BEST PRACTICE MANUAL

T TR RA AN NS SF FO OR RM ME ER RS S










Prepared for



Bureau of Energy Efficiency,
(under Ministry of Power, Government of India)
Hall no.4, 2
nd
Floor, NBCC Tower,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 110066.
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency,
Core 4A, East Court,
1
st
Floor, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003
.



By

Devki Energy Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.,
405, Ivory Terrace, R.C. Dutt Road,
Vadodara – 390007, India.


2006

2
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................4
1.1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................................................4
1.2 A GUIDE TO THIS GUIDE.......................................................................................................................................................4
2. FUNDAMENTALS ..........................................................................................................................................................5
2.1. PRINCIPLE OF TRANSFORMER ACTION..........................................................................................................................5
2.2. SAMPLE CALCULATION...............................................................................................................................................7
2.4 PARALLEL OPERATION OF TRANSFORMERS..................................................................................................................8
2.5. LOSSES IN TRANSFORMERS........................................................................................................................................8
2.5.1. Dielectric Losses...............................................................................................................................................9
2.5.2. Hysteresis Loss.................................................................................................................................................9
2.5.3. Eddy Current Losses in the Core.....................................................................................................................10
2.5.4. Resistive losses in the windings ......................................................................................................................10
2.5.5. Eddy Current Losses in conductors: ................................................................................................................11
2.3.6 Extra Eddy Losses in Structural Parts .............................................................................................................12
3. TRANSFORMER OPERATIONS..................................................................................................................................13
3.1 VARIATION OF LOSSES DURING OPERATION................................................................................................................13
3.1.1. Variation of losses with loading level ...............................................................................................................13
3.1.2. Variation in Constant losses............................................................................................................................14
3.1.3. Variation in Load Losses .................................................................................................................................14
3.2. LOSS MINIMISATION IN APPLICATION & OPERATION ...................................................................................................14
3.2.1. Selection of Rating and Number of Transformers ............................................................................................14
3.2.2. Energy Saving by Under-utilisation of transformers .........................................................................................15
3.2.3. Reduction of losses due to improvement of power factor.................................................................................15
3.3. SEGREGATION OF NON LINEAR LOADS.......................................................................................................................16
3.4. EFFECT OF OPERATING TEMPERATURE ......................................................................................................................16
3.5. ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF HARMONICS..................................................................................................................16
3.5.1. U.S. Practice – K- Factor.................................................................................................................................17
3.5.2. European Practice- ‘Factor K’..........................................................................................................................18
4. REDUCTION OF LOSSES AT DESIGN STAGE...........................................................................................................20
4.1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................20
4.2. MINIMISING IRON LOSSES.........................................................................................................................................20
4.2.1. Losses in Core................................................................................................................................................20
4.2.2. Amorphous cores............................................................................................................................................21
4.3. MINIMISING COPPER LOSSES ....................................................................................................................................22
4.4. CHOICE OF LIQUID-FILLED OR DRY TYPE.....................................................................................................................22
5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................24
1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................24
5.2 TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST OF TRANSFORMERS ...........................................................................................................24
5.3 DECISIONS FOR CHANGEOVER TO NEW EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................25
5.4 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS...........................................................................................................................................25
6 CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................................................................27
6.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................27
6.2 CASE STUDY 1.........................................................................................................................................................27
Illustrative Calculations .....................................................................................................................................................27
6.2.1 Factor for Harmonics.......................................................................................................................................28
6.2.2 Percentage of Eddy Losses in Load Losses: ...................................................................................................29
6.2.3 Full load losses for Harmonic Loading: ............................................................................................................29
6.2.4 Relative economics for low loss transformers (All Dry type).............................................................................29
6.2.5 Summary:........................................................................................................................................................31
6.3 CASE STUDY-2: NON FERROUS METAL SECTOR .........................................................................................................31
6.4 CASE STUDY-3: PAPER & PULP COMPANY................................................................................................................32
6.5 CASE STUDY-4 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY .....................................................................................................................33
6.6 CASE STUDY 5 CASE OF A LARGE DATA HOTEL START UP.......................................................................................33
6.7 SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN CASE STUDIES: .................................................................................................................34
6.8 CASE STUDY 6: TEA INDUSTRY (INDIA) ......................................................................................................................34
6.9 CASE STUDY 7: STEEL MILL (INDIA) ..........................................................................................................................35
6.10 CASE STUDY-8: AUTOMOBILE PLANT (INDIA).............................................................................................................36
6.11 CASE STUDY -9: IMPROVING RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY.......................................................................................37
6.12 CASE STUDY-10: USE OF AMORPHOUS CORE TRANSFORMERS...................................................................................38
ANNEXURE-1: GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLING TRANSFORMERS.....................................................................................39
ANNEXURE-2: MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES.......................................................................................................................42
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................46
3

List of figures

Figure 2-1: Relationship between current, magnetic field strength and flux ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 2-2: Transformer schematic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2-3: Transformer construction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-4: B-H Loop................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-5 Core lamination to reduce eddy current losses .......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-6: Sectionalised transformer winding - Schematic ........................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4-1: Amorphous core -ribbons.................................................................................................................................................................. 21


List of Tables

Table 3-1: Comparison of transformer losses................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3-2: Estimation for K factor.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3-3: Estimation of Factor K.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 4-1: Evolution of core material ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 4-2: Comparison of Losses – Oil type and dry type ........................................................................................................................... 23
Table 5-1: Comparison of transformers .............................................................................................................................................................. 25
Table 6-1input data 1250 kV transformer........................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 6-2 1250 kVA transformer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 6-3 1600 kVA transformer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 6-4 : Outcome 1000 kVA transformer...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 6-5: Annual savings potential .................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 6-6: Input data of 3150 kVA transformer ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Table 6-7 Outcome of 3150 kVA transformer ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 6-8: Parameter sensitivity on the payback period............................................................................................................................... 34
Table 6-9: electricity losses over a year.............................................................................................................................................................. 37
Table 6-10: Costs over 10 years. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 37




4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Distribution transformers are very efficient, with losses of less than 0.5% in large units. Smaller units have
efficiencies of 97% or above. It is estimated that transformer losses in power distribution networks can
exceed 3% of the total electrical power generated. In India, for an annual electricity consumption of about
500 billion kWh, this would come to around 15 billion kWh.
Reducing losses can increase transformer efficiency. There are two components that make up
transformer losses. The first is "core" loss (also called no-load loss), which is the result of the
magnetizing and de-magnetizing of the core during normal operation. Core loss occurs whenever the
transformer is energized; core loss does not vary with load. The second component of loss is called
coil or load loss, because the efficiency losses occur in the primary and secondary coils of the
transformer. Coil loss is a function of the resistance of the winding materials and varies with the load
on the transformer.
In selecting equipments, one often conveniently avoids the concept of life cycle costing. But the truth is that
even the most efficient energy transfer equipment like a transformer, concept of life cycle cost is very much
relevant. The total cost of owning and operating a transformer must be evaluated, since the unit will be in
service for decades. The only proper method to evaluate alternatives is to request the manufacturer or
bidder to supply the load and no-load losses, in watts. Then, simple calculations can reveal anticipated
losses at planned loading levels. Frequently, a small increase in purchase price will secure a unit with lower
operating costs.
The load profile of electronic equipment—from the computer in the office to the variable speed drive
in the factory—drives both additional losses and unwanted distortion. Since transformer
manufacturers test only under ideal (linear) conditions, a substantial gap exists between published
loss data and actual losses incurred after installation. In fact, test results published in a 1996 IEEE
Transaction paper documented an almost tripling of transformer losses when feeding 60kW of
computer load rather than linear load. Slightly different practices are followed in USA and UK to
account for harmonics while selecting transformers.
1.2 A guide to this guide
This Best Practice Manual for Electric Transformers summarise the approach for energy conservation
measures pertaining to selection, application and operation of electric distribution transformers.
The details of design methodology and the varied approaches for materials, construction are not in the
scope of this manual. However, some theoretical aspects are discussed where ever deemed fit.
Chapter-2 discusses principles of transformer action, description of losses and effect of non linear loads on
transformer efficiency.
Chapter-3 discusses design aspects of transformers to improve efficiency
Chapter-4 discusses loss Minimisation in application and operation
Chapter-5 discusses principles of economic evaluation of transformers
Chapter-6 discusses case studies from Indian and International scenario
Annexures are given to familiarize the users with the installation and maintenance of transformers


5
2. FUNDAMENTALS

2.1. Principle of transformer action
A current flowing through a coil produces a magnetic field around the coil. The magnetic field strength H,
required to produce a magnetic field of flux density B, is proportional to the current flowing in the coil. Figure
2.1 shown below explains the above principle

Figure 2-1: Relationship between current, magnetic field strength and flux
The above principle is used in all transformers.
A transformer is a static piece of apparatus used for transferring power from one circuit to another at a
different voltage, but without change in frequency. It can raise or lower the voltage with a corresponding
decrease or increase of current.
V
p
I
p
N
p
I
s
N
s
V
s
R
t
B
A N V p p


− =
t
B
A N V s s


− =
p
s
p
s
N
N
V
V
=
field Magnetic

Figure 2-2: Transformer schematic
When a changing voltage is applied to the primary winding, the back e.m.fs generated by the primary is
given by Faraday’s law,
EMF =
t
B
A N V p p


− = ---- (1)
A Current in the primary winding produces a magnetic field in the core. The magnetic field is almost totally
confined in the iron core and couples around through the secondary coil. The induced voltage in the
secondary winding is also given by Faraday’s law
6
t
B
A N V s s


− = ----- (2)
The rate of change of flux is the same as that in primary winding. Dividing equation (2) by (1) gives

p
s
p
s
N
N
V
V
=

In Figure 2.2, the primary and secondary coils are shown on separate legs of the magnetic circuit so
that we can easily understand how the transformer works. Actually, half of the primary and secondary
coils are wound on each of the two legs, with sufficient insulation between the two coils and the core
to properly insulate the windings from one another and the core. A transformer wound, such
as in Figure 2.2, will operate at a greatly reduced effectiveness due to the magnetic leakage.
Magnetic leakage is the part of the magnetic flux that passes through either one of the coils, but not
through both. The larger the distance between the primary and secondary windings, the longer the
magnetic circuit and the greater the leakage. The following figure shows actual construction of a
single phase transformer.


Figure 2-3: Transformer construction
The voltage developed by transformer action is given by

E = core max A B N f 4.44 × × × ×

Where E = rated coil voltage (volts),
f = operating frequency (hertz),
N = number of turns in the winding,
B
max
= maximum flux density in the core (tesla), and
A
core
, = cross-sectional area of the core material in Sq. metres.

In addition to the voltage equation, a power equation expressing the volt-ampere rating in terms of
the other input parameters is also used in transformer design. Specifically, the form of the equation is

VA = cond core max A J A B N f 4.44 × × × × × ×

Where, N, B
max
, A
core
and f are as defined above, J is the current density (A/ sq. mm), and A
cond
is the
coil cross-sectional area (mm
2
) in the core window; of the conducting material for primary winding. J
depends upon heat dissipation and cooling.
7

2.2. Sample calculation

A 50 Hz transformer with 1000 turns on primary and 100 turns on secondary, maximum flux density
of 1.5 Tesla and core area of 0.01 m
2
. J is taken as 2 Amps/Sq. mm and A
cond
as 30 mm
2
for this
illustration. Voltage developed is given by

In primary winding,

E
primary
= 4.44 x f x Np x B
max
x A
core
,
= 4.44 X 50 X 1000 X 1.5 X 0.01
= 3330 Volts

In secondary winding

E
secondary
= 4.44 x f x Ns x B
max
x A
core
,
= 4.44 X 50 X 100 X 1.5 X 0.01
= 333 Volts

Volt-ampere capability is given by the following relationship:

Power rating = 4.44 x f x Np x B
max
x A
core
x J x A
cond
, X 0.001 KVA.
= 4.44 X 50 X 1000 X 1.5 X 0.01 X 2 X 30 X 0.001
= 200 kVA approximately.

Actual Rated KVA = Rated Voltage X Rated Current X 10
-3
for single phase transformers.

Rated KVA = V
-
3 X Rated Line Voltage X Rated Line Current X 10
-3
for three phase transformers.

2.3. Winding connection designations
The winding connections in a transformer are designated as follows.
High Voltage Always capital letters
Delta - D
Star - S
Interconnected star - Z
Neutral brought out - N

Low voltage Always small letters
Delta - d
Star - s
interconnected star - z
Neutral brought out - n

Phase displacement: Phase rotation is always anti-clockwise. (International adopted convention).
Use the hour indicator as the indicating phase displacement angle. Because there are 12 hours on a
clock, and a circle consists out of 360°, each hour represents 30°.

Thus 1 = 30°, 2 = 60°, 3 = 90°, 6 = 180°and 12 = 0°or 360°.

The minute hand is set on 12 o'clock and replaces the line to neutral voltage (sometimes imaginary)
of the HV winding. This position is always the reference point. Because rotation is anti-clockwise, 1 =
30°lagging (LV lags HV with 30°) and 11 = 330°lagging or 30°leading (LV leads HV with 30°)

To summarise:

Dd0:Delta connected HV winding, delta connected LV winding, no phase shift between HV and LV.
Dyn11:Delta connected HV winding, star connected LV winding with neutral brought out, LV is
leading HV with 30°
8
YNd5: Star connected HV winding with neutral brought out, delta connected LV winding, LV lags HV
with 150°

2.4 Parallel operation of transformers

The parallel operation of transformers is common in any industry. This mode of operation is
frequently required. When operating two or more transformers in parallel, their satisfactory
performance requires that they have:

1. The same voltage-ratio
2. The same per-unit (or percentage) impedance
3. The same polarity
4. The same phase-sequence and zero relative phase-displacement

Out of these conditions 3 and 4 are absolutely essential and condition 1 must be satisfied to a close
degree. There is more latitude with condition 2, but the more nearly it is true, the better will be the
load-division between the several transformers.

Voltage Ratio: An equal voltage-ratio is necessary to avoid no-load circulating current, other wise it
will lead to unnecessary losses. The impedance of transformers is small, so that a small percentage
voltage difference may be sufficient to circulate a considerable current and cause additional I
2
R loss.
When the secondaries are loaded, the circulating current will tend to produce unequal loading
conditions and it may be impossible to take the combined full-load output from the parallel-connected
group without one of the transformers becoming excessive hot.

Impedance: The impedances of two transformers may differ in magnitude and in quality (i.e. ratio of
resistance to reactance) and it is necessary to distinguish between per-unit and numerical
impedance. Consider two transformers of ratings in the ratio 2:1. To carry double the current, the
former must have half the impedance of the latter for the same regulation. The regulation must,
however, be the same for parallel operation, this condition being enforced by the parallel connection.
Hence the currents carried by two transformers are proportional to their ratings, if their numerical or
ohmic impedances are inversely proportional to those ratings, and their per-unit impedances are
identical.

A difference in quality of the per-unit impedance results in a divergence of phase angle of the two
currents, so that one transformer will be working with a higher, and the other with a lower, power
factor than that of the combined output.

Polarity: This can be either right or wrong. If wrong it results in a dead short circuit.

Phase-Sequence: This condition is associated only with polyphase transformers. Two transformers
giving secondary voltages with a phase-displacement cannot be used for transformers intended for
parallel-operation. The phase sequence or the order, in which the phases reach their maximum
positive voltages, must be identical for two paralleling transformers; otherwise during the cycle each
pair of phases will be short-circuited.

The two power transformers shall be paralleled only for a short duration, because they may be risking
a higher fault level during this short period. The system impedance reduces when the two or more
transformers are paralleled and hence increases the fault level of the system.

2.5. Losses in Transformers

The losses in a transformer are as under.

1. Dielectric Loss
2. Hysteresis Losses in the Core
3. Eddy current losses in the Core
4. Resistive Losses in the winding conductors
5. Increased resistive losses due to Eddy Current Losses in conductors.
6. For oil immersed transformers, extra eddy current losses in the tank structure.
9

Basic description of the factors affecting these losses is given below.

2.5.1. Dielectric Losses

This loss occurs due to electrostatic stress reversals in the insulation. It is roughly proportional to
developed high voltage and the type and thickness of insulation. It varies with frequency. It is
negligibly small and is roughly constant. (Generally ignored in medium voltage transformers while
computing efficiency).

2.5.2. Hysteresis Loss
A sizeable contribution to no-load losses comes from hysteresis losses. Hysteresis losses originate
from the molecular magnetic domains in the core laminations, resisting being magnetized and
demagnetized by the alternating magnetic field.
Each time the magnetising force produced by the primary of a transformer changes because of the
applied ac voltage, the domains realign them in the direction of the force. The energy to accomplish
this realignment of the magnetic domains comes from the input power and is not transferred to the
secondary winding. It is therefore a loss. Because various types of core materials have different
magnetizing abilities, the selection of core material is an important factor in reducing core losses.
Hysteresis is a part of core loss. This depends upon the area of the magnetising B-H loop and
frequency. Refer Fig 2.4 for a typical BH Loop.


Figure 2-4: B-H Loop
Energy input and retrieval while increasing and decreasing current. Loss per half cycle equals half of
the area of Hysteresis Loop. The B-H loop area depends upon the type of core material and
maximum flux density. It is thus dependent upon the maximum limits of flux excursions i.e. B
max
, the
type of material and frequency. Typically, this accounts for 50% of the constant core losses for
CRGO (Cold Rolled Grain Oriented) sheet steel with normal design practice.

Hysteresis Losses,
1.6
m h h B f K W × × = Watts/Kg.

Where Kh = the hysteresis constant
f = Frequency in Hertz
B
m
= Maximum flux density in Tesla

10

2.5.3. Eddy Current Losses in the Core

The alternating flux induces an EMF in the bulk of the core proportional to flux density and frequency.
The resulting circulating current depends inversely upon the resistivity of the material and directly
upon the thickness of the core. The losses per unit mass of core material, thus vary with square of
the flux density, frequency and thickness of the core laminations.

By using a laminated core, (thin sheets of silicon steel instead of a solid core) the path of the eddy
current is broken up without increasing the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. Refer fig 2.5 below for a
comparison of solid iron core and a laminated iron core.

Fig. 2.5B shows a solid core, which is split up by laminations of thickness ‘
d1’
and depth d
2
as shown
in C. This is shown pictorially in 2.5 A.




Figure 2-5 Core lamination to reduce eddy current losses
Eddy Losses,
2 2
m e e t f B K W
2
× × × = Watts/Kg.

Where Ke = the eddy current constant
f = Frequency in Hertz.
B
m
= Maximum flux density in Tesla
t = Thickness of lamination strips.

For reducing eddy losses, higher resistivity core material and thinner (Typical thickness of
laminations is 0.35 mm) lamination of core are employed. This loss decreases very slightly with
increase in temperature. This variation is very small and is neglected for all practical purposes. Eddy
losses contribute to about 50% of the core losses.

2.5.4. Resistive losses in the windings

These represent the main component of the load dependent or the variable losses, designated as I
2
R
or copper losses. They vary as square of the r.m.s current in the windings and directly with D.C.
resistance of winding. The resistance in turn varies with the resistivity, the conductor dimensions; and
the temperature.

A
l ρ
R
×
=

Where R = Winding resistance, Ω
ρ = Resistivity in Ohms - mm
2
/m.
l = Length of conductor in metres
A = Area of cross section of the conductor, mm
2


In addition, these losses vary with winding temperature and thus will vary with the extent of loading
and method of cooling. The winding resistance at a temperature T
L
is given by the following equation.
11

|
¹
|

\
|
+
+
× =
235 T
235 T
R R
0
L
0 L The constant 235 is for Copper. For Aluminium, use 225 or 227
for Alloyed Aluminium.

Where R
0
= Winding resistance at temperature T
0
, Ω
R
L
= Winding resistance at temperature, T
L,


The r.m.s value of current will depend upon the load level and also the harmonic distortion of the
current.

2.5.5. Eddy Current Losses in conductors:
Conductors in transformer windings are subjected to alternating leakage fluxes created by winding currents.
Leakage flux paths, which pass through the cross section of the conductor, induce voltages, which vary
over the cross section. These varying linkages are due to self-linkage as also due to proximity of adjacent
current carrying conductors. These induced voltages, create circulating currents within the conductor
causing additional losses. These losses are varying as the square of the frequency.
For an isolated conductor in space, the varying self-linkage over the section, leads to clustering of the
current near the conductor periphery. This is known as Skin Effect. The same effect, with the addition of
flux from surrounding conductors, (Proximity effect) leads to extra losses in thick conductors for transformer
windings. These losses are termed as Eddy Current Losses in conductors.
The Test Certificate mentions the load losses, which include these eddy losses in conductors at supply
frequency (50 Hertz) as also the eddy losses in tank structure in general at the same frequency in the case
of oil cooled transformers. For dry type transformers, tank losses are absent.
The contribution of eddy losses including tank losses, over the basic copper losses for an equivalent D.C.
current, can be estimated from the difference in measured load losses and expected copper losses at the
test current at the test temperature. For normal designs it ranges from 5% to 15%. Detailed subdivision is
available only from design data. It can be taken as 10% of load losses in the absence of specific design
data. These extra losses vary with square of frequency and square of per unit harmonic current.
The eddy losses in the tank structure are equivalent to the dissipation in a loaded secondary with leakage
reactance. The variation is not as the square of frequency, and it is customary to take a value of 0.8 for the
exponent.
The Eddy losses in a thick conductor can be reduced by decreasing the radial thickness by sectionalising
the conductors (multi-stranded) and increasing the axial dimension. The sectionalised conductor has to be
transposed to make it occupy all possible positions to equalise the e.m.fs to the extent possible.
A simplified expression for eddy current losses in conductors is given below.














Figure 2-6: Sectionalised transformer winding - Schematic


1


2


N-1


N
w
L L
C

W/N
12
The total radial thickness of conductor of W cm is subdivided into N parts of W/N thickness each. Ke is the
ratio of the total losses including eddy loss, to the loss due to D.C. current.
Ke = ( )
2
4
9
N
αW/N 1 × +
Where α =
( )
L ρ
Lc f 10 4π π
7
×
× × × ×

where 4π X 10
–7
is permeability of space.
Where Lc = Axial length of coil.
L = Window Height
W = Radial total conductor width in metres
W’= Width per subdivision W/N in centimeters.
ρ = Resistivity, in Ohm-metres
For Copper at 60 °C,
L
Lc
100 α × ≈ . ρ= 2 X 10
–8
Ohm-metres
If W’ is in cm, W = W’/100
Hence αW/N
L
Lc
w'× ≈ , α
4
is thus proportional to f
2
.
As the number of subdivisions increase, W’ becomes smaller and Ke comes nearer to 1; but always above
1. For a given geometry, eddy losses increase as square of frequency.
It is important to transpose each layer so that each layer is connected in series with a path in each one of
the possible N positions before being paralleled. Thus circulating current is forced to flow in a relatively very
thin conductor.
2.3.6 Extra Eddy Losses in Structural Parts
Some leakage flux invariably goes in air paths away from the transformer. Strength of this stray flux
diminishes and varies inversely with distance. If it links with any conducting material, it will produce eddy
losses in that material. For oil immersed transformers, some stray flux links with some parts of the tank and
causes extra eddy current losses in the structure. These losses are absent in dry type transformers.
Similarly, extra flux due to outgoing L.T. conductors carrying large currents cause extra eddy current losses
in the structural portion surrounding the leads.
Both these losses vary with frequency
0.8
, as stated earlier.


The above discussion on transformer losses is given only to gain familiarity with the fundamental principles.
The most important losses are core loss and copper loss. The other losses are described mainly to give a
complete picture on losses.






13
3. TRANSFORMER OPERATIONS

3.1 Variation of losses during operation
The losses vary during the operation of a transformer due to loading, voltage changes, harmonics and
operating temperature.
3.1.1. Variation of losses with loading level
% Efficiency =
Losses Output
100 Output
+
×

=
T p L.L. N.L 1000 p.f. rating kVA P
100 1000 p.f. rating kVA P
2
× × + + × × ×
× × × ×

Where,
p = per unit loading
N.L. = No load losses in Watts
L.L. = Load losses in Watts at full load, at 75 °C
T = Temperature correction factor
p.f. = Load power factor

The basic D.C. resistance copper losses are assumed to be 90% of the load losses. Eddy current losses
(in conductors) are assumed to be 10% of the load losses. Basic I
2
R losses increase with temperature,
while eddy losses decreases with increase in temperature. Thus, 90% of the load losses vary directly with
rise in temperature and 10% of the load losses vary inversely with temperature. Calculations are usually
done for an assumed temperature rise, and the rise in temperature is dependant on the total losses to be
dissipated.

