Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
Method for effects evaluation of some forms of power
transformers preventive maintenance
Vladica Mijailovic

Technical Faculty, University of Kragujevac, Svetog Save 65, 32000

Ca cak, Serbia
Received 13 April 2006; received in revised form 7 May 2007; accepted 31 May 2007
Available online 23 July 2007
Abstract
The paper suggests a method for effects evaluation of a few activities and measures, undertaken as a part of preventive maintenance of
power transformers. The method enables calculation of expected failures repair cost and load curtailment cost. The method identies minor and
major failures. Power transformer is a complex system, consisting of ve components (functional parts). It is assumed that each component has
two independent, competing failure modes: wear-out failure mode, modeled by two-parameter Weibull distribution, and a chance failure mode,
characterized by an exponential distribution. The application of the method is demonstrated for one transformer station (TS) 110/x kV/kV with
2 31.5 MVAtransformers. Also, by applying the method, inuence of systemfor condition monitoring of transformer windings and oil on failures
repair cost and load curtailment cost is evaluated.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Power transformer; Preventive maintenance; Failures repair cost; Load curtailment cost
1. Introduction
With regard that equipment in substations is growing older, maintenance organization in each electric power company has one
of the most important functions.
The goal of effective preventive maintenance is minimizing the unplanned outages, i.e. reduction of long and expensive failures
repair and load curtailment cost. Having in mind their functions, purchase costs, number of installed units and techno-economical
consequences of unplanned outages, preventive maintenance of power transformers has an essential importance.
The aim of this paper is to propose a model enabling the evaluation of effects of a few activities and measures, undertaken as a
part of power transformers preventive maintenance.
In the following sections, a model for calculation of expected failure repair cost and a model for calculation of load curtailment
cost are formulated.
2. Basic assumptions
At any point of time, status of power transformer can be classied as either operating or failed. Failed status is a result of minor
failures and/or major failures. Minor failures can be repaired for t 24 h.
Hence, probability that the component k of power transformer is in operating status equals
R
k
(t) = e
(
k,mf
+
k,MF
)t
e
(t/
k
)

k
(1)
i.e. we assume that the component has two independent failure modes: a chance failure mode, characterized by the exponential
distribution, and a wear-out mode, modelled by two-parameter Weibull distribution.

Correspondence address: 36000 Kraljevo, 17 Mirka Belobrka St., Serbia. Tel.: +381 32 226 503/36 399 950; fax: +381 32 342 101/63 7783 557.
E-mail addresses: miltea@tfc.kg.ac.yu, miltea@ptt.yu.
0378-7796/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2007.05.024
766 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
Power transformer consists of ve components-functional parts [5,7,10,14]: (1) Windings and Core +Oil, (2) Bushings, (3) Tank,
(4) On-load tap-changer, and (5) Other accessories.
The main failures occurring on each functional part of power transformer are as follows [6,15]:
Windings, core, oil. Partial discharges, abnormal oil and cellulose ageing, loose connections, oil contamination, excessive
water content, overheating of laminations, overheating due to circulating currents, turn-to-turn failures, phase-to-phase failures,
mechanical failures, open winding, and external faults.
Bushings. Moisture contamination due to deterioration of gasket material or cracks in terminal connections, and partial discharges.
Tank. Poor tank weld, corrosion, and external damages.
On-load tap-changer. Local hotspots due to contact overheating, signicant increase in required torque, sparking, oil leaks, and
partial discharges.
Other accessories. Arcing, local overheating, electrical failures of pumps and fans, and internal or external blocking of radiators
resulting in poor heat exchange.
With regard to the failure repair time, there are three failure classes:
(i =1) failures which can be repaired for t 1 day (minor failures),
(i =2) failures which can be repaired for 1 day <t <30 days,
(i =3) failures which can be repaired for t 30 days.
3. Model development
Six forms of power transformer preventive maintenance will be analyzed:
(3.1) Operation with non-preventive maintenance (run to failure);
(3.2) One-day preventive maintenance (practically, 8 h)visual examination, checking the state of the transformer and replacing
worn-out parts (without tank opening-windings, core and oil are not involved);
(3.3) Oil regeneration +(3.2). These activities will be performed in 5 days;
(3.4) Insulation system regeneration +(3.2). These activities will be performed in 10 days;
(3.5) Power transformer refurbishment. After this, transformer will be as good as new. After each year of operation, transformer
value goes down for 0.015 C
new
/year. Process of refurbishment will be performed in 28 days;
(3.6) Installing of system for condition monitoring of windings and oil. Expected life-time of commercially available systems is
10 years. Detection rate is about 80% [10,11]. Detecting of failures in the early stage of development prevents an outage of
power transformer and reduce cost and time of repair. Neglecting of detected failures repair cost seems to be too optimistic.
Because of reasons of certainty, an assumption is adopted: all detected major failures on windings and oil will be treated as
faults, which can be repaired in 5 days and for D 5000.
(3.1) If the transformer operates without performing preventive maintenance expected cost per year during period of length T equals
[1,4]
C
ET
(0, T) =
[1 R
tot
(T)]

