21 views

Uploaded by Vahid

fdxfgdhghffhjjhkhkkhkjkkjhjhjhjhjhhhkhkhkhkkhkhkhkhhhhklkklhlhlhlhkhkkkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhlhl,kk

- Folleto Vacutap Vr
- DHWO1_Final
- IM Ex Appraisal Criteria 12nov13
- Technical Queries PoweQ-02 IRAN TRANSFO
- unit 1
- Annex a - Technical Specifications-new (1)
- 3PhasePadmountedBrochure
- sp1011
- NCPT
- observation_gap
- Esters in Power Transformers
- ALUMINIUM vs COPPER_Cost & Characteristics Comparison_20100315
- 1lde000071+en+data+sheet+ecodry+transformers
- 1231231
- Aaa
- The Measurement and Evaluation of Distribution Transformer Losses Under Nonlinear Loading R3 Color
- 6_TLMS
- skemaSNk2
- Distribution Transformer Cooling System Improvement by Innovative Tank Panel Geometries
- Ribons and bows case study accounting

You are on page 1of 6

Table I

Per-Cent Life

Lost per Cycle

Peak

Kva

60

55

50

45

40

.

.

.

.

.............

.............

.............

.............

.............

Per-Cent Life

Lost per Cycle

Peak

Kva

60 . .7.11703

55 . .0.54503

.0.04224

50 .

45 . .0.00365

40 . .0.00033

0.31270

0.03205

0.00348

0.00035

0.00004

Table IV

Table 11

.

60

55

50

45

40

Per-Cent Life

Lost per Year

Frequency

Peak

Kva

per Year

1

0.31270

.

2............... 0.06410

3............... 0.01044

.

.

6............... 0.00210

...

.

.0.00040

...........10

..............

Peak

Economics

per Year

.1.

60

55.

50.

456.

40

2.

3.

1.

Per-Cent Life

Lost per Year

7.11703

1.09006

0.12672

0.02190

0.00330

Total: 8.35901

Total: 0. 38974

the annual peak load, but also the shape

of the annual peak load cycle, is important

in determining the thermal aging of the

insulating system.

It was found that the significant portion of the thermal aging occurs over a

relatively small portion of the annual

load cycle. For example, Table II

shows that 80% of the total annual

aging occurred during the annual peak

load eycle. Table IV shows that for

the annual load cycle based on the

sample load eycle having a larger load

factor, 85% of the total annual aging

occurred during the annual peak load

cycle. A more detailed breakdown of

Frequency

Kva

that significant thermal aging occurred

over 0.7% of the annual load cycle shown

in Table II and over 2.1% of the annual

load cycle shown in Table IV.

It was also found that the daily load

cycle having a peak load of 60 kva and

a load factor of 0.521 would result in

the same degree of thermal aging as a

daily load cycle having a peak load

of 54 kva and a load factor of 0. 648.

Even though the second load cycle has a

peak load 10% less than the peak load of

the first load cycle, both load cycles result in the same degree of thermal aging.

This further illustrates the point that the

magnitude of the peak load alone cannot

Design

T. H. PUTMAN

thermal aging; the shape of the load cycle

must also be taken into consideration.

Conclusion

Using a method such as that outlined

in this paper, it is possible to estimate

the per-cent loss of life (and hence the

thermal life expectancy) of a distribution transformer from actual load cycle

data and to evaluate the effect of heavier

loading schedules on the thermal life of

the transformer insulating system.

In the course of developing this method

of calculating transformer thermal life

expectancy, it was found that:

1. The significant portion of the thermal

aging occurring during an annual load

cycle takes place over a relatively small

portion of the annual cycle.

2. A large portion of this significant aging

occurs during the annual peak load cycle.

3. Both the magnitude of the annual peak

load and the shape of the annual peak load

cycle must be considered in life expectancy

calculations.

References

1. THERMAL AGING PROPERTIES OF CELLULOSE

INSULATING MATERIALS, G. Malmlow. Acta

Polytechnica, Stockholm, Sweden, (Electrical Engineering Series), vol. 2, 1948, pp. 7-67.

DETERIORATION

INSULATION

2. ELECTRICAL

TREATED AS A CHEMICAL RATE PHENOMENON,

T. W. Dakin. AIEE Transactions, vol. 67, pt. I,

1948, pp. 113-22.

3. LIFE EXPECTANCY OF OIL-IMMERSED INSULATION STRUCTURES, W. A. Sumner, G. M. Stein,

A. M. Lockie. Ibid., pt. III (Power Apparatus

and Systems), vol. 72, Oct. 1953, pp. 924-30.

