The Journal of CPRI,

Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2013 pp. 141–146

Finite Element Analysis of Transformer Clamping Structure to Study Effect of

Copper Shield on Structural Losses and Winding Eddy Losses

Ram Krishna Mishra* and Saravanan Selvaraj*

The losses due to transformer leakage field comprise a small percentage of the power in a transformer.
Yet these losses produce localized heating which can compromise its operation. The stray field
strength increases rapidly with growing rating. The stray flux intruding into the structural parts
gives rise to eddy currents in them. The resulting eddy current losses may be considerable, thereby
increasing the load loss of transformer [1, 5]. The objective of this work is to calculate stray losses
in magnetic structures of 400 MVA 1-phase, 500–230 kV auto transformer and study the effect of
copper shield on structural losses and winding eddy losses, using commercial software package Magnet
(Infolytica Corp.) based on finite element method (FEM). Due to presence of non linear magnetic
materials, the sinusoidal source with 60 Hz frequency induces non-sinusoidally varying magnetic
fields. A transient solution (which calculates time varying magnetic field) is required for calculating
fields in non-linear materials. However, this requires more computational resources. Therefore Time
harmonic solution (which calculates field at 60 Hz frequency) with linear magnetic materials is
used for this analyses. Further, 3D time harmonic analysis has been done to analyze the effect of
varying Cu shield thickness on loss density and finally its effect on winding eddy losses has been
investigated.

Keywords: Eddy current, Cu shield and Time harmonic.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 LOSSES IN TRANSFORMER

The paper investigates effects of Cu shield on the Transformer is the most efficient machine in
stray losses occurring in core clamping structure power system with efficiency more than 99%.
of the core and how it affects leakage field pattern However, manufacturers want to attain even higher
which in turn changes eddy losses occurring in efficiency and in turn become more competitive
winding of power transformer. The 3D geometric in the market of power transformers hence it is
model of power transformer was made and solved important to calculate transformer performance
with finite element method. The time harmonic as accurately as possible. Accurate calculations
analysis is used to investigate the discussed of stray losses of a power transformer based on
problem. On this basis, we calculated the leakage numerical model may also improve transformer
magnetic field around the coils at nominal current structure in terms of reduced losses and increased
loadings. Further, radial and axial field values are overall efficiency [4].
calculated inside each conductor and eddy losses
in common winding are calculated with and The stray losses in the power transformer are
without Cu shield. composed of additional losses in windings and

*Global R&D Centre, Crompton Greaves Ltd., Kanjur Marg E, Mumbai - 400 042, Maharastra, India.
E-mail: ram.mishra@cgglobal.com, saravanan.selvaraj@cgglobal.com.
142 The Journal of CPRI, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2013

of losses which are originated in transformer’s to small depth of magnetic field penetration in to
structural parts (Figure 1). The losses in the conducting parts [2–3]. Dimensions of each finite
windings are the subject to a power and voltage element in tank walls and clamps should be in
level of the power transformer. The additional the size class below millimeter. So the number
losses in the windings and in the construction, due of finite element would increase above software
to leakage magnetic field can not be separately computational possibilities. For this purpose, so-
measured. called surface impedance is introduced [7–8].
This will significantly reduce the number of finite
elements and allow the calculation of losses in the
tank walls and other transformer’s construction
parts. Leontovich [9] presented a simple form
of the boundary condition for highly conducting
bodies, which relates the electric field intensity
(E) and the magnetic field intensity (H) at each
point on the conductor surface as

n × E = Zn n × (n × H) .... (1)

Where n is the outwardly directed unit vector

normal to the surface and Zs is the standard
surface impedance. Eqn. (1) represents the
standard Rytov–Leontovich impedance boundary
FIG. 1 QUARTER MODEL OF TRANSFORMER condition. For a good conductor, of conductivity
CORE WITH UPPER FRAME, Cu SHIELD AND σ and permeability μ, the surface impedance Zs
WINDINGS.
in Eqn. (1) is taken to be

