Ringlee R J and Roberts N W 1959 Tank pressures resulting from internal explosions Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical
Engineers. Part III: Power Apparatus and Systems 78 1705–10
[11] Dastous J-B, Foata M and Hamel A 2003 Estimating overpressures in pole-type distribution transformers II: prediction tools IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery 18 120–7
[12] Abi-Samra N, Arteaga J and Darovny B 2009 Power transformer tank rupture and mitigation—a summary of current state of practice
and knowledge by task force of IEEE power transformer subcommittee IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery 24 1959–67
[13] Hamel A, Dastous J-B and Foata M 2003 Estimating overpressures in pole-type distribution transformers I: tank withstand evaluation
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 18 113–9
[14] Pan Z, Deng J, Xie Z, Peng X, Hou M and Zhou H 2023 Research on simulation and verification experiment method for pressure
characteristics of converter transformer tank under internal Arc fault Presented at 2023 the 6th Int. Conf. on Energy, Electrical and Power
Engineering pp 1128–34
[15] Muller S, Petrovan-Boiarciuc M and Périgaud M 2009 Pressure wave propagation induced by short circuits inside power transformers:
development of a simulation tool, comparisons with experiments and applications Int. J. Multiphys. 3 361–86
[16] Park W H, Lee J W and Chung S H 2023 DPRS transformer dynamic pressure resistant system—II Transformer Magazine 10 102–9
[17] Bélanger S, Brodeur S, Dastous J B and Soucy N 2014 Experimental and numerical studies of large steel plates subjected to high pressure
loading Presented at the World Congr. Comput. Mech. Session - (Barcelona, Spain) pp 1–10

15
Eng. Res. Express 6 (2024) 015318 J Johansson and S Brodeur

[18] Brodeur S, Lê V N and Champliaud H 2021 A nonlinear finite-element analysis tool to prevent rupture of power transformer tank
Sustainability 13 1048–64
[19] Dastous J-B, Taschler E, Bélanger S and Sari M 2017 A comparison of numerical methods for modeling overpressure effects from low
impedance faults in power transformers Procedia Eng. 202 202–223
[20] Dastous J-B 2023 Enhancements in power transformer Arc-resistant specifications Presented at CIGRÉ Transformer Research and Asset
Management Joint Colloquium - (Split, Croatia) pp 1–14
[21] Luo L, Sui M, Sun J, Zhao Y, Wang K, Li J and Zhang N 2023 A study of pressure development and oil-immersed transformer tank
deformation during an arcing event considering strong FSI 2023 Panda Forum on Power and Energy (PandaFPE) pp 2302–8
[22] Dastous J-B, Lanteigne J and Foata M 2010 Numerical method for the investigation of fault containment and tank rupture of power
transformers IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 25 1657–65
[23] Chen S, Guo Z, Xie Q, Xiao W and Qu G 2023 Balance design concept for ultra-high voltage transformer against arc fault explosion and
its realization 2023 International Conference on Power System Technology (PowerCon) (Jinan, China) pp 1–8
[24] Li B, Hao Z, Ding G, Zhang Y, Xue Z and Wu X 2021 Modeling and Analysis of Tank Rupture Due to Internal Electrical Fault in Oil-
filled Power Transformer Presented at 2021 Int. Conf. on Advanced Electrical Equipment and Reliable Operation (Beijing, China) pp 1–5
[25] Ryadi M et al 2023 Mitigation of fire due to high energy internal arc in bushing turrets Presented at Presented at CIGRÉ Transformer
Research and Asset Management Joint Colloquium (Split, Croatia) pp 1–8
[26] Foata M and Dastous J-B 2010 Power transformer tank rupture prevention Presented at CIGRÉ Transformer Technology Conf. (Paris,
France) pp 1–10
[27] Foata M, Iordanescu M and Hardy C 1988 Computational methods for the analysis of explosions in oil-insulated electrical equipment
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 3 286–93

16