4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE THERMAL EVALUA-~

TION OF ELECTRICAL INSULATION, L. J. Berberich,

T. W. Dakin. Ibid., vol. 75, Aug. 1956, pp.

752-61.

the transformation of electric energy.

Quantitatively a measure of this is the

annual volt-ampere hours, which may be

expressed as:

Annual volt-ampere hours = ET1-IMID 8,760

(1)

MEMBER IEEE

constraints which economics places on the

design of power transformers. The mathematical analysis shows how the size, losses,

reactances, and power output are related

when the transformer is optimally designed.

Because of the number of simplifying

assumptions which have been made, this

paper is not a treatise on how to design

power transformers. On the contrary,

it is a broad view of the design problem

which yields findings which are new and

1018

The paper confirms the validity of propositions which previously had only empirical

backing.

G ENERALLY speaking, the problem

of designing a power transformer is

one of designing a transformer which will

perform its function at minimum cost.

Paper 63-918, recommended by the IEEE Transformers Committee and approved by the IEEE

Technical Operations Department for presentation

at the IEEE Summer General Meeting and Nuclear

Radiation Effects Conference, Toronto, Ont.,

Canada, June 16-21, 1963. Manuscript submitted January 2, 1963; made available for printing April 8, 1963.

T. H. PUTMAN is with the Westinghouse Electric

Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.

The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable

suggestions which he received during the course

of this work from Dr. Clarence Zener, Director of

the Westinghouse Research Laboratories, and E.

C. Wentz of the Westinghouse Transformer

Division.

Pu0tmannEconomnn

DECE-MBER 1963

where

E=volts, output voltage

IM-=amperes, maximum output current

LD = load factor, ratio of average current

to maximum current

for the analysis

A

least three terms which should be considered. The first of these is the cost of

manufacturing, installation, taxes, and

maintenance-which may be expressed as

a single annual cost as follows:

Section B-B

recovery factor

The second annual cost is the cost of

core loss, which may be expressed as

follows:

$E = $/watt-yr, cost of electric energy

to supply power to transformer

Section A-A

3 which designers try to minimize. The

remainder of this paper is concerned with

an analytical approach to the design

problem.

Transformer Size and Load

WTNL ($E+FS$S1W)=$/yr,

specific cost of the transformer. If one

evaluates the economic factors in equation 3, which relate to the cost of utilizing

and supplying electric power, and if he

already has the transformer he intends to

use, then it is a simple matter to determine what load would produce the minimum annual cost per volt-ampere hour.

It is now desired to remove the constraint

that the transformer has already been

designed; this introduces additional degrees of freedom in equation 3, because

$T, WNL, and RT (all of which appear in

equation 3) depend upon the design.

These quantities must now be expressed

in terms of design parameters. In order

to make the problem tractable, several

assumptions are necessary which will become evident in the following develop-

supply power

annual cost of

supplying no load loss

copper loss, which is computed in a manner similar to the core loss.

-A

current during year

squared current to ',2

loss

cost of copper loss

The total annual cost of the transformer is the sum of the three cost terms

defined above, or

FT$T+ WNL($E+FS$SIW)+

IM2RT(FS$s/W+LS$E)

(2)

can now be defined as the ratio of the

annual cost as given by equation 2 to

the annual volt-ampere hours as given by

equation 1:

C= [FT$T+($B+FS$SiW)WNL+

DECEMBER 1 963

of t will be geometrically similar. Although the relationships given in Appendix I have been derived for the transformer shown in Fig. 1, they are equally

valid for any transformer.

It now remains to express $T, WNL, and

RT in terms of the design parameters and

material properties. In Appendix II the

installed cost of the transformer, $T, iS

given as follows:

ST = (k3diS1 k2S2)t3+$etc

is that the installed cost of a transformer

can be expressed approximately as a

constant term, $etc, plus a term which

varies as the transformer volume, P. One

can check with Appendix II to find out

the exact significance of the various

constants.

In Appendix III the iron and copper

losses of a transformer are expressed by:

(5)

Pi=wdiVi=wdiS1t3

/ 4W A2

pV

Pch

2 \A C2 / CBA i

ment.

considered here and the dimensions which

determine its physical size. Appendix I

shows that the core and coil areas

and volumes can be expressed in terms of

one dimension which is taken to be the

width of the tongue t and several other

dimensionless numbers or geometric factors which are functions of the proportions of the transformer and are generally

designated by the symbol Sj. The dimension t is a measure of the size of the transformer. All transformers with the same

(4)

.SW

2B2

)t-I

S32S42}

(6)

(kilogram), dt equals the density of the

iron, and Vi is the volume of the iron. It

is assumed, therefore, that the iron loss

is proportional to the volume of the transformer, P.

