STD C57.123™-2010

,(((*XLGHIRU7UDQVIRUPHU/RVV
0HDVXUHPHQW
70
,(((3RZHU (QHUJ\6RFLHW\
&
6SRQVRUHGE\WKH
7UDQVIRUPHUV&RPPLWWHH
,(((
3DUN$YHQXH
1HZ<RUN1<86$ ,(((6WG&
5HYLVLRQRI
$XJXVW ,(((6WG&
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Illinois. Downloaded on June 12,2014 at 09:20:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std C57.123™-2010
(Revision of
IEEE Std C57.123-2002)
IEEE Guide for Transformer Loss

Measurement
Sponsor
Transformers Committee
of the
IEEE Power & Energy Society
Approved 17 June 2010

IEEE-SA Standards Board
Abstract: Information and general recommendations of instrumentation, circuitry, calibration, and
measurement techniques of no-load losses (excluding auxiliary losses), excitation current, and
load losses of power and distribution transformers are provided. The guide is intended as a
complement to the test code procedures given in Clause 8 and Clause 9 of IEEE Std
C57.12.90TM.
Keywords: calibration, load loss, no-load loss, testing, transformers
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
Copyright © 2010 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

All rights reserved. Published 3 August 2010. Printed in the United States of America.
IEEE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, owned by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Incorporated.
PDF: ISBN 978-0-7381-6385-7 STD96099

Print: ISBN 978-0-7381-6386-4 STDPD96099
IEEE prohibits discrimination, harassment and bullying. For more information, visit http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/whatis/policies/p9-26.html.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher.
IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees of
the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Standards Board. The IEEE develops its standards through a consensus
development process, approved by the American National Standards Institute, which brings together volunteers
representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve the final product. Volunteers are not necessarily members of the
Institute and serve without compensation. While the IEEE administers the process and establishes rules to promote
fairness in the consensus development process, the IEEE does not independently evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy
of any of the information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its standards.
Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other
damage, of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly
resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance upon this, or any other IEEE Standard document.
The IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained herein, and expressly
disclaims any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a specific
purpose, or that the use of the material contained herein is free from patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents
are supplied “AS IS.”
The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase,
market, or provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint
expressed at the time a standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the
state of the art and comments received from users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is subjected to review at least
every five years for revision or reaffirmation, or every ten years for stabilization. When a document is more than five
years old and has not been reaffirmed, or more than ten years old and has not been stabilized, it is reasonable to
conclude that its contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are
cautioned to check to determine that they have the latest edition of any IEEE Standard.
In publishing and making this document available, the IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other
services for, or on behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is the IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any other
person or entity to another. Any person utilizing this, and any other IEEE Standards document, should rely upon his or
her independent judgment in the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances or, as appropriate, seek the
advice of a competent professional in determining the appropriateness of a given IEEE standard.
Interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to
specific applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute will initiate
action to prepare appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is
important to ensure that any interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this reason,
IEEE and the members of its societies and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an instant
response to interpretation requests except in those cases where the matter has previously received formal consideration.
A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
shall not be considered the official position of IEEE or any of its committees and shall not be considered to be, nor be
relied upon as, a formal interpretation of the IEEE. At lectures, symposia, seminars, or educational courses, an
individual presenting information on IEEE standards shall make it clear that his or her views should be considered the
personal views of that individual rather than the formal position, explanation, or interpretation of the IEEE.
Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any interested party, regardless of membership affiliation
with IEEE. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text, together with
appropriate supporting comments. Recommendations to change the status of a stabilized standard should include a
rationale as to why a revision or withdrawal is required. Comments and recommendations on standards, and requests
for interpretations should be addressed to:
Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by The Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center.
To arrange for payment of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA; +1 978 750 8400. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for
educational classroom use can also be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center.
Introduction
This introduction is not part of IEEE Std C57.123-2010, IEEE Guide for Transformer Loss Measurement.
During an earlier revision of Clause 8 and Clause 9 of IEEE Std C57.12.90TM, IEEE Standard Test Code
for Liquid-Immersed Distribution, Power and Regulating Transformers, which describe the measurement of
no load and load loss, respectively, it was realized that there was a need for a guide that would explain in
more detail the accuracy requirements, test code procedures, various test methods available, methods to
diagnose test anomalies, and the procedures for calibration and safety.
Notice to users
Laws and regulations

Users of these documents should consult all applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with the
provisions of this standard does not imply compliance to any applicable regulatory requirements.
Implementers of the standard are responsible for observing or referring to the applicable regulatory
requirements. IEEE does not, by the publication of its standards, intend to urge action that is not in
compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so.
Copyrights
This document is copyrighted by the IEEE. It is made available for a wide variety of both public and
private uses. These include both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-
regulation, standardization, and the promotion of engineering practices and methods. By making this
document available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the IEEE does not waive
any rights in copyright to this document.
Updating of IEEE documents

Users of IEEE standards should be aware that these documents may be superseded at any time by the
issuance of new editions or may be amended from time to time through the issuance of amendments,
corrigenda, or errata. An official IEEE document at any point in time consists of the current edition of the
document together with any amendments, corrigenda, or errata then in effect. In order to determine whether
a given document is the current edition and whether it has been amended through the issuance of
amendments, corrigenda, or errata, visit the IEEE Standards Association web site at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/standards.jsp, or contact the IEEE at the address listed previously.
For more information about the IEEE Standards Association or the IEEE standards development process,
visit the IEEE-SA web site at http://standards.ieee.org.
iv
Copyright © 2010 IEEE. All rights reserved.
Errata
Errata, if any, for this and all other standards can be accessed at the following URL:
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/updates/errata/index.html. Users are encouraged to check this URL
for errata periodically.
Interpretations
Current interpretations can be accessed at the following URL: http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/
index.html.
Patents
Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this guide may require use of subject matter
covered by patent rights. By publication of this guide, no position is taken with respect to the existence or
validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential
Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope
of Patents Claims or determining whether any licensing terms or conditions provided in connection with
submission of a Letter of Assurance, if any, or in any licensing agreements are reasonable or non-
discriminatory. Users of this guide are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any patent
rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Further information
may be obtained from the IEEE Standards Association.
Acknowledgments
A number of the Working Group members contributed to the text of this guide. Special acknowledgment is,
however, due to Dr. Ed So and Messers Bill Henning, L. S. McCormick, Bertrand Poulin, Ramsis Girgis
for providing specific sections of the text of this document. Finally, the chairman acknowledges that most
of the text on load-loss measurement (Clause 3 of the guide) was taken from the IEEE paper
“Measurements of Transformer Losses” [B10] a authored by Sam Mehta.
a
Information on references can be found in Annex A.
v
Participants
At the time this guide was submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for approval, the Loss Tolerance &
Measurement Working Group had the following membership:
Ed teNyenhuis, Chair
Andy Steineman, Vice Chair
Jim Antweiler Reto Fausch Alexander Kline

Donald Ballard Bruce Forsyth Min Jea Lee
Dana Basel Derek Foster Kumar Mani
Thomas Bassett Saurabh Ghosh Joseph Melanson
Stephen Beckman Ramsis Girgis Allen Mitchell
William Boettger Bill Griesacker Miguel Oliva
Alain Bolliger Jose Grijuela Dhiru Patel
Jeffrey Britton Ernst Hanique Jeewan Puri
Carl Bush Thomas Harbaugh Dirk Russwurm
Yunxiang Chen Roger Hayes Subhas Sarkar
Joseph Cheung William Henning David Scaquetti
John Crouse Thang Hochanh James Smith
Alan Darwin Richard Hollingsworth Eddy So
Kevin dela Houssaye David Keithly Subhash Tuli
Donald Fallon Vladimir Khalin Albert Walls
The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on this guide. Balloters may have
voted for approval, disapproval, or abstention.
William J. Ackerman Marcel Fortin Omar Mazzoni

Stan Arnot Derek Foster William McBride
Carlo Arpino Eduardo Garcia Joseph Melanson
Ali Al Awazi Saurabh Ghosh Gary Michel
Peter Balma Jalal Gohari Daniel Mulkey
Barry Beaster James Graham Jerry Murphy
Steven Bezner Randall Groves Arthur Neubauer
Wallace Binder Bal Gupta Michael S. Newman
Thomas Bishop Ajit Gwal Joe Nims
Thomas Blackburn Kenneth Hanus Bansi Patel
William Bloethe Robert Hartgrove J. Patton
Steven Brockschink Raymond Hill M. Pehosh
Kent Brown Philip Hopkinson Allan St Peter
Carl Bush John Houdek Paul Pillitteri
Donald Cash James Huddleston, III Donald Platts
Yunxiang Chen James Jones Alvaro Portillo
Bill Chiu Gael Kennedy Bertrand Poulin
Stephen Conrad Sheldon Kennedy Paulette Payne
Tommy Cooper Gary King Powell
John Crouse Joseph L. Koepfinger Gustav Preininger
Russ Dantzler Jim Kulchisky Iulian Profir
Stephen Dare Saumen Kundu Jean-Christophe
Alan Darwin John Lackey Riboud
Kevin Delahoussaye Chung-Yiu Lam Johannes Rickmann
F. Denbrock Stephen Lambert Kirk Robbins
Randall Dotson Debra Longtin Michael Roberts
Charles Drexler William Lowe Oleg Roizman
Donald Dunn Thomas Lundquist Marnie Roussell
Gary Engmann Keith Malmedal M. Sachdev
Donald Fallon Richard Marek Dinesh Sankarakurup
Rabiz Foda J. Dennis Marlow Bartien Sayogo
Joseph Foldi John Martin Devki Sharma
Bruce Forsyth John W. Matthews Stephen Shull
vi
Hyeong Sim John Sullivan D. Wiegand
Charles Simmons S. Thamilarasan Alan Wilks
Tarkeshwar Singh John Vergis William Wimmer
James Smith Jane Verner Kipp Yule
Jerry Smith David Wallach Waldemar Ziomek
Steve Snyder Barry Ward Ahmed Zobaa
When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this guide on 17 June 2010, it had the following
membership:
Robert M. Grow, Chair

Richard H. Hulett, Vice Chair
Steve M. Mills, Past Chair
Judith Gorman, Secretary
Karen Bartleson Young Kyun Kim Ronald C. Petersen