Operating temperature = Ambient temperature + Temperature rise

To estimate the variation in resistance with temperature, which in turn depends on the loading of the
transformer, the following relationship is used.

ref
rise amb
re T
op T
T F
T T F
f R
R
+
+ +
=




Where F= 234.5 for Copper,
= 225 for Aluminium
= 227 for alloyed Aluminium
R
T-op
= Resistance at operating temperature
T
ref =
Standard reference temperature, 75 C

Temperature correction factor, T =
e temperatur reference at losses Load
e temperatur operating at losses Load

= |
¹
|

\
|
× + |
¹
|

\
|
×




op T
ref T
ref T
op T
R
R
0.1
R
R
0.9
If a more realistic subdivision of load losses is known from design data, the above expression can be
modified accordingly.
If operating temperature is 100 C,
75 234.5
100 234.5
f R
R
re T
op T
+
+
=


= 1.0808
Hence T = 0.9 x 1.0808 +0.1/1.0808 = 1.06523

14
3.1.2. Variation in Constant losses

The iron loss measured by no load test is constant for a given applied voltage. These losses vary as
the square of the voltage.

Variation in iron losses due to system voltage harmonics: The system input voltage may contain
voltage harmonics due to aggregate system pollution in the grid. The current harmonics of the local
harmonic load adds to this by causing additional harmonic voltage drop depending upon magnitude of a
particular harmonic and the system short circuit impedance at the point of supply, and the transformer
impedance for that specific harmonic frequency. The combined total harmonics affect the flux waveform
and give added iron losses. The increase in constant loss is quite small, due to this voltage distortion.
3.1.3. Variation in Load Losses

About 90%of the load losses as measured by short circuit test are due to I
2
R losses in the windings.
They vary with the square of the current and also with winding temperature.

Load Losses =
( ) |
¹
|

\
|
+
+
× ×
ref
op
2
T F
T F
Load Full at Losses Load Loading Unit Per

F = Temperature coefficient = 234.5 for Copper and 227 for Aluminium.
T
ref
= 75 °C usually, or as prescribed in the test certificate
Variation in load losses due to load power factor: Any reduction in current for the same kW load by
improvement in p.f. reduces load losses.
Variation in losses due to current harmonics: The system current harmonics increase the r.m.s current
and thus increase the basic I
2
R losses. In addition, the major increase comes from the variation in eddy
current losses in the windings (Usually 5 to 10% of the total load losses), which vary with the square of the
frequency.
3.2. Loss Minimisation in Application & Operation
Transformers have a long life and do not generally suffer from technical obsolescence. The application
details are not clearly known during selection and the load and the type of load also changes with time.
Hence transformer rating is likely to be over-specified. However, this is generally not a disadvantage from
the view point of energy consumption. The usual best efficiency point is near 50% load.
3.2.1. Selection of Rating and Number of Transformers
In general, selection of only one transformer of large rating gives maximum efficiency and simpler
installation. For large plants with long in plant distances, two or more transformers of equal rating may be
selected. Moreover for critical continuous operation plants, power may be had from two independent
feeders at similar or different voltage levels. In all such cases, each transformer may be sufficient to run the
plant. Thus normal operation may be at 50% load. Such a situation can lead to lower than 25% load at
times. For non-continuous operation of plants with holidays or seasonal industries, switching off one
transformer to save part load losses is generally considered.
Planning for growth of loads and addition of non linear loads is becoming increasingly important. The
factors to be considered are:
• Expected growth of load over around five to ten years
• Margin for minimum 15 to 20% growth
• 10 to 15% margin for non-linear loads
• Availability of standard rating
Generally, 30 to 50% excess capacity reduces load losses, but the extra first cost is rarely justified by
energy saving alone. On the contrary, a close realistic estimate permits extra first cost on a smaller
15
transformer designed on the basis of Least Total Ownership Cost ( TOC) basis. Economic evaluation of
transformers is discussed in chapter 5.
For nonlinear loads, transformers with minimum eddy losses in total load loss are preferred. Transformer
losses may be specified at a standard reference temperature of 75 C. They have to be corrected to
expected site operating temperature. Basic I
2
R losses increase with temperature, while eddy losses
decrease with increase in temperature.
For nonlinear loads, the derating factor may be worked out taking a K-factor of 20. Details of K factor
evaluation are given in section 3.4 of this chapter. This will need derating of 12% for 10% nonlinear load to
about 27% for 40% nonlinear load.
The load factor affects the load losses materially and an estimate of annual r.m.s. load current value is
useful. Transformers with relatively low no load losses( Amorphous Core Type) will maintain good
efficiency at very low loads and will help in cases where high growth is expected, but risk of slow growth is
to be minimised.
3.2.2. Energy Saving by Under-utilisation of transformers
Table 3.1 summarises the variation in losses and efficiency for a 1000 kVA transformer and also shows the
difference in losses by using a 1600 kVA transformer for the same. The 1000 kVA transformer has a no
load loss of 1700 watts and load loss of 10500 Watts at 100% load. The corresponding figures for 1600
kVA transformer are 2600 Watts and 17000 Watts respectively. Loading is by linear loads. Temperatures
assumed equal.
Table 3-1: Comparison of transformer losses
1000 kVA,
No load losses = 1700 W
1600 kVA.
No load losses =
2600 W
Difference in
losses, W
Per
unit
load
Load
losses,
W
Total
losses,
W
Output,
kW
Efficiency,
%
Load
losses,
W
Total
losses,
W

0.1 105 1805 100 98.23 60 2660 861
0.2 420 2120 200 98.95 265 2865 745
0.3 945 2645 300 99.13 597 3197 552
0.4 1680 3380 400 99.16 1062 3662 282
0.5 2625 4325 500 99.14 1660 4267 -58
0.6 3780 5480 600 99.09 2390 4990 -490
0.7 5145 6845 700 99.03 3258 5853 -992
0.8 6720 8420 800 98.96 4250 6850 -1570
0.9 8505 10205 900 98.88 5379 7979 -2226
1.0 10500 12200 1000 98.78 6640 9240 -2960

The efficiency of 1000 kVA transformer is maximum at about 40% load. Using 1600 kVA transformer
causes under loading for 1000 kW load. The last column shows the extra power loss due to oversized
transformer. As expected, at light loads, there is extra loss due to dominance of no load losses. Beyond
50% load, there is saving which is 2.96 kW at 1000 kW load.
The saving by using a 1600 kVA transformer in place of a 1000 kVA transformer at 1000 kW load for 8760
hours/annum is 25960 kWh/year. @Rs 5.0 /kWh, this is worth Rs 1.29 lakhs. The extra first cost would be
around Rs 10.0 lakhs. Hence deliberate over sizing is not economically viable.
3.2.3. Reduction of losses due to improvement of power factor
Transformer load losses vary as square of current. Industrial power factor vary from 0.6 to 0.8. Thus the
loads tend to draw 60% to 25% excess current due to poor power factor. For the same kW load, current
drawn is proportional to KW/pf. If p.f. is improved to unity at load end or transformer secondary, the saving
in load losses is as under.
16
Saving in load losses = (Per unit loading as per kW)
2
X Load losses at full load X
|
|
¹
|

\
|

1
pf
1
2

Thus, if p.f is 0.8 and it is improved to unity, the saving will be 56.25% over existing level of load losses.
This is a relatively simple opportunity to make the most of the existing transformer and it should not be
missed. It should also be kept in mind that correction of p.f downstream saves on cable losses, which may
be almost twice in value compared to transformer losses.
3.3. Segregation of non linear loads
In new installations, non-linear loads should be segregated from linear loads. Apart from ease of separation
and monitoring of harmonics, it can be supplied from a transformer which is specially designed for handling
harmonics. The propagation of harmonics can be controlled much more easily and problems can be
confined to known network. Perhaps a smaller than usual transformer will help in coordinating short circuit
protection for network as well as active devices. The only disadvantage apart from additional cost is the
increased interdependence of sensitive loads.
3.4. Effect of operating temperature
The losses have to be dissipated through the surface area. When the transformer volume increases, the
ratio of surface area to volume reduces. Thus, larger transformers are difficult to cool. Oil cooling uses a
liquid insulating medium for heat transfer. In cold countries the ambient temperature is lower, giving a lower
operating temperature. In tropical countries, ambient temperature is higher giving a higher operating
temperature.
Oil cooled transformers operate at lower temperatures compared to dry type transformers. Every 1°C rise in
operating temperature gives about 0.4% rise in load losses. A reference temperature of 75 °C is selected
for expressing the losses referred to a standard temperature. The operating temperature limit is decided by
the type of insulation used and the difficulties of cooling. This gives an additional factor for comparing
losses during design. Higher temperature permits reduction in material content and first cost. Operating
temperature beyond the limits prescribed for the insulation, reduces life expectancy materially.
3.5. Assessing the effects of Harmonics
Load loss performance of a design or an installed transformer with known data can be done if the levels of
harmonic current are known or estimated.
IEC 61378-1 ‘Transformers for Industrial Applications’ gives a general expression for estimating load losses
for loads with harmonics. This standard is specifically meant for transformers and reactors which are an
integral part of converters. It is not meant for power distribution transformers. The method is applicable for
estimation in power distribution transformers. It can be used for oil cooled transformers or dry type
transformers.
The alternative approaches for power distribution transformers using K-Factor and Factor-K are given later.
As per IEC 61378-1, the total load losses with current harmonics are given as under
( )

× |
¹
|

\
|
× + +

× |
¹
|

\
|
× + |
¹
|

\
|
× =
∑ ∑
n
1
0.8
2
1
SE1 CE1
n
1
2
2
1
WE1
2
1
L
DC1 T n
I
In
P P n
I
In
P
I
I
P P
Where T P = Total load losses and ‘n’ is the order of the harmonic.

=
=
n
1 n
n
2
L
2
I I

P
DC1
= Basic copper losses for fundamental frequency
P
WE1
= Winding eddy losses for fundamental
P
CE1
= Eddy losses in structural parts due to current leads for fundamental
17
P
SE1
= Eddy losses in structural parts for fundamental
I
n
= Current for harmonic order n
I
1
= Fundamental current
P
CE1
and P
SE1
are not applicable to dry type transformers
3.5.1. U.S. Practice – K- Factor
The K-Factor rating assigned to a transformer and marked on the transformer case in accordance with the
listing of Underwriters Laboratories, is an index of the transformer's ability to supply harmonic content in its
load current while remaining within its operating temperature limits.
The K-Factor is the ratio of eddy current losses when supplying non-linear loads as compared to losses
while supplying linear loads. In U.S., dry type of transformers are used in majority of applications.
2
2
1 n
n .n I k
2

=
=
I
n
= per unit harmonic current, and n = Order of harmonic.
For specification in general, the U.S. practice is to estimate the K – Factor which gives ready reference ratio
K for eddy losses while supplying non-linear loads as compared to linear loads.
K = 1 for resistance heating, motors, distribution transformers etc.
K = 4 for welders Induction heaters, Fluorescent lights
K = 13 For Telecommunication equipment.
K = 20 for main frame computers, variable speed drives and desktop computers.
The eddy losses in conductors are assumed to vary as ( )
2
2
n
n
I
I
× where I is the total r.m.s. current
and is assumed to be 100 % i.e. rated value.

( )
2
n
2
2
2
1 I .... I I I + + + = Where I
1
is taken as 1. Now, since I is defined, loss variation is taken as
( )
2
2
n
n
I
I
× including fundamental.

K is ratio of Eddy losses at 100 % current with harmonics and Eddy losses at 100 % current with
fundamental.

K = ( )
( )
2
2
1 1
2
2
n
1 n
n
1
/I I
n
I
I
× ×

=

K = ( )
2
2
n
1 n
n
n
I
I
×

=


The K-Factor is used directly to specify transformers for a given duty. The total losses, if needed can
be estimated at any % x loading as under if the contribution of eddy losses in load losses at
fundamental frequency test is known from design; or assumed typically as 10 %. Copper losses are
then assumed to be the balance 90 %.

Total load losses at 100 % load = (0.9 + 0.1 x K)

If K = 11, eddy losses at 100% load with this harmonic pattern are 11 times the eddy losses at
fundamental.

Total load losses at 100% load = 0.9 + 1.1 = 2
Total load losses at % x load = x
2
x 2.

18
If total load losses are assumed to be 100% or 1 for same temperature rise, then x
2
= 1/K =1/2. x =
1/K
0.5
or 70.7%. Thus the transformer can work at 70% of its rated load current specified for linear
loads.

A sample K- factor calculation is given for a given set of harmonic measurements, based on the
above relationships.

Table 3-2: Estimation for K factor
Harmonic
No.
RMS
Current
I
n
/I
1
(I
n
/I
1
)
2
(I
n
/I) (I
n
/I)
2
(I
n
/I)
2
xn
2

1 1 1 1 0.6761 0.4571 0.4571
3 0.82 0.82 0.6724 0.5544 0.3073 2.7663
5 0.58 0.58 0.3364 0.3921 0.1538 3.8444
7 0.38 0.38 0.1444 0.2569 0.0660 3.2344
9 0.18 0.18 0.0324 0.1217 0.0148 1.2000
11 0.045 0.045 0.0020 0.0304 0.0009 0.1120

Total r.m.s 1.479
Sum 2.1876 11.6138

I
r.m.s. = √
2.1876 =1.479 =I. K-Factor is given by last column. K factor = 11.618

A K13 rated transformer is recommended for this load.

3.5.2. European Practice- ‘Factor K’

The European practice as defined in BS 7821 Part 4 and HD 538.3.S1 defines a derating factor for a
given transformer by a ‘Factor-K’.

K =
0.5
N
2 n
2
1
n q
2
1
I
I
n
I
I
e 1
e
1

|
|
¹
|

\
|
× × |
¹
|

\
|
+
+

+


e = Eddy current loss at fundamental frequency divided by loss due to a D.C. current
equal to the R.M.S. value of the sinusoidal current.
I
n
= magnitude of nth harmonic current.
q = Exponential constant dependent on type of winding and frequency
= 1.7 for round / rectangular section
= 1.5 for foil type low voltage winding.
I = R.M.S. value of the current including all harmonics
=
0.5
N n
1 n
2
n
I |
¹
|

\
|

=
=


The objective is to estimate the total load losses at 100% current, when that current contains harmonics.
The base current is thus I the r.m.s. current which is 100%. This is equal to the rated current at which the
load losses are measured at fundamental frequency. The basic copper losses vary as the square of the
r.m.s. current and hence are equal to the measured losses at fundamental frequency.

Total load losses at fundamental are taken as unity i.e. 1.

1 = EddyLosses R I
2
+ where as Eddy Losses =( ) R I e
2
×
Hence, 1 = ( ) ( ) e 1 R I
2
+ ×
Eddy Losses as a fraction of total load losses =
( )
|
|
¹
|

\
|
+
×
e) 1 R I
R I e
2
2
=
( )
|
|
¹
|

\
|
+ e) 1
e

19
Eddy Losses at I (100%) =
( )
q
n
1 n
n
n
I
I
e 1
e
2
2
× × |
¹
|

\
|
+

=


Since harmonics are expressed as fractions of fundamental,
Eddy Losses =
( )

=
× + + × + ×
× |
¹
|

\
|
× |
¹
|

\
|
+
n
1 n
1
q
n
q
3
q
1
2
1
2
2 2 2
I
n I ... 3 I 1 I
I
I
e 1
e

=
( )
|
|
¹
|

\
| × + + × + ×
+ × |
¹
|

\
|
× |
¹
|

\
|
+

+ =
n
2 n n
1
q
n
q
3
q
1
2
1
2
2 2 2
I
n I ... 3 I 1 I
1
I
I
e 1
e


I = I
1
2
+ I
H
2
where I
H
2
equals the sum of squares for harmonics, but excluding fundamental.

Total losses =
( ) q
n × |
¹
|

\
|
× |
¹
|

\
|
× |
¹
|

\
|
+
+
|
|
¹
|

\
|
× |
¹
|

\
|
+

+
× |
¹
|

\
|
+
+

+ =
2
n
2 n n
1
n
2
1
2
2
H
2
2
H
2
1 2
I
I
I
I
e 1
e
I
I
e 1
e
I
I I
e 1
e
R I
If the term for I
H
2
is neglected, there is an error on safe side with a total deviation of only 2% to 4%
depending upon I
H
, since e/ 1+ e itself is about 9% to 10% of total losses at fundamental. The addition to
eddy losses may be 10 to 15 times due to harmonics. The first two terms equal the total losses at
fundamental and thus equals 1.The Factor K is taken as the square root of total losses. The expression
thus simplifies to the form stated earlier. The summation term is for n > 1 and thus covers harmonics only.

At % x load, Load Losses = X
2
K
2
and since new load losses should be equal to 1,
X= 1/K .

Typical calculation (taking q as 1.7 and assuming that eddy current loss at fundamental as 10% of
resistive loss i.e. e= 0.1) is given below.

Table 3-3: Estimation of Factor K
Harmonic No. RMS Current I
n
/I
1
(I
n
/I
1
)
2
n
q
n
q
(I
n
/I)
2

1 1 1 1 1 1
3 0.82 0.82 0.6724 6.473 4.3525
5 0.58 0.58 0.3364 15.426 5.1893
7 0.38 0.38 0.1444 27.332 3.9467
9 0.18 0.18 0.0324 41.900 1.3576
11 0.045 0.045 0.0020 58.934 0.1193

Sum 2.1876 Σ=15.9653

I
r.m.s.
=√ 2.1876 = 1.457.
K
2
= 1 + (0.1/ 1.1) x (1/1.457)
2
x (15.9653 –1) =1.641
K = 1.28

Transformer derating factor = 1/K = 1/1.28 x 100 = 78.06%
20
4. REDUCTION OF LOSSES AT DESIGN STAGE

4.1. Introduction
Design changes to reduce transformer losses, just as in a motor, always involve tradeoffs. For
example, consider varying the cross-sectional area of the transformer core. An increase tends to
lower no-load loss while raising the winding loss. An increase in volts per turn reduces winding loss
while increasing the core loss. Variation in conductor area and in the electric and magnetic circuit
path lengths will affect efficiency in various ways, always leading the designer to seek a cost-effective
balance.

To raise transformer efficiency, core loss has probably drawn the most attention. Core construction
permits two important energy-saving features not applicable to industrial motors. First, the inherent
colinearity between lamination orientation and the magnetic field direction allows use of grain
oriented steel for transformer laminations. That greatly reduces hysteresis loss in the core-the energy
required to cyclically realign the "molecular magnets" within the steel, which are randomly positioned
in a non-oriented material.

Second, because laminations are sheared or slit in strips rather than being punched with slots, much
thinner material can be used in a transformer core than in a rotating machine. Whereas motor
laminations are usually 0.014 to 0.025 inch thick, transformer lamination thickness may be as low as
0.006, with 0.009 to 0.012 being common. That lowers eddy current loss.

A further improvement appearing during the 1980's is amorphous core material. Resembling glass
more than steel, this lamination material contains no granular structure at all. Laminations only 0.001
inch thick were used in the first mass-produced distribution transformers (25 kVA) manufactured by
Westinghouse in 1986. Many similar units have been put in service since then, along with some large
power transformers. Typical core loss in such a transformer is only one-third of that in a conventional
unit.

The design approaches for reduction of losses are well known and proven. They consists of
1. Using more material
2. Better material
3. New Material
4. Improved distribution of materials
5. Improvement in cooling medium and methods
Each design tries to achieve desired specifications with minimum cost of materials or minimum weight or
volume or minimum overall cost of ownership. Worldwide, more and more consumers are now purchasing
transformers based on the total ownership costs, than just the first cost.
4.2. Minimising Iron Losses

4.2.1. Losses in Core
Choice of metal is critical for transformer cores, and it's important that good quality magnetic steel be
used. There are many grades of steel that can be used for a transformer core. Each grade has an
effect on efficiency on a per-kg basis. The choice depends on how you evaluate non-load losses and
total owning costs.
Almost all transformer manufacturers today use steel in their cores that provides low losses due to
the effects of magnetic hysteresis and eddy currents. To achieve these objectives, high permeability,
cold-rolled, grain-oriented, silicon steel is almost always used. Construction of the core utilizes step
lap mitered joints and the laminations are carefully stacked.
The evolution of materials used in transformer core is summarised below.

21
Table 4-1: Evolution of core material
Year
(Approx.)
Core Material Thickness
(Mm)
Loss
(W/Kg At 50hz)
1910 Warm rolled FeSi 0.35 2 (1.5T)
1950 Cold rolled CRGO 0.35 1 (1.5T)
1960 Cold rolled CRGO 0.3 0.9 (1.5T)
1965 Cold rolled CRGO 0.27 0.84 (1.5T)
1975 Amorphous metal 0.03 0.2 (1.3T)
1980 Cold rolled CRGO 0.23 0.75 (1.5T)
1985 Cold rolled CRGO 0.18 0.67 (1.5T)

There are two important core materials used in transformer manufacturing. Amorphous metal and CRGO. It
can be seen that losses in amorphous metal core is less than 25% of that in CRGO. This material gives
high permeability and is available in very thin formations (like ribbons) resulting in much less core losses
than CRGO.
The trade off between the both types is interesting. The use of higher flux densities in CRGO (up to 1.5 T)
results in higher core losses; however, less amount of copper winding is required, as the volume of core is
less. This reduces the copper losses.
In amorphous core, the flux density is less and thinner laminations also help in reducing core losses.
However, there is relatively a larger volume to be dealt with, resulting in longer turns of winding, i.e. higher
resistance resulting in more copper losses. Thus iron losses depend upon the material and flux densities
selected, but affect also the copper losses.
It becomes clear that a figure for total losses can be compared while evaluating operating cost of the
transformers. The total operating cost due to losses and total investment cost forms the basis of Total
Ownership Cost of a transformer.
4.2.2. Amorphous cores
A new type of liquid-filled transformer introduced commercially in 1986 uses ultra low-loss cores
made from amorphous metal; the core losses are between 60% to 70% lower than those for
transformers using silicon steel. To date, these transformers have been designed for distribution
operation primarily by electric utilities and use wound-cut cores of amorphous metal. Their ratings
range from 10kVA through 2500kVA. The reason utilities purchase them, even though they are more
expensive than silicon steel core transformers, is because of their high efficiency. The use of
amorphous core liquid-filled transformers is now being expanded for use in power applications for
industrial and commercial installations. This is especially true in other countries such as Japan.