Equation 6, which expresses the copper

or load loss, looks a bit more formidable,

but in reality is easily understood. The

factor (pVI/A,2) is simply the resistance of

a single turn which occupies the same

(3)

Putman-Economics and Power Transformer Design

1019

c0< c,<c2<C3

(Fs$siw+Ls$SE) (

2B2-)

IM.

specific cost as the parameter

and which has a resistivity p. The total

volume of the transformer coils is V,,

and the window cross-section area is A,.

In the factor (4W/wBAi), the angular

frequency is wo radian-seconds-', peak

flux density is B webers/meter2, the core

cross section is A im2, and the transformer

output is W volt-amperes. The peak

voltage per turn of the transformer is

wBA j, and therefore (4W/cwBA i) can be

shown by simple arithmetic to be twice

the current which passes through the

transformer window in either winding.

Consequently the expression for P, is

simply the loss of a hypothetical singleturn winding which has the same average

current density as the actual transformer windings.

It is assumed that the no-load loss,

WNL, equals the core loss, Pi. Therefore,

(7)

TVVL=Pi=WddjSlt3

R=PC

RL'2

8p W2

IM2 \w2B2

S2

(S2S42St

(8)

there are two types of costs: one dependent, the other independent of the load.

The cost which depends on the load is

a result of copper loss and shall be

called "copper-loss cost." Those which

are independent are of two types. The

first is dependent upon the volume of the

transformer and shall be called "fixedvolumetric cost," while the second is independent of volume and shall be called

"fixed costs."

Assuming that the geometric factors of

the transformer are kept fixed, we wish

to see how the transformer size, t, and the

load, IM, influence the specific cost of

operation. One way to discover this is

to plot the relationship defined by equation 10 between IM and t for fixed values

of C as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 shows

that there is no one combination of

t and IM which produces minimum

specific cost. However, it is seen that if

the transformer size is fixed then there is a

value of IM which gives minimum specific

cost. However, at that value of IM there

is another, larger, transformer which will

have even lower specific cost.

Evidently there are two points of view

from which to choose. Assuming that

the size is fixed, the load which will give

minimum specific cost can be found if

1C

-=0

out, the condition for minimum specific

cost is found to be

copper-loss cost } = { fixed-volumetric cost +

fixed costs } ( 11)

given by equations 4, 7, and 8, respectively, may now be substituted into equation 3 to yield an expression for the specific cost, which depends both upon the

load IM and design of the transformer.

load is known and to find the transformer

size which results in minimum specific

cost by requiring that

0

C= {FT[(k3diSi +k2S2)t3+$etc] +

condition for minimum specific cost is

wdiS1t( FS$s,w+$E)+

(8pET2IM2)\( S2 \t-5(Fs$s+

C= { [FT(k3diSl+k2S2)+

(FS$s,w+$E)wdiSolt3+ FT$etc+

1020

(9)

(Fs$s,w+Ls$E)

(8pET

w02B2

s2

S32S42/

=3/5{ FT(k3diSl+k2S2)+

(Fs$s,w+$E)wdtSI}t3 (13)

Inspection of equation 13 shows that the

constraint is one which relates the transformer size, t, to the load, to certain material properties, to operating conditions,

and to economic factors. From this constraining equation a number of interesting

facts concerning power transformers can

be deduced.

VARIATION OF TRANSFORMER VOLUME

WITH RATING

for t, then it is evident that

t

(ETIm)114 cc W1/4

and therefore the volume of a transformer

must increase as its rating to the threefourths power.

INFLUENCE OF CHANGES UPON DESIGN

of the design, equation 13 shows the influence of various factors. Generally,

any change which tends to increase the

copper-loss cost is counteracted by an

increase in the size, which tends to reduce

the cost again. Also, any change which

tends to increase the fixed-volumetric

cost is counteracted by a reduction in size,

which tends to counteract the increase.

COPPER LosS AND IRON Loss

obtained for the copper and iron losses

in Appendix III, we can easily show that

the ratio of copper loss to iron loss is

PC

=0

specific cost for a specified load. This requires imposition of the constraint given

by equation 12. By identifying the fixedvolumetric and copper-loss costs in the

numerator of the right-hand member of

equation 10, one can write the minimizing

constraint in detail.

Constraint

From the above discussion the relationship between transformer size, load, and

specific cost should be clear. In the

following it is assumed that the trans-

Pi

3/5 1FT(k3dS0 +k2S2)+(FS4SW+$E) wdiS1J

wdiSo[Fs$s,w+LS$EI

Pc

Pi

3 fixed-volumetric cost

5

core-loss cost

loss to iron loss ratio is a constant (independent of transformer size) and de-

DECEMBER 1 963

factors and the watts/kg loss of the iron.