b
k=1
_
f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
_
T
0
R
tot
(t) dt +(1 R
tot
(T))

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
, R
tot
(t) =
b

k=1
R
k
(t) (2)
The numerator in Eq. (2) is the expected cost of failures repair during time period T. First term in denominator is the mean
time to failure and second term is the expected time of failures repair during period T.
An average unavailability of transformer during period of length T equals
U
ET
(0, T) =
[1 R
tot
(T)]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_
T
0
R
tot
(t) dt +(1 R
tot
(T))

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
(3)
For planning of preventive maintenance activities, it is more convenient to calculate an average failure repair cost during
time interval (T, N):
C
ET
(T, N) =
[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
N
T
R
tot
(t) dt +[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
(4)
V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776 767
The numerator in Eq. (4) is the expected cost of failures repair during time interval (T, N) if transformer has not failed before
T.
(3.2) If the transformer operates without failure for a period of length m, 1-day preventive maintenance will be performed. An
average cost during time interval (m, N) equals [1,4]
C
ET
(m, N) =
R(m)C
pm
+E(m)[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(m))]

b
k=1
_
f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
R(m)(8 h/8760) +E(m)
_
_
N
m
R
tot
(t) dt +[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(m))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_,
E(m) = exp
_
b

k=2
(
k,mf
+
k,MF
)m
_
(5)
With term E(m) we assume as follows: after performing 1-day preventive maintenance on component k, k =2, . . ., b factors
which may cause chance failures will be eliminated.
An average unavailability of transformer during time interval (m, N) can be determined as
U
ET
(m, N) =
E(m)[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(m))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
R(m)(8 h/8760) +E(m)
_
_
N
m
R
tot
(t) dt +[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(m))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_ (6)
(3.3) If the transformer operates without failure for a period of length T
oil
, oil regeneration will be performed. An average cost and
an unavailability of transformer during time interval (T
oil
, N) are [1,4]
C
ET
(T
oil
, N)=
R
tot
(T
oil
)C
reg,oil
+E(T
oil
)[1(R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1
_
f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
R
tot
(T
oil
)(5 days/365) +E(T
oil
)
_
_
N
T
oil
R
tot
(t) dt+[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_ (7)
U
ET
(T
oil
, N) =
E(T
oil
)[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
R(T
oil
)(5 days/365) +E(T
oil
)
_
_
N
T
oil
R
tot
(t) dt +[1 (R
tot
(N)/R
tot
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_,
E(T
oil
) = exp [(
1,mf
+
1,MF
)T
oil
] exp
_
b

k=2
(
k,mf
+
k,MF
)T
oil
_
(8)
Here, with term E(T
oil
), we made assumption after oil regeneration factors which may cause chance failures on all power
transformer components will be eliminated.
(3.4) After insulation system regeneration, technical age of paper insulation will be reduced for x =(2030)% [9].
After insulation system regeneration, reliability of transformer component k =1 will be
R
1,reg
(t) = exp(
1,MF
t) exp
_

_
t(1 x)

1
_

1
_
(9)
and a reliability of transformer
R
t,reg
(t) = R
1,reg
(t)
b

k=2
R
k
(t) (10)
An average cost and an unavailability of transformer during time interval (T
reg
, N) are [1,4]
C
ET
(T
reg
, N)
=
R
tot
(T
reg
)C
reg,ins
+E(T
reg
)[1 (R
t,reg
(N)/R
t,reg
(T
reg
))]

b
k=1
_
f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
R
tot
(T
reg
)(10 days/365) +E(T
reg
)
_
_
N
T
reg
R
t,reg
(t) dt+[1 (R
t,reg
(N)/R
t,reg
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_ (11)
U
ET
(T
reg
, N)=
E(T
reg
)[1(R
t,reg
(N)/R
t,reg
(T
reg
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
R
tot
(T
reg
)(10 days/365)+E(T
reg
)
_
_
N
T
reg
R
t,reg
(t) dt+[1(R
t,reg
(N)/R
t,reg
(T
oil
))]