Figure 4-1: Amorphous core -ribbons
Amorphous metal is a new class of material having no crystalline formation. Conventional metals
possess crystalline structures in which the atoms form an orderly, repeated, three-dimensional array.
Amorphous metals are characterized by a random arrangement of their atoms (because the atomic
structure resembles that of glass, the material is sometimes referred to as glassy metal). This atomic
22
structure, along with the difference in the composition and thickness of the metal, accounts for the
very low hysteresis and eddy current losses in the new material.
Cost and manufacturing technique are the major obstacles for bringing to the market a broad
assortment of amorphous core transformers. The price of these units typically ranges from 15% to
40% higher than that of silicon steel core transformers. To a degree, the price differential is
dependent upon which grade of silicon steel the comparison is being made. (The more energy
efficient the grade of steel used in the transformer core, the higher the price of the steel.)
At present, amorphous cores are not being applied in dry-type transformers. However, there is
continuous developmental work being done on amorphous core transformers, and the use of this
special metal in dry-type transformers may become a practical reality sometime in the future.
If you're considering the use of an amorphous core transformer, you should determine the economic
trade off; in other words, the price of the unit versus the cost of losses. Losses are especially
important when transformers are lightly loaded, such as during the hours from about 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
When lightly loaded, the core loss becomes the largest component of a transformer's total losses.
Thus, the cost of electric power at the location where such a transformer is contemplated is a very
important factor in carrying out the economic analyses.
Different manufacturers have different capabilities for producing amorphous cores, and recently,
some have made substantial advances in making these cores for transformers. The technical
difficulties of constructing a core using amorphous steel have restricted the size of transformers using
this material. The metal is not easily workable, being very hard and difficult to cut, thin and flimsy, and
difficult to obtain in large sheets. However, development of these types of transformers continues;
you can expect units larger than 2500kVA being made in the future.
4.3. Minimising Copper losses
The major portion of copper losses is I
2
R losses. Using a thicker section of the conductor i.e. selecting a
lower current density can reduce the basic I
2
R losses. However, an arbitrary increase in thickness can
increase eddy current losses. In general, decreasing radial thickness by sectionalisation leads to reduction
in eddy current losses. A properly configured foil winding is useful in this context. The designer has to take
care of the proper buildup of turns with transposition and also take care of the mechanical strength to
sustain short circuit in addition to needed insulation and surge voltage distribution.
All the same, designers can always try to get minimum basic I
2
R and minimum eddy current losses for a
given design and specified harmonic loading.
4.4. Choice of liquid-filled or dry type
Information on the pros and cons of the available types of transformers frequently varies depending
upon what information is made available by the manufacturer. Nevertheless, there are certain
performance and application characteristics that are almost universally accepted.
Basically, there are two distinct types of transformers: Liquid insulated and cooled (liquid-filled type)
and non liquid insulated, air or air/gas cooled (dry type). Also, there are subcategories of each main
type.
For liquid-filled transformers, the cooling medium can be conventional mineral oil. There are also wet-
type transformers using less flammable liquids, such as high fire point hydrocarbons and silicones.
Liquid-filled transformers are normally more efficient than dry-types, and they usually have a longer
life expectancy. Also, liquid is a more efficient cooling medium in reducing hot spot temperatures in
the coils. In addition, liquid-filled units have a better overload capability.
There are some drawbacks, however. For example, fire prevention is more important with liquid-type
units because of the use of a liquid cooling medium that may catch fire. (Dry-type transformers can
catch fire, too.) It's even possible for an improperly protected wet-type transformer to explode. And,
depending on the application, liquid-filled transformers may require a containment trough for
protection against possible leaks of the fluid.
23
Arguably, when choosing transformers, the changeover point between dry-types and wet-types is
between 500kVA to about 2.5MVA, with dry-types used for the lower ratings and wet-types for the
higher ratings. Important factors when choosing what type to use include where the transformer will
be installed, such as inside an office building or outside, servicing an industrial load. Dry-type
transformers with ratings exceeding 5MVA are available, but the vast majority of the higher-capacity
transformers are liquid-filled. For outdoor applications, wet-type transformers are the predominate
choice. The flowing table 4.2 shows losses in dry type and oil filled type transformers.
Table 4-2: Comparison of Losses – Oil type and dry type
(Oil Transformer) Losses Dry Type Transformer Losses
KVA Half Load (w) Full Load (w) KVA Half Load (w) Full Load (w)
500 2465 4930 500 5000 10000
750 3950 7900 750 7500 15000
1000 4360 8720 1000 8200 16400
1500 6940 13880 1500 11250 22500
2000 8155 16310 2000 13200 26400
























































24


5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

1.1 Introduction

For any investment decision, the cost of capital has to be weighed against the cost/benefits accrued.
Benefits may be in cash or kind, tangible or intangible and immediate or deferred. The benefits will have to
be converted into their equivalent money value and deferred benefits have to be converted into their
present worth in money value for a proper evaluation. Similarly, future expenses have to be accounted for.
The cost of capital is reckoned as the rate of interest where as the purchasing power of the currency
measured against commodities determines the relative value of money in a given economic domain. The
deferred monetary gains/expenses are expressed in terms of their present worth (PW). If Rs 90.91 is
invested at an annual interest of 10%, it will yield 90.91x (1+10/100) = Rs 100/- at the end of one year.
Hence the present worth of Rs 100 after one year is Rs 90.91/- , if the annual rate of interest is 10%.
PW =
( ) ( )
( )
n
n
i i
i
+
− +
1
1 1
where PW is present worth of future cash flows
i = per unit interest rate
n = number of years
Purchase of a transformer involves first cost and subsequent payment of energy charges during a given
period. The effective first cost or the total ownership cost can be had by adding the present worth of future
energy charges. The TOC
EFC
i.e. Total Ownership Cost- Effective First Cost adds an appropriate amount to
account for energy expenses and shows a better measure of comparing an equipment with higher first
cost, but having a higher efficiency and thus lower running charges.
The concept of evaluation can be applied to transformers with the assumptions that the annual losses and
the load level remain steady at an equivalent annual value, the tariff is constant and the rates of inflation
and interest are constant. These assumptions have obvious limitations, but the TOC
EFC
concept is widely
used method for evaluation. The period of ‘n’ years may be 10 to 15 years. The longer the period, greater
the uncertainty. Generally, ‘n’ will be roughly equal to the economic life of the equipment governed by the
technical obsolescence, physical life and perceptions of return of capital of the agency making the
investment decision.
5.2 Total Ownership cost of transformers

TOC
EFC
= Purchase Price + Cost of No load loss + Cost of Load loss
Cost of Core loss
EFC
= A X No load loss in Watts
Cost of Load loss
EFC
= B X Load loss in Watts
Where A = Equivalent first cost of No load losses, Rs/Watt
=
1000
HPY EL PW × ×

PW = Present worth, explained in previous section 5.1
EL = Cost of electricity, Rs/ kWh, to the owner of the transformer
HPY = Hours of operation per year
B = Equivalent first cost of load losses
= T p A × ×
2

p = Per Unit load on transformer
T = Temperature correction factor, details of calculation given in section 3.1.1.

For some typical operating values, let us calculate the TOC
EFC
for a 1000 kVA , 11 kV/433 V transformer
having no load losses of 1500 Watts and load losses of 10000 Watts ( at full load).

25


Purchase price = Rs 8,00,000
Life of equipment, n = 15 years
Inflation rate, a = 4.5%
Interest rate (discounting factor), i = 10%
EL = Cost of Electricity = Rs 4.0 per kWh
HPY = Hours per Year = 8000

Per unit transformer loading (average) = 0.75
Operating temperature = 100 ºC

PW = Present Worth =
( ) ( )
( )
n
n
i i
i
+
− +
1
1 1
=
( ) ( )
( )
15
15
1 . 0 1 1 . 0
1 1 . 0 1
+
− +
= 7.61

Equivalent first cost of No load losses A =
1000
HPY EL PW × ×
=
1000
8000 4 61 . 7 × ×

= 243.52 Rs/Watt

If operating temperature is 100 ºC,
75 234.5
100 234.5
f R
R
re T
op T
+
+
=


= 1.0808
Hence Temperature correction factor, T = 0.9 x 1.0808 +0.1/1.0808 = 1.06523
Equivalent first cost of load losses
B = T p A × ×
2
= 06523 . 1 75 . 0 52 . 243
2
× ×
= 145. 9152 Rs/Watt

TOC
EFC
= 800000 + 243.52 x 1500 + 145.9152 x 10000
= Rs 2624432/-

5.3 Decisions for changeover to new equipment

In this case there is an added cost of the existing working equipment. The value left in a working equipment
can be evaluated either by its technical worth, taking its left over life into consideration or by the economic
evaluation by its depreciated value as per convenience. For transformers, the prediction of life is very
difficult due to varying operating parameters. Moreover, for any equipment, there is a salvage value, which
can be taken as equivalent immediate returns.
Thus TOC
EFC
= (Present depreciated effective cost of old equipment – Salvage value) + A X No load loss +
B X Load loss
5.4 Sample Calculations

Total Owning Cost of a 1000 kVA Transformer Using No-load and Load Losses and present worth is
estimated below. The calculations for a standard transformer are done in previous section 5.2. Let us
now compare a high efficiency 1000 kVA transformer with the standard transformer. Table 5.1
summarises purchase price and losses of two transformers of same rating 1000 kVA.
Table 5-1: Comparison of transformers
Standard Transformer High-Efficiency Transformer
Purchase price – Rs 8,00,000
No-load losses - 1500 W
Load losses at 100% - 10000 W
Load loss at 75% - 6234 W
Rs 9,50,000
1210 W
7964 W
4215 W
26
Total Owning Cost of Transformer #1 (standard efficiency)
= Rs 2624432/- as estimated in section 5.2.

Total Owning Cost of transformer #2 (high efficiency):
A = Rs 243.52 / year
B = Rs 145.9152 / year

Total Owning Cost of High-Efficiency transformer
= Rs 9,50,000 + Rs 243.52 x 1210 + Rs 145.9152 x 4215
= Rs 18,69,592
Present Value of Savings with Energy Efficient transformer = Rs 2624432 - Rs 18,69,592
= Rs 7,54,840/-
Note that a high efficiency transformer is having much less Total Owning Cost compared to a standards
efficiency transformer in spite of higher investment.





















27
6 CASE STUDIES

6.1 Introduction


There are nine case studies presented in this chapter. Three case studies are from Indian
industries and six case studies from international scenario.

The case studies from KEMA, Netherlands assume full details of No Load Loss and Load Loss as
well as portion of Eddy Losses in Load Loss as being available from transformer manufacturer or
from relevant standard. No tests are conducted at site.

The harmonic content of the load is given for each typical application. The applicability of Low
Loss designs in each rating is analysed and payback period is found out. The case studies also
give the energy saving gains in terms of reduction in carbon dioxide (Co2) emission. The likely
penalty/gain per Ton of Co2 in monetary terms is taken as 0.3 kg/kWh to 0.6 kg/kWh with a cost
ranging from Euro 10 to Euro 33/ ton. This gives a monetary factor of 0.003 Euro/ kWh to 0.02
Euro/kWh. The energy price is taken as 0.04 Euro/kWh. Thus CO
2
cost can be 15 % to 50 % of
Energy cost. This factor however is not applicable for payback and it is thus not considered for
payback in the tables presented.

The payback is considered for extra price to be paid for the low loss transformer and it is around 2
to 3 years. The Load Loss figures given in the tables give the Load Losses considering the
harmonics in the load. In the first case study, the factor for enhanced eddy losses in the first load
loss is shown for illustration only for illustrating rough order of values. All studies are presented in
the year 2002.

6.2 Case Study 1

The case study considers a large company in the Iron and Steel sector. The average loading is
400 MW out of which about 60 MW is through H.T. utilization by H.T. Motors. The remaining 340
MW is through distribution transformers. Load is constant during 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Transformer ratings vary from 800 kVA to 4800 kVA. There are about 400 Transformers. About
200 Nos. are of 1250 kVA and about 100 Nos. of 1600 kVA while the remaining 100 Numbers are
of different ratings. Most of the transformers are replaced between 1982 to 1990. Almost all the
transformers are of Dry Type due to problems faced in the earlier oil cooled transformers.

The company follows the total ownership cost (TOC) concept and has used A and B figures of EUR
2.27/W for no load losses and EUR 1.63/W for load losses.
The comparative figures are given for 1250 kVA transformers.
Table 6-1input data 1250 kV transformer
Transformer load 65% (constant load, 24/24h) with 6 pulse harmonics
Economic lifetime 10 years
Interest rate 7%
Energy price EUR 40/MWh
Harmonic spectrum 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
% 100 0 29 11 0 6 5 0 3 3 0 2 2
A (no-load loss
evaluation)
EUR 2,46 /W
B (load loss evaluation) EUR 1,04 /W


Illustrative Calculations
Inflation is not considered and hence the present worth expression is simplified using a = zero.

28
Present worth =
( )
( )
n
n
i 1 i
1 i 1
+
− +


Interest Rate 7 % i.e. 0.07 per unit. Period is 10 years

( )
( )
7.0236
1.07 0.07
1 0.07 1
P
10
10
w
=
− +
=

EL = 0.04 EUR/kWh
tt EUR2.46/Wa
1000
8760 EL Pw
A =
× ×
=


B = A x P
2
x T,

P = 65 %, i.e. 0.65,
T = 1

B = 2.46 x 0.65 x 0.65 = 1.039
= EUR 1.04/watt


6.2.1 Factor for Harmonics

Factor for eddy losses ( )

=
=
× =
n h
h
h
h
I
I
1
2
2
1


If harmonics are absent, this factor is one; the tested load losses have eddy losses at
fundamental. If data from design is available for percentage of eddy loss at fundamental, it should
be used in the calculation. In the absence of specific data, copper losses due to I
2
R can be taken
as 90 % and 10% of the specified Load Losses can be attributed to eddy losses at fundamental
frequency.

Thus Load Losses at fundamental frequency = Load Losses x [p.u. loading]
2
x [0.9 + (0.1) x 1]

The Extra addition is over and above eddy losses due to fundamental frequency and hence extra
harmonic factor

( )

=
=
− × =
n h
h
h
h
I
Ih
K
1
2
2
1
1
Or ( )

=
=
× =
n h
h
h
h
I
Ih
K
3
2
2
1


For the given six pulse harmonics, the fifth has 29% value of the fundamental.

Hence ( ) 5 5 29 0
2
5
× × = . K = 2.1025

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) 625 02 . 0 529 02 . 0 361 03 . 0
287 03 . 0 169 05 . 0 121 06 . 0 49 11 . 0 25 29 . 0
2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
× + × + × +
× + × + × + × + × =
h
K


25 . 0 2116 . 0 3249 . 0 2601 . 0 4225 . 0 4356 . 0 5929 . 0 1025 . 2 + + + + + + + = 6001 . 4 =

Total eddy loss factor = 4.6001 + 1 = 5.6


29
6.2.2 Percentage of Eddy Losses in Load Losses:

The next step is to evaluate full load losses with harmonic loading for the given transformer and
also for the relatively low loss transformer of similar rating being considered for replacement. This
requires data on percentage of Eddy Losses in conductors in the total Load Losses for the
existing transformer and the nearest low loss substitute. For 1250 kVA rating, the existing and
new low loss design have following data for the subdivision of eddy losses, the figures are
inferred from the final load loss figures given in the KEMA publication.

Existing 1250 kVA Low Loss 1250 kVA

No Load 2400 W 2200 W
Rated Load Loss 9500 W 8200 W
Assumed % Copper Losses 90.69% 90.69%
Assumed % Eddy Losses 9.31 % 9.31%


6.2.3 Full load losses for Harmonic Loading:

Existing Transformer:

Full load losses on Harmonic Load = Rated load losses on linear loads x [p.u. Copper + K (p.u.
Eddy loss)]

= ( ) 093 . 0 6 . 5 9069 . 0 9500 × + ×
= 42826 . 1 9500×
= 47 . 13568 Or 13568 Watts

For Suggested Low Losses transformer

Full load losses = 8200 x 1.42826 = 11711.73 or 11712 watts.

It can be noted that inferred distribution is very close to assumed distribution of 90% and 10%.
This is not always true as can be seen from tables given in the annexure.

For 1600 kVA transformer, the distribution works out to 88.68% copper losses and 11.32% for
eddy losses. For similar harmonic load factor of 5.6 the multiplier comes to 1.5207. Thus rated full
load loss (Linear) of 10000 w yields a figure of 10000 x 1.5207 = 15207 w. The low loss substitute
has full load loss (linear) = 9500 x 1.5207 = 14447 w

The actual figure stated is 14218 w. Thus a slightly different distribution is considered for the low
loss substitute. The method thus illustrates the steps to calculate full load loss (harmonic loads) if
the distribution is known. If design data is not available, 90% and 10% subdivision can give a
reasonable value.

Incidentally it shows that due to harmonic loads the full load losses have gone up by 42% in 1250
kVA, and 52% in 1600 kVA transformer.

The needed derating would be ( ) 839 . 0
42 . 1
1
= and ( ) 811 . 0
52 . 1
1
=

For 1250 kVA and 1600 kVA respectively for harmonic loading. The actual loading is only 65% and
hence all alternatives considered are safe from the view point of temperature rise.

6.2.4 Relative economics for low loss transformers (All Dry type)
The data worked out for 1250 kVA and 1600 kVA are given in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3.

30

Table 6-2 1250 kVA transformer
Unit Dry
transformer
Dry transformer,
low losses
Difference
Transformer rating kVA 1250 1250
Rated no-load loss W 2400 2200 -200
Rated load loss W 13568 11712 -1856
Total annual losses kWh/a 71241
62618
-8623
CO
2
emission @ 0,4
kg/kWh ton/a
28,5 25,0 -3,5
Purchase price EUR 12250 13000 750
Present value no-load loss EUR 5907 5414 -493
Present value load loss EUR 14108 12178 -1930
Capitalised costs EUR 32265 30592 -1673
Pay back (years) 2,2
Internal rate of return 45%

Table 6-3 1600 kVA transformer
Unit Dry
transformer
Dry transformer, low
losses
Difference
Transformer rating kVA 1600 1600
Rated no-load loss W 2800 2670 -130
Rated load loss W 15207 14218 -989
Total annual losses kWh/a 80809
76012
-4797
CO
2
emission @ 0,4
kg/kWh ton/a
32,3 30,4 -1,9
Purchase price EUR 14451 14990 539
Present value no-load
loss
EUR 6891 6571 -320
Present value load loss EUR 15812 14784 -1028
Capitalised costs EUR 37154 36345 -809
Pay Back (years) 2,8
Internal rate of return 34%


Comments:

The figures for 1250 kVA, existing transformer are illustrated first.
Rated No Load Loss = 2400 w = 2.4 kW
Rated load loss = 13568 W = 13.568 kW (full load)
Annual losses for 65% loading for 8760 hours = 2.4 x 8760 + 13.568 x 0.65 x 0.65 x 8760 kWh
= 21024 + 50216.5
= 71240.5 = 71241 kWh/annum.

Carbon Dioxide emission at 0.4 kg/kWh = 71241 x 0.4
= 28496 kg
= 28.5 Tons/annum

Purchase Price is given as EUR 12250 (About Rs.673750)
Present value of no load losses 2.46 x 2400 = 5904
Present value of Load Loss = 13568 x 1.04 = EUR 14110
Total Capitalised Cost = EUR 32265

A similar figure for low loss transformer is EUR 30592

31
This figure favours the low loss type with an initial purchase price of EUR 13000 which is EUR
750 of added investment.

Payback for extra investment of EUR 750:
The low loss transformer consumes 62618 kWh/annum, saving thereby 8623 kWh/annum.

Thus the annual saving = EUR 0.04 x 8623
= EUR 345

Simple payback = 17 . 2
345
750
= or 2.2 years. (For about 6.12 % Extra Investment)

Internal Rate of Return = 45
2 . 2
100
= %about.

A similar calculation for 1600 kVA shows a saving of 4797 kWh and a payback of 2.8 years for an
added investment of EUR 539 (about 3.73 % extra cost). IRR 34 %.

6.2.5 Summary:

1. Due to somewhat higher load loss figures used for TOC during initial purchase, higher
investments have been preferred. Hence it is not very attractive to replace existing
transformers by scrapping.

2. If a transformer is to be replaced for any reason, the low loss substitutes show an attractive
payback of 2.2 to 2.8 years.

The total saving potential of 2939 MWh/year is equivalent to EUR 117564/year and is 0.084% of
the total consumption of 3.5 x 10
6
MWh/year.

6.3 Case Study-2: Non ferrous metal sector

In a large company in the non ferrous metal sector, the total loading is about 190 MW. But almost 180
MW are consumed through dedicated high voltage transformers for electrolysis. The scope for
distribution transformers is limited is only to 10 MW. Out of it, the load variation is about 45% during 10
hours, 35% during 14 hours.
Total number of transformers is 25, wherein a good number is at 1000 kVA. Excepting 3 new dry type
installed in 1999, most of the transformers are old (1965 to 1970). The loss pattern is
No load = 1900 Watts
Load loss = 10250 Watts
Calculations for1000 kVA old transformer with the loading pattern and 5 years of life with 7% interest
rate gives the A factor = EUR 1.44/watt
And B factor = EUR 0.24/Watt. Harmonics are not considered.
Since the loading is low, giving a very low B factor, direct replacement is not economically viable. Table
6.4 summarises the data for dry transformers and oil cooled transformers for future replacement.
32

Table 6-4 : Outcome 1000 kVA transformer
Unit Dry HD 538
transformer
Oil C-C’
transformer
Difference
Transformer rating kVA 1000 1000
Rated no-load loss W 2000 1100 -900
Rated load loss W 8600 9500 900
Total annual losses kWh/a 30336
23793
-6543
CO
2
emission @ 0,4
kg/kWh ton/a
12,1 9,5 -2,6
Purchase price EUR 10074 8007 -2067
Present value no-load
loss
EUR 2873 1580 -1293
Present value load loss EUR 2102 2322 220
Capitalised costs EUR 15049 11909 -3140
Pay back (years) N/A
Internal rate of return N/A

In this case, the oil transformer has a lower first cost and also lower losses. Hence it is the most favored
choice and the rate of return is not applicable; since the low loss transformer also happens to have a
lower first cost.
Table 6.5 summarise the overall potential for the saving. This is equal to EUR 6560 and 0.0099% of the
total electricity charges because only a small fraction of the total load is qualifying for calculation of
savings.
Table 6-5: Annual savings potential
Transformer
size
Total
number
Energy saving
[MWh]
CO
2
emission saving
[tonnes]
1000 kVA 12 78,5 31,2
Other 13 85,1 33,8
Total 25 164 65

6.4 Case Study-3: Paper & Pulp Company

A paper mill started functioning since 1978 and was expanded in 1986, the peak electrical loading is
about 110 MW, out of which 72 MW are used at high voltage for HT motors. The remaining is
distributed with 52 transformers with ratings of 1000 kVA and 3150 kVA. The dominant number (28) is
3150 kVA transformers with LV of 690 Volts. Average loading is 65%. The highlight of the case study is
that in 1986, the company took special care to select transformers with low losses for long term gains.
These transformers are better compared to the low loss transformers available today.
The case is presented for 3150 kVA transformer for which the input data is given in table 6.6
Table 6-6: Input data of 3150 kVA transformer
Transformer size 3150 kVA oil-type
Transformer load 65% during 24/24 hours with 6
pulse harmonics
Economic lifetime 20 years
Interest rate 7%
Energy price EUR 40/MWh
Harmonic spectrum
6 pulse according to IEC 146-1-1
A (no-load loss evaluation) EUR 3,71 /W
B (load loss evaluation) EUR 1,57 /W
33

The comparison of the 1986 low loss transformer is made with the original supply of 1978 based on the
likely prices as prevalent in 2002.
The results are shown in table 6.7. It is seen that even though 1986 transformer is about 30% more
expensive, it still gives large savings with an internal rate of return of 33 % and a payback period for
extra investment of 3 years.
Table 6-7 Outcome of 3150 kVA transformer
Unit Oil 1978
transformer
Oil 1986
Transformer
Difference
Transformer rating kVA 3150 3150
Rated no-load loss W 2870 3150 -280
Rated load loss W 24500 16800 -7700
Total annual losses kWh/a 181908
135092
-46816
CO
2
emission @ 0,4 kg/kWh
ton/a
72,8 54,0 -18,8
Purchase price EUR 19329 24987 5658
Present value no-load loss EUR 10654 11693 1039
Present value load loss EUR 66432 45553 -20879
Capitalised costs EUR 96415 82233 -14182
Pay back (years) 3,0
Internal rate of return 33%

It is estimated that the company is already saving 46816 kWh/year due to these transformers.
6.5 Case Study-4 Chemical Industry
In the KEMA studies, it is observed that; despite variations in the processes, common trends are
observed regarding electrical installations. High reliability requirements lead to redundancy in
transformer installations and a low average loading of about 40%. Based on the general observations, a
fictitious but representative case study is prepared.
Average loading is 110 MW, out of which 40 MW are for electrolysis or H.V. motors and thus out of the
purview. Loading is continuous round the clock and loads are non-linear. A typical rating is 1250 KVA
(60 out of 71 transformers). The remaining transformers are 630, 1000 and 1600 KVA.
The study compares 1250 KVA HD538 transformer and 1250 KVA low loss transformer. Life time is
considered 5 years and harmonics are not considered. Interest rate is taken as 7%. Energy price EUR
50/MWH. A= EUR 1.8/W and B= EUR 0.29/W (40% loading ).
Highlights: For the chosen parameters, the differences are marginal. The extra cost of Low Loss type is
EUR 750 over EUR 12250, and payback is 4.2 years with a rate of return of 6%. This is a case where
the chosen parameters of lifetime, harmonics etc. can significantly affect the decision. If the Low Loss
type is chosen, the potential savings can be 214.4 MWH/yr. Which can also mean savings in CO
2

emission of 85.8 Ton.
6.6 Case Study 5 Case of a Large Data Hotel Start Up
This is a high growth rate business with computers as a major load. The startup load connection is
typically 100 MW in the growth expectation of 200% to 300% rise per year for a few years. The
economic life time is considered as only one year and interest 7%. Figures assumed are 25% initial 24
Hrs. loading which reaches 70% at the end of one year. Energy at EUR 60/MWH, high harmonic
loading, A = EUR 0.52/W initial and also the same value for no load losses. B = EUR 0.03/W initial and
0.24/W at the end of the year.
Highlights: The study shows that due to selection of one year as economic life, the preference is clearly
in favour of lowest first cost. It is revealed that compared to 1600 KVA Dry type normal and 1600 KVA
34
low loss Dry type, the cheapest would be an oil cooled CC’ type transformer. The capitalised costs with
harmonics are EUR 16714, and 17132 (low loss) respectively initially. At the end of one year the figures
are EUR 22311 and 22366. Thus the low loss transformer is still not attractive. There is a net saving of
8222 KWH/year after one year which equals about EUR 411. The extra price of EUR 539 can not be
recovered in the economic life prescribed. The oil cooled transformer is a winner in the short run, with a
capitalised cost for initial period as EUR 12951 including harmonics.
Even for this transformer, higher operating temperature due to harmonics suggests a drastic decrease
in operating life from 30 years to 6 years. Even then the selected short economic life span makes this
choice viable, provided the hot spot temperature is acceptable. By the same consideration a smaller
rating 1000 KVA transformer gives a capital saving of 25% even though it has an energy penalty.
It is important to note that the payback period is not affected by the choice of economic life span, but the
relatively longer payback loses its significance due to short time investment perception. In such a case,
enforcing minimum loss norms only can help. Alternatively the investment in the transformer can be
made by the utility with a long term perception to make energy saving possible. The utility can shift the
transformer later to a suitable load as needed.
6.7 Summary of European Case Studies:

There is an interesting summary of the sensitivity of the payback period to input parameters. Table 6.8
gives a summary of effect of Low, Medium and High values of parameters on the payback period.
Loading and electricity price are two most important factors. Loading should be carefully evaluated for a
proper choice.
Table 6-8: Parameter sensitivity on the payback period
Parameter Parameter variation Payback time (years)
Unit L M H L M H
Harmonic spectrum None 12 pulse 6 pulse 3,3 3,1 2,7
Electricity price EUR/MWh 40 60 80 4,5 3,1 2,4
CO2 emissions kg/kWh 0,3 0,4 0,6 3,2 3,1 3,0
CO2 costs EUR/tonne 0 10 33 3,3 3,1 2,7
Loading profile % 20 40 60 5,2 3,1 1,9
Economic lifetime years 1 5 10 3,1 3,1 3,1
Interest % 5 7 9 3,1 3,1 3,1
Purchase price % 80 100 120 2,5 3,1 3,7

6.8 Case Study 6: Tea Industry (India)

Energy Audit for Tea Factories making C.T.C. Tea, managed by H/S C.W.S (India) Ltd., District
Coimbatore. Audit was conducted in May 1990 for Mayura and Parlai Tea factories. Power is
received at 22 kV and 11 kV by separate lines. This is stepped down by two 500 kVA
Transformer o 22 kV/433 V an 11 kV/433 V which fee segregated loads.