The additional losses in the windings can be

ZS = RS (1+j) .... (2)
accurately calculated using two-dimensional
axi-symmetric finite element model of the
transformer but for an accurate calculation of Where j = −1 and Rs is the surface resistance.
stray losses in the construction parts and to study
effect of Cu shield on winding eddy loss, the 3D
1
finite element model of the power transformer Rs = .... (3)
must be used. σδ

3.0 METHODOLOGY With δ denoting the skin depth

A. Surface Impedance Boundary Condition 2

δ= .... (4)
ωμσ
The 3D model of power transformer is used for
time harmonic solver based on finite element And ω is angular frequency. Eq. (1) is applicable
method. The transformer dimensions are measured at the points on the conductor surface, where δ
in meters and for detailed electromagnetic is much smaller than the local radii of curvature.
analysis a very large number of finite elements In surface impedance boundary condition (SIBC)
would be needed. This would be especially true method, the mesh of the conducting region is not
if the electrically conductive parts, such as tank used and therefore no field is calculated inside it,
walls and yoke clamps are treated as volumes. which is numerically more efficient. Ahuja et al.
It is necessary to realize that they should be [6] used this method to calculate eddy losses in
described by very dense finite element mesh, due the tank plates due to leakage flux.
The Journal of CPRI, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2013 143

B. Winding Eddy Losses

Eddy loss per unit surface area of a conductor is

given by [2]

H 02 ⎡ eξ − e −ξ − 2sin ξ ⎤
Pe = .... (5)
σδ ⎢⎣ eξ + e −ξ + 2 cos ξ ⎥⎦

Where ξ = 2b/δ.

When dimension (thickness) of the conductor is

quite small as compared to its depth of penetration
for 2b << δ i.e., ξ << 1

H 02 ξ3 H 02 8b3 FIG. 2 WINDING CONDUCTOR IN A LEAKAGE FIELD.

Pe = =
σδ 6 σδ 6δ 3

H 02 8b3ω 2 μ 2 σ 2 4.0 3-D MODEL OF TRANSFORMER

⇒ Pe =
σ 24
The 3D finite element model is made based on
1 dimensions of a 400 MVA 1-phase, 500 kV-230 kV
⇒ Pe = (μH 0 ) 2 σω 2 b3 .... (6)
3 auto transformer. All the numerical calculations
of magnetic fields and eddy current losses were
done by commercial software package MagNet
Now, if the thickness of the winding conductor is (FEM).
t, then substituting b = t/2
The electric connections between the coils and the
3
1 ⎛ t⎞ ω 2 B02 t 3σ tank wall insulator as well as limb clamps were
Pe = B02 σω 2 ⎜ ⎟ = .... (7)
3 ⎝ 2⎠ 24 not taken into account. Tank plates are modeled
without stiffeners. Nonmagnetic materials
(insulating materials) are not considered. To
It is more convenient to find an expression reduce complexity, HV side and LV side are
for the mean eddy loss per unit volume (since analyzed separately and windings are modeled
the volume of the conductor in the winding is as copper cylindrical shell with ampere turns.
usually known). Hence, dividing by t and finally Laminated core is modeled as solid block.
substituting resistivity (ρ) in place of conductivity,
we get the expression for the eddy loss in the
The transformer is not symmetrically builtup. The
winding conductor per unit volume due to axial
side of transformer with high voltage terminals is
(By) and radial (Bx) components of leakage field
longer in comparison with the low voltage side so
(Figure 2) are
HV side and LV side are analyzed separately. The
clamping plate magnetic steel was modeled with
ω 2 B2y t 2 relative permeability μr = 200, and conductivity
(Pe )axial = 24ρ
.... (8)
ρ = 1.05e-7 Ωm.