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
_,
E(T
reg
) = exp[(
1,mf
+
1,MF
)T
reg
] exp
_
b

k=2
(
k,mf
+
k,MF
)T
reg
_
(12)
768 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
(3.5) According to the assumptions we made, after T
ref
years of transformer operation without failures cost of refurbishment will
be C
ref
(T
ref
) =0.015 T
ref
C
new
.An average cost and an unavailability of transformer during time interval (T
ref
, N) will be
calculated as [1,4]
C
ET
(T
ref
, N) =
R
tot
(T
ref
)C
ref
(T
ref
) +(1 R
tot
(N T
ref
))

b
k=1
_
f
k
i=1
p
k,i
C
k,i
_
R
tot
(T
ref
)(28 days/365) +
_
NT
ref
T
ref
R
tot
(t) dt +(1 R
tot
(N T
ref
))

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
(13)
U
ET
(T
ref
, N) =
(1 R
tot
(N T
ref
))

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
R
tot
(T
ref
)(28 days/365) +
_
NT
ref
T
ref
R
tot
(t) dt +(1 R
tot
(N T
ref
))

b
k=1

f
k
i=1
p
k,i
r
k,i
(14)
(3.6) System for condition monitoring of windings and oil enabling detection of failures in the early stage of development. It
brings to the reduction of major failure rate and increasing of minor failure rate [8,10,11,13]. As a result of major failure rate
reduction, the Weibull scale parameter will be raised. Therefore, the Weibull scale parameter of transformer component k =1
after installing of condition monitoring system will be marked as

1
.
Condition monitoring system will be installed after operation period of length T
s
without failures.
During next 10 years of operation [10,11], reliability of transformer will be
R

tot
(t) R
1
(T
s
)R

1
(t T
s
)
b

k=2
R
k
(t) (15)
R

1
(z) = exp[(

1,MF
+

1,mf
)z] exp
_

_
z

1
_

1
_
(16)
4. Application
An application of the model will be demonstrated for one TS 110/x kV/kV, with two power transformers installed,
P
inst
=2 31.5 MVA=63 MVA.
Calculations are made for planning period of N=40 years.
The annual hourly loadduration diagram for the substation is displayed in Fig. 1. Peak load is 80% and minimum load is 40%,
with regard to the installed capacity.
Average yearly duration of one transformer down-time during time interval (t
1
, t
2
) equals [1]:

1
(t
1
, t
2
) (h) = U
ET
(t
1
, t
2
) 8760 (17)
Average yearly duration of both transformers down-time during time interval (t
1
, t
2
) equals [1]

2
(t
1
, t
2
) (h) = U
ET
(t
1
, t
2
)
2
8760 (18)
With regard to Figs. 1, Eq. (17) and (18), for energy not delivered we have:
y
1(2)
=
_
a
1

a
1
b
1
8760

1(2)
(t
1
, t
2
)
_
P
inst
(19)
W
1
= 2
_
(a
1
P
inst
0.5P
inst
) +(y
1
0.5P
inst
)
2
_

1
(t
1
, t
2
) = (y
1
+(a
1
P
inst
P
inst
))
1
(t
1
, t
2
),
W
2
=
a
1
P
inst
+y
2
2

2
(t
1
, t
2
) (20)
Fig. 1. Annual hourly loadduration diagram (a
1
=0.8, b
1
=0.4).
V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776 769
Table 1
Power transformer components costs [2,5,911]
k Transformer component C
new, k
(D )
1 Windings and core 2,20,000
2 Bushing 570
3 Tank 20,000
4 On-load tap-changer 15,000
5 Other accessories 15,000
Table 2
Power transformer components reliability data [2,5,911]
k Component p
k
(%) Failure class, i r
k,i
p