The typical loss figures for 500 kVA transformers are 1660 W for no load and 6900 W as load
losses for 100% load.

Recommendation: Parallel both transformers for a total 500 kVA load on secondary side and in
lean season and holidays when the load is 5% to below 25%, cut off one transformer on H.V. and
H.V. sides.

Brief Analysis:

For total load of 500 kVA, there are three options.

a) Only one transformer takes full 500 KVA LOAD.
Losses = 1.66 (No Load) + (500/500)
2
x 6.9 kW (load losses)

35
b) One transformer takes segregated 300 kVA while second takes 200 kVA segregated load.

Loss = 1.66 + (300/500)
2
x6.9 +1.66 + (200/500)
2
x 6.9 kW

c) Both are paralleled to take 250 kVA each.

Loss = 2 (1.66 + (250/500)
2
x 6.9) kW = 6.77 kW.

Thus on major load, the losses are minimum by paralleling both transformers.

Operation at higher loads during lean season:

a) Two paralleled transformers

Losses = 2 [1. 66 + (0.25/2)
2
x 6.9} kW = 3.54 kW at 25% load
Losses = 2 {(1.66) + (0.05/2)
2
x 6.9} kW = 3.33 kW at 5% load

b) Only one transformer is energized

Losses = 1.66 x (0.25)
2
x 6.9 = 2.09 kW at 25% load
Losses = 1.66 x (0.05)
2
x 6.9 = 1.68 kW at 5% load

Thus losses are minimum at low loads using only one transformer. The tariff was kVA of M.D. x
Rs. 60 + Rs. 0.89 x kWh + Rs. 150 meter rent.

The total annual consumption for the factory was 1856479 kWh per year and the electricity bill
was Rs. 2038694 giving Rs. 1.0094/kWh as average cost.

The saving by paralleling and switching off one transformer were conservatively estimated at a
minimum of 10000 kWh/year with no investment giving a little over Rs. 10000/year as a saving.
Power factor improvement was already made but some scope for further improvement was
suggested. This would reduce M.D. and save on M.D. charges and also give savings on
transformer and cable losses.

6.9 Case Study 7: Steel Mill (India)

INTESCO-Bhoruka has implemented an energy efficiency project at Bhoruka Steel's Karnataka
mini-mill. The project is designed to reduce energy costs, and increase plant productivity. The
company's energy costs have increased due to power shortages and low voltage levels causing
inefficient operation of its melting and casting operations. The $265,000 project involves the
installation of a highly-efficient 25 MVA transformer to replace two older and smaller transformers.

Energy consumption profile:

Energy use at the plant is comprised of consumption at the steel melting shop, the wire rod mill,
and inherent transformer losses. The steel melting shop has a 30-ton GEC electric arc furnace.
When power quality is good, specific energy consumption averages between 550 kWh and 650
kWh per ton. With poor power quality, consumption can increase up to 700 kWh for the same
product mix. By improving the voltage quality under this project, it was expected that specific
consumption would be reduced by 30-35 kWh per ton.

The wire rod mill produces wire rods from 5 mm to 16 mm in diameter. The average specific
energy consumption during good voltage conditions is about 200 kWh per ton. As the drive
systems at the mill already have in-built automatic voltage regulators, there was not expected to
be any substantial reduction in energy usage as a result of the project.

Energy saving measure

Prior to the energy efficiency project, the power from the grid was being tapped through two-12.5
MVA, 66/11KV transformers. Each transformer had a load loss factor of 10-12 kWh per ton, for a
36
total of 20-25 kWh per ton. Installation of the new transformer was expected to slash load loss by
half (to a total of 10-12 kWh per ton).

In sum, the total savings per ton of steel produced was expected to reach 40 units per ton, with
the majority coming from the savings in the steel melting shop (75% of the savings).

Project Savings (in kWh per Ton of Steel Produced)

Steel Melting Shop 30
Wire Rod Mill 0
Transformer Losses 10
Total 40

Project Implementation

In order to solve the voltage problem, it was proposed to replace the two 12.5 MVA transformers
with a single 66/11 KV 25 MVA transformer fitted with an on-load tap changer. The new 25 MVA
transformer can handle large fluctuations in incoming voltage, resulting in energy savings.
These changes would reduce load losses and reduce energy consumption during production.
The new 25 MVA transformer installed by INTESCO- Bhoruka was expected to reduce energy
consumption per unit of steel produced by as much as 8%. Construction of the project began in
May 1994, and was completed in September. Commissioned in October 1994, the upgraded plant
is already running eight "heats" per day, up from five per day previously. (A heat is the process of
melting steel in an arc furnace in preparation for casting.) The annual energy savings is
estimated at 1.8 million KWh.

The total cost of the project is about $265,000 (Rs. 82.6 lakhs) and the combination of improved
energy efficiency and productivity is expected to save Bhoruka Steel about $115,000 per year
(Rs. 36 lakhs). The project has a simple payback on investment of 2.3 years

6.10 Case Study-8: Automobile Plant (India)

A leading automobile manufacturer has main incomer at 132 kV. This voltage is stepped down to
11 kV. From 11 kV to 433 V, plant has several transformers located in eight substations. During
an energy audit, loading on transformers located at various substations was analyzed. In few of
the cases it was observed that some transformers are grossly under loaded (around 10-20%) and
the scope exists to shift or distribute this load to other transformer in the substation. This would
also ensure optimum level of loading. While achieving optimum loading, the standby transformers
at various substations were suggested to be kept open on H.T side to save no-load losses. Also
an operating schedule was proposed to alternate the transformer operation weekly so as to keep
them in good health. In sub station # 1, one transformer was kept as stand by. This hot standby
transformer can be kept open (Energy savings 0.45 lakh per annum)

In sub station # 3, transformers #1 and #2 were drastically under loaded (i.e, 20% and 15%
respectively). Loads of transformer # 2 was transferred to Transformer # 1 and Transformer # 2
was switched off (Energy savings 0.37 lakh kWh/year) In sub station # 7, transformers # 2 and # 3
were drastically under loaded (i.e, 10% and 25% respectively). Loads of transformer # 2 was
transferred to Transformer # 2 and Transformer # 2 was switched off (Energy savings 0.42 lakh
kWh/year) In substation # 8, keeping hot standby transformer open, resulted in energy saving of
0.45 lakh kWh per year.

Annual Total energy savings, 1.69 lakh KWh
Annual Cost savings, Rs. 5.9 lakh
Cost of Implementation Nil
Simple payback period, Immediate





37


6.11 Case Study -9: Improving Reliability and availability
A lot of industries (e.g. chemical) are interested in a reliable power supply, as an unforeseen
interruption of the power supply may have severe consequences. First there is the economical
damage if there is a shutdown, which leads to loss of production until the process has restarted.
But also there can be damage of the installation. Next to the direct damage, long outages may
cause pollution and human safety problems.

To reduce the risks of an outage, it is possible to have two transformers in redundancy. This
means if one transformer fails, the other transformer will carry the full load, and there will be no
interruption of the power and/or shutdown of the factory.

For this case study, the economical cost when an unforeseen outage occurs is a necessary input
figure. The costs of outages are very hard to determine, for this given situation it is presumed that
outage of the electricity will cause a shutdown of the factory, whereby each hour outage is equal
to Euro 10.000,=.

The MTBF (mean time between failures) for a transformer is presumed to be 40 years. The MTTR
(mean time to repair) or time to replace a failed transformer is 8 hours. This means that the
average outage frequency equals 0,025 per year and the average outage duration equals 12
minutes per year. If there is redundancy the average outage frequency equals 1,14x10
-6
per year,
while the average outage duration equals 2,7x10
-4
minutes per year. This means the chance that
both parallel transformers having a failure at the same time is very small compared to the outage
of one transformer.

The choice for the designer to use one transformer (2500 kVA) or two transformers (1600 kVA)
can now be quantified. Presuming the load is 1500 kVA; the 2500 kVA transformer loading is
60%, while the loading of the 1600 kVA transformer is 47% when both transformers are in
parallel. The total annual losses for both options are given in table 6.9

Table 6-9: electricity losses over a year
2500 kVA Transformer Oil C-C’ Oil D-D’ Dry HD 538 Dry Low loss
No load kWh/yr.
21900 18615 37668 36179
Load kWh/yr. 69379 58972 56765 47083
Total kWh/yr. 91279 77587 94433 83262
2x 1600 kVA Transformer Oil C-C’ Oil D-D’ Dry HD 538 Dry Low loss
No load kWh/yr. 29784 25316 49056 46778
Load kWh/yr. 54182 46054 38702 36186
Total kWh/yr. 83966 71370 87758 82964

If the economic life time is estimated at 10 years, and the electricity price Euro 70,= per MWh, the
following costs are expected in these 10 years (see table 6.10).

Table 6-10: Costs over 10 years.
2500 kVA Transformer Oil C-C’ Oil D-D’ Dry HD 538 Dry Low loss
Purchase price [Euro] 24897 29402 25527 27494
Cost of no load [Euro] 15330 13030 26368 25325
Cost of load [Euro] 48565 41280 39736 32958
Cost of outage [Euro] 20000 20000 20000 20000
Total cost [Euro] 108792 103712 111631 105777
2x 1600 kVA Transformer Oil C-C’ Oil D-D’ Dry HD 538 Dry Low loss
Purchase price [Euro] 27340 35774 35902 38146
Cost of no load [Euro] 20849 17721 34339 32745
Cost of load [Euro] 37927 32238 27091 25330
Cost of outage [Euro] <1 <1 <1 <1
Total cost [Euro] 86117 85734 97333 96222
38

From table 6.10, it can be seen that the costs of outage are having influence on the total costs
over 10 years. If the costs of outage are neglected, the designer would probably have chosen for
a single 2500 kVA oil-transformer type D-D’ or a dry transformer with lower losses than given in
the HD 428.

However if the average costs of an outage are taken in account, the designer will probably order
two 1600 kVA transformers. However, the two 1600 kVA transformers will also need an
installation more than the 2500 kVA transformer, which is not taken in account in this case study.
Nevertheless, it is clear that redundancy of transformers is preferred anyway for situations were
shutdown of a process causes pollution or safety risks.

6.12 Case study-10: Use of Amorphous Core Transformers

This case study describes the choice of amorphous core distribution transformers in place of
conventional silicon steel core transformers.

A very large amorphous iron three-phase distribution transformer has been built and installed in
the European Union at an engine plant at Waterford in Ireland in 1998. The 1.6MVA transformer
is the first to be designed specifically for the European industrial market. The load losses are
18.2kW, the no-load losses are as low as 384W, compared to 1,700W for a HD 428 C-C’
transformer. With no-load losses up to 80% lower than a conventional silicon core transformer,
and the payback period is 3 years. The transformer has increased the site’s power capacity by
40%, while providing dramatically lower losses than a conventional transformer.’

At an average loading of 70%, the AMDT will use 13.3GWh less energy a year than a
conventional transformer. With a price premium of £2,500 over a standard transformer, the AMDT
should pay for itself in about three years at current Irish power prices - and continue to make
savings over its 20-30-year life.

The 20kV/400V transformer, completed by Pauwels International, is the first AMDT to target
European industrial customers.












39

ANNEXURE-1: GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLING TRANSFORMERS
When your transformer arrives on site, various procedures should be carried out to assure
successful operation.
The successful operation of a transformer is dependent on proper installation as well as on good
design and manufacture. The instructions mentioned in the manufacturer manual or in Standards
shall be followed to ensure adequate safety to personnel and equipment.
This section will provide general guidelines for installing and testing both dry-type and liquid-filled
transformers for placement into service.
Standard transformer tests performed for each unit include the following:
• Ratio, for voltage relationship;
• Polarity for single- and 3-phase units (because single-phase transformers are sometimes
connected in parallel and sometimes in a 3-phase bank);
• Phase relationship for 3-phase units (important when two or more transformers are
operated in parallel);
• Excitation current, which relates to efficiency and verifies that core design is correct;
• No-load core loss, which also relates to efficiency and correct core design;
• Resistance, for calculating winding temperature
• Impedance (via short circuit testing), which provides information needed for breaker
and/or fuse sizing and interrupting rating and for coordinating relaying schemes;
• Load loss, which again directly relates to the transformer's efficiency;
• Regulation, which determines voltage drop when load is applied; and
• Applied and induced potentials, which verify dielectric strength.
There are additional tests that may be applicable, depending upon how and where the
transformer will be used. The additional tests that can be conducted include the following:
• Impulse (where lightning and switching surges are prevalent);
• Sound (important for applications in residential and office areas and that can be used as
comparison with future sound tests to reveal any core problems);
• Temperature rise of the coils, which helps ensure that design limits will not be exceeded;
• Corona for medium voltage (MV) and high-voltage (HV) units, which helps determine if
the insulation system is functioning properly;
• Insulation resistance (meg-ohmmeter testing), which determines dryness of insulation and
is often done after delivery to serve as a benchmark for comparison against future
readings; and
• Insulation power factor, which is done at initial installation and every few years thereafter
to help determine the aging process of the insulation.


40
Site considerations
When planning the installation, the location is selected, that complies with all safety codes yet
does not interfere with the normal movement of personnel, equipment, and material. The location
should not expose the transformer to possible damage from cranes, trucks, or moving equipment.
Preliminary inspection upon receipt of transformer
When received, a transformer should be inspected for damage during shipment. Examination
should be made before removing it from the railroad car or truck, and, if any damage is evident or
any indication of rough handling is visible, a claim should be filed with the carrier at once and the
manufacturer notified. Subsequently, covers or panels should be removed and an internal
inspection should be made for damage or displacement of parts, loose or broken connections, dirt
or foreign material, and for the presence of water or moisture. If the transformer is moved or if it is
stored before installation, this inspection should be repeated before placing the transformer in
service.
Plan for the prevention of contaminants
Develop a procedure for inventory of all tools, hardware, and any other objects used in the
inspection, assembly, and testing of the transformer. A check sheet should be used to record all
items, and verification should be made that these items have been properly accounted for upon
completion of work.
Making connections that work
The connections shall be made, between the transformer's terminals and the incoming and
outgoing conductors, carefully following the instructions given on the nameplate or on the
connection diagram. Check all of the tap jumpers for proper location and for tightness. Re-tighten
all cable retaining bolts after the first 30 days of service. Before working on the connections make
sure all safety precautions have been taken. Arrangements shall be made to adequately support
the incoming/outgoing connecting cables, so that there is no mechanical stress imposed on
transformer bushings and connections. Such stress could cause a bushing to crack or a
connection to fail.
Controlling sound level
All transformers, when energized, produce an audible noise. Although there are no moving parts
in a transformer, the core does generate sound. In the presence of a magnetic field, the core
laminations elongate and contract. These periodic mechanical movements create sound
vibrations with a fundamental frequency of 120 Hz and harmonics derivatives of this fundamental.
The location of a transformer relates directly to how noticeable its sound level appears. For
example, if the transformer is installed in a quiet hallway, a definite hum will be noticed. If the unit
is installed in a location it shares with other equipment such as motors, pumps, or compressors,
the transformer hum will go unnoticed. Some applications require a reduced sound level, such as
a large unit in a commercial building with people working close to it. Occasionally, the installation
of some method of sound abatement will be called for.
Make sure the transformer is grounded
Grounding is necessary to remove static charges that may accumulate and also is needed as a
protection should the transformer windings accidentally come in contact with the core or
enclosure (or tank for wet types).
Note that for MV transformers, the secondary neutral is sometimes grounded through an
impedance.
Ensure that all grounding or bonding systems meet NEC and local codes.

41
Final inspection and testing
Once the transformer has been located on its permanent site, a thorough final inspection should
be made before any assembly is accomplished and the unit is energized. Before energizing the
unit, it's very important that all personnel installing the transformer are alerted, that lethal voltages
will be present inside the transformer enclosure as well as at all connection points. The
installation of conductors should be performed only by personnel qualified and experienced in
high-voltage equipment. Personnel should be instructed that should any service work be required
to the unit, the lines that power the transformer must be opened and appropriate safety locks and
tags applied.
A careful examination should be made to ensure that all electrical connections have been
properly carried out and that the correct ratio exists between the low and high-voltage windings.
For this test, apply a low-voltage (240V or 480V) to the high-voltage winding and measure the
output at the low-voltage winding. However, for low-voltage (600V and below) transformers, this is
not practical. Here, a transformer turns ratio indicator should be used to measure the ratio.
Any control circuits, if any, should be checked to make sure they function correctly. These include
the operation of fans, motors, thermal relays, and other auxiliary devices. Correct fan rotation
should be visually verified as well as by checking indicator lights if they are installed. Also, a one-
minute, 1200V insulation resistance test of the control circuits shall be done. (If the power
transformer has CT circuits, they should be closed.)
All windings should be checked for continuity. An insulation resistance test shall be carried out to
make certain that no windings are grounded.
Applying the load
Before energizing a 3-phase transformer, arrangement for monitoring the voltages and currents
on the low-voltage side shall be done. Then, without connecting the load, energize the
transformer. The magnitude of the voltages shown (line-to-ground and line-to-line) should be very
similar. If this is not the case, de-energize the transformer and contact the manufacturer before
proceeding further.
Next, connect the load and energize the transformer. While monitoring the voltages and currents,
gradually increase the load in a stepped or gradual application until full load is reached. Both the
voltages and currents should change in a similar fashion. If this does not happen, de-energize the
transformer and contact the manufacturer.
The maximum continuous load a transformer can handle is indicated on its nameplate.
Adjustment for correct tap setting
After installation, check the output voltage of the transformer. This should be done at some safe
access point near or at the load. Never attempt to check the output voltage at the transformer.
Dangerous high voltage will be present within the transformer enclosure.
When changing taps, the same changes must be made for all phases. Consult the transformer
diagrammatic nameplate for information on what tap must be used to correct for extra high or
extra low incoming line voltage. The same adjustment should be made to compensate for voltage
drop in the output due to long cable runs. When the load-side voltage is low, tap connections
below 100% of line voltage must be used to raise the load voltage. If the load-side voltage is high,
tap connections above 100% of line voltage must be used to lower the load voltage.




42

ANNEXURE-2: MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES

Following specific checking and maintenance guidelines as well as conducting routine inspections will
help ensure the prolonged life and increased reliability of a dry-type transformer.
The frequency of periodic checks will depend on the degree of atmospheric contamination and
the type of load applied to the transformer.
Routine checks and resultant maintenance
Sl
No
Inspection
Frequency
Items to be inspected Inspection Notes Action required if
inspection shows
unsatisfactory
conditions
1.01 Hourly Ambient Temperature - -
1.02 Hourly Oil & Winding
Temperature
Check that
temperature rise is
reasonable
Shutdown the
transformer and
investigate if either is
persistently higher than
normal
1.03 Hourly Load (Amperes) and
Voltage
Check against rated
figures
Shutdown the
transformer and
investigate if either is
persistently higher than
normal
2.01 Daily Oil level in transformer Check against
transformer oil level
If low, top up with dry
oil examine
transformer for leaks
2.02 Daily Oil level in bushing - -
2.03 Daily Leakage of water into
cooler
- -
2.04 Daily Relief diaphragm - Replace if cracked or
broken-
2.05 Daily Dehydrating breather Check that air
passages are free.
Check colour of
active agent
If silica gel is pink,
change by spare
charge. The old charge
may be reactivated for
use again.
3.01 Quarterly Bushing Examine for cracks
and dirt deposits
Clean or replace
3.02 Quarterly Oil in transformer Check for dielectric
strength & water
content
Take suitable action
3.03 Quarterly Cooler fan bearings,
motors and operating
mechanisms
Lubricate bearings,
check gear boxes,
examine contacts,
Replace burnt or worn
contact or other parts
43
check manual
control and
interlocks
3.04 Quarterly OLTC Check oil in OLTC
driving mechanism
-
4.01 Yearly Oil in transformer Check for acidity and
sludge
Filter or replace
4.02 Yearly Oil filled bushing Test oil Filter or replace
4.03 Yearly Gasket Joints - Tighten the bolts
evenly to avoib uneven
pressure
4.04 Yearly Cable boxes Check for sealing
arrangements for
filling holes.
Replace gasket, if
leaking
4.05 Yearly Surge Diverter and gaps Examine for cracks
and dirt deposits
Clean or replace
4.06 Yearly Relays, alarms & control
circuits
Examine relays and
alarm contacts, their
operation, fuses etc.
Test relays
Clean the components
and replace contacts &
fuses, if required.
4.07 Yearly Earth resistance - Take suitable action, if
earth resistance is high
IR testing:
The transformer should be de-energized and electrically isolated with all terminals of each
winding shorted together. The windings not being tested should be grounded. The meg-ohmmeter
should be applied between each winding and ground (high voltage to ground and low voltage to
ground) and between each set of windings (high voltage to low voltage). The meg-ohm values
along with the description of the instrument, voltage level, humidity, and temperature should be
recorded for future reference.
The minimum megaohm value for a winding should be 200 times the rated voltage of the winding
divided by 1000. For example, a winding rated at 13.2kV would have a minimum acceptable value
of 2640 megaohms ([13,200V x 200] / 1000). If previously recorded readings taken under similar
conditions are more than 50% higher, the transformer should be thoroughly inspected, with
acceptance tests performed before reenergizing.
Turns ratio testing:
The transformer turn ratio is the number of turns in the high voltage winding divided by the
number of turns in the low voltage winding. This ratio is also equal to the rated phase voltage of
the high voltage winding being measured divided by the rated phase voltage of the low voltage
winding being measured.
Transformer turns ratio measurements are best made with specialized instruments that include
detailed connection and operating instructions. The measured turns ratio should be within 0.5% of
the calculated turns ratio. Ratios outside this limit may be the result of winding damage, which has
shorted or opened some winding turns.
Insulation PF testing:
Insulation PF is the ratio of the power dissipated in the resistive component of the insulation
system, when tested under an applied AC voltage, divided by the total AC power dissipated. A
44
perfect insulation would have no resistive current and the PF would be zero. As insulation PF
increases, the concern for the integrity of the insulation does also. The PF of insulation systems of
different vintages and manufacturers of transformers varies over a wide range (from under 1% to
as high as 20%). As such, it's important that you establish a historic record for each transformer
and use good judgment in analyzing the data for significant variations.
Acceptance testing
Acceptance tests are those tests made at the time of installation of the unit or following a service
interruption to demonstrate the serviceability of the transformer. This testing also applies to dry-
type units. The acceptance tests should include IR testing, insulation PF measurement, and turns
ratio testing, all as described under periodic tests. In addition, winding resistance measurements
should be made and excitation current testing done.
Winding resistance measurement:
Accurate measurement of the resistance between winding terminals can give an indication of
winding damage, which can cause changes to some or all of the winding conductors. Such
damage might result from a transient winding fault that cleared; localized overheating that opened
some of the strands of a multi-strand winding conductor; or short circuiting of some of the winding
conductors.
Sometimes, conductor strands will burn open like a fuse, decreasing the conductor cross section
and resulting in an increase in resistance. Occasionally, there may be turn-to-turn shorts causing
a current bypass in part of the winding; this usually results in a decrease of resistance.
To conduct this test, the transformer is de-energized and disconnected from all external circuit
connections. A sensitive bridge or micro-ohmmeter capable of measuring in the micro-ohm range
(for the secondary winding) and up to 20 ohms (for the primary winding) must be used. These
values may be compared with original test data corrected for temperature variations between the
factory values and the field measurement or they may be compared with prior maintenance
measurements. On any single test, the measured values for each phase on a 3-phase
transformer should be within 5% of the other phases.
Excitation current measurement:
The excitation current is the amperage drawn by each primary coil, with a voltage applied to the
input terminals of the primary and the secondary or output terminals open-circuited. For this test,
the transformer is disconnected from all external circuit connections. With most transformers, the
reduced voltage applied to the primary winding coils may be from a single-phase 120V supply.
The voltage should be applied to each phase in succession, with the applied voltage and current
measured and recorded.
If there is a defect in the winding, or in the magnetic circuit that is circulating a fault current, there
will be a noticeable increase in the excitation current. There is normally a difference between the
excitation current in the primary coil on the center leg compared to that in the primary coils on the
other legs; thus, it's preferable to have established benchmark readings for comparison.
Variation in current versus prior readings should not exceed 5%. On any single test, the current
and voltage readings of the primary windings for each of the phases should be within 15% of each
other.
Applied voltage testing:
The applied voltage test is more commonly referred to as the "hi-pot test." This test is performed
by connecting all terminals of each individual winding together and applying a voltage between
windings as well as from each winding to ground, in separate tests. Untested windings are
grounded during each application of voltage.
This test should be used with caution as it can cause insulation failure. It should be regarded as a
proof test to be conducted when there has been an event or pattern in the transformer's operating
history that makes its insulation integrity suspect.
45
DC applied voltage tests are often conducted in the field because DC test sets are smaller and
more readily available than AC applied voltage sets. With DC tests, the leakage current can be
measured and is often taken as a quantitative measure. However, DC leakage current can vary
considerably from test to test because of creepage across the complex surfaces between
windings and between windings and ground.
The use of AC voltage is preferable since the transformer insulation structures were designed,
constructed, and tested with the application of AC voltage intended.
Impedance testing:
An impedance test may be useful in evaluating the condition of transformer windings, specifically
for detecting mechanical damage following rough shipment or a service fault on the output side
that caused high fault currents to flow through the transformer windings. Mechanical distortion of
the windings will cause a change in their impedance. To maximize the effectiveness of this test, a
measurement should be taken during the transformer's initial installation to establish a benchmark
value.
An impedance test is performed by electrically connecting the secondary terminals together with a
conductor capable of carrying at least 10% of the line current and applying a reduced voltage to
the primary windings. This is easily accomplished by applying a single-phase voltage to each
phase in succession. The applied voltage is measured at the primary terminals and the current
measured in each line.
These values shall be recorded and then calculate the ratio of voltage to current for each phase.
This ratio should be within 2% for each phase and should not vary more than 2% between tests.
A variation of more than 2% indicates the possibility of mechanical distortion of the winding
conductors, which should be investigated as soon as possible.