INFLUENCE OF THE VOLTAGE LEVEL

In the derivation of the copper loss of

Appendix III it was assumed that the

tranformer coils were made of a homogeneous material with a resistivity p and

that the current was uniformly distributed

across the cross section of the windings.

In reality, part of the cross-section area is

insulation; therefore the current does not

flow uniformly. However, as far as

losses are concerned,the real situation can

be represented by a single-turn homogeneous coil with an equivalent resistivity,

which is related to the actual resistivity

of the conductor by the expression p/(1-f) where p is the actual conductor

resistivity and f is the fraction of the

winding cross-section area which is insulation. This can easily be seen on an intuitive basis by considering the limiting cases

when f is zero and one.

As the effect of increasing the voltage

level of a winding is always to increase the

fraction of the area used for insulation,

the equivalent resistivity of the winding

must increase also. Since this tends to

increase the copper-loss cost, the design

must react in such a way as to reduce the

copper loss; that is, the transformer size

must increase. The over-all effect of

increasing the voltage level will be to

produce a larger transformer with a higher

specific cost.

WINDING CURRENT DENSITY

It has been shown that the ratio of

copper loss to iron loss is fixed. Since the

iron loss varies with the volume of the

transformer, the copper loss must do so

also. The only way this can happen is

for the winding current density to be constant. This explains why the cooling

problem becomes more critical in large

transformers. The amount of heat to

be dissipated increases as the volume, t3,

while the surface area to dissipate the

heat increases as t2. Therefore, the heat

dissipation per unit area must increase

WITH POWER RATING

The base ohms of a transformer referred

to any winding varies as the square of

the number of turns of that winding.

One can imagine that the magnetic

field produced by the winding consists of a

inductance of the winding is the sum of

the inductance resulting from each tube

of magnetic flux. The inductance pro-

DECEMBER 1963

of the number of turns of the winding and

the tube. Since the base ohms varies as

the square of the number of turns of the

winding, the contribution to the reactance,

expressed in per unit, resulting from any

tube of flux varies only as the permeance

of the tube. As the size of the transformer increases, the permeance of the

tubes of flux increases in direct proportion

to the size, t, because permeance varies

directly as area and inversely as length.

Therefore, the per-unit reactance resulting

from a tube increases in proportion to t.

Some of the tubes may be considered

to contribute to the exciting reactance

and others to the leakage reactance.

Since the per-unit impedances of the tubes

which make up these reactances vary as t,

the reactances themselves must vary as t.

Equation 13 shows that the transformer

size, t, varies as the power rating to the

one-fourth power. Therefore, the reactive components of the per-unit exciting

and leakage impedance must also vary

as one-fourth power of the rating.

It is well known that the per-unit

exciting current of transformers diminishes as transformer size increases. However, it is not so well known that the percent leakage reactance will also increase

unless design changes are made to counteract this undesirable effect.

OPTIMUM TRANSFORMER PROPORTIONS

In the foregoing analysis it was assumed

that the geometric proportions of the

transformer were fixed. It is of interest

to note that, although the optimum size

depends upon the loss factor, LS, and is

independent of the load factor, LD, the

optimum geometric proportions are independent of both the load and loss factors. This is most easily shown by starting with equation 10 and computing the

minimum value of the specific cost by

inserting the value of t given by equation

13. The result has the following form:

Cmin= {( ... )(S2S3-2S4-2B-2)3.8

where the factors which have been

omitted involve the load and loss factors

but do not involve any geometric factors.

Now it is clear that the set of values for

the geometric factors which produce the

optimum value of the specific cost is

independent of load or loss factors.

OPTIMUM VALUE OF FLUX DENSITY

It was also assumed in the analysis

that the flux density, B, was held fixed.

One might possibly decrease the specific

other than the maximum possible for the

core material as determined by exciting

used to look into this problem. First

of all,it isnoticed that increasing the value

of B would reduce the specific cost except

for the fact that as B increases the core

loss, w, also increases, which tends to

increase the specific cost. It is apparent

that the flux density should be increased

up to the point that any further improvement in the specific cost by increased flux

density is undone by increased core loss.

The location of this point can be determined by examination of the expression

U= B -4[FT(k3diSl+k2S2) +

(Fs$sIw+$E)diS1wI5/8 (15)

flux density should be as high as possible

without violating the constraint d U/dB <

0. Differentiation of equation 15 shows

that this constraint is equivalent to

B

5 \B( Fs$s,w+$E)diSl

As an example of the use of equation 16,

design will be deternmined.