k,i
(%) C
k,i
1
Windings and core 35 2 15 days 18.35 0.2 C
new,1
+C
u
3 120 days 81.65 0.5 C
new,1
+C
u
2
Bushing 14 1 1 day 15.83 0.4 C
new,2
2 3 days 54.16 C
new,2
3 30 days 30.01 C
new,2
+C
u
3
Tank 6 1 1 day 63.29 0.1 C
new,3
2 3 days 25.32 0.2 C
new,3
+C
u
3 60 days 11.39 C
new,3
+C
u
4
On-load tap-changer 40 1 1 day 28.74 0.1 C
new,4
2 3 days 51.60 0.2 C
new,4
3 30 days 19.66 0.4 C
new,4
5
Other accessories 5 1 1 day 66 0.1 C
new,5
2 15 days 34 C
new,5
Average yearly energy not delivered equals
W
TS,year
(D ) = C
EN
[W
1
+W
2
] (21)
Loss of revenue and load curtailment cost per kWh not delivered is C
EN
=D 0.05/kWh (Serbian data).
Relevant data for power transformer components are presented in Tables 1 and 2 [2,5,911].
Purchase cost of new oil is C
new,oil
=D 25,000.
Cost of oil ltration and drying is C
u
=0.2 C
new,oil
.
Parameters in Eq. (1) are determined, based on Fig. 2 [3], by applying the least-squares method.
For
0
0
=
0
0,MF
+
0
0,mf
= 0.01 = 1% (Serbian data), based on the data given in Table 2, we obtain
0
0,MF
= 0.0079187,
0
0,mf
=
0.0020813.
For combination of exponential and Weibull distribution, major failure rate equals

MF
(t) =
0
0,MF
+

t
1
(22)
Fig. 2. Statistical data about major failure rate
0
t,MF
during time interval (19732003).
770 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
Table 3
Weibull distribution parameters
k Component
k

k
1 Windings and core 3.58 31.6610
2 Bushing 3.58 42.5135
3 Tank 3.58 67.9384
4 On-load tap-changer 3.58 33.2174
5 Other accessories 3.58 73.0118
Applying the least-squares method, parameters of Weibull distribution are determined as solutions of Eqs. (24) and (25):
(, ) =
30

t=1
(
MF
(t)
0
t,MF
)
2
(23)
(, )

= 0 (24)
(, )

= 0 (25)
The partial derivative with respect to (Eq. (25)) is not practically usable because of complexity. For precise modeling of curve
from Fig. 2 with (22), following procedure is performed: for
k
>1, with step of 0.01, values of
k
, with regards to Table 2, are
calculated. For
k
and
k
we adopted those values for which Eq. (23) has minimum, Table 3.
The other data used for calculations are as follows:
C
pm
=D 100, C
ref,oil
=D 7000, x =0.3, and C
reg,ins
=D 10,000;
purchase and installing cost of condition monitoring system is D 30,000 and maintenance cost is D 500/year [1013].
Figs. 3 and 4 show an expected failure repair cost and expected load curtailment cost, respectively, in the case of operation with
non-preventive maintenance.
Figs. 5 and 6 show an expected cost and expected load curtailment cost, respectively, in the case of performing 1-day preventive
maintenance.
Figs. 7 and 8 show an expected cost and expected load curtailment cost, respectively, in the case of performing oil regeneration.
Fig. 9 shows data about transformer reliability in the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case
of performing oil regeneration (curve b).
A comparative overview of expected cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of
performing insulation system regeneration (curve b) is given in Fig. 10.
Fig. 3. Expected yearly failure repair cost during time interval (T, N) in the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance.
Fig. 4. Expected yearly load curtailment cost during time interval (T, N) in the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance.
V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776 771
Fig. 5. Expected yearly cost during time interval (m, N) in the case of performing 1-day preventive maintenance.
Fig. 6. Expected yearly load curtailment cost during time interval (m, N) in the case of performing 1-day preventive maintenance.
Fig. 7. Expected yearly cost during time interval (T
oil
, N) in the case of performing oil regeneration.
A comparative overview of expected load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a)
and the case of performing insulation system regeneration (curve b) is given in Fig. 11.
Fig. 12 shows a comparative overview of transformer reliability for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance and
the case of performing insulation system regeneration.
Figs. 13 and 14 show a comparative overview of expected cost and a comparative overview of expected load curtailment cost,
respectively, for the case of operationwithnon-preventive maintenance (curve a) andthe case of performingtransformer refurbishment
(curve b).
Fig. 8. Expected yearly load curtailment cost during time interval (T
oil
, N) in the case of performing oil regeneration.
772 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
Fig. 9. Transformer reliability in the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of performing oil regeneration (curve b).
Fig. 10. A comparative overview of yearly expected cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of performing insulation
system regeneration (curve b).
Fig. 11. A comparative overview of yearly expected load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of
performing insulation system regeneration (curve b).
After installing of system for condition monitoring of windings and oil, for detection rate of 80%, we have:

1,MF
= 0.2
1,MF
,

1,mf
=
1,mf
+0.8
1,MF
,

1
= 49.08
A comparative overview of expected cost and load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance
and for the case of operation with condition monitoring system installed is given in Table 4.
Fig. 12. A comparative overview of transformer reliability for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance and the case of performing insulation system
regeneration.
V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776 773
Fig. 13. A comparative overview of yearly expected cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of performing transformer
refurbishment (curve b).
Fig. 14. A comparative overview of yearly expected load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance (curve a) and the case of
performing transformer refurbishment (curve b).
Table 4
A comparative overview of expected cost and load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance and for the case of operation with
condition monitoring system installed
Time interval (years) Operation with non-preventive maintenance Operation with condition monitoring system installed
Yearly expected
cost (D /year)
Yearly expected load
curtailment cost (D /year)
Yearly expected
cost (D /year)
Yearly expected load
curtailment cost (D /year)
110 337.587 29579.8 3848.25 11914.4
1120 2172.4 119,965 4221.9 34060.3
2130 10108.3 567,951 5406.9 122,852
3140 78381.4 5 millions 10882.7 643,791
5. Conclusions
The paper suggests a method for evaluation effects of different forms of power transformer preventive maintenance.
First, let us compare an expected failure repair cost with an expected cost for each of analyzed forms of preventive maintenance.
Comparison will be made between:
C
ET
(T, N) (4) and C
ET
(m, N) (5),
C
ET
(T, N) (4) and C
ET
(T
oil
, N) (7),
C
ET
(T, N) (4) and C
ET
(T
reg
, N) (11),
C
ET
(T, N) (4) and C
ET
(T
ref
, N) (13).
After calculation of the following ratios: (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(m, N))|
T=m
, (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
oil
, N))|
T=T
oil
,
(C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
reg
, N))|
T=T
reg
, and (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
ref
, N))|
T=T
ref
, Figs. 1517, we can conclude as follows:
From Fig. 15 it is obvious that, from economic point of view, performing of 1-day preventive maintenance and/or oil regeneration
is not justied.
An expected yearly cost will be reduced if insulation system regeneration, Fig. 16, or transformer refurbishment, Fig. 17, be
performed after 11 years of exploitation.
Also by comparing (Figs. 3 and 5) and (Figs. 4 and 6), we can conclude as follows:
774 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
Fig. 15. Curve (a): (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(m, N))|
T=m
vs. time; curve (b): (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
oil
, N))|
T=T
oil
vs. time.
Fig. 16. (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
reg
, N))|
T=Treg
vs. time.
during time interval (0, 5) reduction of expected load curtailment cost is equal to increasing of expected failure repair cost. If
we perform 1-day preventive maintenance after 6 years of operation without failures, total reduction of expected cost and load
curtailment cost during time interval (6, 40) will be D 3/year;
If we compare expected cost and load curtailment cost for the case of operation with non-preventive maintenance with expected
cost and load curtailment cost for the case of operation with performing of oil regeneration we can conclude as follows:
Performing of oil regeneration during time interval (0, 19) is not economically justied.
If we perform oil regeneration:
after 19 years of operation, total reduction of expected cost and load curtailment cost during time interval (20, 40) will be
D 95/year;
after 20 years of operation, total reduction of expected cost and load curtailment cost during time interval (21, 40) will be
D 257/year;
after 21 years of operation, total reduction of expected cost and load curtailment cost during time interval (22, 40) will be
D 477/year;
According to the criterion of expected load curtailment cost, installing of system for condition monitoring of windings and oil is
economical solution from the rst year of transformer operation.
According to the criterion of expected failure repair cost, installing of system for condition monitoring of windings and oil is
economical solution after 20 years of transformer operation.
Fig. 17. (C
ET
(T, N)/C
ET
(T
ref
, N))|
T=T
ref
vs. time.
V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776 775
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my utmost gratitude for Prof. Dr. Jovan Nahman for his help and support.
I am grateful to the Ministry of Science of Serbia and Electric Company Elektrosrbija Kraljevo that supported this work.
Appendix A. List of symbols
b number of functional parts-components of power transformer
C
k,i
repair cost of class i failure on component k
C
new
purchase cost of new power transformer
C
new,k
purchase cost of power transformer component k
C
pm
cost of material for performing 1-day preventive maintenance
C
reg,ins
cost of insulation system regeneration
C
reg,oil
cost of oil regeneration
C
u
cost of oil ltration and drying
C
EN
loss of revenue and load curtailment cost per kWh not delivered
f
k
number of failure classes of power transformer component k with regard to the failure repair time
N duration of the planning period, expressed in years
p
k
probability that the failure occurs on power transformer component k
_