46
REFERENCES

1. Energy Saving In Industrial Distribution Transformers- May 2002 Authors: W.T.J.
Hulshorst, J.F. Groeman- Kema-Netherlands

2. The Scope For Energy Saving In The Eu Through The Use Of Energy-Efficient Electricity
Distribution Transformers, European Copper Institute, December 1999.

3. Harmonics, Transformers And K-Factors, Copper Development Association, Cda
Publication 144, September 2000.

4. J & P Transformer Book, Twelfth Edition 1998, Martin J. Heathcote.


5. Websites of Copper Development Associiation, UK (www.copper.co.uk)
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (www.energymanagetraining.com)

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................................................4 1.2 A GUIDE TO THIS GUIDE .......................................................................................................................................................4 2. FUNDAMENTALS ..........................................................................................................................................................5 2.1. 2.2. 2.4 2.5. 2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.5.5. 2.3.6 3. PRINCIPLE OF TRANSFORMER ACTION..........................................................................................................................5 SAMPLE CALCULATION ...............................................................................................................................................7 PARALLEL OPERATION OF TRANSFORMERS..................................................................................................................8 LOSSES IN TRANSFORMERS ........................................................................................................................................8 Dielectric Losses ...............................................................................................................................................9 Hysteresis Loss.................................................................................................................................................9 Eddy Current Losses in the Core.....................................................................................................................10 Resistive losses in the windings ......................................................................................................................10 Eddy Current Losses in conductors: ................................................................................................................11 Extra Eddy Losses in Structural Parts .............................................................................................................12

TRANSFORMER OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................13 3.1 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.5.1. 3.5.2. VARIATION OF LOSSES DURING OPERATION................................................................................................................13 Variation of losses with loading level ...............................................................................................................13 Variation in Constant losses ............................................................................................................................14 Variation in Load Losses .................................................................................................................................14 LOSS MINIMISATION IN APPLICATION & OPERATION ...................................................................................................14 Selection of Rating and Number of Transformers ............................................................................................14 Energy Saving by Under-utilisation of transformers .........................................................................................15 Reduction of losses due to improvement of power factor.................................................................................15 SEGREGATION OF NON LINEAR LOADS .......................................................................................................................16 EFFECT OF OPERATING TEMPERATURE ......................................................................................................................16 ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF HARMONICS..................................................................................................................16 U.S. Practice – K- Factor.................................................................................................................................17 European Practice- ‘Factor K’..........................................................................................................................18

4.

REDUCTION OF LOSSES AT DESIGN STAGE...........................................................................................................20 4.1. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3. 4.4. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................20 MINIMISING IRON LOSSES .........................................................................................................................................20 Losses in Core ................................................................................................................................................20 Amorphous cores ............................................................................................................................................21 MINIMISING COPPER LOSSES ....................................................................................................................................22 CHOICE OF LIQUID-FILLED OR DRY TYPE.....................................................................................................................22

5.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................24 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................24 5.2 TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST OF TRANSFORMERS ...........................................................................................................24 5.3 DECISIONS FOR CHANGEOVER TO NEW EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................25 5.4 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS...........................................................................................................................................25

6

CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................................................................27 6.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................27 6.2 CASE STUDY 1.........................................................................................................................................................27 Illustrative Calculations .....................................................................................................................................................27 6.2.1 Factor for Harmonics.......................................................................................................................................28 6.2.2 Percentage of Eddy Losses in Load Losses: ...................................................................................................29 6.2.3 Full load losses for Harmonic Loading:............................................................................................................29 6.2.4 Relative economics for low loss transformers (All Dry type).............................................................................29 6.2.5 Summary:........................................................................................................................................................31 6.3 CASE STUDY-2: NON FERROUS METAL SECTOR .........................................................................................................31 6.4 CASE STUDY-3: PAPER & PULP COMPANY ................................................................................................................32 6.5 CASE STUDY-4 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY .....................................................................................................................33 6.6 CASE STUDY 5 CASE OF A LARGE DATA HOTEL START UP .......................................................................................33 6.7 SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN CASE STUDIES: .................................................................................................................34 6.8 CASE STUDY 6: TEA INDUSTRY (INDIA) ......................................................................................................................34 6.9 CASE STUDY 7: STEEL MILL (INDIA) ..........................................................................................................................35 6.10 CASE STUDY-8: AUTOMOBILE PLANT (INDIA).............................................................................................................36 6.11 CASE STUDY -9: IMPROVING RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY .......................................................................................37 6.12 CASE STUDY-10: USE OF AMORPHOUS CORE TRANSFORMERS ...................................................................................38

ANNEXURE-1: GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLING TRANSFORMERS.....................................................................................39 ANNEXURE-2: MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES.......................................................................................................................42 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................46

2

List of figures
Figure 2-1: Relationship between current, magnetic field strength and flux ............................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2: Transformer schematic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-3: Transformer construction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-4: B-H Loop ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-5 Core lamination to reduce eddy current losses .......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-6: Sectionalised transformer winding - Schematic ........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4-1: Amorphous core -ribbons.................................................................................................................................................................. 21

List of Tables
Table 3-1: Comparison of transformer losses................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3-2: Estimation for K factor.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3-3: Estimation of Factor K.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4-1: Evolution of core material ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 4-2: Comparison of Losses – Oil type and dry type ........................................................................................................................... 23 Table 5-1: Comparison of transformers .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 6-1input data 1250 kV transformer........................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 6-2 1250 kVA transformer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 6-3 1600 kVA transformer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 6-4 : Outcome 1000 kVA transformer...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 6-5: Annual savings potential.................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 6-6: Input data of 3150 kVA transformer ................................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 6-7 Outcome of 3150 kVA transformer ................................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 6-8: Parameter sensitivity on the payback period ............................................................................................................................... 34 Table 6-9: electricity losses over a year.............................................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 6-10: Costs over 10 years. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 37

3

1. 1.1 Background

INTRODUCTION

Distribution transformers are very efficient, with losses of less than 0.5% in large units. Smaller units have efficiencies of 97% or above. It is estimated that transformer losses in power distribution networks can exceed 3% of the total electrical power generated. In India, for an annual electricity consumption of about 500 billion kWh, this would come to around 15 billion kWh. Reducing losses can increase transformer efficiency. There are two components that make up transformer losses. The first is "core" loss (also called no-load loss), which is the result of the magnetizing and de-magnetizing of the core during normal operation. Core loss occurs whenever the transformer is energized; core loss does not vary with load. The second component of loss is called coil or load loss, because the efficiency losses occur in the primary and secondary coils of the transformer. Coil loss is a function of the resistance of the winding materials and varies with the load on the transformer. In selecting equipments, one often conveniently avoids the concept of life cycle costing. But the truth is that even the most efficient energy transfer equipment like a transformer, concept of life cycle cost is very much relevant. The total cost of owning and operating a transformer must be evaluated, since the unit will be in service for decades. The only proper method to evaluate alternatives is to request the manufacturer or bidder to supply the load and no-load losses, in watts. Then, simple calculations can reveal anticipated losses at planned loading levels. Frequently, a small increase in purchase price will secure a unit with lower operating costs. The load profile of electronic equipment—from the computer in the office to the variable speed drive in the factory—drives both additional losses and unwanted distortion. Since transformer manufacturers test only under ideal (linear) conditions, a substantial gap exists between published loss data and actual losses incurred after installation. In fact, test results published in a 1996 IEEE Transaction paper documented an almost tripling of transformer losses when feeding 60kW of computer load rather than linear load. Slightly different practices are followed in USA and UK to account for harmonics while selecting transformers. 1.2 A guide to this guide This Best Practice Manual for Electric Transformers summarise the approach for energy conservation measures pertaining to selection, application and operation of electric distribution transformers. The details of design methodology and the varied approaches for materials, construction are not in the scope of this manual. However, some theoretical aspects are discussed where ever deemed fit. Chapter-2 discusses principles of transformer action, description of losses and effect of non linear loads on transformer efficiency. Chapter-3 discusses design aspects of transformers to improve efficiency Chapter-4 discusses loss Minimisation in application and operation Chapter-5 discusses principles of economic evaluation of transformers Chapter-6 discusses case studies from Indian and International scenario Annexures are given to familiarize the users with the installation and maintenance of transformers

4

2. magnetic field strength and flux The above principle is used in all transformers. The magnetic field is almost totally confined in the iron core and couples around through the secondary coil. It can raise or lower the voltage with a corresponding decrease or increase of current.1 shown below explains the above principle Figure 2-1: Relationship between current. Vp = − NpA ∆B ∆t Magnetic field Ip Is Vs Np Ns Vs = − NsA R ∆B ∆t Vp Vs Ns = Vp Np Figure 2-2: Transformer schematic When a changing voltage is applied to the primary winding. A transformer is a static piece of apparatus used for transferring power from one circuit to another at a different voltage.(1) ∆t A Current in the primary winding produces a magnetic field in the core. Principle of transformer action A current flowing through a coil produces a magnetic field around the coil. The induced voltage in the secondary winding is also given by Faraday’s law 5 . FUNDAMENTALS 2. EMF = Vp = − NpA ∆B ---. is proportional to the current flowing in the coil.fs generated by the primary is given by Faraday’s law. Figure 2.m. but without change in frequency. required to produce a magnetic field of flux density B. the back e. The magnetic field strength H.1.

44 × f × N × Bmax × Acore Where E = rated coil voltage (volts). Dividing equation (2) by (1) gives Vs Ns = Vp Np In Figure 2. The following figure shows actual construction of a single phase transformer. J is the current density (A/ sq. half of the primary and secondary coils are wound on each of the two legs. Acore and f are as defined above.2. N. with sufficient insulation between the two coils and the core to properly insulate the windings from one another and the core. the longer the magnetic circuit and the greater the leakage. Magnetic leakage is the part of the magnetic flux that passes through either one of the coils. such as in Figure 2. of the conducting material for primary winding.(2) ∆t The rate of change of flux is the same as that in primary winding. In addition to the voltage equation. and Acond is the 2 coil cross-sectional area (mm ) in the core window.2. and Acore. = cross-sectional area of the core material in Sq. The larger the distance between the primary and secondary windings. will operate at a greatly reduced effectiveness due to the magnetic leakage. Bmax = maximum flux density in the core (tesla).Vs = − NsA ∆B ----.44 × f × N × Bmax × Acore × J × Acond Where. Bmax. Actually. Figure 2-3: Transformer construction The voltage developed by transformer action is given by E = 4. but not through both. N = number of turns in the winding. a power equation expressing the volt-ampere rating in terms of the other input parameters is also used in transformer design. J depends upon heat dissipation and cooling. A transformer wound. the primary and secondary coils are shown on separate legs of the magnetic circuit so that we can easily understand how the transformer works. f = operating frequency (hertz). 6 . metres. the form of the equation is VA = 4. mm). Specifically.

star connected LV winding with neutral brought out.3. .5 X 0. (International adopted convention). 2.44 x f x Np x Bmax x Acore. . Because rotation is anti-clockwise. -3 Actual Rated KVA = Rated Voltage X Rated Current X 10 - for single phase transformers. = 4.01 m .01 X 2 X 30 X 0. The minute hand is set on 12 o'clock and replaces the line to neutral voltage (sometimes imaginary) of the HV winding. Sample calculation A 50 Hz transformer with 1000 turns on primary and 100 turns on secondary. J is taken as 2 Amps/Sq.44 x f x Np x Bmax x Acore x J x Acond. no phase shift between HV and LV. maximum flux density 2 2 of 1. Because there are 12 hours on a clock. 3 = 90° 6 = 180° and 12 = 0° or 360°. mm and Acond as 30 mm for this illustration.5 X 0. Dyn11:Delta connected HV winding. High Voltage Always capital letters Delta -D Star -S Interconnected star -Z Neutral brought out -N Low voltage Always small letters Delta -d Star -s interconnected star -z Neutral brought out -n Phase displacement: Phase rotation is always anti-clockwise. 1 = 30° lagging (LV lags HV with 30° and 11 = 330° lagging or 30° leading (LV leads HV with 30° ) ) To summarise: Dd0:Delta connected HV winding. delta connected LV winding.44 X 50 X 100 X 1.5 Tesla and core area of 0. Eprimary = 4.001 KVA. . Winding connection designations The winding connections in a transformer are designated as follows. Use the hour indicator as the indicating phase displacement angle. Thus 1 = 30° 2 = 60°.44 X 50 X 1000 X 1. -3 Rated KVA = V 3 X Rated Line Voltage X Rated Line Current X 10 for three phase transformers.2.44 x f x Ns x Bmax x Acore. X 0.01 = 3330 Volts In secondary winding Esecondary = 4. Voltage developed is given by In primary winding. This position is always the reference point.44 X 50 X 1000 X 1. LV is leading HV with 30° 7 . = 4.01 = 333 Volts Volt-ampere capability is given by the following relationship: Power rating = 4. = 4. and a circle consists out of 360° each hour represents 30° .5 X 0.2.001 = 200 kVA approximately.

8 . Losses in Transformers The losses in a transformer are as under. because they may be risking a higher fault level during this short period. Dielectric Loss Hysteresis Losses in the Core Eddy current losses in the Core Resistive Losses in the winding conductors Increased resistive losses due to Eddy Current Losses in conductors. the circulating current will tend to produce unequal loading conditions and it may be impossible to take the combined full-load output from the parallel-connected group without one of the transformers becoming excessive hot. 6. this condition being enforced by the parallel connection. ratio of resistance to reactance) and it is necessary to distinguish between per-unit and numerical impedance. power factor than that of the combined output. Polarity: This can be either right or wrong. 4. but the more nearly it is true. If wrong it results in a dead short circuit. When operating two or more transformers in parallel. Hence the currents carried by two transformers are proportional to their ratings. their satisfactory performance requires that they have: 1. 4. in which the phases reach their maximum positive voltages. the former must have half the impedance of the latter for the same regulation. The same voltage-ratio The same per-unit (or percentage) impedance The same polarity The same phase-sequence and zero relative phase-displacement Out of these conditions 3 and 4 are absolutely essential and condition 1 must be satisfied to a close degree. 5. 3. The two power transformers shall be paralleled only for a short duration. The impedance of transformers is small. extra eddy current losses in the tank structure. 2. 2. This mode of operation is frequently required. the better will be the load-division between the several transformers.4 Parallel operation of transformers The parallel operation of transformers is common in any industry. To carry double the current. The regulation must. however. so that one transformer will be working with a higher.5. When the secondaries are loaded. Two transformers giving secondary voltages with a phase-displacement cannot be used for transformers intended for parallel-operation. Consider two transformers of ratings in the ratio 2:1. Voltage Ratio: An equal voltage-ratio is necessary to avoid no-load circulating current. Phase-Sequence: This condition is associated only with polyphase transformers. There is more latitude with condition 2.YNd5: Star connected HV winding with neutral brought out. 3. LV lags HV with 150° 2. delta connected LV winding. so that a small percentage 2 voltage difference may be sufficient to circulate a considerable current and cause additional I R loss. A difference in quality of the per-unit impedance results in a divergence of phase angle of the two currents. For oil immersed transformers. be the same for parallel operation. and their per-unit impedances are identical. The phase sequence or the order. The system impedance reduces when the two or more transformers are paralleled and hence increases the fault level of the system. 2.e. otherwise during the cycle each pair of phases will be short-circuited. if their numerical or ohmic impedances are inversely proportional to those ratings. Impedance: The impedances of two transformers may differ in magnitude and in quality (i. 1. other wise it will lead to unnecessary losses. and the other with a lower. must be identical for two paralleling transformers.

Figure 2-4: B-H Loop Energy input and retrieval while increasing and decreasing current.1. It is roughly proportional to developed high voltage and the type and thickness of insulation. Hysteresis Loss A sizeable contribution to no-load losses comes from hysteresis losses. (Generally ignored in medium voltage transformers while computing efficiency).4 for a typical BH Loop. this accounts for 50% of the constant core losses for CRGO (Cold Rolled Grain Oriented) sheet steel with normal design practice. resisting being magnetized and demagnetized by the alternating magnetic field. It varies with frequency.2. Hysteresis Losses. Hysteresis losses originate from the molecular magnetic domains in the core laminations.5. Refer Fig 2. the selection of core material is an important factor in reducing core losses. 2. Dielectric Losses This loss occurs due to electrostatic stress reversals in the insulation. Where Kh f Bm Wh = Kh × f × Bm1. Hysteresis is a part of core loss.e. Loss per half cycle equals half of the area of Hysteresis Loop. The B-H loop area depends upon the type of core material and maximum flux density. It is therefore a loss. Typically. the type of material and frequency. This depends upon the area of the magnetising B-H loop and frequency. It is thus dependent upon the maximum limits of flux excursions i. Each time the magnetising force produced by the primary of a transformer changes because of the applied ac voltage.6 Watts/Kg. It is negligibly small and is roughly constant. 2. Bmax. Because various types of core materials have different magnetizing abilities.5. the domains realign them in the direction of the force. The energy to accomplish this realignment of the magnetic domains comes from the input power and is not transferred to the secondary winding.Basic description of the factors affecting these losses is given below. = the hysteresis constant = Frequency in Hertz = Maximum flux density in Tesla 9 .

2.5 below for a comparison of solid iron core and a laminated iron core. Fig. mm Where R ρ l A In addition. Ω 2 = Resistivity in Ohms . The resulting circulating current depends inversely upon the resistivity of the material and directly upon the thickness of the core.s current in the windings and directly with D.C. This loss decreases very slightly with increase in temperature. = the eddy current constant = Frequency in Hertz. This variation is very small and is neglected for all practical purposes. resistance of winding. The losses per unit mass of core material. Refer fig 2. these losses vary with winding temperature and thus will vary with the extent of loading and method of cooling. Resistive losses in the windings These represent the main component of the load dependent or the variable losses.4. 2. The resistance in turn varies with the resistivity. Eddy losses contribute to about 50% of the core losses.mm /m.5B shows a solid core. (thin sheets of silicon steel instead of a solid core) the path of the eddy current is broken up without increasing the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. The winding resistance at a temperature TL is given by the following equation. and the temperature. = Maximum flux density in Tesla = Thickness of lamination strips.5. designated as I R or copper losses. higher resistivity core material and thinner (Typical thickness of laminations is 0. the conductor dimensions. 2. They vary as square of the r. which is split up by laminations of thickness ‘d1’ and depth d2 as shown in C. thus vary with square of the flux density. Where Ke f Bm t We = Ke × Bm 2 × f 2 × t 2 Watts/Kg. = Length of conductor in metres 2 = Area of cross section of the conductor. 2 R= ρ×l A = Winding resistance. Eddy Current Losses in the Core The alternating flux induces an EMF in the bulk of the core proportional to flux density and frequency. For reducing eddy losses. 10 .5. Figure 2-5 Core lamination to reduce eddy current losses Eddy Losses.m. This is shown pictorially in 2.3.35 mm) lamination of core are employed. By using a laminated core.5 A. frequency and thickness of the core laminations.

which include these eddy losses in conductors at supply frequency (50 Hertz) as also the eddy losses in tank structure in general at the same frequency in the case of oil cooled transformers. and it is customary to take a value of 0. (Proximity effect) leads to extra losses in thick conductors for transformer windings. The contribution of eddy losses including tank losses. can be estimated from the difference in measured load losses and expected copper losses at the test current at the test temperature. The same effect. the varying self-linkage over the section. For an isolated conductor in space.s value of current will depend upon the load level and also the harmonic distortion of the current. A simplified expression for eddy current losses in conductors is given below. leads to clustering of the current near the conductor periphery. The eddy losses in the tank structure are equivalent to the dissipation in a loaded secondary with leakage reactance. The variation is not as the square of frequency. create circulating currents within the conductor causing additional losses. Eddy Current Losses in conductors: Conductors in transformer windings are subjected to alternating leakage fluxes created by winding currents.m. Ω The r. These varying linkages are due to self-linkage as also due to proximity of adjacent current carrying conductors. The sectionalised conductor has to be transposed to make it occupy all possible positions to equalise the e.C.5. These losses are termed as Eddy Current Losses in conductors. over the basic copper losses for an equivalent D. These losses are varying as the square of the frequency. induce voltages. tank losses are absent. For normal designs it ranges from 5% to 15%. Ω = Winding resistance at temperature. For dry type transformers. The Eddy losses in a thick conductor can be reduced by decreasing the radial thickness by sectionalising the conductors (multi-stranded) and increasing the axial dimension.fs to the extent possible. current. The Test Certificate mentions the load losses. Where R0 RL The constant 235 is for Copper. These extra losses vary with square of frequency and square of per unit harmonic current. which pass through the cross section of the conductor. This is known as Skin Effect.m. with the addition of flux from surrounding conductors. These induced voltages. use 225 or 227 = Winding resistance at temperature T0. TL + 235  RL = R0 ×    T0 + 235  for Alloyed Aluminium. 2. Leakage flux paths. w 1 2 N-1 N LC L W/N Figure 2-6: Sectionalised transformer winding .8 for the exponent. which vary over the cross section. Detailed subdivision is available only from design data. For Aluminium. TL. It can be taken as 10% of load losses in the absence of specific design data.5.Schematic 11 .

L As the number of subdivisions increase. W’ becomes smaller and Ke comes nearer to 1. to the loss due to D.3. some stray flux links with some parts of the tank and causes extra eddy current losses in the structure. conductors carrying large currents cause extra eddy current losses in the structural portion surrounding the leads. W = W’/100 Hence αW/N ≈ w'× Lc 4 2 . in Ohm-metres For Copper at 60 ° α C. Ke is the ratio of the total losses including eddy loss.6 Extra Eddy Losses in Structural Parts Some leakage flux invariably goes in air paths away from the transformer. as stated earlier. These losses are absent in dry type transformers. It is important to transpose each layer so that each layer is connected in series with a path in each one of the possible N positions before being paralleled.T. For a given geometry. N Ke = 1 + (αW/N ) × 9 4 2 Where α = (π × 4π × 10 −7 × f × Lc ) ρ×L where 4π X 10 –7 is permeability of space. α is thus proportional to f . The most important losses are core loss and copper loss. ρ = Resistivity. Similarly. ρ= 2 X 10 Ohm-metres L If W’ is in cm. extra flux due to outgoing L. 12 . it will produce eddy losses in that material.The total radial thickness of conductor of W cm is subdivided into N parts of W/N thickness each. Where Lc = Axial length of coil. Thus circulating current is forced to flow in a relatively very thin conductor. If it links with any conducting material.C. The above discussion on transformer losses is given only to gain familiarity with the fundamental principles. L = Window Height W = Radial total conductor width in metres W’= Width per subdivision W/N in centimeters. but always above 1. The other losses are described mainly to give a complete picture on losses. current. ≈ 100 × Lc –8 . For oil immersed transformers. Strength of this stray flux diminishes and varies inversely with distance. Both these losses vary with frequency 0. 2. eddy losses increase as square of frequency.8 .