Victor Berman Joseph L. Koepfinger* Thomas Prevost
Ted Burse John Kulick Jon Walter Rosdahl
Clint Chaplin David J. Law Sam Sciacca
Andy Drozd Hung Ling Mike Seavey
Alexander Gelman Oleg Logvinov Curtis Siller
Jim Hughes Ted Olsen Don Wright
*Member Emeritus
Also included are the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaisons:
Satish Aggarwal, NRC Representative

Richard DeBlasio, DOE Representative
Michael Janezic, NIST Representative
Don Messina
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Document Development
Matthew Ceglia
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Technical Program Development
vii
Contents
1. Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Normative references.................................................................................................................................. 2
3. Transformer no-load losses ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Parameters affecting magnitude of no-load losses............................................................................... 3
3.3 Excitation current (no-load current) .................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Test requirements ................................................................................................................................ 8
3.5 Measurement of no-load losses............................................................................................................ 9
3.6 Measurement of excitation current .................................................................................................... 13
3.7 Measuring circuitry for three-phase transformers.............................................................................. 14
4. Transformer load losses............................................................................................................................ 18

4.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Measuring circuitry............................................................................................................................ 19
4.3 Load-loss measurement uncertainties ................................................................................................ 19
4.4 Corrections to measured load losses.................................................................................................. 21
4.5 Measuring circuitry for three-phase transformers.............................................................................. 29
5. Advanced measuring systems................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Enhanced conventional system.......................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Advanced voltage and current transducers ........................................................................................ 32
6. Specified tolerances on losses .................................................................................................................. 33

6.1 Specified tolerances on no-load losses .............................................................................................. 33
6.2 Specified tolerances on total losses ................................................................................................... 34
7. Traceability and calibration ...................................................................................................................... 35
8. Grounding, shielding, and safety.............................................................................................................. 36

8.1 Grounding.......................................................................................................................................... 36
8.2 Shielding............................................................................................................................................ 36
8.3 Safety................................................................................................................................................. 37
Annex A (informative) Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 38
viii
IEEE Guide for Transformer Loss
Measurement
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This standard is not intended to ensure safety, security, health, or
environmental protection. Implementers of the standard are responsible for determining appropriate
safety, security, environmental, and health practices or regulatory requirements.
This IEEE document is made available for use subject to important notices and legal disclaimers.
These notices and disclaimers appear in all publications containing this document and may
be found under the heading “Important Notice” or “Important Notices and Disclaimers
Concerning IEEE Documents.” They can also be obtained on request from IEEE or viewed at
http://standards.ieee.org/IPR/disclaimers.html.
1. Overview
1.1 Scope
This guide provides background information and general recommendations of instrumentation, circuitry,
calibration, and measurement techniques of no-load losses (excluding auxiliary losses), excitation current,
and load losses of power and distribution transformers. The test codes, namely, IEEE Std C57.12.90TM,
IEEE Std C57.12.91TM, and the test code section of IEEE Std C57.15TM, provide specifications and
requirements for conducting these tests. 1 This guide has been written to provide supplemental information
for each test. More technical details of the measuring instruments and techniques presented in this guide
can be found in the document developed by So [B16]. 2 This guide applies to liquid-immersed-power and
distribution transformers, dry-type transformers, and step-voltage regulators. Additionally, it applies to both
single- and three-phase transformers.
1
Information on references can be found in Clause 2.
2
The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex A.
1
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
IEEE Guide for Transformer Loss Measurement
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the guide is
a) To describe the basis and methodology by which the accuracy requirements of (Clause 8 and
Clause 9) of IEEE Std C57.12.90 for liquid-immersed transformers and IEEE Std C57.12.91 for
dry-type transformers can be achieved.
b) To explain why the test code specifies certain procedures and limits.
c) To explain advantages and disadvantages of different test methods where alternative methods
are available.
d) To explain practical limitations and valid means of overcoming them.
e) To give theoretical basis for interpolation/extrapolation of tested data and valid limits.
f) To explain test anomalies—how they result, what they mean, and how to handle them.
g) To give procedures for calibration, certification, and traceability of measurement processes to
reference standards.
h) To discuss procedures for grounding, shielding, safety precautions, etc.
i) To provide schematics and examples to clarify concepts and demonstrate methodologies.
2. Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document (i.e., they must
be understood and used, so each referenced document is cited in text and its relationship to this document is
explained). For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of
the referenced document (including any amendments or corrigenda) applies.
IEEE Std C57.12.00™-2006, IEEE Standard for General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed Distribution,
Power, and Regulating Transformers.
IEEE Std C57.12.90TM, IEEE Standard Test Code for Liquid-Immersed Distribution, Power, and
Regulating Transformers.
IEEE Std C57.12.91TM, IEEE Standard Test Code for Dry-Type Distribution and Power Transformers.
IEEE Std C57.15TM, IEEE Standard Requirements, Terminology, and Test Code for Step-Voltage
Regulators.
3. Transformer no-load losses
3.1 General
No-load losses (also referred to as excitation losses, core losses, and iron losses) are a very small part of the
power rating of the transformer, usually less than 1%. However, these losses are essentially constant over
the lifetime of the transformer (do not vary with load), and hence they generally represent a sizeable
operating expense, especially if energy costs are high. Therefore, accurate measurements are essential in
order to evaluate individual transformer performance accurately.
2
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
No-load losses are the losses in a transformer when it is energized but not supplying load. They include
losses due to magnetization of the core, dielectric losses in the insulation, and winding losses due to the
flow of the exciting current and any circulating currents in parallel conductors. Load-tap-changing
transformers may use preventive autotransformers, series transformers, or occasionally, both. In most
designs the no-load losses of these auxiliary transformers add to the no-load losses of the main transformer
when the tap changer is not in the neutral position. For example, the additional no-load losses of preventive
autotransformers depend on whether the tap changer is bridging or non-bridging. For series transformers,
the additional no-load losses depend on tap position. No-load losses are affected by a number of variables
discussed in 3.2.
3.2 Parameters affecting magnitude of no-load losses
3.2.1 Induction
Losses in the core vary with the level of induction in the core (flux density), and thus the base no-load loss
is established by the rated level of the design core flux density of the transformer.
3.2.2 Excitation voltage magnitude
Since the core flux density is a direct function of the magnitude of the excitation voltage, it then follows
that the no-load losses are also a function of this voltage. For example, a 1% change in voltage causes a
corresponding change in core loss generally in the 1%–3% range. The design and material used for the core
determine the magnitude of the change in losses. It is, therefore, essential to have an accurate measurement
of the magnitude of the excitation voltage.
3.2.3 Excitation voltage waveform
No-load losses are usually quoted and reported based on a sine-wave voltage excitation. Even with a
sinusoidal source voltage, the non-linearity of the transformer core introduces significant harmonics into
the excitation current and could result in distorted excitation voltage and flux waveforms. The magnitude of
the voltage waveform distortion is usually determined by the output impedance of the voltage source and
the magnitude and harmonics of the excitation current. The higher these parameters are, the greater the
magnitude of the voltage waveform distortion will be. Figure 1 illustrates the transformer supply circuit at
the no-load test.
Figure 1—Transformer supply circuit at no-load test
3
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
where from Figure 1
Vex is the excitation voltage

VS is the source voltage
VO is the output voltage
Iex is the excitation current
ZS is the source impedance
From Figure 1,
VS = VS sin (ωt ) (1)
Z Sn ≅ RS + jnX S (2)
I ex = ∑n I exn cos(nωt + φn ) (3)
Vex = Vs − ∑n Z Sn I exn (4)
where
Xs is the source reactance

Rs is the source resistance
n is the order of harmonic
ω = 2πf
φn is the phase-angle for harmonic n
Figure 2 shows a typical excitation current waveform. Assuming a source impedance of 10%, an excitation
current equal to 2% of rated current, and a 50% fifth harmonic, the resultant excitation voltage will have
approximately a 0.5% fifth harmonic.
Measurements will vary markedly with waveform. Peaked voltage waveforms (form factor greater than
1.11) result in lower losses than those of sine-wave voltage. Flat top waves, however, result in higher losses
than those for the corresponding pure sine wave. It is, therefore, a requirement to accurately account for the
effect of having a distorted waveform.
4
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 2—A typical excitation current waveform and harmonic content
3.2.4 Core configuration
The following different core configurations will yield different values of core loss:
⎯ Three-legged vs. five-legged cores

⎯ Single-phase vs. three-phase cores
⎯ Core form vs. shell form type
⎯ Wound core vs. stacked core
This is caused by differences in the magnetic flux distribution in these different core configurations.
3.2.5 Core material
The magnetic properties of the core material itself, as well as the thickness and insulating coating of the
individual laminations, have a direct effect on the magnitude of losses in a core. For example, higher grain-
oriented grades of steel or thinner gauge laminations have lower iron losses than those of regular grain-
oriented or thicker gauge steel grades, respectively. Amorphous metal cores generally have even lower
magnitudes of core loss but operate at much lower flux densities because of a lower saturation level.
Variability in material properties of the same grade of steel may give rise to noticeable differences in the
core-loss performance of transformers of the same design. This effect is generally more noticeable in small
transformers.
3.2.6 Joint type
The type of core overlap joint will have an impact on the core loss. The present day step lap joint will
generally produce lower losses than the previously used non-step lap or butt joints for most of the flux
density range. The joint type affects not only the magnetic flux distribution of the core but also losses
localized at the joint due to the air gaps. The joint type will also have a much larger impact on the
magnitude of the exciting current.
5
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
3.2.7 Core size
As an example, stacked cores of distribution size transformers generally have a few percent higher core loss
density (W/kg) compared to power transformer cores of the same type and material when operating at the
same flux density. In smaller cores, localized losses in the core joint areas and around stacking holes, etc.
add a larger percent to the total core loss.
3.2.8 Frequency
Losses in the core have two main components: the hysteresis component and the eddy current component.
The hysteresis loss component varies linearly with frequency. The eddy current component (containing
both classical eddy losses and anomalous eddy losses) varies in proportion to approximately the square of
the frequency. The relative magnitudes of these two components are a function of the grade and thickness
of steel used as well as the magnitude of the core flux density. Hence, these two parameters determine the
magnitude of the effect of frequency on core losses. For example, the 60 Hz to 50 Hz ratio of iron loss
density at 1.5 T induction is typically 1.32 for 0.27 mm highly grain-oriented steel. This ratio is
correspondingly equal to 1.26 for 0.23 mm regular-oriented steel at 1.75 T. Also, a frequency deviation of
0.5% corresponds to about 1% to 2% deviation in losses.
3.2.9 Workmanship
The quality of workmanship in slitting, cutting, annealing, and handling of the individual core laminations
and the quality of the assembly of the core have a direct effect on the magnitude of core losses. The quality
of the core joints also affects the value of core loss to a certain extent but usually has a greater effect on the
magnitude of the exciting current. These factors can partially explain why loss measurements on essentially
duplicate units can differ by a few percent.
3.2.10 Core temperature
Core losses are affected to some degree by the temperature of the core at the time that losses are measured.
Generally, core losses decrease with an increase in core temperature. This is due to a reduction of the eddy
loss component of the core material iron loss caused by the higher resistivity of the material at higher
temperatures. The calculation method to correct the measured values of core losses of distribution
transformers to the reference temperature is given in 8.4 of IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91.
The magnitude of this effect is in reality a function of core design and core material. However, the effect is
sufficiently small (about 1% for every 15 °C). In this case, using an average value of the correction factor is
satisfactory. The factor was chosen to be 0.065% per °C (0.00065 p.u. per °C). Its value was arrived at
through consensus in the transformer industry and is based on typical values. Due to uncertainty of the
actual value of the core temperature during operation, the reference temperature was chosen to be 20 °C for
liquid-immersed transformers (per IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006). Since core loss measurements on power
transformers are typically made at, or near, room temperature, there is normally little temperature
correction applied in this case.
3.2.11 Impulse tests
No-load loss measurements taken directly after impulse tests are usually slightly higher (typically 1% to
3%) than those taken beforehand. Higher magnitudes of increased no-load loss have been experienced in
some cases. This phenomenon is not fully understood at the present time. Existing data, however, shows
that this increase is seldom permanent and usually diminishes with time (after several hours).
6
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
3.2.12 Core stabilization
When a transformer is energized for the purpose of no-load loss measurement, it may exhibit an initially
high excitation current, a slightly higher core loss, and highly distorted voltage waveform. As the voltage is
held constant, the current, loss, and distortion gradually decrease to the expected levels. The time period for
this change to stabilize is typically a few seconds and may be longer for some transformer designs. The
cause of this phenomenon is believed to be mainly due to the core residual magnetization phenomenon. To
reduce the time to reach core stabilization, it is recommended that the core be excited first with higher flux
density levels.
3.2.13 Short-circuit testing
As stated in the test code for short-circuit testing of distribution and power transformers (IEEE Std
C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91), small changes in the excitation current and core loss can be expected
after a short-circuit test. Hence, the test code generally allows for a maximum increase of 5% for
transformers with stacked cores. However, in distribution transformers with wound cores, an increase of up
to 25% in the magnitude of the excitation current could occur due to small distortions of the core, even in
the absence of a winding failure. In the event of a winding failure, even larger increases could occur.
3.3 Excitation current (no-load current)
Excitation current is the current that flows in the winding used to excite the transformer during the no-load
loss test when all other windings are open-circuited. The excitation current has two main components: an
inductive component and a capacitive component. The inductive component (refer to Figure 3 for the
vectorial relationship) provides for the magnetization and losses of the core and hence, is non-linearly
proportional to the excitation voltage. The capacitive component (see again Figure 3) provides for the
charging current and dielectric losses for both the capacitance of the internal winding and the capacitance
to ground. This capacitive current component is linearly proportional to the excitation voltage.
Figure 3—Vector diagram of the component of the excitation current
where from Figure 3
VS is the supply voltage

Im is the magnetizing current
Ih+e is the loss current
Ii is the inductive component
7
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Ich is the charging current

Id is the dielectric loss current
Ic is the capacitive component
The inductive component of the excitation current is usually the dominant component. It is affected by all
of the factors that affect no-load loss, but to a larger degree. The magnitude of this component is also
greatly affected by the complex relationship between the effective magnetizing inductance of the
transformer and the harmonic content of the current. In some cases, such a relationship can result in a
magnitude of current that does not necessarily increase proportionally with the applied voltage. The
excitation current is hence greatly affected by the core configuration, design of core joints, and quality of
core construction.
In a high capacitance winding, the capacitive component of the excitation current may be of a magnitude
that is comparable to the inductive component. In cases where the inductive component of the excitation
current is relatively low, the total excitation current may actually decrease as voltage is increased through a
limited range of voltage. As the excitation voltage is increased, the inductive component, which usually
increases at a much faster rate than both the voltage and the capacitive component of excitation current,
starts to dominate, producing a net increase in total excitation current (see Figure 4).
Figure 4—Excitation current components at different excitation voltage levels

(NOTE—Voltage level 1 < voltage level 2 < voltage level 3)
3.4 Test requirements
Requirements, as stated in IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91, for reporting no-load
loss/excitation current measurements, are as follows:
a) Voltage is equal to rated voltage unless specified otherwise.

b) Frequency is equal to the rated frequency.
c) Measurements are reported at the reference temperature.
d) The voltage applied to the voltmeters is proportional to that across the energized winding.
e) Whenever the applied waveform is distorted, the measurement must be corrected to a sinusoidal
voltage waveform.
8
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
3.5 Measurement of no-load losses
3.5.1 Measuring circuit
Measuring the no-load losses of a transformer subjected to a sinusoidal voltage waveform can be achieved
simply by using a wattmeter and a voltmeter as shown in Figure 5. As mentioned earlier, transformers may
be subjected to a distorted sine-wave voltage under no-load loss test conditions. In order to achieve the
required measuring accuracy, the instrumentation used should accurately respond to the power frequency
harmonics encountered in these measurements. Refer to IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006, 9.4, Table 23.
3.5.2 Waveform correction
The average-voltage voltmeter method, illustrated in Figure 5, utilizes an average-voltage responding