FT=0.15 $/$-yr

FS$S8W +$E

0.006 $/kilowatt-hour

= 0.0525

$/watt-yr

k2= 0.075 $/inch 3=4.58 X 103 $/meter3

k3 = 0.30 $/pound = 0.661 $/kg

S1 = 5.57 (assume a1=

a2=

a3 = 1)

Using these values, equation 16 becomes

dw-< 4.84 +1.2 -w

B

dB B

(17)

steel, equation 17 is satisfied as an

equality for B = 1.67 webers/meter2, w =

2.27 watts/kg, and dw/dB=4.53 wattmeter2/kg-weber. Therefore, B = 1.67

webers/meter2 is optimum for this particular example. Furthermore, because

dw/dB changes so rapidly in the range

1.60<1.75 webers/meter2, it is likely that

the optimum flux density will lie in this

range for almost any design.

Results

The results of this paper can be summarized by a series of statements of the

facts which have been analytically shown

to be true about power transformers:

1021

1. Given the load to be supplied, a transformer size can be determined which has a

minimum specific cost. An increase in

the load reduces the specific cost up to a

certain point. However, for this new

load there is a still larger transformer which

will be more economical.

2. The volume of the optimum transformer should increase as its power rating

to the three-fourths power.

3. Any change which tends to increase

the fixed-volumetric cost will be counteracted by a reduction in size. Any change

which tends to increase the copper-loss

cost is counteracted by an increase in size.

4. The copper loss and iron loss bear a

fixed ratio independent of transformer

rating.

5. High-voltage transformers have a higher

specific cost than low-voltage transformers

of the same rating.

6. The winding current density is independent of transformer size.

7. All per-unit reactances of transformers

tend to increase as the rating to the onefourth power. Apparently the leakage

reactance is kept in bounds by changes in

geometry and winding design in larger

transformers.

8. The optimum proportions of a transformer are independent of its load.

9. The optimum flux density for most

transformer designs probably lies between

1.60 and 1.75 webers/meter.2

in this paper. The important geometric

constants of the transformer in terms of

its dimensions are as follows:

Mean turn length:

a

( 18)

4

2

(19)

(20)

Volume of iron:

(21 )

Coil area:

A,c-ab

A s=at2S4t2

(22)

(25)

self-evident.

Installed Transformer Cost

the volt-ampere rating, W, in the following

manner. Let

W= volt-ampere rating

Ai=meter2, cross section of iron

B=webers/meter-2, maximum flux density

(peak value)

Ae=meter2, cross section of copper

j = 4W/wBA cA i = 4Wl/wBS4S3t4

Therefore,

Pc =

in terms of t and the geometric factors are

defined in equations 25 of Appendix I.

directly with the core volume. Therefore,

W=

j-ccA iB

2 2

(8pW2/c,2B2)(S2/S32S42)t-5

(28)

(29)

(30)

where Vi is expressed in terms of SI and t

as shown in Appendix 1.

V= meter3, volume of coils

Therefore,

Coil cost = k2 V, = k2S2t3

where Vc is expressed in terms of S2 and t

as shown in Appendix I.

The installed cost of the transformer

can now be expressed in terms of the cost

components which have been defined.

$T=k3d1SiI3k2S2t3$etc

Losses

Iron Loss

Let w equal the watts/kg loss in the iron,

and Pi equal the total watts loss in the iron.

Then

At=dt

equation 21 of Appendix I.

(26)

Copper Loss

Let

a2 = b/a

(27)

$T. This cost can be expressed as the sum

of the cost of the core, the cost of the

winding, and certain miscellaneous costs.

Pi=wd1 Vi-=wdiSt3

a =d/t

copper loss

V= meter3, volume of copper

then

PC== 2-j2pVC

Iron area:

(23)

The following are the dimensionless

geometric factors:

P,= watts,

A c = a2a32t2 S3t2

Volume of coils:

VC2a32[2(al+1)+7ra31t3= S2t0

It is assumed that the cost of the transformer windings varies in proportion to

their total volume.

Appendix 1. Geometry of

Transformer

volumes and areas can be expressed in

terms of t and geometric factors.

coil (peak value)

p=ohm-meters, resistivity of coil material

Discussion

Paul H. Jeynes (Public Service Electric

and Gas Company, Newark, N. J.): The

procedure described in this paper may

well be accepted as the classical approach

to economic transformer design. It proposes no drastic new departures, but does

organize the reasoning better than has been

done before.

Because it is thus authoritative, it is

desirable to have the numerous formulas

expressed in unmistakable dimensional

units, so they can be conveniently quantified in practical applications of the analysis.