The main disadvantage of used method for

ω 2 B2x w 2
(Pe )radial =
24ρ
.... (9) eddy current losses calculation is that all
electromagnetic quantities harmonically
144 The Journal of CPRI, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2013

fluctuate by first harmonic. This is not the case (Table 1) because of its closer proximity to
when we deal with non-linear characteristic of windings.
iron. Because of this magnetic non-linearity the
magnetic field in the material has non-sinusoidal The plot for total loss for the case when Cu shield is
form. Nevertheless, the losses are calculated used is shown in Figure 4. It is clearly visible from
relatively accurate. Figure 4 that a Cu shield considerably reduces the
effect of stray field and losses occurring in frame
5.0 RESULTS and tie rods are significantly reduced [10].

Eddy current losses occurring in clamping

structure and winding eddy losses are calculated
for two different cases viz with and without Cu
shields and results are recapitulated in Table 1.
The plot for total loss for the case when Cu shield
is not being used is shown in Figure 3.

FIG. 4 LOSS DENSITY DISTRIBUTION IN HV SIDE

FRAME (WITH CU SHIELD).

The Winding eddy losses are calculated for both

with and without Cu shield for CV winding. In
the case when Cu shield is being used, losses
occurring in CV winding are 33.3 kW whereas in
FIG. 3 LOSS DENSITY DISTRIBUTION IN HV SIDE the case without Cu shield the losses came equal
FRAME (WITHOUT CU SHIELD).
to 32.5 kW, so there is an increase of 0.8 kW.

It is evident from Figure 3 that middle part of 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

upper and lower frame is subjected to high stray
field and need protection. The losses occurring Eddy current losses occurring in different
in lower frame are higher than the upper frame structural part of transformer have been predicted.

TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF LOSSES OCCURRING IN TOP FRAME, BOTTOM FRAME,
TIE RODS AND Cu SHIELDS
Bottom
Top frame Tie rods Cu shields
frame
HV Side (kW) 17.5 28.73 2.01 –
Without Cu shield
LV Side (kW) 14.38 24.4 1.78 –
HV Side (kW) 4.67 7.81 2.1 7.98
With Cu shield
LV Side (kW) 3.19 5.66 7.86 7.29
The Journal of CPRI, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2013 145

Inaccuracy of calculations can be mainly ascribed IEE Science Measurement and Technology,
to mathematical simplifications and to material’s Vol. 144, No.1, pp.34–38, 1997.
nonlinear magnetic properties description. The
[4] Kralj L, Miljavec D. “Stray losses in power
results show the difference in eddy current losses
transformer tank walls and construction
occurring in top frame, bottom frame, tie rods
parts”, ICEM, 2010.
and Cu shields and it can be deduced that the
eddy current losses in transformer frame and tie [5] Karsai K, Kerenyl D and Kiss L. “Large
rods can be reduced drastically with the use of power transformers”, New York, Elsevier
shielding techniques. However metallic shielding Science Publishing Company, 1987.
has adverse effect on winding eddy losses and
[6] Ahuja R and Robert M Del Vecchio,
overall cost of material so it should be chosen
“Transformer Stray loss and Flux Distribution
judiciously keeping rating of the transformer in
Studies using 3D Finite Element Analysis”,
mind.
Trafotech, 2006.

REFERENCES [7] Infolytica Corp, Leo Pariseau, Montreal,

Québec H2X 4B3, Canada.
[1] Adalja C C and Jain M L. “Analysis of stray
losses in power transformers by 3-D magnetic [8] Lowther D A, Silvester P P. “Computer-
field simulation” presented at Fifteenth aided design in magnetics”, Springer-Verlag,
National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), 1986.
IIT Bombay, December 2008. [9] Jayasekera K A S N and Ciric I R.
[2] Kulkarni S V and Khaparde S A. “Transfor- “Evaluation of surface impedance models
mer engineering – Design and Practice”, for axisymmetric eddy-current”, IEEE Trans.
Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004. Magnetics, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 1991–2003,
2007.
[3] Koppikar D A, Kulkarni S V, Khar-parde S A,
and Jain S K. “Evaluation of eddy losses due [10] Janic Z, Valkovic Z and Stih Z, “Stray losses
to high current leads in transformers”, Preoc. in transformer clamping plate”, ISEF, 2001.