b
k=1
p
k
= 1
_
p
k,i
p
k
p

k,i
p

k,i
probability that the failure of class i occurs on component k
_

f
k
i=1
p

k,i
= 1
_
P
inst
substation installed capacity
r
k,i
repair time of class i failure on component k
R(t) reliability
t time
TS transformer station
U(t) unavailability
W
TS,year
average yearly energy not delivered
W
1
average yearly energy not delivered due to outage of one transformer
W
2
average yearly energy not delivered due to outage of both transformers
Greek letters
the Weibull scale parameter
the Weibull shape parameter

k,mf
minor failure rate of component k

k,MF
major failure rate of component k

mf
(t) minor failure rate at time t

MF
(t) major failure rate at time t

0
t,MF
initial (statistical) data for major failure rate at time t

0
t,MF

0
t,MF

t=0

0
0,mf
initial (statistical) data for minor failure rate at time t =0

0
0

0
0,MF
+
0
0,mf

1
(t
1
, t
2
) average yearly down-time of one transformer during time interval (t
1
, t
2
)

2
(t
1
, t
2
) average yearly down-time of both transformers during time interval (t
1
, t
2
)
References
[1] J.M. Nahman, Dependability of Engineering Systems, Springer, 2002.
[2] R. Fischer, Maintenance and diagnosis strategies for high voltage substations, in: Proceedings of the Tettex Instruments, April 28, 2004.
[3] B. Augenstein, Outsourced monitoring and reliability of critical assets, in: Proceedings of the DistribuTech, Las Vegas, February 46, 2003.
[4] D.M. Reineke, et al., Improving availability and cost performance for complex systems with preventive maintenance, in: Annual Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, 1999.
[5] An international survey on failures in large power transformers in service, ELECTRA No. 88, 1983.
[6] P. Gill, Electrical Power Equipment Maintenance and Testing, Dekker, 1998.
[7] R.C. Dorf (Editor-in-Chief), The Electrical Engineering Handbook, IEEE, 1998.
[8] V. Mijailovic, Probabilistic method for planning of maintenance activities of substation components, Int. J. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 64 (2003) 5358.
776 V. Mijailovic / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 765776
[9] V.V. Smekalov et al., Condition assessment and life time extension of power transformer, CIGRE Session 2002, pp. 12102.
[10] S. Tenbohlen et al., Experienced based evaluation of economic benets of on-line monitoring systems for power transformers, CIGRE Session 2002, pp. 12110.
[11] T. Breckenridge et al., The impact of economic and reliability considerations on decisions regarding the life management of power transformers, CIGRE Session
2002, pp. 12115.
[12] P. Boss et al., Life assessment of power transformers to prepare rehabilitation based on a technical-economical analysis, CIGRE Session 2002, p. 12106.
[13] P. Boss et al., Economical aspects and practical experiences of power transformer on-line monitoring, CIGRE Session 2000, pp. 12202.
[14] J.W. Harley, V. Sokolov, Contribution for panel on modern maintenance techniques for enhancing the reliability of insulation of power transmission systems,
CIGRE Session 2000, pp. 106.
[15] J.H. Harlow (Ed.), Electric Power Transformer Engineering, CRC Press, 2004.
Vladica Mijailovic was born in Kraljevo, Serbia, on 14 March 1966. He received the B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees fromUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, in 1991, 1995, and 1999, respectively. Since 1991, he is with Technical Faculty in Cacak, University of Kragujevac. Currently he is an assistant-professor
in Department for Power Systems. His area of interest includes substations reliability and modern maintenance techniques.