Thus. × 1000 × 100 P × kVA rating × p. T = Load losses at operating temperatur e Load losses at reference temperatur e = 0.1/1.f.9 x 1.06523 13 .C. 90% of the load losses vary directly with rise in temperature and 10% of the load losses vary inversely with temperature. voltage changes. which in turn depends on the loading of the transformer.0808 +0. Calculations are usually done for an assumed temperature rise. p N.5 + 75 Hence T = 0. TRANSFORMER OPERATIONS 3. the following relationship is used. RT − op F + Tamb + Trise = RT − ref F + Tref Where F= 234. while eddy losses decreases with increase in temperature.f. = 225 for Aluminium = 227 for alloyed Aluminium RT-op = Resistance at operating temperature Tref = Standard reference temperature.L + L. and the rise in temperature is dependant on the total losses to be dissipated. × p 2 × T The basic D. at 75 °C = Temperature correction factor = Load power factor P × kVA rating × p. = per unit loading = No load losses in Watts = Load losses in Watts at full load. T p. the above expression can be modified accordingly. resistance copper losses are assumed to be 90% of the load losses.f. Variation of losses with loading level % Efficiency = Output ×100 Output + Losses = Where. harmonics and operating temperature.1. Eddy current losses 2 (in conductors) are assumed to be 10% of the load losses. Operating temperature = Ambient temperature + Temperature rise To estimate the variation in resistance with temperature.5 for Copper.L. 75 C Temperature correction factor.1 ×   RT − ref   RT − op  If a more realistic subdivision of load losses is known from design data.1.3. L.9 ×   RT − ref   RT − op    + 0. Basic I R losses increase with temperature.0808 = 1.0808 RT − ref 234.L.1 Variation of losses during operation The losses vary during the operation of a transformer due to loading. 3.L. RT − op 234. If operating temperature is 100 C.5 + 100 = = 1. × 1000 + N.

and the transformer impedance for that specific harmonic frequency. 3. or as prescribed in the test certificate Variation in load losses due to load power factor: Any reduction in current for the same kW load by improvement in p. Hence transformer rating is likely to be over-specified. 3. They vary with the square of the current and also with winding temperature.5 for Copper and 227 for Aluminium. Such a situation can lead to lower than 25% load at times. Load Losses = (Per Unit Loading)2 × Load Losses at Full Load ×  F + Top     F + Tref  F = Temperature coefficient = 234.1. Selection of Rating and Number of Transformers In general.m. The factors to be considered are: • • • • Expected growth of load over around five to ten years Margin for minimum 15 to 20% growth 10 to 15% margin for non-linear loads Availability of standard rating Generally. Thus normal operation may be at 50% load. The increase in constant loss is quite small.2. 30 to 50% excess capacity reduces load losses. 3. Loss Minimisation in Application & Operation 2 Transformers have a long life and do not generally suffer from technical obsolescence. The current harmonics of the local harmonic load adds to this by causing additional harmonic voltage drop depending upon magnitude of a particular harmonic and the system short circuit impedance at the point of supply.3. due to this voltage distortion. power may be had from two independent feeders at similar or different voltage levels. Moreover for critical continuous operation plants. On the contrary.2. For large plants with long in plant distances. For non-continuous operation of plants with holidays or seasonal industries.s current 2 and thus increase the basic I R losses.1. Variation in Load Losses About 90%of the load losses as measured by short circuit test are due to I R losses in the windings. switching off one transformer to save part load losses is generally considered. Tref = 75 °C usually. Variation in iron losses due to system voltage harmonics: The system input voltage may contain voltage harmonics due to aggregate system pollution in the grid. The combined total harmonics affect the flux waveform and give added iron losses. These losses vary as the square of the voltage. two or more transformers of equal rating may be selected. Planning for growth of loads and addition of non linear loads is becoming increasingly important. reduces load losses. However.1. selection of only one transformer of large rating gives maximum efficiency and simpler installation. Variation in losses due to current harmonics: The system current harmonics increase the r. this is generally not a disadvantage from the view point of energy consumption. which vary with the square of the frequency. a close realistic estimate permits extra first cost on a smaller 14 . The application details are not clearly known during selection and the load and the type of load also changes with time. each transformer may be sufficient to run the plant.2. The usual best efficiency point is near 50% load. Variation in Constant losses The iron loss measured by no load test is constant for a given applied voltage. In addition.f. the major increase comes from the variation in eddy current losses in the windings (Usually 5 to 10% of the total load losses). In all such cases.3. but the extra first cost is rarely justified by energy saving alone.

For the same kW load. load current value is useful.8.transformer designed on the basis of Least Total Ownership Cost ( TOC) basis. Loading is by linear loads. W 1805 2120 2645 3380 4325 5480 6845 8420 10205 12200 Output.2. Reduction of losses due to improvement of power factor Transformer load losses vary as square of current. Energy Saving by Under-utilisation of transformers Table 3. As expected.f.5 0. The extra first cost would be around Rs 10. Beyond 50% load.13 99.2.m. The load factor affects the load losses materially and an estimate of annual r. there is extra loss due to dominance of no load losses.0 lakhs. Hence deliberate over sizing is not economically viable. The saving by using a 1600 kVA transformer in place of a 1000 kVA transformer at 1000 kW load for 8760 hours/annum is 25960 kWh/year.3 0. This will need derating of 12% for 10% nonlinear load to about 27% for 40% nonlinear load.s. this is worth Rs 1. 3. For nonlinear loads.16 99.96 98. but risk of slow growth is to be minimised.78 1600 kVA. The corresponding figures for 1600 kVA transformer are 2600 Watts and 17000 Watts respectively. The last column shows the extra power loss due to oversized transformer. @Rs 5. transformers with minimum eddy losses in total load loss are preferred. For nonlinear loads. 15 .4 0. Using 1600 kVA transformer causes under loading for 1000 kW load. Transformers with relatively low no load losses( Amorphous Core Type) will maintain good efficiency at very low loads and will help in cases where high growth is expected. at light loads. the derating factor may be worked out taking a K-factor of 20.29 lakhs. losses.7 0.1 0. They have to be corrected to 2 expected site operating temperature. W 105 420 945 1680 2625 3780 5145 6720 8505 10500 Total losses. The 1000 kVA transformer has a no load loss of 1700 watts and load loss of 10500 Watts at 100% load. while eddy losses decrease with increase in temperature. Basic I R losses increase with temperature. If p. W 861 745 552 282 -58 -490 -992 -1570 -2226 -2960 The efficiency of 1000 kVA transformer is maximum at about 40% load.9 1. there is saving which is 2.8 0.23 98. Table 3-1: Comparison of transformer losses 1000 kVA. Temperatures assumed equal. W W 60 2660 265 2865 597 3197 1062 3662 1660 4267 2390 4990 3258 5853 4250 6850 5379 7979 6640 9240 Difference in losses. current drawn is proportional to KW/pf.09 99.6 to 0.4 of this chapter. No load losses = 1700 W Per unit load 0.6 0.2 0. 3. Details of K factor evaluation are given in section 3.0 Load losses. % 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 98. No load losses = 2600 W Load Total losses.0 /kWh.14 99.3.1 summarises the variation in losses and efficiency for a 1000 kVA transformer and also shows the difference in losses by using a 1600 kVA transformer for the same. Economic evaluation of transformers is discussed in chapter 5. kW Efficiency. Industrial power factor vary from 0. Thus the loads tend to draw 60% to 25% excess current due to poor power factor.2. is improved to unity at load end or transformer secondary.03 98.96 kW at 1000 kW load.88 98.95 99. Transformer losses may be specified at a standard reference temperature of 75 C. the saving in load losses is as under.

which may be almost twice in value compared to transformer losses. This gives an additional factor for comparing losses during design.8   I1   1  I1    1  I1       Where PT = Total load losses and ‘n’ is the order of the harmonic. It should also be kept in mind that correction of p.25% over existing level of load losses.5.4.f is 0. Apart from ease of separation and monitoring of harmonics. 3. It is not meant for power distribution transformers. In cold countries the ambient temperature is lower. Higher temperature permits reduction in material content and first cost. The propagation of harmonics can be controlled much more easily and problems can be confined to known network. The method is applicable for estimation in power distribution transformers. Thus. As per IEC 61378-1.4% rise in load losses. The operating temperature limit is decided by the type of insulation used and the difficulties of cooling. reduces life expectancy materially. When the transformer volume increases. Operating temperature beyond the limits prescribed for the insulation. The alternative approaches for power distribution transformers using K-Factor and Factor-K are given later. ambient temperature is higher giving a higher operating temperature. giving a lower operating temperature. 1 2  Saving in load losses = (Per unit loading as per kW) X Load losses at full load X    − 1   pf     2 Thus. In tropical countries.f downstream saves on cable losses. the saving will be 56. if p.3. Oil cooling uses a liquid insulating medium for heat transfer. Assessing the effects of Harmonics Load loss performance of a design or an installed transformer with known data can be done if the levels of harmonic current are known or estimated. it can be supplied from a transformer which is specially designed for handling harmonics. Perhaps a smaller than usual transformer will help in coordinating short circuit protection for network as well as active devices. This standard is specifically meant for transformers and reactors which are an integral part of converters. The only disadvantage apart from additional cost is the increased interdependence of sensitive loads. Oil cooled transformers operate at lower temperatures compared to dry type transformers. 3. 3. non-linear loads should be segregated from linear loads. Effect of operating temperature The losses have to be dissipated through the surface area. the ratio of surface area to volume reduces. Segregation of non linear loads In new installations.8 and it is improved to unity. the total load losses with current harmonics are given as under 2  n  In  2   n  In  2   IL  PT = PDC1 ×   + PWE1 × ∑   × n 2  + (PCE1 + PSE1) × ∑   × n 0. Every 1°C rise in operating temperature gives about 0. larger transformers are difficult to cool. A reference temperature of 75 °C is selected for expressing the losses referred to a standard temperature. IEC 61378-1 ‘Transformers for Industrial Applications’ gives a general expression for estimating load losses for loads with harmonics. This is a relatively simple opportunity to make the most of the existing transformer and it should not be missed. IL2 = ∑ In 2 n =1 n PDC1= Basic copper losses for fundamental frequency PWE1= Winding eddy losses for fundamental PCE1 = Eddy losses in structural parts due to current leads for fundamental 16 . It can be used for oil cooled transformers or dry type transformers.

m. K = 4 for welders Induction heaters. The K-Factor is the ratio of eddy current losses when supplying non-linear loads as compared to losses while supplying linear loads. In U. Total load losses at 100% load = 0. dry type of transformers are used in majority of applications. + In 2 2 ) Where I1 is taken as 1. or assumed typically as 10 %. and n = Order of harmonic. since I is defined. 17 . K= ∑( I ) × n 2 In 2 2 n =1 (I1/I1) 2 × 12 K= ∑( n n =1 In I ) ×n 2 The K-Factor is used directly to specify transformers for a given duty.9 + 0.Factor The K-Factor rating assigned to a transformer and marked on the transformer case in accordance with the listing of Underwriters Laboratories. practice is to estimate the K – Factor which gives ready reference ratio K for eddy losses while supplying non-linear loads as compared to linear loads.n 2 n =1 2 In= per unit harmonic current.PSE1 = Eddy losses in structural parts for fundamental In I1 = Current for harmonic order n = Fundamental current PCE1 and PSE1 are not applicable to dry type transformers 3. k = ∑ In 2 .1 x K) If K = 11. if needed can be estimated at any x % loading as under if the contribution of eddy losses in load losses at fundamental frequency test is known from design.1 = 2 2 Total load losses at x % load = x x 2. motors. (I I ) × n n 2 2 where I is the total r. Fluorescent lights K = 13 For Telecommunication equipment. Copper losses are then assumed to be the balance 90 %. K = 20 for main frame computers.S. For specification in general.e.. K = 1 for resistance heating..5. rated value. variable speed drives and desktop computers. K is ratio of Eddy losses at 100 % current with harmonics and Eddy losses at 100 % current with fundamental. Total load losses at 100 % load = (0. Practice – K. The total losses. Now.s. the U.S..1.. eddy losses at 100% load with this harmonic pattern are 11 times the eddy losses at fundamental. loss variation is taken as including fundamental.9 + 1. The eddy losses in conductors are assumed to vary as and is assumed to be 100 % i. is an index of the transformer's ability to supply harmonic content in its load current while remaining within its operating temperature limits. distribution transformers etc. U.S. current (I I ) × n n 2 n I= (I 1 2 + I2 2 + .

479 In/I1 1 0.2000 0.s. A sample K.479 =I.5544 0. current equal to the R.1538 0.5. = √ 2.38 0.18 0.0009 2.5 e In q I = Eddy current loss at fundamental frequency divided by loss due to a D.1876 RMS Current 1 0.1876 11.5 The objective is to estimate the total load losses at 100% current. value of the sinusoidal current.M.6724 0. European Practice. 3.3. 1 3 5 7 9 11 Total r.7663 3. 2 2 N   In   e  I1  q K = 1 +   ×∑n ×   I   1+ e  I  n+2  1     0. K-Factor is given by last column.2.M.8444 3.m. current and hence are equal to the measured losses at fundamental frequency.If total load losses are assumed to be 100% or 1 for same temperature rise. K factor = 11.S. = magnitude of nth harmonic current.3921 0. Total load losses at fundamental are taken as unity i.3073 0.0020 0.82 0. x = 0.e.6138 =1. 1 = (I R × (1 + e )) 1= Eddy Losses as a fraction of total load losses =  e × I2R   e   2   I R (1 + e) )  =  (1 + e) )        18 .C. then x = 1/K =1/2.5 for foil type low voltage winding.‘Factor K’ The European practice as defined in BS 7821 Part 4 and HD 538. The basic copper losses vary as the square of the r. based on the above relationships.m.1217 0.4571 2.045 1.1120 2 2 1 0.82 0.s.0304 (In/I) 2 (In/I) xn 0. value of the current including all harmonics  n=N 2  =  ∑ In    n =1 0.18 0.2569 0.S1 defines a derating factor for a given transformer by a ‘Factor-K’.38 0.S.m. The base current is thus I the r. when that current contains harmonics.58 0. current which is 100%.4571 0.7 for round / rectangular section = 1.2344 1.3364 0.s Sum Ir.s.1444 0. 1.0324 0.7%.m.5 1/K or 70.618 A K13 rated transformer is recommended for this load.0148 0.045 (In/I1) 2 (In/I) 0. Table 3-2: Estimation for K factor 2 Harmonic No.factor calculation is given for a given set of harmonic measurements. This is equal to the rated current at which the load losses are measured at fundamental frequency. Thus the transformer can work at 70% of its rated load current specified for linear loads. I 2 R + EddyLosses where as Eddy Losses = (e × I 2 R ) 2 Hence. = R.6761 0. = Exponential constant dependent on type of winding and frequency = 1.0660 0.58 0.

.1) x (1/1. =√ 2. there is an error on safe side with a total deviation of only 2% to 4% depending upon IH. 1 3 5 7 9 11 Sum RMS Current 1 0. The first two terms equal the total losses at fundamental and thus equals 1. 2 Eddy Losses =  n I1 2 × 1q + I3 2 × 3 q + .e.045 In/I1 1 0.1876 = 1.1/ 1. The addition to eddy losses may be 10 to 15 times due to harmonics... 2 2 K = 1 + (0.473 15.Eddy Losses at I (100%) =  2  e  n (In ) q ×∑ 2 ×n   1 + e  n =1 I Since harmonics are expressed as fractions of fundamental. Typical calculation (taking q as 1.s.9467 1.1193 q 2 Σ=15.9653 –1) =1.6724 0.0324 0..38 0.1893 3.28 x 100 = 78.28 Transformer derating factor = 1/K = 1/1. + In 2 × n q  e   I1  ×  ×∑ I1 2  1 + e   I  n =1 2 n (I1 2 × 1q + I3 2 × 3q + . e= 0. 2 2 2  e  I1 2 + IH 2  e   IH Total losses = I R +   × × 2 2 − I 1 + e   I 1 + e  2 ( ) n   e   I1   In  q + ×  × ∑   × n  1+ e    I  n = n + 2  I1   2 2 If the term for IH is neglected.0020 2.18 0.82 0.58 0. At x % load.38 0. The expression thus simplifies to the form stated earlier.The Factor K is taken as the square root of total losses. X= 1/K .82 0.3576 0.9653 I r. since e/ 1+ e itself is about 9% to 10% of total losses at fundamental. + In 2 × n q )   e   I1   =   ×   × 1 + ∑   I1 2  1 + e   I   n =n +2  2 ( ) I = I1 + IH 2 where IH equals the sum of squares for harmonics.1) is given below.641 K = 1. The summation term is for n > 1 and thus covers harmonics only.045 (In/I1) 1 0.3364 0.1444 0.457) x (15.1876 2 n 1 6.7 and assuming that eddy current loss at fundamental as 10% of resistive loss i. Table 3-3: Estimation of Factor K 2 2 Harmonic No.457.m. but excluding fundamental.426 27.18 0.58 0.06% 19 . Load Losses = X K and since new load losses should be equal to 1.332 41.900 58.934 q n (In/I) 1 4.3525 5.

the inherent colinearity between lamination orientation and the magnetic field direction allows use of grain oriented steel for transformer laminations. Losses in Core Choice of metal is critical for transformer cores.025 inch thick. which are randomly positioned in a non-oriented material. Many similar units have been put in service since then. Construction of the core utilizes step lap mitered joints and the laminations are carefully stacked. this lamination material contains no granular structure at all. 4. 5.006. Minimising Iron Losses 4. They consists of 1. consider varying the cross-sectional area of the transformer core. First. transformer lamination thickness may be as low as 0. cold-rolled. than just the first cost. Laminations only 0.012 being common. Core construction permits two important energy-saving features not applicable to industrial motors. Whereas motor laminations are usually 0. always leading the designer to seek a cost-effective balance. Typical core loss in such a transformer is only one-third of that in a conventional unit. Worldwide. 4. Each grade has an effect on efficiency on a per-kg basis. 20 .1. Second. That lowers eddy current loss. For example.001 inch thick were used in the first mass-produced distribution transformers (25 kVA) manufactured by Westinghouse in 1986. The design approaches for reduction of losses are well known and proven. Using more material Better material New Material Improved distribution of materials Improvement in cooling medium and methods Each design tries to achieve desired specifications with minimum cost of materials or minimum weight or volume or minimum overall cost of ownership. An increase in volts per turn reduces winding loss while increasing the core loss.009 to 0. To raise transformer efficiency. Almost all transformer manufacturers today use steel in their cores that provides low losses due to the effects of magnetic hysteresis and eddy currents. grain-oriented. The choice depends on how you evaluate non-load losses and total owning costs. That greatly reduces hysteresis loss in the core-the energy required to cyclically realign the "molecular magnets" within the steel. much thinner material can be used in a transformer core than in a rotating machine. REDUCTION OF LOSSES AT DESIGN STAGE 4. high permeability. Resembling glass more than steel. because laminations are sheared or slit in strips rather than being punched with slots. and it's important that good quality magnetic steel be used. along with some large power transformers. with 0.2. An increase tends to lower no-load loss while raising the winding loss. A further improvement appearing during the 1980's is amorphous core material. Variation in conductor area and in the electric and magnetic circuit path lengths will affect efficiency in various ways. more and more consumers are now purchasing transformers based on the total ownership costs. 2.2. 3. just as in a motor.014 to 0. Introduction Design changes to reduce transformer losses.1. There are many grades of steel that can be used for a transformer core. silicon steel is almost always used. To achieve these objectives. always involve tradeoffs.4. The evolution of materials used in transformer core is summarised below. core loss has probably drawn the most attention.

However. Amorphous cores A new type of liquid-filled transformer introduced commercially in 1986 uses ultra low-loss cores made from amorphous metal. repeated. higher resistance resulting in more copper losses. resulting in longer turns of winding. these transformers have been designed for distribution operation primarily by electric utilities and use wound-cut cores of amorphous metal. The use of higher flux densities in CRGO (up to 1. This material gives high permeability and is available in very thin formations (like ribbons) resulting in much less core losses than CRGO. In amorphous core. The reason utilities purchase them. Thus iron losses depend upon the material and flux densities selected.e.5T) 1 (1.27 0.3T) 0.03 0. It can be seen that losses in amorphous metal core is less than 25% of that in CRGO. The use of amorphous core liquid-filled transformers is now being expanded for use in power applications for industrial and commercial installations.5 T) results in higher core losses.35 0. as the volume of core is less. To date. Figure 4-1: Amorphous core -ribbons Amorphous metal is a new class of material having no crystalline formation.84 (1. there is relatively a larger volume to be dealt with. is because of their high efficiency. but affect also the copper losses. The trade off between the both types is interesting. Amorphous metal and CRGO.5T) 0. less amount of copper winding is required.3 0. This is especially true in other countries such as Japan. the material is sometimes referred to as glassy metal).) 1910 1950 1960 1965 1975 1980 1985 Core Material Thickness (Mm) 0. The total operating cost due to losses and total investment cost forms the basis of Total Ownership Cost of a transformer.35 0. even though they are more expensive than silicon steel core transformers.9 (1.Table 4-1: Evolution of core material Year (Approx. Amorphous metals are characterized by a random arrangement of their atoms (because the atomic structure resembles that of glass.2. the flux density is less and thinner laminations also help in reducing core losses.18 Loss (W/Kg At 50hz) 2 (1.67 (1. Conventional metals possess crystalline structures in which the atoms form an orderly. 4. i.5T) 0. however. It becomes clear that a figure for total losses can be compared while evaluating operating cost of the transformers.5T) 0.2. Their ratings range from 10kVA through 2500kVA.5T) Warm rolled FeSi Cold rolled CRGO Cold rolled CRGO Cold rolled CRGO Amorphous metal Cold rolled CRGO Cold rolled CRGO There are two important core materials used in transformer manufacturing. three-dimensional array.75 (1. This atomic 21 .23 0. the core losses are between 60% to 70% lower than those for transformers using silicon steel.5T) 0.2 (1. This reduces the copper losses.

However. the price differential is dependent upon which grade of silicon steel the comparison is being made. Liquid-filled transformers are normally more efficient than dry-types.e. 4. you should determine the economic trade off. air or air/gas cooled (dry type). Using a thicker section of the conductor i. the core loss becomes the largest component of a transformer's total losses. the price of the unit versus the cost of losses. fire prevention is more important with liquid-type units because of the use of a liquid cooling medium that may catch fire. in other words. thin and flimsy. In addition. 22 . For liquid-filled transformers. Losses are especially important when transformers are lightly loaded.4. Different manufacturers have different capabilities for producing amorphous cores. Cost and manufacturing technique are the major obstacles for bringing to the market a broad assortment of amorphous core transformers. Nevertheless. For example. liquid is a more efficient cooling medium in reducing hot spot temperatures in the coils. you can expect units larger than 2500kVA being made in the future. selecting a 2 lower current density can reduce the basic I R losses. the higher the price of the steel. liquid-filled units have a better overload capability. too. In general. such as during the hours from about 9 p. some have made substantial advances in making these cores for transformers. To a degree. If you're considering the use of an amorphous core transformer. and they usually have a longer life expectancy. there are subcategories of each main type. When lightly loaded. Basically. And. Also. There are some drawbacks. such as high fire point hydrocarbons and silicones. and difficult to obtain in large sheets.) It's even possible for an improperly protected wet-type transformer to explode. All the same. the cooling medium can be conventional mineral oil.m. the cost of electric power at the location where such a transformer is contemplated is a very important factor in carrying out the economic analyses. accounts for the very low hysteresis and eddy current losses in the new material. being very hard and difficult to cut. and recently. along with the difference in the composition and thickness of the metal. The designer has to take care of the proper buildup of turns with transposition and also take care of the mechanical strength to sustain short circuit in addition to needed insulation and surge voltage distribution. However.m. development of these types of transformers continues. there are two distinct types of transformers: Liquid insulated and cooled (liquid-filled type) and non liquid insulated. Choice of liquid-filled or dry type 2 2 Information on the pros and cons of the available types of transformers frequently varies depending upon what information is made available by the manufacturer. amorphous cores are not being applied in dry-type transformers. (The more energy efficient the grade of steel used in the transformer core. There are also wettype transformers using less flammable liquids. The metal is not easily workable. an arbitrary increase in thickness can increase eddy current losses. depending on the application. Thus. there are certain performance and application characteristics that are almost universally accepted. and the use of this special metal in dry-type transformers may become a practical reality sometime in the future. However. (Dry-type transformers can catch fire.) At present. A properly configured foil winding is useful in this context. designers can always try to get minimum basic I R and minimum eddy current losses for a given design and specified harmonic loading. liquid-filled transformers may require a containment trough for protection against possible leaks of the fluid. to 6 a. decreasing radial thickness by sectionalisation leads to reduction in eddy current losses. 4. there is continuous developmental work being done on amorphous core transformers. however.structure. Minimising Copper losses The major portion of copper losses is I R losses. The technical difficulties of constructing a core using amorphous steel have restricted the size of transformers using this material. Also. The price of these units typically ranges from 15% to 40% higher than that of silicon steel core transformers.3.