The author has recognized this, and has

taken pains to indicate the units of measurement along with the definition of each term

in words.

However, his presentation starts with

definitions of three basic concepts:

manufacture, installation, taxes,

and maintenance

(2) Fr=$/$-yr, capital recovery factor

(3) F7$T=$/yr, annual cost

One's first reaction is that: (1) is incorrect,

(2) is inadequate, and (3) therefore is not

very helpful. This situation could be

remedied, but it demands some explanation.

It is implicit in this approach, though not

specifically stated, that the user is going

to make a choice between proffered designs

which, at the price purchasable from

manufacturer, will accomplish two simultaneous financial objectives:

1. Maximize his profit margin out of

given sales and revenues from his customers.

a3= a/t

(24)

1022

DECEMBER 1 963

charge his customers (revenues) for given

sales, to obtain a given profit margin.

In other words, the user of a transformer

looks to the effect of his purchase of a

unit on the revenues he must obtain from

his customers, whether he is a public

utility or a nonregulated business. Accordingly, he does not care what it costs

to manufacture the unit; he needs to know

what he must pay the manufacturer.

His purchase price may be a function of

the cost to manufacture, but it is not one

and the same figure, as the definition of

$T seems to say.

Also, purchase of a transformer means

that the user must collect from his customers a good deal more than: its purchase

price, installed, plus present worth of

lifetime taxes, plus present worth of lifetime maintenance. He also incurs engineering, accounting, administrative, supervisory, and storeroom expense. He has

costs of advertising, billing, and collecting.

And he has working capital requirements.

All this is to be obtained via revenues from

his customers.

We all know the answer-FT$T is not

"annual costs," as defined in the paper.

It is the difference in revenue requirements

resulting from purchase and use of transformer. The items omitted from the

definition of FT$T are assumed to be

identical regardless of transformer design.

Why be stuffy about this?

Because sometimes items conveniently

ignored, being assumed "the same in any

event," are not really the same in any

event; which points up the fact that FT,

capital-recovery factor, is inadequately

defined.

The ultimate net salvage of a transformer is typically large, whether the unit

is sold for future use by another owner or

is scrapped for its large metal content.

Net salvage value is not a revenue requirement; it does not come from customers,

but from the junkman. Accordingly, the

definition of FT must indicate whether or

not adjustment has been made for ultimate

net salvage. It may amount to 25% of the

unadjusted figure, which makes a difference, not only in the present-worthing

calculation, but also in the estimate of

income tax.

Revenue requirements, to come from

customers, include:

1. Minimum acceptable return on capital

investment (i.e., on purchase price, including installation cost).

2. Depreciation (i.e., recovery of that

initial investment less ultimate net salvage).

3. Taxes.

4. Maintenance.

The present worth of items 1+2 (the

revenue requirement for return and depreciation) is exactly equal to the initial

capital investment if (1+2) is divided by

the capital-recovery factor adjusted for

salvage.

(3+4) divided by the capital-recovery

factor not adjusted for salvage.

to

DiECIRMBIER 1963

nor actual nor desired nor permitted per-cent

return. It is the minimum acceptable

"bare-bones" cost of mnoney, "threshold

of confiscation" rate of return; whether

the user is a public utility or not. That

may make a difference of 16% or more

(1% out of a typical figure near 6%) in

item 1.

Another slightly confusing usage is the

symbol $etc. In Appendix II it is referred

to as "the miscellaneous charge;" but it

is not what accountants refer to as a

miscellaneous expense. It is said (in

equation 4) to be a specific fixed component

of $T, which is in terms of present worth.

The quantity $s,w, described as "present

worth of system to supply power to transformer" cannot be said to be completely

wrong; but it is an inadequate definition

of the author's exact intent, which defies

practical evaluation. It would seem desirable to include at least a reference,

indicating exactly how the author intended

it to be quantified.

In general, this paper is so valuable

that it would seem worthwhile to make

such small but important refinements.

serves to bring to the forefront a number

of points which may not be clear to all

readers.

In the sale and application of a power

transformer there are two problems: one

solved by the user and the other solved by

the transformer manufacturer. The user

must decide from among the many transformers offered for sale by different manufacturers which will be the most economical.

This is a standard type of engineering

economy problem, and the general method

of attack on such problems can be found

in reference 1. Generally one prepares

payment schedules for the various alternative transformers. These schedules may

differ both in the timing and amount of

payments. The salvage value is; as Mr.

Jeynes indicates, an important factor, but

may be considered as a negative paynment.

