IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO.
3, JULY 2005
Dynamic Thermal Modeling
of Distribution Transformers
Dejan Susa, Student Member, IEEE, Matti Lehtonen, and Hasse Nordman
Abstract—A comprehensive test program was performed on a
2500-kVA oil natural–air natural cooling mode (ONAN) trans-
former without external cooling. It is shown that the hot-spot to
top-oil temperature gradient depends on the transformer con-
struction. The top-oil time constant formula, which has already
been defined and validated in the authors’ previous work related
to transformers with external cooling, is modified in order to take
into account the basic design differences. The results are verified
by thermocouple measurements and tests at varying loading
current.
The hot-spot and top-oil temperature responses predicted by the
IEEE Loading Guide, Annex G, are also compared to the measured
values.
Index Terms—Distribution transformer, hot-spot temperature,
top-oil temperature.
NOMENCLATURE
Overshoot factor (maximum of the func-
tion ).
Thermal capacitance.
Oil thermal capacitance.
Winding thermal capacitance.
Per-unit eddy loss at winding hot spot.
Rated average winding to average oil tem-
perature gradient.
Normalized time variation of hot-spot
temperature rise above top-oil temperature
(in oil pocket) for a step increase in
load current.
Per-unit winding height to hot spot.
Hot-spot factor.
Load current.
Subscript indicates initial.
Load factor.
Weight of core and coil assembly (in
kilograms).
Weight of the tank and fittings (in
kilograms).
Weight of the oil (in kilograms).
Constant.
Manuscript received April 7, 2004; revised October 1, 2004. Paper no.
TPWRD-00171-2004.
D. Susa and M. Lehtonen are with Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo
02015, Finland (e-mail: Dejan.Susa@hut.fi; Matti.Lehtonen@hut.fi).
H. Nordman is with ABB Oy, Vaasa 65101, Finland (e-mail:
hasse.nordman@fi.abb.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2005.848675
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
1919
Load losses per-unit value.
DC losses per-unit value.
Eddy losses per-unit value.
DC losses (in watts).
Eddy losses (in watts).
Stray losses (in watts).
Heat generated by total losses.
Heat generated by load losses.
Heat generated by no-load losses.
Ratio load losses at rated current to no-load
losses.
Nonlinear thermal resistance of the oil.
Nonlinear winding to oil thermal
resistance.
Ambient temperature.
Top-oil temperature.
Average bulk oil temperature.
Temperature at the top surface of the
cooling ribs.
Temperature at the bottom surface of the
cooling ribs.
Bottom-oil temperature.
Hot-spot temperature.
Winding average temperature.
Rated top-oil temperature rise over
ambient.
Rated hot-spot temperature rise over top
oil.
Tasted or rated average winding rise over
ambient.
Tested or rated hot-spot rise over ambient.
Tested or rated top-oil rise over ambient.
Tested or rated bottom oil rise over
ambient.
Initial winding hottest-spot temperature.
Initial average winding temperature.
Initial top-oil temperature.
Initial top-duct-oil temperature.
Initial bottom-oil temperature.
Temperature factor for the loss correction.
Oil time constant.
Winding time constant.
Warm resistance.
Cold resistance.
rated Subscript indicates rated value.
p.u. Subscript indicates per-unit value.
1920
Fig. 1. Normalized time variation of hot-spot temperature rise above
top-oil temperature f (t) (in oil pocket) for a step increase in load current
B —overshoot factor (maximum of the function f (t)).
I. INTRODUCTION
I T has been shown in [1]–[3] that the hot-spot temperature
rise over top-oil temperature in the tank due to a change in
load varies as a function of time , according to the solid
line in Fig. 1 [1]. This is especially so for ON-cooled power
transformers with external oil circulation.
A thermal investigation performed on a distribution trans-
former with external cooling [4] showed similar results; there-
fore, the authors were strongly motivated to make a comprehen-
sive test program on a distribution transformer without external
cooling.
The test shows that the hot-spot temperature rise over top-oil
temperature for the oil temperature measured in the oil pocket
due to a change in load is an exponential function with the
time constant equal to the winding time constant in the dashed
line in Fig. 1. It has also been noticed that the top-oil time con-
stant is longer compared to the time constant obtained for large
power transformers [1], [2]. The time delay between the top-oil
temperature rise in the tank and the hot-spot temperature rise
has also been recorded; similar behavior is given in [5].
The top-oil time constant formula [1] is modified in order
to take into account the basic design difference between trans-