Dry-type transformers with ratings exceeding 5MVA are available. with dry-types used for the lower ratings and wet-types for the higher ratings. For outdoor applications.Arguably. Table 4-2: Comparison of Losses – Oil type and dry type KVA 500 750 1000 1500 2000 (Oil Transformer) Losses Half Load (w) Full Load (w) 2465 4930 3950 7900 4360 8720 6940 13880 8155 16310 KVA 500 750 1000 1500 2000 Dry Type Transformer Losses Half Load (w) Full Load (w) 5000 10000 7500 15000 8200 16400 11250 22500 13200 26400 23 . Important factors when choosing what type to use include where the transformer will be installed. the changeover point between dry-types and wet-types is between 500kVA to about 2. but the vast majority of the higher-capacity transformers are liquid-filled. when choosing transformers.2 shows losses in dry type and oil filled type transformers.5MVA. such as inside an office building or outside. servicing an industrial load. The flowing table 4. wet-type transformers are the predominate choice.

Rs/Watt = PW × EL × HPY 1000 = Present worth. 2 A PW EL HPY B p T For some typical operating values. physical life and perceptions of return of capital of the agency making the investment decision. The cost of capital is reckoned as the rate of interest where as the purchasing power of the currency measured against commodities determines the relative value of money in a given economic domain. the cost of capital has to be weighed against the cost/benefits accrued.Effective First Cost adds an appropriate amount to account for energy expenses and shows a better measure of comparing an equipment with higher first cost. it will yield 90.91 is invested at an annual interest of 10%. 11 kV/433 V transformer having no load losses of 1500 Watts and load losses of 10000 Watts ( at full load). ‘n’ will be roughly equal to the economic life of the equipment governed by the technical obsolescence. details of calculation given in section 3. let us calculate the TOC EFC for a 1000 kVA . These assumptions have obvious limitations. If Rs 90. The TOCEFC i.e.. PW = ((1 + i ) − 1) n i (1 + i ) n where PW is present worth of future cash flows i = per unit interest rate n = number of years Purchase of a transformer involves first cost and subsequent payment of energy charges during a given period. The period of ‘n’ years may be 10 to 15 years.91x (1+10/100) = Rs 100/.1. if the annual rate of interest is 10%.2 Total Ownership cost of transformers TOC EFC = Purchase Price + Cost of No load loss + Cost of Load loss Cost of Core loss EFC = A X No load loss in Watts Cost of Load loss EFC = B X Load loss in Watts Where = Equivalent first cost of No load losses. 5. Generally. 24 . but having a higher efficiency and thus lower running charges. but the TOCEFC concept is widely used method for evaluation. Benefits may be in cash or kind. The concept of evaluation can be applied to transformers with the assumptions that the annual losses and the load level remain steady at an equivalent annual value.1. Hence the present worth of Rs 100 after one year is Rs 90.1 Introduction For any investment decision. tangible or intangible and immediate or deferred. Total Ownership Cost. The deferred monetary gains/expenses are expressed in terms of their present worth (PW).5. future expenses have to be accounted for. greater the uncertainty. Rs/ kWh. Similarly. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1. the tariff is constant and the rates of inflation and interest are constant.1 = Cost of electricity. The benefits will have to be converted into their equivalent money value and deferred benefits have to be converted into their present worth in money value for a proper evaluation. The effective first cost or the total ownership cost can be had by adding the present worth of future energy charges. explained in previous section 5.91/.at the end of one year. to the owner of the transformer = Hours of operation per year = Equivalent first cost of load losses = A ×p ×T = Per Unit load on transformer = Temperature correction factor. The longer the period.

The value left in a working equipment can be evaluated either by its technical worth. Table 5.5 + 100 = = 1. for any equipment.1 summarises purchase price and losses of two transformers of same rating 1000 kVA.9152 x 10000 = Rs 2624432/- Decisions for changeover to new equipment In this case there is an added cost of the existing working equipment. Thus TOCEFC = (Present depreciated effective cost of old equipment – Salvage value) + A X No load loss + B X Load loss 5.52 Rs/Watt If operating temperature is 100 ºC. taking its left over life into consideration or by the economic evaluation by its depreciated value as per convenience.000 No-load losses . n Inflation rate.00. 9152 Rs/Watt TOC EFC 5.0808 RT − ref 234.1/1.75 = 100 ºC 15 Per unit transformer loading (average) Operating temperature n ((1 + i ) − 1) = ((1 + 0.0 per kWh = 8000 = 0.000 = 15 years = 4.6234 W High-Efficiency Transformer Rs 9.06523 Equivalent first cost of load losses B = A × p 2 × T = 243. Table 5-1: Comparison of transformers Standard Transformer Purchase price – Rs 8.3 = 800000 + 243. the prediction of life is very difficult due to varying operating parameters.06523 = 145.1500 W Load losses at 100% .5 + 75 Hence Temperature correction factor.00. The calculations for a standard transformer are done in previous section 5. 61 × 4 × 8000 Equivalent first cost of No load losses A = PW × EL × HPY = 1000 1000 = 243.61 7 .0808 +0. i EL = Cost of Electricity HPY = Hours per Year = Rs 8.50. For transformers.5% = 10% = Rs 4.4 Sample Calculations Total Owning Cost of a 1000 kVA Transformer Using No-load and Load Losses and present worth is estimated below.1) PW = Present Worth = i (1 + i ) n −1 15 0.1(1 + 0. Let us now compare a high efficiency 1000 kVA transformer with the standard transformer.2. which can be taken as equivalent immediate returns.1) ) = 7. a Interest rate (discounting factor).52 × 0.Purchase price Life of equipment.9 x 1. T = 0.000 1210 W 7964 W 4215 W 25 . Moreover.10000 W Load loss at 75% .75 2 × 1.52 x 1500 + 145. there is a salvage value.0808 = 1. RT − op 234.

69.592 Present Value of Savings with Energy Efficient transformer = Rs 2624432 .9152 x 4215 = Rs 18.2.000 + Rs 243.69.as estimated in section 5.54.840/Note that a high efficiency transformer is having much less Total Owning Cost compared to a standards efficiency transformer in spite of higher investment.50. 26 . Total Owning Cost of transformer #2 (high efficiency): A B = Rs 243.592 = Rs 7.52 / year = Rs 145.52 x 1210 + Rs 145.Rs 18.Total Owning Cost of Transformer #1 (standard efficiency) = Rs 2624432/.9152 / year Total Owning Cost of High-Efficiency transformer = Rs 9.

6 6. The company follows the total ownership cost (TOC) concept and has used A and B figures of EUR 2. The case studies also give the energy saving gains in terms of reduction in carbon dioxide (Co2) emission. The applicability of Low Loss designs in each rating is analysed and payback period is found out. The remaining 340 MW is through distribution transformers.T. The energy price is taken as 0. Three case studies are from Indian industries and six case studies from international scenario. Netherlands assume full details of No Load Loss and Load Loss as well as portion of Eddy Losses in Load Loss as being available from transformer manufacturer or from relevant standard.04 /W 21 0 23 2 25 2 Illustrative Calculations Inflation is not considered and hence the present worth expression is simplified using a = zero. Thus CO2 cost can be 15 % to 50 % of Energy cost. The case studies from KEMA. In the first case study. Table 6-1input data 1250 kV transformer Transformer load Economic lifetime Interest rate Energy price Harmonic spectrum % A (no-load loss evaluation) B (load loss evaluation) 65% (constant load. The comparative figures are given for 1250 kVA transformers.02 Euro/kWh. 6.T. utilization by H. There are about 400 Transformers. 24/24h) with 6 pulse harmonics 10 years 7% EUR 40/MWh 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 100 0 29 11 0 6 5 0 3 3 EUR 2. This gives a monetary factor of 0.3 kg/kWh to 0. Load is constant during 24 hours a day.04 Euro/kWh.1 Introduction CASE STUDIES There are nine case studies presented in this chapter. of 1600 kVA while the remaining 100 Numbers are of different ratings. are of 1250 kVA and about 100 Nos. The likely penalty/gain per Ton of Co2 in monetary terms is taken as 0. Transformer ratings vary from 800 kVA to 4800 kVA. About 200 Nos. the factor for enhanced eddy losses in the first load loss is shown for illustration only for illustrating rough order of values. The harmonic content of the load is given for each typical application.6 kg/kWh with a cost ranging from Euro 10 to Euro 33/ ton. This factor however is not applicable for payback and it is thus not considered for payback in the tables presented. Motors. The average loading is 400 MW out of which about 60 MW is through H. 7 days a week. No tests are conducted at site.003 Euro/ kWh to 0. Almost all the transformers are of Dry Type due to problems faced in the earlier oil cooled transformers. All studies are presented in the year 2002.46 /W EUR 1.63/W for load losses. The payback is considered for extra price to be paid for the low loss transformer and it is around 2 to 3 years. Most of the transformers are replaced between 1982 to 1990.2 Case Study 1 The case study considers a large company in the Iron and Steel sector. The Load Loss figures given in the tables give the Load Losses considering the harmonics in the load. 27 .27/W for no load losses and EUR 1.

e.u.4356 + 0. the fifth has 29% value of the fundamental.Present worth = (1 + i )n − 1 n i(1 + i ) Interest Rate 7 % i.29) × 5 × 5 = 2.29 ) × 25 + (0 . 03 ) × 361 + (0 .07(1.07 per unit.46/Watt 1000 2 EL = 0.65. Thus Load Losses at fundamental frequency = Load Losses x [p.1 Factor for Harmonics Factor for eddy losses = ∑ (I I ) × h h =n h=1 h 2 1 2 If harmonics are absent. the tested load losses have eddy losses at fundamental. copper losses due to I R can be taken as 90 % and 10% of the specified Load Losses can be attributed to eddy losses at fundamental frequency. 0.02 ) × 529 + (0 . loading] x [0. If data from design is available for percentage of eddy loss at fundamental.04 EUR/kWh A= B = A x P x T.3249 + 0.07 ) Pw × EL × 8760 = EUR2.05 ) × 169 + (0 .9 + (0.5929 + 0. 03 ) × 287 + (0 .07 )10 − 1 = 7.2601 + 0.e.02 ) × 625 2 2 2 = 2.1) x 1] The Extra addition is over and above eddy losses due to fundamental frequency and hence extra harmonic factor 2 K h = ∑ Ih h=1 h =n ( I1) × h 2 2 − 1 Or K h = ∑ Ih h =3 h =n ( I1) × h 2 2 For the given six pulse harmonics.65 x 0. Period is 10 years Pw (1 + 0.25 = 4.11 ) × 49 + (0 . i.2116 + 0.2.06 ) × 121 + (0 . In the absence of specific data. Hence K 5 = (0. T=1 B = 2. P = 65 %.6001 Total eddy loss factor = 4. it should 2 be used in the calculation.0236 = 10 0.6 28 .1025 2 2 2 2 2 2 K h = (0 .4225 + 0. 0.46 x 0.65 = 1.04/watt 6.1025 + 0.039 = EUR 1. this factor is one.6001 + 1 = 5.

The needed derating would be (11.6.5207 = 14447 w The actual figure stated is 14218 w.2. the distribution works out to 88.47 Or 13568 Watts For Suggested Low Losses transformer Full load losses = 8200 x 1.73 or 11712 watts.52) = 0.9069 + 5. Incidentally it shows that due to harmonic loads the full load losses have gone up by 42% in 1250 kVA.5207.42) = 0.2.31% Existing Transformer: Full load losses on Harmonic Load = Rated load losses on linear loads x [p.32% for eddy losses. For 1600 kVA transformer.68% copper losses and 11.69% 9. If design data is not available. 29 . 90% and 10% subdivision can give a reasonable value.6 × 0.4 Relative economics for low loss transformers (All Dry type) The data worked out for 1250 kVA and 1600 kVA are given in Table 6.31 % 6. This requires data on percentage of Eddy Losses in conductors in the total Load Losses for the existing transformer and the nearest low loss substitute. The method thus illustrates the steps to calculate full load loss (harmonic loads) if the distribution is known.5207 = 15207 w.2.3.811 For 1250 kVA and 1600 kVA respectively for harmonic loading.2 Percentage of Eddy Losses in Load Losses: The next step is to evaluate full load losses with harmonic loading for the given transformer and also for the relatively low loss transformer of similar rating being considered for replacement. and 52% in 1600 kVA transformer. It can be noted that inferred distribution is very close to assumed distribution of 90% and 10%. 6. Existing 1250 kVA No Load 2400 W Rated Load Loss 9500 W Assumed % Copper Losses 90. This is not always true as can be seen from tables given in the annexure.42826 = 11711.69% Assumed % Eddy Losses 9.093) = 9500 × 1. The low loss substitute has full load loss (linear) = 9500 x 1. For 1250 kVA rating. For similar harmonic load factor of 5. the existing and new low loss design have following data for the subdivision of eddy losses. the figures are inferred from the final load loss figures given in the KEMA publication.u.839 and (11. Thus a slightly different distribution is considered for the low loss substitute. Eddy loss)] = 9500 × (0. Copper + K (p.u.6 the multiplier comes to 1. The actual loading is only 65% and hence all alternatives considered are safe from the view point of temperature rise.42826 = 13568. Thus rated full load loss (Linear) of 10000 w yields a figure of 10000 x 1.2 and Table 6.3 Full load losses for Harmonic Loading: Low Loss 1250 kVA 2200 W 8200 W 90.

0 13000 5414 12178 30592 Difference -200 -1856 -8623 -3.46 x 2400 = 5904 Present value of Load Loss = 13568 x 1.4 x 8760 + 13. Carbon Dioxide emission at 0.4 kg/kWh = 71241 x 0. low losses 1250 2200 11712 62618 25. low losses 1600 2670 14218 76012 30.3 Dry transformer. existing transformer are illustrated first.4 14990 6571 14784 36345 Difference -130 -989 -4797 -1.568 kW (full load) Annual losses for 65% loading for 8760 hours = 2. Rated No Load Loss = 2400 w = 2.5 Dry transformer.Table 6-2 1250 kVA transformer Unit Transformer rating Rated no-load loss Rated load loss Total annual losses CO2 emission @ 0.4 = 28496 kg = 28.65 x 8760 kWh = 21024 + 50216.673750) Present value of no load losses 2.65 x 0.5 Tons/annum Purchase Price is given as EUR 12250 (About Rs.2 45% ton/a EUR EUR EUR EUR 12250 5907 14108 32265 Table 6-3 1600 kVA transformer Unit Transformer rating Rated no-load loss Rated load loss Total annual losses CO2 emission @ 0.04 = EUR 14110 Total Capitalised Cost = EUR 32265 A similar figure for low loss transformer is EUR 30592 30 .568 x 0.5 750 -493 -1930 -1673 2.5 = 71240.9 539 -320 -1028 -809 2.4 kg/kWh Purchase price Present value no-load loss Present value load loss Capitalised costs Pay Back (years) Internal rate of return kVA W W kWh/a Dry transformer 1600 2800 15207 80809 32.4 kg/kWh Purchase price Present value no-load loss Present value load loss Capitalised costs Pay back (years) Internal rate of return kVA W W kWh/a Dry transformer 1250 2400 13568 71241 28.5 = 71241 kWh/annum.8 34% ton/a EUR EUR EUR EUR 14451 6891 15812 37154 Comments: The figures for 1250 kVA.4 kW Rated load loss = 13568 W = 13.

04 x 8623 = EUR 345 = Simple payback 750 = 2. Harmonics are not considered. The loss pattern is No load Load loss = 1900 Watts = 10250 Watts Calculations for1000 kVA old transformer with the loading pattern and 5 years of life with 7% interest rate gives the A factor = EUR 1.This figure favours the low loss type with an initial purchase price of EUR 13000 which is EUR 750 of added investment. 35% during 14 hours. 2 . IRR 34 %. The total saving potential of 2939 MWh/year is equivalent to EUR 117564/year and is 0.4 summarises the data for dry transformers and oil cooled transformers for future replacement. the load variation is about 45% during 10 hours. 6. direct replacement is not economically viable. Total number of transformers is 25. Payback for extra investment of EUR 750: The low loss transformer consumes 62618 kWh/annum. the low loss substitutes show an attractive payback of 2.8 years.73 % extra cost). wherein a good number is at 1000 kVA.2 to 2. the total loading is about 190 MW. 6.2 years.12 % Extra Investment) 345 Internal Rate of Return = 100 = 45 %about. Due to somewhat higher load loss figures used for TOC during initial purchase.17 or 2. Thus the annual saving = EUR 0. most of the transformers are old (1965 to 1970). Hence it is not very attractive to replace existing transformers by scrapping.5 x 10 MWh/year. Since the loading is low. Table 6. Excepting 3 new dry type installed in 1999.24/Watt.5 Summary: 1.44/watt And B factor = EUR 0.8 years for an added investment of EUR 539 (about 3.084% of 6 the total consumption of 3. higher investments have been preferred. The scope for distribution transformers is limited is only to 10 MW. giving a very low B factor. But almost 180 MW are consumed through dedicated high voltage transformers for electrolysis. If a transformer is to be replaced for any reason.3 Case Study-2: Non ferrous metal sector In a large company in the non ferrous metal sector. 31 . 2.2.2 A similar calculation for 1600 kVA shows a saving of 4797 kWh and a payback of 2. saving thereby 8623 kWh/annum. (For about 6. Out of it.

The case is presented for 3150 kVA transformer for which the input data is given in table 6. Hence it is the most favored choice and the rate of return is not applicable. out of which 72 MW are used at high voltage for HT motors.8 65 Case Study-3: Paper & Pulp Company A paper mill started functioning since 1978 and was expanded in 1986. The dominant number (28) is 3150 kVA transformers with LV of 690 Volts. Table 6-5: Annual savings potential Transformer size 1000 kVA Other Total 6. These transformers are better compared to the low loss transformers available today. The highlight of the case study is that in 1986. the peak electrical loading is about 110 MW.4 Total number 12 13 25 Energy saving [MWh] 78.1 Oil C-C’ transformer 1000 1100 9500 23793 9.57 /W 32 .4 kg/kWh Purchase price Present value no-load loss Present value load loss Capitalised costs Pay back (years) Internal rate of return kVA W W kWh/a Dry HD 538 transformer 1000 2000 8600 30336 12.6 Table 6-6: Input data of 3150 kVA transformer Transformer size Transformer load Economic lifetime Interest rate Energy price Harmonic spectrum A (no-load loss evaluation) B (load loss evaluation) 3150 kVA oil-type 65% during 24/24 hours with 6 pulse harmonics 20 years 7% EUR 40/MWh 6 pulse according to IEC 146-1-1 EUR 3.Table 6-4 : Outcome 1000 kVA transformer Unit Transformer rating Rated no-load loss Rated load loss Total annual losses CO2 emission @ 0. since the low loss transformer also happens to have a lower first cost. This is equal to EUR 6560 and 0.2 33.0099% of the total electricity charges because only a small fraction of the total load is qualifying for calculation of savings. the oil transformer has a lower first cost and also lower losses.1 164 CO2 emission saving [tonnes] 31. Table 6. The remaining is distributed with 52 transformers with ratings of 1000 kVA and 3150 kVA.71 /W EUR 1. Average loading is 65%.5 85. the company took special care to select transformers with low losses for long term gains.6 -2067 -1293 220 -3140 N/A N/A ton/a EUR EUR EUR EUR 10074 2873 2102 15049 In this case.5 summarise the overall potential for the saving.5 8007 1580 2322 11909 Difference -900 900 -6543 -2.

29/W (40% loading ).8 Ton.8/W and B= EUR 0. It is revealed that compared to 1600 KVA Dry type normal and 1600 KVA 33 . If the Low Loss type is chosen. Highlights: For the chosen parameters. B = EUR 0. The study compares 1250 KVA HD538 transformer and 1250 KVA low loss transformer.52/W initial and also the same value for no load losses. The results are shown in table 6. common trends are observed regarding electrical installations. Interest rate is taken as 7%. can significantly affect the decision. This is a case where the chosen parameters of lifetime. 1000 and 1600 KVA. the preference is clearly in favour of lowest first cost. A= EUR 1.7.5 Case Study-4 Chemical Industry In the KEMA studies.4 MWH/yr.The comparison of the 1986 low loss transformer is made with the original supply of 1978 based on the likely prices as prevalent in 2002. 6. it is observed that. Loading is continuous round the clock and loads are non-linear. Based on the general observations. despite variations in the processes.4 kg/kWh ton/a Purchase price Present value no-load loss Present value load loss Capitalised costs Pay back (years) Internal rate of return EUR EUR EUR EUR kVA W W kWh/a Oil 1978 transformer 3150 2870 24500 181908 72. motors and thus out of the purview. the differences are marginal.03/W initial and 0. out of which 40 MW are for electrolysis or H.2 years with a rate of return of 6%. and payback is 4.V. high harmonic loading. Which can also mean savings in CO 2 emission of 85.24/W at the end of the year. harmonics etc. A typical rating is 1250 KVA (60 out of 71 transformers). Table 6-7 Outcome of 3150 kVA transformer Unit Transformer rating Rated no-load loss Rated load loss Total annual losses CO2 emission @ 0. A = EUR 0. The remaining transformers are 630.0 24987 11693 45553 82233 Difference -280 -7700 -46816 -18. Life time is considered 5 years and harmonics are not considered.0 33% It is estimated that the company is already saving 46816 kWh/year due to these transformers. a fictitious but representative case study is prepared. 6. It is seen that even though 1986 transformer is about 30% more expensive. Figures assumed are 25% initial 24 Hrs. it still gives large savings with an internal rate of return of 33 % and a payback period for extra investment of 3 years. Average loading is 110 MW. Energy at EUR 60/MWH. High reliability requirements lead to redundancy in transformer installations and a low average loading of about 40%. Highlights: The study shows that due to selection of one year as economic life. loading which reaches 70% at the end of one year. The extra cost of Low Loss type is EUR 750 over EUR 12250.6 Case Study 5 Case of a Large Data Hotel Start Up This is a high growth rate business with computers as a major load. The economic life time is considered as only one year and interest 7%. The startup load connection is typically 100 MW in the growth expectation of 200% to 300% rise per year for a few years.8 19329 10654 66432 96415 Oil 1986 Transformer 3150 3150 16800 135092 54. the potential savings can be 214.8 5658 1039 -20879 -14182 3. Energy price EUR 50/MWH.

2 Losses = 1.3 3. The utility can shift the transformer later to a suitable load as needed.1 3.3 0. load Recommendation: Parallel both transformers for a total 500 kVA load on secondary side and in lean season and holidays when the load is 5% to below 25%. Loading should be carefully evaluated for a proper choice. and H. The capitalised costs with harmonics are EUR 16714. The oil cooled transformer is a winner in the short run.low loss Dry type. District Coimbatore. Medium and High values of parameters on the payback period.7 Summary of European Case Studies: There is an interesting summary of the sensitivity of the payback period to input parameters. In such a case.1 3. a) Only one transformer takes full 500 KVA LOAD. cut off one transformer on H. Power is received at 22 kV and 11 kV by separate lines. There is a net saving of 8222 KWH/year after one year which equals about EUR 411.1 3.T.1 2.W.4 0.2 3. The typical loss figures for 500 kVA transformers are 1660 W for no load and 6900 W as losses for 100% load.1 3.66 (No Load) + (500/500) x 6.1 2. sides.2 3. Even then the selected short economic life span makes this choice viable. The extra price of EUR 539 can not be recovered in the economic life prescribed.V.1 3.1 3. higher operating temperature due to harmonics suggests a drastic decrease in operating life from 30 years to 6 years.9 kW (load losses) 34 .5 3.0 3..8 gives a summary of effect of Low. 6.7 6.5 3. Alternatively the investment in the transformer can be made by the utility with a long term perception to make energy saving possible. and 17132 (low loss) respectively initially.C. It is important to note that the payback period is not affected by the choice of economic life span.9 3.1 1. Table 6. but the relatively longer payback loses its significance due to short time investment perception. By the same consideration a smaller rating 1000 KVA transformer gives a capital saving of 25% even though it has an energy penalty. This is stepped down by two 500 kVA Transformer o 22 kV/433 V an 11 kV/433 V which fee segregated loads. enforcing minimum loss norms only can help. Audit was conducted in May 1990 for Mayura and Parlai Tea factories. Even for this transformer. Table 6-8: Parameter sensitivity on the payback period Parameter Unit Harmonic spectrum Electricity price CO2 emissions CO2 costs Loading profile Economic lifetime Interest Purchase price EUR/MWh kg/kWh EUR/tonne % years % % Parameter variation L M H None 12 pulse 6 pulse 40 60 80 0. provided the hot spot temperature is acceptable. Thus the low loss transformer is still not attractive.1 3.8 Case Study 6: Tea Industry (India) Energy Audit for Tea Factories making C.V. there are three options.3 3. managed by H/S C. Tea.4 3. the cheapest would be an oil cooled CC’ type transformer.S (India) Ltd.7 4. At the end of one year the figures are EUR 22311 and 22366. Brief Analysis: For total load of 500 kVA. Loading and electricity price are two most important factors.6 0 10 33 20 40 60 1 5 10 5 7 9 80 100 120 Payback time (years) L M H 3.1 2.7 5.1 2. with a capitalised cost for initial period as EUR 12951 including harmonics.