Some method must be used to reduce the

various payment schedules to a common

basis of comparison in order to determine

which is the most attractive. This can

be done by finding the present worth of

each schedule of payments or by reducing

each payment schedule to a series of equal

annual payments to be made over the life

of the equipment. If the lives of the

transformers can be considered to be the

same, then a direct comparison of present

worths is adequate. If the transformers'

lives are different, then the equal annual

payments should be used for comparison.

This is the transformer user's problem,

and the solution yields the transformer

which he should purchase.

The problem of the manufacturer is as

follows: There is not just one transformer

which he can build which will satisfy the

technical requirements of his customer.

Transformers can be built with high load

losses and small physical size or low load

loss and large physical size and all gradations between these extremes. In other

series of transformers to supply a specific

load, and his problem is to determine which

transformer fromi the series will be most

economically attractive to the customer.

This paper shows a sound, scientific means

of arriving at the optimum design.

As one might expect, certain modifications must be introduced to adapt the

method to any specified situation, and these

can be easily worked out. However, there

are several requirements if the method is

to be meaningful. First of all, power

companies must be able to evaluate the cost

of losses-both the energy component and

the demand component. These cost components are designated by the symbols

$E and Fs$s1w, respectively, and have

the units $/watt-yr. Some of the literature

available on this is indicated as references

2 and 3.

Second, it is assumed there is a close

relationship between the price of a transformer to a customer and its cost of manufacture. The present worth of all costs

of a transformer to a user exclusive of the

costs of losses is $T; and FT, when multiplied

into $T, converts $T into a series of equal

annual payments over the life of the

transformer. $T is adjusted for salvage

by subtracting from the present worth of

all costs the present worth of the salvage

value. In other words, the salvage value

may be considered a negative cost. Now

one part of $T is well defined: the core

cost and the coil cost, which are

evaluated in Appendix II. Although it

is not so stated in the paper, these costs

may reflect their salvage value as well as

the cost of manufacture.

All other costs which make up $T are

lumped into $,t,, and evaluation of this

is of no great importance since it does not

enter the actual computation of the optimum transformer design.

In designing a power transformer a

manufacturer can vary its physical size

and thus influence the load losses, the core

losses, and the cost of the core and coils.

As the paper shows, a variation in the size

results in a change in the cost of the transformer, whether it is evaluated on an

annual charge basis or on a present-worth

basis. The proper size or design is the

one with minimum cost since this particular

design will be the most attractive to a

potential customer.

The optimization assures the manufacturer that he has the best design possible

within his particular manufacturing cost

structure. It, of course, does not assure

him of successfully meeting competition

since this depends upon the manufacturing

cost structure, which is different for different

manufacturers.

REFERENCES

1.

York, N. Y., 1950.

2. EVALUJAT10N OF CAPACITY DIFFERENCES IN

ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE FACILI-

Systems), vol. 71,

3.

vol. 80, 1961 (Feb. 1962 section), pp. 1001-08.

1023

- Folleto Vacutap VrUploaded byfgdfgdf
- DHWO1_FinalUploaded byBheemaraddi S Bheemaraddiyavar
- IM Ex Appraisal Criteria 12nov13Uploaded byRajesh Goel
- Technical Queries PoweQ-02 IRAN TRANSFOUploaded by54045114
- unit 1Uploaded byRAJESHWARI
- Annex a - Technical Specifications-new (1)Uploaded byrivnad007
- 3PhasePadmountedBrochureUploaded bywilliamdw40
- sp1011Uploaded bylegalno
- NCPTUploaded byAlauddin Khan
- observation_gapUploaded bysanjeev kumar
- Esters in Power TransformersUploaded byAbdullah Ghannam
- ALUMINIUM vs COPPER_Cost & Characteristics Comparison_20100315Uploaded by123agattar
- 1lde000071+en+data+sheet+ecodry+transformersUploaded byRamadhani Setyo Frambudi
- 1231231Uploaded byjoshua espiritu
- AaaUploaded byracy023
- The Measurement and Evaluation of Distribution Transformer Losses Under Nonlinear Loading R3 ColorUploaded byLighto Lasto
- 6_TLMSUploaded byVinzoKei
- skemaSNk2Uploaded byTrs Rst Str
- Distribution Transformer Cooling System Improvement by Innovative Tank Panel GeometriesUploaded byJanmejaya Mishra
- Ribons and bows case study accountingUploaded bysalva8983
- 4 Cast ResinUploaded bySambit Mohapatra
- User Guide Transformer Differential 87TUploaded byarnenylund
- transformer testingUploaded byratheeshkumard
- Rexroth Freq Weld Transformer PSG 3075.1x PSVUploaded byBoby
- 643 CaseUploaded bySadia Monir
- Bus Duct Seminar Tamer WithoutUploaded byNghia
- 03Uploaded bytenglumlow
- Insulation resistanceUploaded bypvpavan
- executivesummary-2010-11Uploaded byNeeraj Kumar
- Tc Media Tension Abb - ELECTRICAUploaded byagvega69109

- working rate problems.pdfUploaded byChannpreet Sabharwal
- Data Sufficiency Part - 2Uploaded bydharmsmart19
- Muslim Boys NamesUploaded bySarkar Healing
- PS1Uploaded byVahid
- DS Tricky R00.docxUploaded byVahid
- rc1Uploaded bysachin2040
- EngineerUploaded byVahid
- Problem Solving Practice Questions.docUploaded byasaye
- GIN's RC TechniqueUploaded bydinmilo
- Male Muslim NamesUploaded byBilal Khan
- Recent DS Collection 1Uploaded bykarthyk
- Muslim Name of BoysUploaded byadilkhalique
- Rc KeywordsUploaded byDeepak Dastrala
- Senior Electrical Engineer.docxUploaded byVahid
- rc2Uploaded bysachin2040
- Groch Transmission 2013Uploaded byVahid
- gmatUploaded byRohit Sharma
- Testing of Power TransformersUploaded byYurika RS
- Gmatprep Comprehensive CrUploaded bydollybiotech
- Gmatprep Comprehensive CrUploaded bydollybiotech
- 0hmnls19z0007q6Uploaded byVahid
- 181105114013English Advertisment Mumbai Lottery 2018.pdfUploaded byVahid
- GMAT Flashcards v7.2-gmatclub.pdfUploaded bysouvonik
- CR_Quick_Reference_Rev0.pdfUploaded byRahulRawat
- adidas_sizes_apparel1.pdfUploaded byVahid
- Netzwerkloesungen Mit IEC 61850-3_IEEE 1613 Von MoxaUploaded byJessica Dean
- 1431967286_6 CST SocialStudies_WhoMatters 100MostInfluentialPeopleUploaded byVahid
- Maths Time and WorkUploaded bySaneesh Karayil
- 1EXPLORINGBUSINESSOPPORTNITIESWITHDEWA.pptUploaded byVahid
- Flashcards - Quantitative ReviewUploaded byalfifafa

- Zahn_Electromagnetic_Field_Theory_-_A_Problem_Solving_Approach__Wiley_Uploaded byAlma Karic Palic
- London Theory of SuperconductivityUploaded byRenjith Raveendran Pillai
- 0625_s03_ms_1+2+3+5+6Uploaded byChirag Hablani
- 50hcq-03pdUploaded byFarid Sedeky
- BEE2123 TUT2_DCMeter SolutionUploaded byWatashiNo
- 301.Hydraulic Separator Calculating Its Heating Power (2)Uploaded byamanda
- Volume 2 TransformersUploaded byzeltd
- Chap 2 - Vapor and Combined Power CyclesUploaded byfairul
- Cart on a Ramp Lab ReportUploaded byShakilMirza
- TSS Paper (Final)_stampedUploaded byJack Clarke
- EASA Mod 7A Bk 4 Elect TestUploaded byVasco M C Santos
- 04-Voltage Regulator DVRUploaded bysuhailtambal
- SSD-Module 1 NotesUploaded bychettiyath
- Ch18 CapacitanceUploaded bysubshad
- Rich Mathematical Problems in AstronomyUploaded byasljdkf
- BrochureA53Folds XPower 2 Hi-Wall 112012Uploaded byElaisa Kasan
- R8140A MHOA_B_CUploaded byRinda_Rayna
- G+Level+FyBCh+20 21NVCO08+Magnetism+and+Magnetic+Induction,+ACUploaded byEpic Win
- Fault ride through capability for grid interfacing large scale PV power plants.pdfUploaded bydavidarri90
- marthon reguladorUploaded bywidndo
- Bernoulli PptUploaded byfatimahazirah
- Lect - 18 Heat Exchanger Lecture 2 of 4.pptxUploaded byVivaan Sharma
- To Determine the Internal Resistance of a Cell by a PotentiometerUploaded byAkshay Pabbathi
- Sawa Fuji Inverter GeneratorUploaded byErlangga Satyawan
- GLP Mezcla Hysys.pdfUploaded bydalila_aguero
- Essential Physics for Advanced Level by Yomal AmarathungeUploaded byYomal Amarathunge
- Home Work 4 SolutionsUploaded bysarahh
- Fluid MechanicsUploaded byManojkumar Thilagam
- MODERN PHYSICS Fam Le KienUploaded byFurqan Fazili
- Air Cooled PackageUploaded byayamdemam