voltmeter based on full-wave rectification. These instruments are generally scaled to give the same
indication as an rms voltmeter on a sine-wave voltage. The figure shows the necessary equipment and
connections both in the absence and presence of the instrument transformers [refer to part a) of Figure 5
and part b) of Figure 5, respectively]. As indicated in Figure 5, the voltmeters should be connected across
the winding, the ammeter nearest to the supply, and wattmeter between the two; with its voltage coil on the
winding side of the current coil. The average-voltage responding voltmeter should be used to set the
voltage. Also, measured values need to be corrected in order to account for the effect of voltage harmonics
on the magnetic flux in the core and hence on both the hysteresis and eddy current loss components of iron
losses.
The hysteresis loss component is a function of the maximum flux density in the core and is practically
independent of the flux waveform. The maximum flux density corresponds to the average value of the half-
cycle of the voltage waveform (not the rms value). Therefore, if the test voltage is adjusted to be the same
as the average value of the desired sine wave of the voltage, the hysteresis loss component will be equal to
the desired sine-wave value.
The eddy current loss component of the core loss varies approximately with the square of the rms value of
the core flux. When the test voltage is held at rated voltage with the average-voltage voltmeter, the actual
rms value of the test voltage is generally not equal to the rated value. The eddy current loss in this case will
be related to the correct eddy current loss at rated voltage by a factor k given in Equation (8.2) of Clause 8
of IEEE Std C57.12.90, and IEEE Std C57.12.91. This is only correct for voltage waves with reasonably
low distortion. If, however, the voltage wave is so distorted that the value of k is larger than a certain limit
value set by the standard, the average voltmeter readings will not be correct, and the voltage wave is then
considered not suitable for use. Clause 8 of IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91 limit the total
correction of core loss due to this effect to 5%.
where from Figure 5 as follows
F is a frequency meter
W is a wattmeter
AV is an average-responding, rms-calibrated voltmeter
A is an ammeter
V is a true rms voltmeter
9
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 5—Connections for no-load loss test of a single-phase transformer
As mentioned in 8.3 of IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91, “actual per-unit values of the
hysteresis and eddy current losses P1 and P2 should be used in the waveform correction factor (P1 + kP2)–1.”
A simplified approach to obtain values of P1 and P2 for specific core steel at a specific induction utilizes the
frequency dependence characteristics of these two components. P1 is linearly proportional to frequency
while P2 is proportional to the square of the frequency. By knowing the specific loss values of the core steel
at two different frequencies, the values of P1 and P2 can be obtained at any desired frequency. For example,
if a particular core steel has loss values (at a specific induction level) of 1.26 W/kg and 0.99 W/kg at 60 Hz
and 50 Hz, respectively, then
1.26 = k1 (60) + k 2 (60) 2 (5)
and
0.99 = k1 (50) + k 2 (50) 2 (6)
Hence,
k1 = 1.38 × 10-2 (7)
and
k 2 = 1.20 × 10-4 (8)
10
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Therefore, the hysteresis loss at 60 Hz = k1(60) = 0.828 W/kg, and the eddy loss at 60 Hz = k2(60)2 = 0.432
W/kg. And, therefore,
0.86 (9)
P1 = = 0.657
1.26
and
0.40
P2 = = 0.343 (10)
1.26
or
P2 = (1 - 0. 657) = 0.343 (11)
3.5.3 Impact of a high source impedance
In order to demonstrate how critical the magnitude of the source impedance is to an accurate no-load loss
measurement, consider the following examples, which show the voltage and current of a transformer first
excited with a low impedance source, and then repeated with a high impedance source. The numbers at the
left of each image constitute the harmonic content of each trace plus some of the key parameters calculated
for each curve. Figure 6 shows a measurement using a low impedance source, which gives a nearly pure
sine-wave voltage. Figure 7 shows a measurement (for the same transformer) for a high impedance source,
causing the measured voltage to become distorted (THD = 15%). For this case, even with this much
distortion, the Vave differs from Vrms by only 0.7%, and the corresponding ANSI waveform voltage
correction would be less than 1%. Yet, the measured no-load loss in this case was 7% lower than that
measured for the sinusoidal voltage. This 7% difference is, however, in part due to not having the same test
conditions. Taking into account the effect on no-load losses of the 1.5% difference in the average voltages
between the two test conditions of Figure 6 and Figure 7, the corrected measured no-load loss of Figure 7
would be about 3%–4% lower than that measured for the sinusoidal voltage of Figure 6. Although the
magnitude of the no-load loss difference in this case may be acceptable, this example demonstrates that the
Vrms/Vave ratio is not always a good indicator of the real distortion of the voltage. More importantly, the
waveform correction alone would not be sufficient to account for the effect of the high impedance source.
As will be described in 3.7.3, the connection of the average voltmeter can also be very critical to the
accuracy of the no-load loss measurements. Also with such a distorted voltage waveshape, other factors
such as the wattmeter sampling rate and phase-angle error can have a significant influence on the accuracy
of the measurements. The clipping of the current wave peaks by a digital wattmeter circuit during
measurement of no-load loss with a highly distorted current wave (when the transformer core is excited
near saturation) can be an additional source of a measurement error. This can typically occur at 105% and
110% excitation measurements.
11
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
VOLTAGE CURRENT
Freq. Amplitude Phase Freq. Amplitude Phase
Hz kV Deg Hz Amps Deg
60 9.100 161.0 60 7.600 -192.0
180 0.000 0.0 180 0.700 -287.0
300 0.000 0.0 300 2.400 -216.0
420 0.000 0.0 420 0.600 -81.0
540 0.000 0.0 540 0.000 0.0
660 0.000 0.0 660 0.100 0.0
780 0.000 0.0 780 0.000 0.0
900 0.000 0.0 900 0.000 0.0
1020 0.000 0.0 1020 0.000 0.0
Vrms = 6.435 kV
V_ave = 6.435 kV I_rms = 5.674 Amps
Max volt = 9.099kV Po meas. = 34.3 kW
Po Corr. = 34.3 kW
Max flux=0.0241kVSec
(Actual
Max flux=0.0241kVSec
(based on V_Ave)
THD = 0%
Figure 6—Excitation voltage and current waveshapes for a low impedance source
VOLTAGE CURRENT
Freq. Amplitude Phase Freq. Amplitdue Phase
Hz kV Deg Hz Amps Deg
60 8.800 153.0 60 7.700 -189.0
180 0.100 -36.0 180 0.800 -297.0
300 1.300 -30.0
300 9.100 -296.0
420 0.200 69.0
540 0.000 0.0 420 0.900 -200.0
660 0.000 0.0 540 0.100 -144.0
780 0.000 0.0 660 0.000 0.0
900 0.000 0.0 780 0.000 0.0
1020 0.000 0.0
900 0.000 0.0
Vrms = 6.292 kV
V_ave = 6.340 kV 1020 0.000 0.0
Max volt=9.658 kV
Max flux=0.0238 kVSec I_rms = 8.472 Amps
(Actual) Po meas = 31.4 kW
Max flux=0.0238 kVSec Po corr = 31.6 kW
(based on V_ave)
THD = 15%
Figure 7—Excitation voltage and current waveshapes for a high impedance source
In cases where the source impedance is so large that the voltage waveshape exhibits more than two zero-
line crossings, the no-load loss measurements can be even more erroneous. This is due to the incorrect
reading of the average voltmeter, caused by the operating principle of the averaging voltmeter which is
commonly based on a rectified waveform. Figure 8 shows a more distorted voltage waveshape (THD =
18%) but still with two zero-line crossings. In this case, the average voltmeter reading is still representative
of the peak flux. Conversely, in Figure 9, where the voltage waveshape is highly distorted (THD = 29%)
and there are more than two zero-line crossings, the actual average voltmeter reading is significantly lower
than the Vrms. The maximum flux calculated from the average voltage is different from the actual peak flux.
In such a case the test is definitely not valid. In fact, there is a greater danger than just measuring erroneous
no-load losses under these conditions. As the average voltmeter reading is being set to the desired voltage,
in this case, the peak voltage appearing across the transformer terminals may reach values in excess of the
dielectric withstand of the insulation system, possibly resulting in the failure of the transformer. This is
demonstrated below in Figure 9, where the average voltmeter reading was 13.966 kV (101.2% of the
13.8 kV rated voltage), while the actual peak voltage was 26.356 kV (135% of the 19.5 kV rated peak
voltage). It is always a good practice to monitor the peak voltage during the no-load loss test to avoid
abnormal operating conditions.
12
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
VOLTAGE
Freq Amplitude Phase
Hz kV Deg
60 20.695 -109.8
180 0.107 -47.5
300 0.933 18.6
420 3.467 -92.3
540 0.848 -114.3
660 0.461 -147.3
780 0.253 173.5
900 0.000 0.0
1020 0.000 0.0
V_rms = 14.869 kV
V_ave = 14.526 kV
Max volt = 23.142 kV
Max flux=0.0544 kVSec
(Actual)
(based on V_ave
THD = 18%
Figure 8—High impedance source with greater distorted voltage waveshape
VOLTAGE
Freq Amplitude Phase
Hz kV Deg
60 20.243 -115.3
180 3.877 26.4
300 2.669 -115.5
420 2.583 -47.7
540 1.927 -86.3
660 1.165 -128.4
780 0.529 -168.4
900 0.000 0.0
1020 0.000 0.0
V_rms = 14.899 kV
V_ave = 13.966 kV
Max volt = 26.356 kV
(Actual)
(based on V_ave
THD = 29%
Figure 9—High impedance source with highly distorted voltage waveshape and multiple
voltage zero-line crossings
In conclusion, every effort should be made to avoid high impedance sources. For THD values up to 15%,
which are likely to occur when the core is over-excited near saturation, utmost attention should be paid to
the connection of the measuring circuit and instruments in order to be within measuring accuracy limits
imposed by the standards. Close examination of the waveforms using an oscilloscope is necessary at this
point. Development of a correction method for significant magnitudes of harmonics has been attempted in
the published literature, but no feasible method has yet been achieved. Also, it is worthwhile to note that
excessive harmonics may result in saturation of the electronic devices and hence result in erroneous
measurements. For these reasons, for THD values greater than 15%, the voltage waveshape is too distorted
(with more than two zero-line crossings) and the test becomes invalid.
3.6 Measurement of excitation current
Circuit connections for the measurement of excitation current are the same as those used for the
measurement of the no-load loss (see Figure 5). When the recommended average-voltage voltmeter method
is used, and a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform is applied, the measured rms value of excitation current
13
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
will generally be slightly higher than that obtained under sinusoidal conditions. The 5% limit enforced by
the standard (IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91) on the waveform correction to the no-load
losses guarantees that the effect of the voltage harmonics on the magnitude of the rms value of the multiple
voltage zero-line crossings excitation current is too small to cause the current magnitude to increase beyond
the guaranteed value. Therefore, no adjustments are allowed to account for this effect in the present
standard (IEEE Std C57.12.90 and IEEE Std C57.12.91).
3.7 Measuring circuitry for three-phase transformers
The method described in 3.5 for single-phase transformers applies to three-phase transformers. Because of
the differences in winding connections of three-phase transformers, the measuring circuitry will be slightly
different for different combinations of winding connections in the test as well as the test source
transformer.
3.7.1 Three-wattmeter connections
The number of wattmeters required and the connections of the voltage and current elements are dictated by
Blondel’s Theorem. This theorem states that to measure the total power supplied through N conductors plus
neutral conductor, N wattmeters are required, with the connections as follows. The current element of each
wattmeter is connected to one of the lines, and the corresponding voltage element is connected between that
line and a common point. Total power is determined by summing the N wattmeter readings. The basic
configuration for a set of three line conductors is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10—Three-wattmeter circuit
Figure 10 shows the voltages and currents that define the total instantaneous power and determine the
individual wattmeter readings. The effects of various circuit conditions can be evaluated by examining the
equations that govern the voltages and currents. The total instantaneous power, Ptot, and the instantaneous
power measured by the three wattmeters, Psum, are calculated in Equation (12) and Equation (13).
Ptot = e1i1 + e 2i 2 + e3i3 (12)
Psum = e1 ' i1 + e 2 ' i 2 + e3 ' i3 (13)
14
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
where
Ptot is the total instantaneous power delivered to the load

Psum is the sum of the instantaneous power indications of the three wattmeters
e1,e2,e3 are the instantaneous phase-to-neutral voltages of the three phase transformer
e1′,e2′,e3′ are the instantaneous voltages across the wattmeter voltage elements
i1,i2,i3 are the instantaneous line currents (and the currents in the wattmeter current elements)
If the instantaneous voltage between points O and C in Figure 10 is v, then e1 = v + e1′ , e2 = v + e2′ , e3 = v
+ e3′ . And
Psum = e1i1 + e 2i 2 + e3i3 - v(i1 + i 2 + i3 ) (14)
Psum = Ptot - v(i1 + i 2 + i 3 ) (15)
If no connection exists between points O and C, then
i1 + i 2 + i3 = 0 (16)
If points O and C are connected together, then v = 0. In either case, the term v(i1 + i2 + i3) is always zero,
and Psum = Ptot under all conditions of phase imbalance and even if the voltage at point C is significantly
shifted from the neutral point.
3.7.2 Two-wattmeter method (not recommended)
The two-wattmeter method was employed in past years for no-load loss measurement, however it is no
longer recommended. The technical reasons for its discontinued use are as follows:
a) An unbalanced distribution of no-load losses and excitation current exists between phases.
b) The applied voltage and the excitation current waveforms of the no-load loss test are inherently
distorted.
c) Transformers have a low power factor when connected for measuring losses. For example, with
the two-wattmeter method, if the power factor of the loss being measured is less than 50%,
(which is very common for no-load loss measurement) then one of the two wattmeters will read
negative.
3.7.3 Voltmeter connections
Requirement d) in 3.4 of this guide necessitates that the voltage applied to the voltmeter be the same as that
across the energized winding. If the voltage applied to the transformer during test has negligible harmonic
content, i.e., less than 1% THD, then the voltmeters may be connected either delta or wye, whichever is
more convenient. However, if the applied voltage has a significant harmonic content, as may be the case
15
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
during the no-load loss test, then attention should be paid to the voltmeter connections. This is necessary to
properly correct the measured losses to a sine-wave basis.
Part (A) of Figure 11 shows a distorted voltage waveform of one phase of a three-phase system, measured
between line conductors. If the voltage is measured between a line conductor and ground, a different
waveform is obtained, as shown in part (B) of Figure 11. Therefore, different rms and average-responding
voltmeter readings would be obtained, depending on whether the voltmeters are connected line-to-line or
line-to-neutral. The correct voltmeter connections depend on the connection of the energized windings. The
waveform of the voltage applied across each voltmeter must be the same as the waveform of the voltage
across each energized winding.
Figure 11—Phase-to-phase and phase-to-neutral voltage waveforms
3.7.3.1 Connections when instrument transformers are not used
Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14 show the correct voltmeter connections for various winding
connections.
Figure 12—Three-wattmeter method, energized winding wye-connected, with transformer

neutral available, without instrument transformer
16
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 13—Three-wattmeter method, energized winding delta-connected, without

instrument transformers
Figure 14—Three-wattmeter method, energized winding wye-connected, without

instrument transformers (with transformer neutral unavailable)
3.7.3.2 Connections when instrument transformers are used
Various connections may be used, depending upon the winding connection of the transformer to be tested
and the availability of the source neutral. Figure 15 shows the case of a wye-connected winding with the
neutral grounded. The wye-wye connection of the instrument transformers preserves the line-to-neutral
waveforms of a distorted voltage wave. The voltmeters are connected across the windings of the
transformer being tested. The wattmeter voltage elements are connected line-to-ground.
Figure 16 shows the case when a transformer with a delta-connected winding is being tested. The only
difference between Figure 15 and Figure 16, other than the winding connection of the transformer under
test, is that the voltmeters are now connected delta. The wattmeter voltage elements are still connected line-
to-ground. As was shown earlier, the wattmeters will correctly register the total power in spite of
differences in waveform across the windings, voltmeters, and wattmeter voltage elements. This is provided
that the wattmeter correctly registers the power for harmonic frequencies present. In this case, the source
must be grounded to the neutral of the instrument transformers on the primary side.
17
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
CT W V VT
A
CT W V VT
A
CT W V VT
A
Figure 15—Three-wattmeter method, energized winding wye-connected with neutral

grounded
CT W VT
A
V
CT W VT
A
V V
CT W VT
A
Figure 16—Three-wattmeter method, energized winding delta-connected, grounded wye

source
4. Transformer load losses
4.1 General
Transformer load losses, often called copper losses, include I2R losses in windings due to load current,
eddy losses due to leakage fluxes in the windings, stray losses caused by stray flux in the core clamps,
magnetic shields, tank wall, etc., and losses due to circulating current in parallel windings and parallel
18
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
conductors within windings. For transformers with a load tap changer (LTC) that employs preventive
autotransformers or series transformers, the load losses will have an additional component due to losses in
these auxiliary transformers.
4.2 Measuring circuitry
Load losses are normally measured by short circuiting one winding of a transformer, usually the low-
voltage winding, and impressing sufficient voltage (referred to as impedance voltage) on the high-voltage
winding to cause rated current to circulate in both windings. Input voltage, current, and power are then
measured. Figure 17 illustrates a circuit commonly used for load-loss measurements on a single-phase
transformer (see 3.4 for explanation of variables). Three-phase measurement is performed in the same
manner but with three sets of instruments and instrument transformers.
Figure 17—Load-loss measurement circuit for a single-phase transformer
4.3 Load-loss measurement uncertainties
Load losses for modern power and distribution transformers are very low due to increased demands for
improved efficiencies and high transformer loss evaluations for optimum life-cycle costs. In power
transformers, the power factor of the transformer at the load-loss test is generally very low, ranging from
5% down to 1% or less in large power transformers. In small distribution transformers, with ratings of
5–500 kVA per phase, the load-loss power factor will typically exceed 5%. Typical values range from 10%
to as high as 80% for the smallest distribution transformers. Figure 18 shows typical magnitudes of power
factors for transformers larger than 10 MVA ratings with high, medium, and low levels of load-loss
evaluation.
A low power factor means that the angle φ between the voltage and the current (refer to Figure 17) is
approaching 90°. Herein lies the major issue in the accuracy of load-loss measurements. Load losses at low
power factors are very sensitive to phase-angle errors, as illustrated in Figure 19.
19
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
As shown in Figure 19, a phase-angle error of 1 min in the voltage or current will result in approximately
3% error in loss measurement for a transformer with a load-loss power factor of 0.01. Phase-angle
uncertainty is one of the many uncertainties associated with measurement of the transformer load losses at
low power factor. Transformation ratio errors of instrument transformers and magnitude errors of
wattmeters also contribute to errors in the reported losses and need to be corrected for, as shown in 4.4.2.
Figure 18—Typical values of load-loss power factor for large power transformers
Figure 19—Percent error in measured losses per minute of phase-angle error
20
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
4.4 Corrections to measured load losses
With reference to Figure 17, when a load-loss measurement is made, the desired quantity is the actual
power as shown in Equation (17).
Pt = Vt At cos(φt ) (17)
where
Pt is the actual power loss of the transformer under test (W)

Vt is the impedance voltage of the transformer under test (V)
At is the current of the transformer under test (A)
φt is the phase angle of the impedance of the transformer under test (degrees)
For power transformers, the instrument transformers and the wattmeter, which are necessary to perform this
measurement, indicate measured power on the wattmeter of Equation (18).
Pm = Vm Am cos(φm ) (18)
where
Pm is the wattmeter reading (W)

Vm is the voltmeter reading across the voltage element of one wattmeter (V)
Am is the ammeter reading in the current element of the wattmeter (A)
φm is the measured phase angle between Vm and Am (degrees)
The measured loss must be corrected to obtain the actual power, Pt. The purpose of the next subclause is to
explain the theory behind the correction from Pm to Pt.
4.4.1 Phase-angle correction of a conventional load-loss measuring system
Conventional measuring systems consist of magnetic-type voltage and current transformers that generally
have phase-angle errors Vd and Cd, respectively. Also, the wattmeter has a phase-angle error Wd. The
phase-angle error of an instrument transformer is positive when the output signal leads the input signal. For
wattmeters, this error is positive when the indication of the wattmeter under leading power factor
conditions of the load is larger than nominal. Figure 20 shows the relationship between all voltage and
current vectors with their corresponding phase shifts.
21
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 20—Vector diagram for a power transformer under load-loss test conditions
(Vv is voltage across voltmeter)
If the actual phase angle between voltage and current in the transformer under test is φt, the measured
phase-angle in the wattmeter will be as shown in Equation (19).
φt = φm + (-Wd - Vd + Cd ) (19)
where
Wd is the phase-angle error of the wattmeter (degrees)

Vd is the phase-angle error of the potential transformer (degrees)
Cd is the phase-angle error of the current transformer (degrees)
(–Wd – Vd + Cd) is generally referred to as the total phase-angle error (degrees)
Derivation:
Pt = Vt A t cos(φt ) (20)
Assuming that nv and nc are turns ratio for the voltage and current instrument transformers, respectively,
and that K is the wattmeter range multiplier, then in the absence of magnitude errors in the instrument
transformers:
Pt = Kn v n c Vm A m cos(φm - Wd - Vd + Cd ) (21)
= Kn v n c Vm A m [cos(φm ) cos(-Wd - Vd + Cd ) - sin(φm ) sin(-Wd - Vd + Cd )] (22)
22
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
since φm ≈ 90° then sin( φm ) ≈ 1.0 and since the angle (–Wd – Vd + Cd) is very small
then
sin(-Wd - Vd + Cd ) ≈ (-Wd - Vd + Cd ) (23)
and
cos(-Wd - Vd + Cd ) ≈ 1.0. (24)
Then, from above:
Pt = Kn v n c Vm A m [cos(φm ) - (-Wd - Vd + C d )] (25)
= Kn v n c [Pm - Vm A m (-Wd - Vd + C d )] (26)
Example 1:
For a very large transformer that has a 0.8% pf, φt = 89.541°. If the total phase-angle error is +3.2 min
(0.053°), then φm = 89.488°. Therefore,
Pm cos(89.488)
= = 1.115 (27)
Pt cos(89.541)
The measured loss is about 11.5% higher than the actual loss of the transformer. This example illustrates
the problem with using instrument transformers with high phase-angle errors to measure load loss of very
low power factor transformers. Since IEEE Std C57.12.90, item d) of 9.3, limits the phase-angle correction
to ± 5%, measuring equipment with such high total phase-angle error would not meet the requirements of
the standard.
Example 2:
For a transformer that has a 1.5% pf, φt = 89.14°. If the total phase-angle error is –1.5 min (–0.025°), then
φm = 89.165°. Therefore,
Pm cos(89.165)
= = 0.971 (28)
Pt cos(89.14)
The measured loss is 2.9% lower than the actual loss of the transformer.
23
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
4.4.2 Magnitude correction
In addition to correction due to phase-angle errors of the instrument transformers, measuring transformers,
and the wattmeter, correction due to magnitude errors of the instrument transformers should also be applied
in determining the actual measured power Pt. This magnitude correction applies to low as well as high
power factor power measurements. Also, since the losses of the transformer under test vary with
approximately the square of the current, the error of the ammeter (current reading) used in setting the test
current should also be accounted for. This type of error could lead to significant errors in the measured
losses. More detailed analysis on corrections and uncertainties of a loss measurement can be found in the
document developed by So [B16].
4.4.3 Correction for losses due to the shorting connection
The current flowing in the shorting connection is an additional factor that affects the measured load-loss
values. The shorting connection also affects the impedance measurements (impedance voltage). However,
the correction to this value is usually insignificant. It should be emphasized that accounting for the shorting
connection losses are most important for transformers with low-voltage, high-current secondary windings.
For example, the shorting connection correction for a 500 kVA transformer rated at 120/240 V on the low-
voltage winding would be much more important than the shorting connection correction for an 8 MVA
transformer rated at 4 kV on the low-voltage winding, even though the power losses on the shorting
connection may be the same.
This subclause presents four different methods of accounting for losses due to the shorting connection.
These methods have varying degrees of accuracy. Since the shorting connection losses are generally small
(≤ 5%), the difference in accuracy among the different methods will have a negligible impact on the
accuracy of the total measured load loss of the transformer. It is advised that if the shorting connection
losses exceed 5% of the total load losses, then the shorting connection should be replaced by one that has a
larger cross section and that the joints should be made tighter to minimize the contact resistance at the
joints. Also, since it is very hard to estimate stray losses induced in the bushing plate by the shorting
connection, it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to minimize the magnitude of these losses. In this case,
precautions can be taken to ascertain that higher risers are used for the shorting connections. Only I2R of
the shorting connection shall be accounted for in power transformers greater than 10 MVA where R shall
be the measured value of the resistance of the shorting bar used for the transformer final load-loss test
calculations. For such sizes, the methods presented in 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2 can result in erroneous values of
shorting connection losses. Although the correction methods proposed in this subclause are shown for
single-phase transformers, the first two methods are equally applicable to three-phase transformers using
the three wattmeters method.
4.4.3.1 Approximate method
In this method, the voltage drop Vc across the shorting connection is measured and multiplied by the
voltage ratio and the primary current to obtain the correction. As this method assumes that the circuit has
unity power factor, inductive pickup by the measuring leads should be avoided by twisting the leads
together and running them close to the shorting connection. This is critical to the accuracy of this method.
It has been shown that close to a 100% error can result if inductive pickup is not minimized. See Figure 21.
24
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
CT
N:1
VT
A W V
A = Current
CT = turns ratio of CT
VT = turns ratio of VT
Correction = Vc× A × CT × N Vc
Figure 21—Measurement of shorting connection losses—approximate method
4.4.3.2 Wattmeter methods
The proper way of correcting for the losses in the shorting connection is to measure them. Contrary to the
approximate method from 4.4.3.1, the wattmeter methods described in the subclauses that follow are not
sensitive to inductive pick up from the high current bars.
4.4.3.2.1 Clamp-on wattmeter method
Shorting connection losses can be measured by means of a clamp-on wattmeter as shown in Figure 22. The
difficulty with this measurement is that the voltage is very low and must be increased with a step-up
potential transformer or by amplifying it electronically. The reading of this instrument would be subtracted
from the main wattmeter reading to obtain the true load losses of the transformer under test. The previous is
usually difficult to do and therefore this method is seldom used.
CT
N:1
VT
A W V Wc K
Correction = Wc/ K
Figure 22—Measurement of shorting connection losses using a clamp-on wattmeter
25
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
4.4.3.2.2 Wattmeter method
As the current is already being measured with the current transformer and an ammeter, the clamp-on
wattmeter method can be modified to use an ordinary wattmeter. This is shown in Figure 23. As with the
clamp-on wattmeter method, the voltage across the shorting connection is very low for commercial
instruments (wattmeters) and must be increased with a transformer or amplified electronically. As above,
the reading of this instrument would be subtracted from the reading of the main wattmeter to obtain the true
load losses.
CT
N:1
VT
A W V
CT = turns ratio of CT
Wc K :1
Correction = WC × CT × N/K
Figure 23—Measurement of shorting connection losses using the wattmeter method
One advantage of this method is that it can (easily) be modified to allow for automatic correction of the
losses in the shorting bar, as described in 4.4.3.2.3.
4.4.3.2.3 Automatic correction
It is possible to configure the shorting connection in such a way that its losses are automatically subtracted
from the reading of the main wattmeter. Such a connection is shown in Figure 24. Here, the voltage drop
across the shorting connection is adjusted for the ratio of the potential transformer and test transformer and
then applied to the reading of the main wattmeter. As long as the auxiliary potential transformer has the
prescribed ratio, the wattmeter will indicate the load losses without the losses in the shorting connection.
26
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
CT
N:1
VT
A W V
Aux. VT
Figure 24—Circuitry for automatic correction for shorting connection losses
4.4.4 Special precautions
4.4.4.1 Measurement at a lower than rated current
According to IEEE Std C57.12.90, load losses should be measured at a load current equal to the rated
current for the corresponding tapping position. However, if it is not exactly equal to the rated current, the
measured load-loss value will need to be corrected by the square of the ratio of the rated current to the test
current (average of the measured phase current in three-phase transformers).
4.4.4.2 Duration of the load-loss measurement test
During load-loss measurement, the current in the winding increases winding temperature and hence
increases winding I2R losses. To minimize the magnitude of this effect, it is the manufacturer’s
responsibility to keep the test time as short as possible.
4.4.4.3 Optimization of measuring range of instrumentation
Transformer manufacturers are encouraged to use the instruments at their optimum operating range to
minimize the errors. Phase-angle corrections of voltage instrument transformers and current instrument
transformers that have magnetic core materials are generally significantly higher when they are operated at
lower than about 70% of their rated operating voltage/current (see Figure 25 and Figure 26). Also, these
corrections can vary significantly with the turns-ratio setting of the instrument transformer.
27
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 25—Example of magnitude and phase-angle errors of a typical current transformer

used in load-loss measurements
Figure 26—Example of magnitude and phase-angle errors of a typical potential

transformer used in load-loss measurements
4.4.4.4 Other precautions with the use of instrument transformers
Using the proper burden, cleaning connections, and demagnetizing the current transformer after every use
are measures that will help achieve better measurement accuracy.
28
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
4.5 Measuring circuitry for three-phase transformers
Measuring losses in three-phase transformers can be carried out using various methods, such as the
following:
a) Three-wattmeter method
b) Two-wattmeter method
c) Bridge method
Of these methods, only the three-wattmeter method is widely used in routine testing of power transformer
losses.
4.5.1 Three-wattmeter method
The three-wattmeter method is the preferred method for accurate measurement of transformer load losses.
The total loss is simply the algebraic sum of the three single-phase readings. Thus, the same rules apply for
the errors in the measurements. When corrections for these errors are applied, they should be applied to
each individual wattmeter reading, not to the sum of the three, because very often, the three wattmeters
have very different readings and thus, very different power factors.
Figure 27 shows the circuit diagram for measuring load losses of a three-phase, four-wire circuit using the
three-wattmeter method and with instrument transformers. For transformers without the neutral brought
out, an artificial neutral shall be created. In this case, identical instruments with the same nominal
impedance should be used.
Current Transformers
A
Source Transformer
B Under
Test
C
N
Potential
Transformers
A1 A2 A3 V1 V2 V3
+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-
W1 W2 W3
Figure 27—Load-loss measurement circuitry using instrument transformers
29
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
4.5.2 Two-wattmeter method (not recommended)
The two wattmeter method was employed in past years for load loss measurement, however it is no longer
recommended. This is because, in this case, the two wattmeter readings are usually very close in magnitude
and have opposite signs, so even small errors in individual meters result in large measurement errors. This
is especially the case for low power factor measurements.
4.5.3 Test of three-phase transformer with single-phase voltage
To determine the load losses and impedance voltage of a three-phase transformer with single-phase voltage,
the setup as schematically shown in Figure 28 is recommended.
Figure 28—Test of three-phase transformer with single-phase voltage
The three line leads of one winding are short-circuited, and single-phase voltage at rated frequency is
applied to two terminals of the other winding. The applied voltage is adjusted to circulate rated line current.
Three successive readings are taken on the three pairs of leads; for example, H1 and H2, H2 and H3, H3 and
H1. Then,
⎛P +P +P ⎞
Measured load losses (W) = 1.5⎜ 12 23 31 ⎟ (29)
⎝ 3 ⎠
⎛ E + E 23 + E 31 ⎞
Measured impedance voltage (V) = 0.866⎜ 12 ⎟ (30)
⎝ 3 ⎠
where
P is individual reading of measured load losses as indicated by subscripts

E is individual reading of measured impedance voltage as indicated by subscripts
30
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
The stray loss component shall be obtained by subtracting the I2R losses from the measured load losses of
the transformer. Let R1 be the resistance measured between two high-voltage terminals and R2 the
resistance between two low-voltage terminals; let I1 and I2 be the respective rated line currents. Then, the
total I2R loss of all three phases will be as shown in Equation (31).
Total I2R Watts = 1.5(I12 R1 + I 22 R 2 ) (31)
This formula applies equally well to wye- or delta-connected windings.
Temperature correction shall be made as in 9.4.2 of IEEE Std C57.12.90 and 9.4.1 of IEEE Std C57.12.91.
4.5.4 Bridge method
Bridge measurements of power factor, or loss tangent, combined with voltage and current measurements,
offer another method for determining power loss at low power factors. In particular, the transformer-ratio-
arm bridge is most suitable for such measurements. It uses the essentially lossless and stable high-voltage
three-terminal compressed-gas-dielectric capacitor as a reference source to provide a reference current in
quadrature with the applied voltage. However, this requires a phase reversal of the inductive load current to
achieve a bridge balance. This is accomplished using a highly accurate current transformer, such as a two-
stage current transformer that also serves as a range-extending current transformer.
The bridge balance parameters are not sensitive to small voltage fluctuations, so the values for the voltage
and current can be those for which the loss measurement was requested. However, due to the comparison of
an inductive current with a capacitive current, the bridge balance is sensitive to frequency variations and
harmonics in the current. These problems must be accounted for in obtaining accurate measurement results.
They impose a requirement for short periods of relatively stable frequency and a sinusoidal test voltage
waveform of low distortion to enable a proper balance to be obtained. Therefore, the bridge cannot be used
for no-load loss measurements due to a high harmonic content in the excitation current.
For three-phase loss measurements, with all three phases energized, each phase must be measured
individually. This requires three bridges if simultaneous loss measurement of all phases is desired.
Alternatively, only one bridge is used and each phase is measured individually with brief shutdowns to
permit transfer of equipment. Three two-stage current transformers, one for each phase, are normally used
since their changeover involves heavy conductors and is rather cumbersome. With three reference
capacitors and suitable switching, the shutdowns could be eliminated.
The measurement of load loss in three-phase transformers poses additional problems because of the
inaccessibility of phase currents at the neutral or low voltage end of the windings. Special input
transformers insulated to withstand the short-circuit impedance voltage at the high-voltage end of the
windings are required. Only one ground should be connected to the system, preferably at the neutral point
of the transformer under test; otherwise significant zero sequence voltages or currents could be present,
which will cause large deviations in the apparent power factor of the three different phases. This in turn
could reduce the accuracy attainable with the bridge. The neutral point of any power factor correction
capacitors should be isolated. It is difficult, if not impossible, to realize physical coincidence between the
bridge ground and the electrical neutral point of the transformer. Hence, individual phase loss
measurements have little practical meaning and only the total of the three individual phase loss
measurements can be relied upon. Further details on the analysis and application of the bridge method,
circuitry, and measurements can be found in the document developed by So [B16].
31
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
5. Advanced measuring systems

A number of advanced power measuring systems have emerged in the past three decades. These systems
provide for significantly improved accuracy for low power factor loss measurements. An overview of the
more commonly used systems for measuring both no-load and load losses of larger power transformers in
particular is given in this clause.. More technical details of these measuring instruments and techniques can
be found in the document developed by So [B16].
5.1 Enhanced conventional system
Conventional measurement systems, consisting of magnetic voltage and current transformers combined
with electromechanical analog instruments, can be modified to yield a significantly improved accuracy.
The use of high accuracy electronic wattmeters along with accounting for the accurate values of phase-
angle errors of voltage and current transformers generally provide the required accuracy down to power
factor values as low as 0.02. Voltage and current transformers with very low phase-angle errors are
generally required to achieve the required accuracy for transformers with power factors below 0.02.
5.2 Advanced voltage and current transducers
Advanced state-of-the-art loss measuring systems utilize a number of voltage and current sensors that have
very low or zero phase-angle error.
Modern voltage transducers utilize standard compressed gas capacitors in conjunction with various active
feedback circuits to minimize the magnitude and phase-angle errors of the voltage measuring system. The
compressed gas capacitors are sufficiently stable and have relatively low loss. However the electronics
associated with the divider generally drift over time and hence should be calibrated periodically and
readjusted in order to meet the accuracy requirements of the standards.
Current scaling is accomplished using special high-accuracy current transformers such as the following:
— Zero flux current transformers

— Two-stage current transformers
— Amplifier-aided current transformers
These current transformers (CTs) operate on the principle of reducing the flux in the active core of the CT
to or near zero, thereby reducing the magnitude and phase-angle errors.
The use of high-accuracy solid-state transducers combined with digital readout can improve overall
measurement accuracies due to the following factors:
a) Random error due to the limited resolution of analog instruments is virtually eliminated by the
use of digital instruments.
b) Technology, such as solid-state time division multiplexing techniques for measurement of
power, can improve accuracy over conventional electrodynamometer type wattmeters. The
accuracy is also improved because of reduced burden on the instrument transformers and
reduction in internal phase shifts. Compensation for lead losses can be designed into these
devices.
c) Judicious use of electronic circuits, aided by operational amplifiers, can ensure operation of
transducers in their optimal operating ranges. This minimizes the error that is dependent upon
the input magnitude as a percent of full scale.
32
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
d) Computing circuits for summing and averaging of three-phase measurements can be included in
the system design to minimize calculation errors. Errors due to incorrect signs and errors due to
self heating are also minimized by these circuits.
6. Specified tolerances on losses
6.1 Specified tolerances on no-load losses
As stated in Clause 3, core material variability and variability in the quality of the core production process
cause the commonly observed variability in measured values of no-load loss and excitation current among
transformers of the same design. This variation, however, is to be expected in normal transformer
production. The magnitude of this type of variability is usually in the ± 2% to ± 8% range. Generally, the
smaller the transformer is, the greater the range of variability is. For example, in distribution transformers,
the variability that exists in the values of the specific iron loss within and between coils of core steel nearly
adds up to the total magnitude of core-loss variability for same design transformers. Figure 29 presents an
example of tested core-loss values for a multiple-unit order of distribution transformers of the same design.
Figure 29—Measured no-load loss of a multi-unit order of small distribution transformers
In addition to the above mentioned production and material variability, deviations between core loss design
calculations and average loss performance of a particular transformer design contribute to the total
deviation between the calculated and tested core-loss values. In the example shown in Figure 29, the
calculated core loss of this design is only 2.1% lower than the average tested value for this order. However,
as seen in Figure 30, since the variability range within this order is 17%, the highest loss unit tested 12.2%
higher than the calculated value for this design without being defective.
33
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Figure 30—Measured/calculated ratio of no-load loss of a multi-unit order of small

distribution transformers
Recognizing the existence of such variations in no-load losses, 9.3 of C57.12.00-2006 and IEEE Std
C57.12.01TM [B7] states that the “no load losses of a transformer shall not exceed the specified no-load
losses by more than 10%.” This tolerance, which has long historical precedence, is intended to define the
no-load loss variation to be expected in usual transformer production. With the statistical process control
(SPC) methodology, the 10% corresponds to three standard deviations (STDEV) (using over 99%
confidence level) of about 3.3%, which is a reasonable value of STDEV for typical deviations between
calculated and tested losses of individual transformers. This value of standard deviation is representative of
the capability of current core-loss calculation methods and quality/performance variability control methods.
In other words, a transformer with no-load losses outside of this tolerance would warrant further discussion
between purchaser and manufacturer regarding further testing and analysis to explain the higher losses and
to ensure that the unit will operate satisfactorily. It is important to note that when the tolerance on no-load
losses is exceeded in a stacked-core power transformer, it is most often a result of additional interlaminar
losses caused by an exceptionally low core interlaminar resistance (due to large edge burrs) and should not
necessarily be considered a defect. It is also important to note that standard deviation values lower than
3.3% will allow manufacturers to use a lower calculation margin. Higher values of standard deviations will
do exactly the opposite. So, it is in the manufacturer’s interest to reduce the standard deviation.
6.2 Specified tolerances on total losses
Regarding the tolerance on the load losses of a transformer, it is recognized that the variations in load
losses are much smaller since basically they are determined by geometrical and dimensional variations.
Rather than specifying tolerance on load losses, 9.3 of IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006 specifies a tolerance on
the total losses (sum of no-load and load losses) of 6%. Again, this is with historical precedence of many
years of experience and represents typical transformer design/production process capabilities existing
today.
Finally, it is important to note that 9.3 of IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006 is only an acceptance criterion and is
not intended to replace a manufacturer’s guarantee of losses for economic loss evaluation purposes. Such a
guarantee is subject to a totally different tolerance, which may include a tolerance on the average of a
specified group of purchased transformers. This economic loss tolerance is usually specified in the
purchase contract and is a tolerance agreed to between the purchaser and the manufacturer. Previous
versions of IEEE Std C57.12.00 (1993 and earlier) did specify a zero tolerance on the average of two or
more units on a given order. However, it was the intention of the IEEE Working Group responsible for
revising 9.3 of IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006 that the purpose of the tolerance here is to identify transformers
with possible manufacturing defects. Therefore, beginning with IEEE Std C57.12.00 (1999), there was no
longer a specified tolerance on the average of units on an order. Instead, 9.4 of IEEE Std C57.12.00 (1993)
specified a tolerance on the accuracy of the test equipment used to measure the no-load and the load losses.
34
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
7. Traceability and calibration

A measurement result possesses traceability if it can be related to stated references, usually national or
international standards, through an unbroken chain of comparisons all having stated uncertainties.
Traceability only exists when there is documented evidence of the traceability chain and the quantification
of its associated measurement uncertainties. The values of standards, their uncertainties, and the corrections
and uncertainties of associated measurement systems have time-dependent components. Evidence should
therefore be collected at appropriate intervals and used on a continuing basis to remove measurement biases
and to re-determine the associated uncertainties. The appropriate calibration intervals depend on the type of
measurement system and its components and should initially follow the recommendation of the
manufacturer of the components and the measurement system. Once a history of calibration is developed,
the appropriate frequency of calibration for a particular component can be determined. For continuously
maintaining the quality of the measurement, means must be provided for regular in-house checking of the
components and the complete measurement system in between calibration intervals.
Obtaining traceability of a loss measurement can be done by calibrating its principal components and/or a
system-based calibration. The measured magnitude and phase-angle errors of the components, including
their calibration uncertainties, should be accounted for in obtaining a corrected measurement result. This in
turn should be confirmed with a system-based calibration, which provides information on the overall
system errors and uncertainties at the required test points.
Obtaining direct traceability for large transformers and reactors is generally difficult because of the large
physical size of the test object and the large voltage and power requirements. An alternative is to have a
“portable” loss measuring system that can be used for on-site calibration. Indirect traceability is obtained
by calibrating this loss measuring system on a regular basis using a standard measuring system. An
alternative calibration practice is performed by comparing the results of a loss measurement with those of a
more accurate test system on the same load. This calibration method usually provides verification at only
one voltage and one current, and at a particular power factor determined by the load under test. Another
alternative calibration practice would be the use of a standard load with adjustable power factor to provide
a reference power to calibrate the loss measuring system. Ideally the standard load should be “portable” and
operable over a large range of voltage, current, and power factor. Such a standard load would provide a
means for characterizing the accuracy of transformer loss measuring systems over different voltage,
current, and power factor ranges.
Table 1 of 9.4.1, IEEE Std C57.12.90, provides the conditions of apparent load-loss power factor under
which phase-angle corrections must be applied. The maximum value of correction to the measured load
losses due to the test system phase-angle error is limited to 5% of the measured losses. If more than 5%
correction is required, the test method and test apparatus should be improved for an adequate determination
of losses. Since traceability of a loss measurement system is obtained by calibrating its principal
components and applying phase-angle corrections to improve the measurement results, the calibration
method and measurement results, including uncertainties, should be followed with a system-based
calibration check.
Table 23 of IEEE Std C57.12.00-2006 specifies that the losses be measured with an uncertainty of not more
than 3%. Having traceability is a prerequisite to being able to achieve this specification. It provides a means
to have documented evidence of the magnitude and phase errors of the various components of the
measurement system and their associated uncertainties. After properly accounting for all these errors, their
associated uncertainties must be evaluated to obtain a combined overall uncertainty of the loss
measurement. This combined overall uncertainty must not be more than 3% for all reported loss
measurements. It is recommended that this combined overall uncertainty be based on a 95% confidence
interval. Whether this 3% uncertainty specification for load-loss measurements can be met depends
primarily on how low the load loss power factor is. The lower the load-loss power factor, the more difficult
it is to meet the 3% uncertainty specification. Again, a system-based calibration should be done to confirm
the combined overall uncertainty of the loss measurements at various load power factors. More detailed
35
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
information on traceability, calibration methods, and uncertainty analysis can be found in the document
developed by So [B16].
8. Grounding, shielding, and safety
8.1 Grounding
When two points in a measuring system are connected to the ground at two different locations, a ground
loop is formed. In the presence of ground currents caused by unbalanced three-phase load currents or line-
to-ground capacitive currents, a common-mode voltage results. This voltage, in turn, becomes a series-
mode voltage measured by the instrument, introducing errors.
To avoid the generation of series-mode voltage, it is recommended that the system be grounded only at one
point by using one of the following methods:
a) By connecting the ground terminals of the instrument and the transducer to one physical ground
point.
b) By disconnecting the grounded end of the transducer from its enclosure and grounding the entire
instrument and the enclosure of the transducer.
In any grounding modification, the safety aspects should not be compromised.
Even if the ground current and associated common-mode voltages are eliminated by grounding the system
at a single point, erroneous signals can still be introduced in the measuring circuit from the nearby power
system and other sources by magnetic and capacitive couplings. In many measurement systems, multiple
grounding and the resulting common-mode voltages cannot be avoided and remedial techniques should be
used. Popular remedial methods involve isolation transformers, bifilar or coaxial inductors (chokes),
instrumentation amplifiers, and optocouplers.
The problem of magnetic and capacitive couplings can be eliminated by the use of a coaxial connecting
cable. Such a cable has no net loop to capture extraneous magnetic flux. Also, the outer conductor of a
coaxial cable is connected to the ground and hence electrostatically shields the inner conductor. If the
connected cable is a twisted pair of conductors, the net loop to capture the flux Φ is reduced by creating a
large number of small loops in which alternatively positive and negative voltages are induced, thus nearly
eliminating any erroneous voltage. The twisted pair does not eliminate capacitive coupling but may reduce
it. Detailed information on grounding and shielding of instrumentation and transducers can be found in the
document developed by So [B16].
8.2 Shielding
Coaxial and twisted leads may not suffice for eliminating undesirable magnetic and capacitive couplings,
and additional shielding of the measuring circuit may be necessary. For example, exposed components in
the transducer or the instrument could become the points of pickup of undesirable signals. At high
frequencies, including fast surges, cables that suffice at dc or low frequencies may become inadequate.
Electrostatic fields produce not only interference in the measurement but may also permanently damage
solid-state electronic components. A properly grounded metal housing provides the most effective means of
shielding against such fields. For low frequency, such a housing can be made of sheet metal, foil, or braid.
Near perfect electrostatic shielding can be achieved for fully enclosed parts.
36
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Nonmagnetic metal enclosures with thin walls, such as those made of sheet metal, are ineffective as low-
frequency magnetic shields. In order to become effective, the wall thickness of the enclosure must be of the
same order as or larger than the penetration depth of the electromagnetic field for the particular shielding
material. Effective low-frequency magnetic shields made of conductive material must be constructed so as
not to impede the paths for the eddy currents.
High-permeability ferromagnetic materials are the best shielding materials against dc and low-frequency
magnetic fields. An effective magnetic shield should have a large cross-sectional area and a short path for
the flux that is to be shielded against.
Care should be exercised in constructing the high-permeability magnetic shields in order to avoid
discontinuities and increased reluctances in critical paths for the magnetic flux. To achieve the highest
permeability, the materials may have to be annealed after construction of the enclosure. A high level of
magnetic shielding is much more difficult to achieve than a high level of electrostatic shielding. A high
permeability magnetic shielding enclosure made of metal sheet has sufficient conductivity and thus will
serve adequately also as an electrostatic shield.
In shielding high-frequency electromagnetic waves, both electric and magnetic field components should be
considered. Near perfect shielding as in the low-frequency electrostatic case cannot be readily achieved in
practical enclosures because of limited thickness of the shielding material and because of discontinuities
such as joints, openings, and power supply leads, all of which facilitate penetration by electromagnetic
fields.
8.3 Safety
Care should be taken in any measurement to avoid coming into contact with dangerous levels of voltages
and also to avoid damage to the insulation. Leads should be kept clean and in good condition, be insulated
to withstand the voltages being accessed, and should be replaced immediately if worn or damaged.
When using instrument transformers, the possibility of an open circuit across the secondary winding of a
current transformer should be avoided. Likewise, a short circuit on the secondary winding of a potential
transformer should be avoided. All test equipment and practices should be in accordance with IEEE Std
510TM [B5].
37
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
Annex A
(informative)
Bibliography
[B1] Arseneau, R., and Moore, W.J.M., “A Method for Estimating the Sinusoidal Iron Losses of a
Transformer from Measurements Made with Distorted Voltage Waveforms,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-103, No. 10, October 1984.
[B2] Camilli, G., “A Flux Voltmeter for Magnetic Tests,” AIEE Transactions, Vol. XLV, pp. 721–728,
1926.
[B3] Filipski, P.S., “A TDM Wattmeter with 0.5-Mhz Carrier Frequency,” IEEE Transactions on
Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 15–18, February 1990.
[B4] IEEE Std 4TM, IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing.
[B5] IEEE Std 510TM, IEEE Recommended Practices for Safety in High-Voltage and High-Power
Testing.
[B6] IEEE Std C57.12.00TM, IEEE Standard General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed Distribution,
Power, and Regulating Transformers. 3, 4
[B7] IEEE Std C57.12.01TM, IEEE Standard General Requirements for Dry-Type Distribution and Power
Transformers Including Those with Solid Cast and/or Resin Encapsulated Windings.
[B8] IEEE Std C57.13TM, IEEE Standard Requirements for Instrument Transformers.
[B9] Malewski, R., Arseneau, R., So, E., and Moore, W.J.M., “A Comparison of Instrumentation for
Measuring the Losses of Large Power Transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 6, pp. 1570–1574, June 1983.
[B10] Mehta, S.P., “Measurements of Transformer Losses,” Paper No. 209-7-PWR, Part of IEEE/ PES
Tutorial presented at 1984 IEEE/ PES Winter Power Meeting.
[B11] Mehta, S.P., and Petersons, O. “Calibration of Test Systems for Measuring Power Losses of
Transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 215–222, October 1986.
[B12] Miljanic, P.N., and So, E., “An Improved Current-Comparator-Based 1000-A Transconductance
Amplifier for the In-Situ Calibration of Transformer Loss Measuring Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 861–865, July 1993.
[B13] Nakata, T., Ishihara, Y., Nakado, M., “Iron Losses of Silicon Steel Core Produced by Distorted
Flux,” Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 10–20, 1970.
[B14] Petersons O., and Mehta, S.P., “Calibration of Test Systems for Measuring Power Losses of
Transformers,” NBS Technical Note No. 1204 (1985).
3
The IEEE standards or products referred to in Annex A are trademarks owned by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Incorporated.
4
IEEE Publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway NJ 08854,
USA (http://stardards.ieee.org/).
38
IEEE Std C57.123-2010
[B15] So, E., “An Improved Frequency-Compensated Capacitance Bridge for Accurate Shunt Reactor Loss
Measurements at Very Low Power Factors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus Systems, Vol. PAS-
103, No. 5, pp. 1099–1103, May 1984.
[B16] So., E., “Electrical Power Apparatus Low Power Factor Power Measurements,” Institute for
National Measurement Standards, National Research Council, Canada, NRC 42773-02.
[B17] So, E., “The Application of the Current-Comparator Technique in Instrumentation and Measurement
Equipment for the Calibration of Non-Conventional Instrument Transformers with Non-Standard Rated
Outputs,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 46–52, January 1992.
[B18] So, E., “The Application of the Current Comparator in Instrumentation for High Voltage Power
Measurements at Very Low Power Factors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 98–
104, January 1986.
[B19] So, E., and Train, D., “In-situ Calibration of Three Different Types of Transformer Loss Measuring
Systems Using a Current-Comparator-Based Load Loss Standard,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1396–1402, October 1988.
[B20] So, E., Miljanic, P.N., and Angelo, D., “A Computer-Controlled Current-Comparator-Based Load
Loss Standard For Calibrating High-Voltage Power Measurement Systems,” IEEE 1994 Conference on
Precision Electromagnetic Measurements Digest, 94CH3449-6, pp. 236–237, June 1994.
[B21] So, E., Ren, S., and Bennett, D. A., “High-Current High-Precision Openable-Core AC and AC/DC
Current Transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 42, No. 2, April
1993.
[B22] Specht, T. R., Rademacher, L. B., and Moore, H. R., “Measurement of Iron and Copper Losses in
Transformers,” AIEE Transactions, Paper No. 58-158, August 1958.
39

STD C57.123™-2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STD C57.123™-2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STD C57.123™-2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What are some of the measurement techniques discussed?

What are some of the measurement techniques discussed?

,(((*XLGHIRU7UDQVIRUPHU/RVV

IEEE Guide for Transformer Loss

Approved 17 June 2010

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

PDF: ISBN 978-0-7381-6385-7 STD96099

Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

Laws and regulations

Updating of IEEE documents

Jim Antweiler Reto Fausch Alexander Kline

William J. Ackerman Marcel Fortin Omar Mazzoni

Robert M. Grow, Chair

Karen Bartleson Young Kyun Kim Ronald C. Petersen

Satish Aggarwal, NRC Representative

3. Transformer no-load losses ........................................................................................................................ 2

4. Transformer load losses............................................................................................................................ 18

5. Advanced measuring systems................................................................................................................... 32

6. Specified tolerances on losses .................................................................................................................. 33

7. Traceability and calibration ...................................................................................................................... 35

8. Grounding, shielding, and safety.............................................................................................................. 36

Annex A (informative) Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 38

The purpose of the guide is

3. Transformer no-load losses

3.2 Parameters affecting magnitude of no-load losses

3.2.2 Excitation voltage magnitude

3.2.3 Excitation voltage waveform

Figure 1—Transformer supply circuit at no-load test

where from Figure 1

Vex is the excitation voltage

VS = VS sin (ωt ) (1)

I ex = ∑n I exn cos(nωt + φn ) (3)

Vex = Vs − ∑n Z Sn I exn (4)

Xs is the source reactance

φn is the phase-angle for harmonic n

Figure 2—A typical excitation current waveform and harmonic content

3.2.4 Core configuration

⎯ Three-legged vs. five-legged cores

3.2.5 Core material

3.2.6 Joint type

3.2.7 Core size

3.2.10 Core temperature

3.2.11 Impulse tests

3.2.12 Core stabilization

3.2.13 Short-circuit testing

3.3 Excitation current (no-load current)

Figure 3—Vector diagram of the component of the excitation current

where from Figure 3

VS is the supply voltage

Ich is the charging current

Figure 4—Excitation current components at different excitation voltage levels

3.4 Test requirements

a) Voltage is equal to rated voltage unless specified otherwise.

3.5 Measurement of no-load losses

3.5.1 Measuring circuit

3.5.2 Waveform correction