25) x 6. and save on M.9) kW = 6.66 + (250/500) x 6. 66 + (0. charges and also give savings on transformer and cable losses. The steel melting shop has a 30-ton GEC electric arc furnace.9 Case Study 7: Steel Mill (India) 2 2 2 2 2 INTESCO-Bhoruka has implemented an energy efficiency project at Bhoruka Steel's Karnataka mini-mill. Each transformer had a load loss factor of 10-12 kWh per ton. As the drive systems at the mill already have in-built automatic voltage regulators. With poor power quality. This would reduce M. The total annual consumption for the factory was 1856479 kWh per year and the electricity bill was Rs. the losses are minimum by paralleling both transformers.9 = 2.D.05/2) x 6. The company's energy costs have increased due to power shortages and low voltage levels causing inefficient operation of its melting and casting operations.D.33 kW at 5% load b) Only one transformer is energized Losses = 1. and increase plant productivity.9} kW = 3.77 kW.0094/kWh as average cost.89 x kWh + Rs.5 MVA. specific energy consumption averages between 550 kWh and 650 kWh per ton. The tariff was kVA of M.9 +1.25/2) x 6. 1. Operation at higher loads during lean season: a) Two paralleled transformers Losses = 2 [1. 60 + Rs.68 kW at 5% load Thus losses are minimum at low loads using only one transformer.b) One transformer takes segregated 300 kVA while second takes 200 kVA segregated load.05) x 6.9} kW = 3. the power from the grid was being tapped through two-12. 10000/year as a saving. 0.66 + (200/500) x 6. By improving the voltage quality under this project. When power quality is good. there was not expected to be any substantial reduction in energy usage as a result of the project. x Rs. The wire rod mill produces wire rods from 5 mm to 16 mm in diameter.9 = 1. The $265. 150 meter rent.000 project involves the installation of a highly-efficient 25 MVA transformer to replace two older and smaller transformers. Energy saving measure Prior to the energy efficiency project. The project is designed to reduce energy costs. consumption can increase up to 700 kWh for the same product mix.66) + (0. Loss = 2 (1. and inherent transformer losses.9 kW c) Both are paralleled to take 250 kVA each. Power factor improvement was already made but some scope for further improvement was suggested. it was expected that specific consumption would be reduced by 30-35 kWh per ton. 2038694 giving Rs. the wire rod mill. Loss = 1. The saving by paralleling and switching off one transformer were conservatively estimated at a minimum of 10000 kWh/year with no investment giving a little over Rs.54 kW at 25% load 2 Losses = 2 {(1. Thus on major load.66 + (300/500) x6.D. The average specific energy consumption during good voltage conditions is about 200 kWh per ton.66 x (0. Energy consumption profile: Energy use at the plant is comprised of consumption at the steel melting shop.09 kW at 25% load 2 Losses = 1. for a 35 . 6.66 x (0. 66/11KV transformers.

) The annual energy savings is estimated at 1.000 per year (Rs. In few of the cases it was observed that some transformers are grossly under loaded (around 10-20%) and the scope exists to shift or distribute this load to other transformer in the substation. The new 25 MVA transformer can handle large fluctuations in incoming voltage. with the majority coming from the savings in the steel melting shop (75% of the savings).69 lakh KWh Annual Cost savings. Also an operating schedule was proposed to alternate the transformer operation weekly so as to keep them in good health. Construction of the project began in May 1994.e.8 million KWh. Project Savings (in kWh per Ton of Steel Produced) Steel Melting Shop Wire Rod Mill Transformer Losses Total Project Implementation 30 0 10 40 In order to solve the voltage problem. These changes would reduce load losses and reduce energy consumption during production. 36 lakhs).45 lakh per annum) In sub station # 3. loading on transformers located at various substations was analyzed. resulted in energy saving of 0.45 lakh kWh per year. 82. it was proposed to replace the two 12.3 years 6. 20% and 15% respectively). The project has a simple payback on investment of 2.9 lakh Cost of Implementation Nil Simple payback period. Immediate 36 .37 lakh kWh/year) In sub station # 7. transformers #1 and #2 were drastically under loaded (i. 5. keeping hot standby transformer open.total of 20-25 kWh per ton. While achieving optimum loading. Installation of the new transformer was expected to slash load loss by half (to a total of 10-12 kWh per ton). up from five per day previously. plant has several transformers located in eight substations. Rs. the standby transformers at various substations were suggested to be kept open on H. This hot standby transformer can be kept open (Energy savings 0. one transformer was kept as stand by. and was completed in September. Commissioned in October 1994. Annual Total energy savings. 10% and 25% respectively). transformers # 2 and # 3 were drastically under loaded (i.Bhoruka was expected to reduce energy consumption per unit of steel produced by as much as 8%. (A heat is the process of melting steel in an arc furnace in preparation for casting. This would also ensure optimum level of loading. The total cost of the project is about $265. Loads of transformer # 2 was transferred to Transformer # 2 and Transformer # 2 was switched off (Energy savings 0.T side to save no-load losses. In sub station # 1. This voltage is stepped down to 11 kV. From 11 kV to 433 V.000 (Rs. 1.e. In sum. the total savings per ton of steel produced was expected to reach 40 units per ton.10 Case Study-8: Automobile Plant (India) A leading automobile manufacturer has main incomer at 132 kV. The new 25 MVA transformer installed by INTESCO. During an energy audit.6 lakhs) and the combination of improved energy efficiency and productivity is expected to save Bhoruka Steel about $115. the upgraded plant is already running eight "heats" per day. resulting in energy savings.5 MVA transformers with a single 66/11 KV 25 MVA transformer fitted with an on-load tap changer.42 lakh kWh/year) In substation # 8. Loads of transformer # 2 was transferred to Transformer # 1 and Transformer # 2 was switched off (Energy savings 0.

To reduce the risks of an outage. The choice for the designer to use one transformer (2500 kVA) or two transformers (1600 kVA) can now be quantified. it is possible to have two transformers in redundancy. chemical) are interested in a reliable power supply.9 Table 6-9: electricity losses over a year 2500 kVA Transformer No load kWh/yr. The MTBF (mean time between failures) for a transformer is presumed to be 40 years. the other transformer will carry the full load.025 per year and the average outage duration equals 12 -6 minutes per year. First there is the economical damage if there is a shutdown. Load kWh/yr. while the loading of the 1600 kVA transformer is 47% when both transformers are in parallel. the economical cost when an unforeseen outage occurs is a necessary input figure. Total kWh/yr. This means if one transformer fails. -4 while the average outage duration equals 2. The MTTR (mean time to repair) or time to replace a failed transformer is 8 hours.6.000. The total annual losses for both options are given in table 6. the 2500 kVA transformer loading is 60%.14x10 per year. This means that the average outage frequency equals 0. This means the chance that both parallel transformers having a failure at the same time is very small compared to the outage of one transformer. Total kWh/yr. whereby each hour outage is equal to Euro 10. for this given situation it is presumed that outage of the electricity will cause a shutdown of the factory. and there will be no interruption of the power and/or shutdown of the factory. Next to the direct damage. which leads to loss of production until the process has restarted. the following costs are expected in these 10 years (see table 6.10).11 Case Study -9: Improving Reliability and availability A lot of industries (e. as an unforeseen interruption of the power supply may have severe consequences. Load kWh/yr. If there is redundancy the average outage frequency equals 1.=. For this case study. Presuming the load is 1500 kVA. and the electricity price Euro 70. Table 6-10: Costs over 10 years. 2500 kVA Transformer Purchase price [Euro] Cost of no load [Euro] Cost of load [Euro] Cost of outage [Euro] Total cost [Euro] 2x 1600 kVA Transformer Purchase price [Euro] Cost of no load [Euro] Cost of load [Euro] Cost of outage [Euro] Total cost [Euro] Oil C-C’ 24897 15330 48565 20000 108792 Oil C-C’ 27340 20849 37927 <1 86117 Oil D-D’ 29402 13030 41280 20000 103712 Oil D-D’ 35774 17721 32238 <1 85734 Dry HD 538 25527 26368 39736 20000 111631 Dry HD 538 35902 34339 27091 <1 97333 Dry Low loss 27494 25325 32958 20000 105777 Dry Low loss 38146 32745 25330 <1 96222 37 . The costs of outages are very hard to determine.= per MWh. long outages may cause pollution and human safety problems.g. But also there can be damage of the installation. 2x 1600 kVA Transformer No load kWh/yr.7x10 minutes per year. Oil C-C’ 21900 Oil D-D’ 18615 Dry HD 538 37668 Dry Low loss 36179 69379 91279 Oil C-C’ 29784 54182 83966 58972 77587 Oil D-D’ 25316 46054 71370 56765 94433 Dry HD 538 49056 38702 87758 47083 83262 Dry Low loss 46778 36186 82964 If the economic life time is estimated at 10 years.

it is clear that redundancy of transformers is preferred anyway for situations were shutdown of a process causes pollution or safety risks. the designer would probably have chosen for a single 2500 kVA oil-transformer type D-D’ or a dry transformer with lower losses than given in the HD 428. the designer will probably order two 1600 kVA transformers. it can be seen that the costs of outage are having influence on the total costs over 10 years. The transformer has increased the site’s power capacity by 40%. and the payback period is 3 years. 38 . the AMDT will use 13.From table 6. With no-load losses up to 80% lower than a conventional silicon core transformer. is the first AMDT to target European industrial customers. With a price premium of £2.2kW.700W for a HD 428 C-C’ transformer. Nevertheless.and continue to make savings over its 20-30-year life. completed by Pauwels International.500 over a standard transformer.10. The 1.3GWh less energy a year than a conventional transformer.6MVA transformer is the first to be designed specifically for the European industrial market. However.’ At an average loading of 70%. However if the average costs of an outage are taken in account. the AMDT should pay for itself in about three years at current Irish power prices . If the costs of outage are neglected. while providing dramatically lower losses than a conventional transformer. the no-load losses are as low as 384W. The 20kV/400V transformer. the two 1600 kVA transformers will also need an installation more than the 2500 kVA transformer. which is not taken in account in this case study. compared to 1.12 Case study-10: Use of Amorphous Core Transformers This case study describes the choice of amorphous core distribution transformers in place of conventional silicon steel core transformers. A very large amorphous iron three-phase distribution transformer has been built and installed in the European Union at an engine plant at Waterford in Ireland in 1998. 6. The load losses are 18.

for calculating winding temperature Impedance (via short circuit testing). depending upon how and where the transformer will be used. and Applied and induced potentials. Temperature rise of the coils. This section will provide general guidelines for installing and testing both dry-type and liquid-filled transformers for placement into service. which again directly relates to the transformer's efficiency. which relates to efficiency and verifies that core design is correct. There are additional tests that may be applicable. The additional tests that can be conducted include the following: • • • • • Impulse (where lightning and switching surges are prevalent). Sound (important for applications in residential and office areas and that can be used as comparison with future sound tests to reveal any core problems). and Insulation power factor. which determines dryness of insulation and is often done after delivery to serve as a benchmark for comparison against future readings. Corona for medium voltage (MV) and high-voltage (HV) units. • 39 . which determines voltage drop when load is applied. which provides information needed for breaker and/or fuse sizing and interrupting rating and for coordinating relaying schemes.and 3-phase units (because single-phase transformers are sometimes connected in parallel and sometimes in a 3-phase bank). which helps determine if the insulation system is functioning properly. Insulation resistance (meg-ohmmeter testing). Resistance. for voltage relationship. which is done at initial installation and every few years thereafter to help determine the aging process of the insulation. Excitation current. which also relates to efficiency and correct core design. The successful operation of a transformer is dependent on proper installation as well as on good design and manufacture. Regulation. The instructions mentioned in the manufacturer manual or in Standards shall be followed to ensure adequate safety to personnel and equipment. which verify dielectric strength. Phase relationship for 3-phase units (important when two or more transformers are operated in parallel).ANNEXURE-1: GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLING TRANSFORMERS When your transformer arrives on site. Load loss. No-load core loss. various procedures should be carried out to assure successful operation. which helps ensure that design limits will not be exceeded. Standard transformer tests performed for each unit include the following: • • • • • • • • • • Ratio. Polarity for single.

and any other objects used in the inspection. Subsequently. the installation of some method of sound abatement will be called for. and material. a claim should be filed with the carrier at once and the manufacturer notified. so that there is no mechanical stress imposed on transformer bushings and connections. Although there are no moving parts in a transformer. In the presence of a magnetic field. produce an audible noise. 40 . covers or panels should be removed and an internal inspection should be made for damage or displacement of parts. or compressors. If the unit is installed in a location it shares with other equipment such as motors. when energized. that complies with all safety codes yet does not interfere with the normal movement of personnel.Site considerations When planning the installation. These periodic mechanical movements create sound vibrations with a fundamental frequency of 120 Hz and harmonics derivatives of this fundamental. Examination should be made before removing it from the railroad car or truck. the core does generate sound. and verification should be made that these items have been properly accounted for upon completion of work. dirt or foreign material. Plan for the prevention of contaminants Develop a procedure for inventory of all tools. if any damage is evident or any indication of rough handling is visible. pumps. Such stress could cause a bushing to crack or a connection to fail. Check all of the tap jumpers for proper location and for tightness. if the transformer is installed in a quiet hallway. The location should not expose the transformer to possible damage from cranes. Arrangements shall be made to adequately support the incoming/outgoing connecting cables. Occasionally. such as a large unit in a commercial building with people working close to it. the secondary neutral is sometimes grounded through an impedance. trucks. Controlling sound level All transformers. hardware. this inspection should be repeated before placing the transformer in service. the location is selected. carefully following the instructions given on the nameplate or on the connection diagram. Ensure that all grounding or bonding systems meet NEC and local codes. and testing of the transformer. A check sheet should be used to record all items. Some applications require a reduced sound level. Make sure the transformer is grounded Grounding is necessary to remove static charges that may accumulate and also is needed as a protection should the transformer windings accidentally come in contact with the core or enclosure (or tank for wet types). a transformer should be inspected for damage during shipment. Making connections that work The connections shall be made. assembly. the core laminations elongate and contract. Before working on the connections make sure all safety precautions have been taken. or moving equipment. Preliminary inspection upon receipt of transformer When received. The location of a transformer relates directly to how noticeable its sound level appears. between the transformer's terminals and the incoming and outgoing conductors. loose or broken connections. a definite hum will be noticed. and. If the transformer is moved or if it is stored before installation. and for the presence of water or moisture. the transformer hum will go unnoticed. For example. Note that for MV transformers. equipment. Re-tighten all cable retaining bolts after the first 30 days of service.

a transformer turns ratio indicator should be used to measure the ratio. connect the load and energize the transformer. Dangerous high voltage will be present within the transformer enclosure. de-energize the transformer and contact the manufacturer. and other auxiliary devices. arrangement for monitoring the voltages and currents on the low-voltage side shall be done. The magnitude of the voltages shown (line-to-ground and line-to-line) should be very similar. it's very important that all personnel installing the transformer are alerted. thermal relays. 41 . Next. should be checked to make sure they function correctly. Consult the transformer diagrammatic nameplate for information on what tap must be used to correct for extra high or extra low incoming line voltage. Before energizing the unit. the lines that power the transformer must be opened and appropriate safety locks and tags applied.) All windings should be checked for continuity. When changing taps. motors. The installation of conductors should be performed only by personnel qualified and experienced in high-voltage equipment. Adjustment for correct tap setting After installation. For this test. However. These include the operation of fans. tap connections below 100% of line voltage must be used to raise the load voltage. If this is not the case. tap connections above 100% of line voltage must be used to lower the load voltage. This should be done at some safe access point near or at the load. for low-voltage (600V and below) transformers. Both the voltages and currents should change in a similar fashion.Final inspection and testing Once the transformer has been located on its permanent site. Here. Personnel should be instructed that should any service work be required to the unit. Any control circuits. Also. (If the power transformer has CT circuits. check the output voltage of the transformer. 1200V insulation resistance test of the control circuits shall be done. gradually increase the load in a stepped or gradual application until full load is reached. without connecting the load. The maximum continuous load a transformer can handle is indicated on its nameplate. The same adjustment should be made to compensate for voltage drop in the output due to long cable runs. a oneminute. energize the transformer. if any. Applying the load Before energizing a 3-phase transformer. that lethal voltages will be present inside the transformer enclosure as well as at all connection points. Never attempt to check the output voltage at the transformer. the same changes must be made for all phases. An insulation resistance test shall be carried out to make certain that no windings are grounded. Then. If the load-side voltage is high. When the load-side voltage is low. apply a low-voltage (240V or 480V) to the high-voltage winding and measure the output at the low-voltage winding. While monitoring the voltages and currents. this is not practical. A careful examination should be made to ensure that all electrical connections have been properly carried out and that the correct ratio exists between the low and high-voltage windings. If this does not happen. they should be closed. Correct fan rotation should be visually verified as well as by checking indicator lights if they are installed. a thorough final inspection should be made before any assembly is accomplished and the unit is energized. de-energize the transformer and contact the manufacturer before proceeding further.

01 1. 2. Routine checks and resultant maintenance Sl No Inspection Frequency Items to be inspected Inspection Notes Action required if inspection shows unsatisfactory conditions 1. top up with dry oil examine transformer for leaks Replace if cracked or brokenIf silica gel is pink. Clean or replace Take suitable action 1. examine contacts.03 Hourly Load (Amperes) and Voltage Check against rated figures 2.01 Daily Oil level in transformer Check against transformer oil level Check that air passages are free. check gear boxes. The old charge may be reactivated for use again.02 2. change by spare charge. Check colour of active agent Examine for cracks and dirt deposits Check for dielectric strength & water content Lubricate bearings.ANNEXURE-2: MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Following specific checking and maintenance guidelines as well as conducting routine inspections will help ensure the prolonged life and increased reliability of a dry-type transformer.01 3. The frequency of periodic checks will depend on the degree of atmospheric contamination and the type of load applied to the transformer. motors and operating mechanisms Replace burnt or worn contact or other parts 42 .04 2.02 Quarterly Quarterly Bushing Oil in transformer 3.03 2.03 Quarterly Cooler fan bearings.02 Hourly Hourly Ambient Temperature Oil & Winding Temperature Check that temperature rise is reasonable Shutdown the transformer and investigate if either is persistently higher than normal Shutdown the transformer and investigate if either is persistently higher than normal If low.05 Daily Daily Daily Daily Oil level in bushing Leakage of water into cooler Relief diaphragm Dehydrating breather 3.

when tested under an applied AC voltage.05 4. if earth resistance is high 4.01 4. and temperature should be recorded for future reference. if leaking Clean or replace Clean the components and replace contacts & fuses. voltage level. fuses etc. The meg-ohm values along with the description of the instrument. divided by the total AC power dissipated.07 Yearly Earth resistance IR testing: The transformer should be de-energized and electrically isolated with all terminals of each winding shorted together.04 Yearly Cable boxes Check for sealing arrangements for filling holes.200V x 200] / 1000). a winding rated at 13. This ratio is also equal to the rated phase voltage of the high voltage winding being measured divided by the rated phase voltage of the low voltage winding being measured. Transformer turns ratio measurements are best made with specialized instruments that include detailed connection and operating instructions. their operation. Insulation PF testing: Insulation PF is the ratio of the power dissipated in the resistive component of the insulation system. alarms & control circuits 4. If previously recorded readings taken under similar conditions are more than 50% higher. Ratios outside this limit may be the result of winding damage. Turns ratio testing: The transformer turn ratio is the number of turns in the high voltage winding divided by the number of turns in the low voltage winding. The minimum megaohm value for a winding should be 200 times the rated voltage of the winding divided by 1000. the transformer should be thoroughly inspected.check manual control and interlocks 3. The windings not being tested should be grounded. For example. with acceptance tests performed before reenergizing.06 Yearly Yearly Surge Diverter and gaps Relays. A 43 .04 4. The measured turns ratio should be within 0. Test relays - 4. Take suitable action. humidity.02 4. The meg-ohmmeter should be applied between each winding and ground (high voltage to ground and low voltage to ground) and between each set of windings (high voltage to low voltage).2kV would have a minimum acceptable value of 2640 megaohms ([13. which has shorted or opened some winding turns. if required.03 Quarterly Yearly Yearly Yearly OLTC Oil in transformer Oil filled bushing Gasket Joints Check oil in OLTC driving mechanism Check for acidity and sludge Test oil Filter or replace Filter or replace Tighten the bolts evenly to avoib uneven pressure Replace gasket. Examine for cracks and dirt deposits Examine relays and alarm contacts.5% of the calculated turns ratio.

conductor strands will burn open like a fuse. localized overheating that opened some of the strands of a multi-strand winding conductor. The voltage should be applied to each phase in succession. insulation PF measurement. Such damage might result from a transient winding fault that cleared. A sensitive bridge or micro-ohmmeter capable of measuring in the micro-ohm range (for the secondary winding) and up to 20 ohms (for the primary winding) must be used. It should be regarded as a proof test to be conducted when there has been an event or pattern in the transformer's operating history that makes its insulation integrity suspect. If there is a defect in the winding. or short circuiting of some of the winding conductors. and turns ratio testing. 44 . in separate tests. As such. With most transformers. with the applied voltage and current measured and recorded. Excitation current measurement: The excitation current is the amperage drawn by each primary coil. On any single test. which can cause changes to some or all of the winding conductors. with a voltage applied to the input terminals of the primary and the secondary or output terminals open-circuited. the transformer is de-energized and disconnected from all external circuit connections. To conduct this test. all as described under periodic tests. These values may be compared with original test data corrected for temperature variations between the factory values and the field measurement or they may be compared with prior maintenance measurements. This testing also applies to drytype units. the transformer is disconnected from all external circuit connections.perfect insulation would have no resistive current and the PF would be zero. The acceptance tests should include IR testing. there will be a noticeable increase in the excitation current. thus." This test is performed by connecting all terminals of each individual winding together and applying a voltage between windings as well as from each winding to ground. Applied voltage testing: The applied voltage test is more commonly referred to as the "hi-pot test. For this test. the current and voltage readings of the primary windings for each of the phases should be within 15% of each other. There is normally a difference between the excitation current in the primary coil on the center leg compared to that in the primary coils on the other legs. the concern for the integrity of the insulation does also. In addition. On any single test. there may be turn-to-turn shorts causing a current bypass in part of the winding. Occasionally. it's important that you establish a historic record for each transformer and use good judgment in analyzing the data for significant variations. Sometimes. winding resistance measurements should be made and excitation current testing done. the measured values for each phase on a 3-phase transformer should be within 5% of the other phases. The PF of insulation systems of different vintages and manufacturers of transformers varies over a wide range (from under 1% to as high as 20%). it's preferable to have established benchmark readings for comparison. Acceptance testing Acceptance tests are those tests made at the time of installation of the unit or following a service interruption to demonstrate the serviceability of the transformer. This test should be used with caution as it can cause insulation failure. Variation in current versus prior readings should not exceed 5%. the reduced voltage applied to the primary winding coils may be from a single-phase 120V supply. As insulation PF increases. or in the magnetic circuit that is circulating a fault current. decreasing the conductor cross section and resulting in an increase in resistance. this usually results in a decrease of resistance. Winding resistance measurement: Accurate measurement of the resistance between winding terminals can give an indication of winding damage. Untested windings are grounded during each application of voltage.

DC applied voltage tests are often conducted in the field because DC test sets are smaller and more readily available than AC applied voltage sets. This ratio should be within 2% for each phase and should not vary more than 2% between tests. specifically for detecting mechanical damage following rough shipment or a service fault on the output side that caused high fault currents to flow through the transformer windings. DC leakage current can vary considerably from test to test because of creepage across the complex surfaces between windings and between windings and ground. However. 45 . To maximize the effectiveness of this test. which should be investigated as soon as possible. An impedance test is performed by electrically connecting the secondary terminals together with a conductor capable of carrying at least 10% of the line current and applying a reduced voltage to the primary windings. a measurement should be taken during the transformer's initial installation to establish a benchmark value. constructed. A variation of more than 2% indicates the possibility of mechanical distortion of the winding conductors. With DC tests. The use of AC voltage is preferable since the transformer insulation structures were designed. and tested with the application of AC voltage intended. This is easily accomplished by applying a single-phase voltage to each phase in succession. Mechanical distortion of the windings will cause a change in their impedance. These values shall be recorded and then calculate the ratio of voltage to current for each phase. The applied voltage is measured at the primary terminals and the current measured in each line. Impedance testing: An impedance test may be useful in evaluating the condition of transformer windings. the leakage current can be measured and is often taken as a quantitative measure.

Heathcote.May 2002 Authors: W. UK (www. J.energymanagetraining. 4. Energy Saving In Industrial Distribution Transformers.co.J. European Copper Institute. Groeman. 5. Martin J.Kema-Netherlands 2. Copper Development Association.com) 46 . September 2000. Twelfth Edition 1998. December 1999. J & P Transformer Book. Websites of Copper Development Associiation.copper.uk) Bureau of Energy Efficiency (www. The Scope For Energy Saving In The Eu Through The Use Of Energy-Efficient Electricity Distribution Transformers. Transformers And K-Factors. Hulshorst. Harmonics. Cda Publication 144.REFERENCES 1.F. 3.T.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful