Technical Brief

Development of a Finite Element Model for Pressure Test Simulation of Transformer Tanks With Skid Bases

[+] Author and Article Information
Mir Aamir Abbas

Aadyah Aerospace,
Bangalore 560067, India
e-mail: friendabbas@gmail.com

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 27, 2018; final manuscript received October 19, 2018; published online December 7, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Kiminobu Hojo.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 141(1), 014501 (Dec 07, 2018) (5 pages) Paper No: PVT-18-1065; doi: 10.1115/1.4041863 History: Received March 27, 2018; Revised October 19, 2018

Deciding the boundary conditions is the most difficult part of developing an effective finite element model. Incorrect boundary conditions can cause significant errors in analysis. The finite element analysis has become a popular method of design validation for the transformer tank but the boundary conditions to be used for simulating the pressure test by finite element analysis are not clear. The pressure test analysis is carried out by assuming the bottom surface of the transformer tank to be fixed. This common practice has not been validated and requires verification. In this work, a generalized model of the transformer tank under the pressure was solved to eliminate the assumption, and the results were compared with those of the usual practice. It was found that there was significant difference in the results of the two models indicating the incorrectness of the usual practice.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


ASME, 2017, “ ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division I, Pressure Vessels,” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Sturgess, J. , 2005, “ Virtual Valuations [Transformer Testing],” Power Eng., 19(2), pp. 22–24.
Gentzlinger, R. C. , and Christensen, K. E. , 1991, “ A Guideline for Design, Analysis, and Fabrication of Vacuum Vessels for Cryogenic Accelerators,” Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference, Vol. 4, San Francisco, CA, May 6–9, pp. 2263–2265.
Hackl, A. , and Hamberger, P. , 2012, “ Predict the Rupture of Transformer Tanks With Static FEM Analysis,” XXth International Conference on Electrical Machines, Marseille, France, Sept. 2–5, pp. 2358–2361.
Yan, C. , Hao, Z. , Zhang, S. , Zhang, B. , and Zheng, T. , 2015, “ Numerical Methods for the Analysis of Power Transformer Tank Deformation and Rupture Due to Internal Arcing Faults,” PLoS One, 10(7), p. e0133851. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
CBIP, 2006, “Manual on Transformer, Section—A, PP-A18,” Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, India, Publication No. 295.
Dubey, P. , Shendge, A. , and Deshmukh, N. K. , 2005, “ Non Linear Simulation in Optimization of Transformer Tank,” International Conference, pp. 55–59.
Diamantoudis, A. T. , and Kermanidis, T. , 2005, “ Design by Analysis Versus Design by Formula of High Strength Steel Pressure Vessels: A Comparative Study,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 82(1), pp. 43–50. [CrossRef]
KlausJürgen, B. , Eduardo, D. , and Lee, W. H. , 1983, “ Our Discrete-Kirchhoff and Isoparametric Shell Elements for Nonlinear Analysis—An Assessment,” Comput. Struct., 16(1–4), pp. 89–98.
Cook, R. D. , Concepts and Application of Finite Element Analysis, Wiley, New York.
Paytena, W. , and Lawb, M. , 1998, “ Estimating the Plastic Collapse of Pressure Vessels Using Plasticity Contours,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 75(7), pp. 529–536. [CrossRef]
Besson, J. , Cailletaud, G. , Chaboche, J. L. , Forest, S. , Blétry, M. , and Gladwell, G. M. L. , 2010, “ 3D plasticity and viscoplasticity,” Non-Linear Mechanics of Materials (Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, Vol. 167). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Timoshenko, S. , 2002, Strength of Material Advanced Theory and Problems, CBS Publisher, New York.
Ansys, Inc., 2017, “Ansys Help, ANSYS Version 17.2, ANSYS Theory Reference,” Canonsburg, PA.
Kim, N. H., 2015, “Finite Element Analysis for Contact Problems,” Introduction to Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis, Springer, New York, pp. 367–426.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of model 1 and model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Boundary conditions for the transformer tank in model1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Finite element mesh used for the modeling the tank

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stress—strain curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Kinematic hardening

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Loading–unloading diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Boundary conditions for model 2 with loading at time of 1 h

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Interaction between the ground and the tank bottom plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Permanent deflection in model 1 (deflection at time = 2h)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Deflection under load (deflection at time = 1 h)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Permanent deflection model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Under load deformation (total deformation) model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contour of permanent deflections in model 1 in the same scale of displacement as model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Contour of under-load deflections in model 1 in the same scale of displacement as model 2



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In