formers with and without external cooling. Results obtained
with the model will be compared with the test results obtained
at varying load current, the IEEE loading guide, and the Annex
G method [6].
II. TEST PROGRAM
A short description of the tested transformer, performed tests,
and position of the installed thermocouples is given below. The
recorded winding and oil temperature rises are also given in the
following text.
A. Tested Unit and Position of the Thermocouples
The rated voltages of the transformer are
kV. The low-voltage winding (0.71-kV winding)
consists of 18 Al-foil layers with an axial cooling duct between
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005
the layer nine and the layer ten. The distance from the LV foils
to the yokes is 15 mm at both the top and bottom. At the top and
bottom, an 8-mm pressboard bond is added to the foils (i.e., the
yoke distance from the insulated winding is 7 mm at the top and
bottom). The cooling duct is collapsed at the LV busbar because
the LV busbar needs space. The width of the bars was 100 mm,
and it means that totally about 150 mm of the duct is blocked
on the side of the core. The HV winding (20.5 kV) consists
of 15 layers, each layer comprising 66 conductors except one
layer which comprises only 21 conductors to obtain the proper
number of turns. The winding has two axial cooling ducts, the
first one between the fifth and sixth layers and the second one
between the tenth and 11th layers. The distance from the HV
conductor metal to the yoke is 25 mm at the top and bottom.
An 18-mm pressboard bond is added as end insulation at the
top and bottom (i.e., the yoke distance from the insulated
winding is also, in this case, 7 mm at the top and bottom). The
connection is Dy11 and the short-circuit impedance is 6%. The
tank is a corrugated tank with 250-mm cooling ribs, a center
distance of 40 mm. There are 15 ribs on the short sides and
39 on the long sides (Fig. 6). The tank is hermetically sealed
and filled with oil.
The transformer was equipped with a total of 28 thermocou-
ples, which were fitted in the transformer as follows:
• Nine in the low-voltage winding, where thermocouples
were inserted to a depth of about 5 mm between adjacent
foils (Figs. 2 and 3). It was expected that the hottest spot
temperature occurs at the location of the collapsed ducts.
Therefore, two thermocouples were inserted there. The lo-
cation of the hottest spot thermocouple is shown in Figs. 4
and 5.
• Six in the HV winding, where the thermocouples were in-
serted to a depth of about 5 mm from the edge of the con-
ductor, between adjacent flat conductors (Fig. 2). The lo-
cation of the hottest spot thermocouple is shown in Fig. 5.
• Two in the oil pockets at each end of the tank . The
distance from both tank walls to the center of the pocket
pipe is about 30 mm (Fig. 6).
• Two on the outside surface of the tank, at the top , and
the bottom . They were attached to the center line of the
long sides of the tank wall, between two adjacent cooling
ribs, right at the top and bottom levels of the cooling ribs
(Fig. 6).
• Two thermocouples 50 mm under the tank cover were
right above the center line of the active part (Fig. 6).
• Two in the mixed bottom oil located on a center line be-
tween two adjacent phases, on a line along the outer edges
of the winding block at the top level of the bottom yoke
(Fig. 6). They were fixed to pressboard sheets functioning
as phase insulation.
• Two in both the duct inlet , and the duct outlet for the
HV winding at different phases and 1 in the duct outlet for
low-voltage winding . The thermocouples measuring
the duct oil were right in the center of the duct, at the edge
of the winding insulation. This means that their vertical
positions were 8 mm from the LV foil and 18 mm from the
HV conductor, at both the top and bottom (Figs. 2 and 6).
SUSA et al.: DYNAMIC THERMAL MODELLING OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
Fig. 2. Positions of thermocouples, top view, phase C.
Fig. 3. Position of thermocouples, top view.
Fig. 4. Position of the hottest thermocouple.
In addition to the normal delivery test, the following tests
were made:
• constant load current: 1.00 p.u.; duration 8.5 h, where only
the oil temperatures were recorded in the locations shown
in Fig. 6.
1921
Fig. 5. Positions of the hottest thermocouples.
Fig. 6. Position of thermocouples in the tank, side and top view; dimensions
are in millimeters.
• varying load current: 1.00 p.u./5 h 2.00 p.u./1.37 h, for
the full thermocouple installation given above.
The tests were made in tap position 3.
The majority of the thermocouples in the windings were lo-
cated in spots that were expected to be the hottest according to
experience gained from thermocouple measurements made on
1922 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005

TABLE I
TOP-OIL TEMPERATURE MEASURED AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS

Fig. 7. Top-oil temperatures recorded in different locations during the first test.

other units during the last 20 years. The expected tolerance of

the thermocouple measurements is 2%, taking into account
three important factors:
1) tolerance of the thermocouple;
2) tolerance of the thermocouple monitoring equipment;
3) tolerance of the supply current measurement.

B. Results of the Test

The temperatures recorded during the constant load current

test and varying load current test will be plotted and analyzed
in the following text. The average temperature rises are also
defined.
1) Top-Oil Temperature: The top-oil temperature was
recorded at different locations inside and outside the tank
during both tests (Fig. 6). The top-oil temperatures yielded
different values (Fig. 7), due to the various oil circulation Fig. 8. Duct oil temperatures recorded in different locations, at 1.00-p.u. load
paths (local oil paths) formed in the transformer tank. Basi- during varying load test.
cally, transformers without external oil circulation will have
a much more uneven internal temperature distribution than
TABLE II
transformers with external cooling. BOTTOM-OIL TEMPERATURE MEASURED AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS
It was observed that the top-oil temperature measured in the
oil pockets responded to the applied load with a time delay of 8
to 12 min [5]. It was also observed that the top-oil temperature
measured in the oil pockets was not the hottest oil temperature of
the transformer. Table I shows the top-oil temperatures recorded
at the end of each load step in both tests.
The hottest oil temperatures were the temperatures recorded
in the outlets of the winding ducts (Table I and Fig. 8).
Although the hottest oil temperature is the oil temperature of
the oil leaving a winding, this temperature has not been used in
industry due to the difficulties in measuring it.
2) Bottom-Oil Temperature: The bottom-oil temperatures
were also recorded at different locations inside and outside the
tank during both tests (Fig. 6). The thermocouples installed
under the windings in the tank recorded higher tempera-
tures than thermocouples installed on the surface of the tank Additionally, during the varying load test, the oil temperature
(Table II). The final temperature difference obtained between in the inlet of the HV winding duct was recorded with two ther-
the two locations was equal to 25.00 K. It should be noted mocouples installed on the low-voltage side of the core of phase
that the oil circulation that was formed in the transformer tank C and on the HV side of the core of phase B (Table II).
affected the bottom-oil temperature rises in a similar way as the 3) Hot-Spot to Top-Oil Temperature Rise: The hottest
top-oil temperature rises. recorded temperatures for both the low- and HV windings are
SUSA et al.: DYNAMIC THERMAL MODELLING OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
Fig. 9. Winding hot-spot temperatures in the varying load test.
Fig. 10. Hot-spot to top-oil temperature rises, low-voltage winding.
Fig. 11. Hot-spot to top-oil temperature rises, HV winding.
given below in Fig. 9. The thermocouples that recorded these
temperatures are marked in Figs. 2, 4, and 5.
It was observed that the behavior of the hot-spot to top-oil
temperature rise during the transient period is different for the
different top-oil temperature locations (Figs. 10 and 11). The
temperature gradients at the end of the applied load as well as the
maximum values of the function during the transient
period for the different oil temperature measurement locations
are given in Table III.
Additionally, based on the research published in [5], it seems
reasonable to assume that during more severe ambient condi-
tions, such as minus temperatures equal to, for example,
1923
TABLE III
HOT-SPOT TO TOP-OIL TEMPERATURE RISES
TABLE IV
AVERAGE WINDING TEMPERATURES
or lower, the hot-spot temperature rise over top-oil temperature
will experience an overshoot phenomena regardless of the posi-
tion of the top-oil temperature sensor.
4) Average Temperature Rises: The average winding tem-
peratures obtained from the warm resistance curves at the end
of the 8.5 h 1.0-p.u. test are given in Table IV.
The first 26 points of the warm resistance values, the cold
resistance values, and the corresponding temperatures are given
in the Appendix. The graphs and the polynomials yielding the
warm resistance at shut down are also given in the Appendix.
In order to define the average winding to average oil temper-
ature rise , a proper method to define the average oil temper-
ature is required. In the past, this has been reasonably easy to
do for transformers with outer oil circulation. The average oil
temperature has been calculated as the average of the top and
bottom oil temperatures. In this case, the top oil temperature
has been taken as the average of the pocket and outlet oil tem-
peratures—values which are quite close to each other (normally
a difference of 1 2 K). The inlet oil temperature has been con-
sidered to be the bottom oil temperature. In old designs, the inlet
pipes have been taken to the bottom of the tank, which has meant
a well-mixed, homogenous bottom oil into the windings.
In power transformers made today, the radiator inlet pipes are
normally located somewhat below the midheight of the tank.
Measurements have shown that there is a gradient of 10 20 K
between the “official” bottom oil (i.e., the measured inlet oil
and the stagnant oil at the bottom of the tank). Nevertheless, the
average of the top oil and this circulating “official” inlet oil has
yielded average oil temperatures which, in turn, have yielded
reasonable values compared to calculated values.
The most difficult case is distribution transformers without
external oil circulation, and without sensors fitted into the cir-
culating bottom oil. Thus, the average oil temperature rises are
determined by different methods for the 2500-kVA distribution
transformer.
a) Calculated average winding to average oil tempera-
tures: The values of the windings were calculated with the
1924 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005

TABLE V TABLE VI
AVERAGE WINDING TO AVERAGE OIL TEMPERATURE RISES AVERAGE WINDING TO AVERAGE OIL TEMPERATURE RISES

old classical method based on a “neutral surface” within each

layer, from which the temperature drops to the layer surfaces are
equal on both sides. This method has proven to be very accurate
in the case of the layer windings in ONAN-cooled transformers
of the size 10 20 MVA (the deviations between calculated and TABLE VII
measured values have been of the order of 1 3 K). The cal- AVERAGE WINDING TO AVERAGE OIL TEMPERATURE RISES
culated values for the 2500-kVA unit are given in Table V.
b) Gradients based on bottom oil temperature measured
inside the transformer: According to the constant current test
Table II, the mixed bottom oil temperatures measured inside the
transformer at the top level of the bottom yoke were: 65.90 ;
64.40 . Table II also shows that the bottom oil temperature
recorded at the inlet of the winding ducts (HV side-phase B,
low-voltage side-phase C) were: 57.60 ; 63.20 . It is
reasonable to assume that the inlet oil into the windings is
TABLE VIII
approximately equal to the average of these four values (i.e., AVERAGE WINDING TO AVERAGE OIL TEMPERATURE RISES
is used as bottom oil in this section.
The average bulk oil temperature is determined as follows:

(1)

where the top-oil temperature, takes different values

depending on the measuring location. The average winding-to-
average oil temperature gradient is calculated according to the
following equation:
(2) cooling means. Where the bottom liquid temperature cannot be
measured directly, the temperature difference may be taken to
where the average winding temperature is obtained be the difference between the surface temperature of the liquid
from the warm resistance curves (Table IV). Additionally, the inlet and outlet.” This definition can be given as an equation
hot-spot factor is calculated as follows:

(3)
where the value for the hot-spot to top-oil gradient is taken
from Table III. Equations (2) and (3) will be also used to calcu-
late the values for Table VI, Table VII, and Table VIII below.
c) Gradients based on IEC 60 076-2: The rule in IEC [7]
is as follows: “For ONAN transformers up to 2500 kVA, with
plain or corrugated tanks or individual cooling tubes mounted
directly on the tank, the average oil temperature rise above am-
bient air temperature may be taken as 80% of the top oil tem-
perature rise.”
Then, the average bulk oil temperature will be calculated ac-
cording to the following equation:
(4)
and the results are given in Table VII.
d) Gradients based on IEEE C57.12.90—1999: In this
case, the average bulk oil temperature [8] is calculated as fol-
lows: “The average liquid temperature shall be taken to be equal
to the top liquid temperature minus half the difference in tem-
perature of the moving liquid at the top and the bottom of the
(5)
In this case, it has been assumed that the expression “
temperature of the moving liquid at the top and the bottom
of the cooling means.” means the temperature at the top
, and the bottom of the
cooling ribs. The results are given in Table VIII.
Generally, the IEC method only yields a somewhat high
average winding to average oil gradients for the measured
2500-kVA unit, whereas the IEEE method yields significantly
high values compared to values obtained by well-established
calculation methods.
III. THERMAL MODEL
The suggested thermal calculations are based on the thermal
model for large power transformers that have already been vali-
dated and defined in the authors’ paper [1]. The model’s top-oil
constant formula used for distribution transformers without ex-
ternal cooling will be slightly modified in order to take into ac-
count the design difference between them and transformers with
external cooling.
SUSA et al.: DYNAMIC THERMAL MODELLING OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS 1925

where
ratio of rated load losses to no-load
losses [1], [13];
load factor [1], [13];
oil viscosity (per-unit value), [1];
ambient temperature;
top-oil temperature;
rated top-oil temperature rise over
ambient;
hot-spot temperature;
hot-spot temperature rise over top-
oil;
load loss’s dependence on temper-
ature [1];
rated oil time constant [6];
rated winding time constant;
constant equal to 0.25 [1].
The load loss’s dependence on temperature is de-
Fig. 12. Thermal overall circuit model. fined in the following equation:

A. Thermal Overall Model

The final thermal overall model for the distribution trans-
former without external cooling is given in Fig. 12, based on
the thermal-electrical analogy and heat-transfer theory [1],
[9]–[11].
where
total losses;
heat generated by no-load losses;
heat generated by load losses;
thermal capacitance of the oil;
winding thermal capacitance;
top-oil temperature;
nonlinear oil thermal resistance;
nonlinear winding to oil thermal resistance;
ambient temperature;
hot-spot temperature.
The heat generated by both no-load and load transformer
losses is represented by two ideal heat sources [11] and [12].
The ambient temperature is represented as an ideal tempera-
ture source [11] and [12]. The nonlinearities (i.e., oil viscosity
changes and loss variation with temperature are taken into ac-
count by employing nonlinear thermal resistances [1]).
The differential equations for the thermal circuits in Fig. 12,
modeling both the top-oil temperature and the hot-spot temper-
ature are given as follows [1]:
• top-oil temperature
(8)
where
dc losses per-unit value;
eddy losses per-unit value;
temperature factor for the loss correction, equal to
225 for aluminum and 235 for copper.
The lack of radiators directly affects the oil flow inside the
transformer tank, slowing down the cooling process. Therefore,
the thermal model will use the top-oil time constant calculated
according to the IEEE Loading Guide, [6], which yields higher
values than the empirical formula for large power transformers
suggested in the authors’ paper [1], as follows:
(9)
where
rated top-oil time constant (in minutes);
rated top-oil temperature rise over ambient tem-
perature (in Kelvins);
supplied losses (total losses) (in watts) at rated
load;
transformer thermal capacity (Wh/K).
The thermal capacity for different design of transformers is
given by the following equations:
• transformers without external cooling [6]

(10)
(6) • transformers with external cooling [1]
(11)
• hot-spot temperature
where
weight of core and coil assembly (in kilograms);
(7) weight of the tank and fittings (in kilograms);
weight of the oil (in kilograms).
1926 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005

TABLE IX
INPUT DATA FOR CALCULATION MODELS CONSIDERED

Fig. 13. Hot-spot temperature response of the low-voltage winding with

varying load.

Fig. 14. Hot-spot temperature response of the HV winding with varying load.

The application of the top-oil temperature model for a varying

load calculation on a distribution transformer will be given in the
next section.

IV. COMPARISON WITH MEASURED RESULTS

The measured temperature results, which were recorded
during the varying load tests (1.00 p.u./5 h 2.00 p.u./1.37 h),
are compared with results obtained by both the calculation
method presented in this paper referred to as the “thermal
Equation (11) is an empirical formula based on the modeling model” in the graphics below, and with the IEEE-Annex G
that has already been performed and validated in the authors’ method [6], [14]. The input data used for the two calculation
previous work [1]. This equation is based on observations during methods are given in Table IX.
the heat run tests and implicitly takes into account the effect of Both the suggested thermal model and the IEEE-Annex G
the metallic parts as well. method compare well with the measurement results, provided
In order to calculate the temperatures from the differential that proper values for oil temperature rises are used. The oil
equations (6) and (7), a numerical analysis method such as temperature used to obtain the calculated curves in Figs. 13–15
Runge–Kutta should be used and the equation elements should are as follows (alternative in Table VI).
be classified as follows: • Top-oil temperature is equal to the oil temperature in the
— constants , , , , , oil pockets.
, , ; • Bottom oil temperature is equal to the bottom oil temper-
— input variables , , ; ature inside the tank, under the windings.
— output variables ; top oil temperature [note that If the liquid temperature is strictly defined according to IEEE,
represents the “input variable” in the hot-spot differential [8] (i.e., according to alternative in Table VIII), then the
equation, so that (6) and (7) form a cascaded connection], curves in Figs. 16 and 17 are obtained.
; hot-spot temperature; It is obvious that both calculation methods yield considerable
— independent variable . deviations from the measured values in this case.
SUSA et al.: DYNAMIC THERMAL MODELLING OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
Fig. 15. Top-oil response temperature with varying load.
Fig. 16. Hot-spot temperature of the low-voltage winding with varying load,
when the oil temperature is defined according to IEEE.
Fig. 17. Hot-spot temperature of the HV winding with varying load, when the
oil temperature is defined according to IEEE.
V. CONCLUSION
A comprehensive test program was performed on a distribu-
tion transformer without external cooling. During the test pro-
gram, it was observed that oil temperature gradients obtained
from measurements at different locations in both the top and
1927
Fig. 18. Warm resistance curves measured and calculated.
bottom level of the transformer tank are very high. These gra-
dients are explained by the fact that the oil flow inside a trans-
former tank is more complex and random for this specific type
of transformer than for transformers with external cooling.
A thermal model to calculate top-oil temperature and hot-spot
temperature is suggested for distribution transformers without
external cooling. The model is based on heat-transfer theory, ap-
plication of the lumped capacitance method, the thermal-elec-
trical analogy, and definition of nonlinear thermal resistance.
The key factor is that the model considers variations in oil vis-
cosity and winding resistance.
The top-oil temperature delay was recorded but it was not
taken into account in the suggested thermal model in order to
keep the modeling as simple as possible (modeling of the delay
can be achieved by adding a certain number of RC elements in
the top-oil circuit of the model).
It is shown that the hot-spot temperature rise over the top-oil
temperature does not behave as an overshoot function (func-
tion , solid line in Fig. 1) when the top-oil temperature is
measured in the oil pocket. For different locations of the top-oil
thermal sensor, such as the location 50 mm under the tank cover,
the gradient matches an overshoot factor that is approxi-
mately equal to 1.26 for the LV winding and 1.23 for the HV
winding. It is also shown that the gradient changes its location
with the load change (Table III), but it continues to behave as an
exponential function (function , dashed line in Fig. 1) with
a time constant of the same order of magnitude as the winding
time constant if the top-oil temperature is measured in the oil
pockets. The “oil pocket” temperature is widely measured in the
transformer world; therefore, this particular temperature is used
in the suggested thermal model.
The winding-to-oil average temperature rises are calculated
by four different methods. Based on the results presented in this
paper, it is suggested that the method used in the industrial stan-
dards to define average liquid temperature rises in distribution
transformers without external cooling should be improved.
The thermal model suggested is applied at varying load and
the results are compared to results obtained by measurement,
and to results obtained by the IEEE-Annex G method. It is
shown that the thermal model generally yields results that
match well with measured results. The IEEE-Annex G model
1928 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005

TABLE X where
WARM RESISTANCE VALUES warm resistance of the HV winding;
warm resistance of the low-voltage winding;
time (in seconds).
Additionally, the warm resistance values obtained from the
warm resistance curves at shutdown, the cold resistance values,
and the corresponding temperatures for both high- and low-
voltage windings are given in Table XI.
The tolerance of the resistance measurements is below
0.5%.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank G. Swift for his valuable
suggestion.

TABLE XI
RESISTANCES AND CORRESPONDING TEMPERATURES
also yields very accurate results. Both methods require that
proper top and bottom oil temperatures are used, to be accurate.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Susa, M. Lehtonen, and H. Nordman, “Dynamic thermal modeling
of power transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 1, pp.
197–204, Jan. 2005.
[2] H. Nordman, N. Räfsbäck, and D. Susa, “Temperature response to step
changes in the load current of power transformers,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1110–1117, Oct. 2003.
[3] L. W. Pierce, “An investigation of the thermal performance of an oil
filled transformer winding,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
1347–1358, Jul. 1992.
[4] Z. Radakovic and K. Feser, “A new method for the calculation of the
hot-spot temperature in power transformers with ONAN cooling,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1284–1292, Oct. 2003.
[5] J. Aubin, R. Bergeron, and R. Morin, “Distribution transformer over-
loading capability under cold-load pickup conditions,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1883–1890, Oct. 1990.
[6] IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Transformers, IEEE
Std. C57.91-1995.
[7] “Power Transformers, Part 2: Temperature Rise,” IEC 60076-2, 2 ed.,
1993-94.
[8] IEEE Standard Test Code for Liquid-Immersed Distribution, Power, and
Regulating Transformers, IEEE Std. C57.12.90-1999.
[9] F. P. Incropera and D. P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1996.
[10] K. Karsai, D. Kerenyi, and L. Kiss, Large Power Transformers. New
York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987.
[11] G. Swift, T. S. Molinski, and W. Lehn, “A fundamental approach to
transformer thermal modeling, Part I—theory and equivalent circuit,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 171–175, Apr. 2001.
[12] G. Swift, T. S. Molinski, and R. Bray, “A fundamental approach to
transformer thermal modeling, Part II—field verification,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 176–180, Apr. 2001.
[13] “Loading Guide for Oil-immersed Power Transformers,” IEC 354-1991,
1991.
[14] L. W. Pierce, “Predicting liquid filled transformer loading capability,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 170–178, Jan./Feb. 1994.

APPENDIX Dejan Susa (S’05) was born in Split (presently

Croatia) on May 22, 1972. He received the Diploma
Engineer degree in electrical engineering from the
A. Transformer Resistances University of Nis Electrical Engineering faculty,
presently Serbia and Montenegro, in 2000. He
The complete warm resistance measurement and the poly- received the M.Sc. degree in 2002 from the Helsinki
nomial values that yield the warm resistance at shutdown are University of Technology, where he is currently
plotted in Fig. 18. The first 26 points of the warm resistance pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
He has been doing his research work (transformer
values are given in Table X. short-time overloading capability) at the Power Sys-
The polynomial equations for the high- and low-voltage tems Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology,
windings are given as follows: Helsinki, Finland, since 2001.
Mr. Susa is a member of the Finnish National Committee in the IEC Power
(A.1) Transformer Technical Committee (TC 14), and a member of the Maintenance
Team MT1: Revision of IEC 354: Loading guide for oil-immersed power
(A.2) transformers.
SUSA et al.: DYNAMIC THERMAL MODELLING OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
Matti Lehtonen was born in 1959. he received
the M.Sc. and Licentiate degrees in electrical en-
gineering from Helsinki University of Technology,
Helsinki, Finland, in 1984 and 1989, respectively,
and the Ph.D. degree in technology from Tampere
University of Technology, Tampere, Finland, in
1992.
Currently, he is a Professor of IT applications
at Helsinki University of Technology. He is also
with VTT Energy, Espoo, Finland, where he has
been since 1987. His activities include earth fault
problems, harmonic-related issues, and applications of information technology
in distribution automation and distribution energy management.
1929
Hasse Nordman was born in Overmark, Finland, in
1945. He received the Ph.D. degree in mathematics
from the Abo Akademi University, Turku, Finland,
in 1977.
From 1970 to 1982, he was with ABB Corporate
Research, Vaasa, Finland (formerly Stromberg
Research Centre), working on current-related phe-
nomena (losses, temperatures, short-circuit forces)
in electric power equipment. Currently, he is with
the Development Engineering Department in the
Power Transformer Division of ABB, Vassa, where
he has been since 1982. He is also the leader of the global ABB R&D activity
“Load Losses and Thermal Performance.”
Dr. Nordman a member of CIGRE. He is the chairman of the Finnish National
Committee in the IEC Power Transformer Technical Committee (TC 14), and
the convenor of the Maintenance Team MT1: Revision of IEC 354: Loading
guide for oil-immersed power transformers.