26

CHAPTER 3

3 TRANSFORMER LOADING AND LOSS ESTIMATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

High energy intensive industries like Steel, Textile, Paper,

Cement and Sugar are with loads has having classes of duty cycle. Computing
the energy consumption and line losses with the existing machinery setup with
the standard industry production is important to reduce the cost of the energy
contribution to decrease individual energy consumption without decreasing
individual welfare and productivity. It is obvious that it also contributes to
increasing the overall energy efficiency of the national economy. For such
industry, transformer is the main power handling service equipment in the
distribution that transports power from supply to load with voltage level
change from High Tension (11/22kV) to Low Tension (440V) and low current
to high current levels. Avoiding excess line losses in distribution is one of the
important areas to increase the energy efficiency.

3.2 LITERATURE STUDY

Besides and Heydt (1989) studied the loss computation through

power flow studies to ensure the reliability of the industrial power system to
meet the demand requirement. Capacitor manufacturer (CASO Khawaja
Electronics 1994) gave a solution as power factor improvement will help
 27

capacity reduction of transformer and energy losses.(IEEE STD C55.12.91

1995) and (NEMA TP2 1998) gave the standards for the testing method for
computing the losses and efficiency with linear loads using open circuit and
short circuit tests. Standard load test certificate with output efficiency of the
transformer is released by the manufacturer to the customer with every new
purchase of transformer (Appendix1). Borozan et al. (1997) gave a rough
estimate of transformer loading based on billing data, monthly peak load
reading. Toader et al. (2000) computed maximum energy loss of transformer
using generalized models considering the voltage variation that influences no
load and load losses with limitation of minimum loss present with actual
loading. They suggested accounting the flow of power in and out of
transformer to minimise the error during loss estimation. Palanichamy et al.
(2001) showed that transformer no load losses are depended on the supply
voltage and after doing load sharing and switching off the under loaded
transformer, power consumption is reduced.

Khodr et al. (2002) fixed the standards for the losses in the
electrical distribution as low, medium, and high (below 0.6, 0.6 -1.85, above
1.85%). NEMA Standard TPI (2002) catered the standard and optimum
efficiency for transformer having both linear and non-linear loads. Wei Jen
Lee & Kenarangawi (2002) gave a suggestion to release the load on
transformer by reducing the inrush current of motors to improve power factor
and increase the efficiency with use of soft starter. Aleksandar (2004)
suggested minimising the error in the transformer loss calculation by taking
care the additional current due to non-linear loads and the voltage drop during
the voltage transformation between primary and secondary.

Xiao et al. (2009) suggested that overloading above the standard

level results in drop in transformer efficiency and paralleling of transformers
 28

with the same capacity is suggested by to make the network more efficient.
Liang et al. (2012) gave a solution for avoiding the over load on transformer
with nonlinear loads by minimising harmonic level. Trinh Trong Chuong etal
(2015) indicated that voltage stability is increased through reduction of
additional reactive power requirement due to variation in load and this results
reduction in loading of service equipment like transformers. Fatih and Yilmaz
(2015) recommended amorphous core type transformer having low loss
compared to the steel core transformer is recommended for efficiency
increase in transformer for the same loading level. Saidi and Hammami (2015)
insisted to reduce the CO2 emission through optimum loading and efficient
usage of energy with service equipment keeping the same productivity.

In all the above cited references, loss calculation and/or,

improvement of energy efficiency are analyzed with instantaneous value of
transformer secondary current and the load. But Toader et al. (2000)
suggested taking power flow in and out of transformer to evaluate the loading
and to minimise the error estimation caused with secondary current method.
Taking power flow as basis for transformer loading estimation, the analysis is
still with error because of not confirming the industry‘s standard operation.
The reason for the error in estimation is because of not considering the current
due to stoppage of loads meant for planned outages and not taking the
effective reactive power compensated in the network for evaluation. So, the
transformer loading level is evaluated for actual losses with a proposed
method based on the power flow to the loads, effective reactive power
compensated confirming the industry‘s standard operating conditions for its
production. Then, the losses are compared with standard and suitable energy
conservation measures are suggested. Increase in energy efficiency of the
transformer at higher loading is expressed as per cent of total power handled
 29

by the transformer. The results are verified with the field study with energy
measurement at input and output of the transformer.

3.3 METHODOLOGY

This research includes a new procedure to estimate the

transformer loading level, comparing with the standards for loss, estimating
the loss as a per cent of total industry‘s energy and suggestion to increase the
energy efficiency of the transformer and industry.

3.3.1 Procedure for Estimation

Transformer loading in industries is estimated with the

conventional method using secondary load current and the procedure as
follows

a) Effective apparent power, active power, and reactive power compensated

are measured at load end with running loads and considering stoppage loads
to a particular transformer.

b) Calculation of total reactive power (inductive) at transformer to be

compensated.

c) Estimation of measurement of effective reactive power (capacitive)

compensated at transformer end.

d) Calculate the remaining reactive power (inductive) at transformer end after

compensation

e) Compute the apparent power of the transformer which is actual load and
express as per cent of its rated capacity.
 30

f) Calculate the losses from actual load test results and derive its operating
efficiency and energy wastage as a per cent of total energy consumption of
the industry.

3.4 STANDARD FOR TRANSFORMER LOSSES

Losses and efficiency of the transformers not only depend on the

design, but also, on the effective operating load. Transformer losses consist of
two parts: No-load loss and Load loss. In previous studies, LT distribution
transformer losses are calculated based on fixed core loss (no load loss) for the
period of energizing and copper loss (load loss) as a factor of ratio of
minimum and maximum load .

3.4.1 No-load Loss (Core Loss)

It is the self-power consumed to keep up the magnetic field in the

transformer's core. Core losses are caused mainly by two factors: hysteresis
and eddy current losses. Hysteresis loss is the energy loss consumption by
magnetic field reversal in the core during the positive and negative cycle the
alternating current or voltage. Also, self-induced current at core is the reason
for the eddy current loss. Also as a third factor, negligible amount of no load
copper loss compared to core loss is accounted.

3.4.2 Load loss (I2R- Copper Loss)

It is associated with full load current flow in the transformer

windings. Copper loss is power lost in the primary and secondary windings of
a transformer due to the ohm resistance of the windings. Copper loss varies
with the square of the load current. Hence, efficiency varies for an industrial
 31

distribution transformer with different levels of loading. Efficiency decrease

with increase in load for a distribution transformer (500 kVA capacity) is
tabulated in Table 3.1 [Appendix I].

Table 3.1 Transformer Load and Efficiency

Per cent (%) Load 125 100 75 50 25

Efficiency at unity pf 98.51 98.76 98.98 99.17 99.17

Efficiency at 0.8 pf 98.14 98.45 98.71 98.96 98.96

3.5 OPTIMUM LOADING AND ENERGY WASTAGE

Efficient loading of a distribution transformer is between 50 – 60

% at 0.95 – 0.99 pf where core loss and copper loss are equal. Maximum
efficiency at efficient loading level is 98.5 % to have a standard loss of 1.5 %
of total energy [Bureau of Energy Efficiency 2005]. If the transformer is
fully loaded, additional energy loss varies between 0.4% – 1.9 % from 60% –
100% loading level.

This result in the total loss of transformer varying between 1.9 %

– 2.4% depending on the layout, installation, complexity, pf at transformer
cum load end and loading of the distribution system which leads to the system
inefficiency. The relation between the variations in losses with respect to the
loading level of a distribution transformer is shown in Figure.3.1.
 32

(Source : BEE 2005)

Figure 3.1 Transformer Loading and Loss

3.6 MAXIMUM ENERGY EFFICIENCY:

As the distribution transformer gives maximum efficiency

between 50% – 60 % loading level [Appendix I], for an industry to be
energy efficient, the losses at transformer during power transportation
should be less than 1.5 % of total energy.

3.7 ESTIMATION OF TRANSFORMER LOADING

3.7.1 Conventional Method (Secondary Current)

Rated capacity of the transformer = kVArated (Name plate) (3 .1)

Rated secondary current of the transformer = Ir(A) (3.2)
Measured secondary current at each phases
of the transformer and the average. = Im (A) (3.3)
 33

Loading per cent (% loading at secondary) = × 100 (3.4)

Transformer Loading = KVArated× % loading at secondary (3.5)

3.7.2 Proposed Method (Power Flow)

Measurements
Transformer rated Capacity = kVA1
Existing Reactive Power at PCC = kVAr1 (in general, it is inductive)
Reactive power compensated with = kVAr2
capacitors at PCC
Reactive power at PCC = kVAr3
aftercompensation
Measured full load Active power = kW
(Adding active power of all feeder values)
Measured full load Apparent power = kVA2
(Adding apparent of all feeder values)
Apparent Power at PCC = kVA3
after reactive power compensation

3.7.3 Transformer Loading (Proposed Method)

kVAr 1(inductive)  (kVA 2 ) 2  (kW ) 2 (3.6)

kVAr3 = kVAr1 – kVAr2 (3.7)

kVA 3  (kVAr3 ) 2  (kW ) 2 (3.8)

Transformer loading level (in per cent)

kVA3
Per cent load  x 100 (3.9)
kVA1
 34

3.7.4 Flow Chart Representation

START

TRANSFORMER RATED
CAPACITY=KVA

LOAD END TRUE POWER=KW

LOAD END APPARENT POWER =KVA
TRANSFORMER END REACTIVE POWER=KVArind
TRANSFORMER ENDCOMPENSATED REACTIVE
POWER=KVArcap

KVAr AFTER COMPENSATION KVAr= KVAr -KVAr

ind cap
TRANSFORMER LOADING KVAL=

% LOADING= ×100

IS LOADING No
50-60% of
TRANSFORMER
CAPACITY
Yes
DO TRANSFORMER LOAD SHARING/ARGUMENTATION

END
 35

3.8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH A CASE STUDY

3.8.1 Industry‟s Distribution

A continuous yarn manufacturing industry has been selected for

the energy study. The industry considered is high tension (HT) power
consumer from the utility supplier having HT /LT electrical distribution
network.

3.8.2 Transformer Details

The industry is having a distribution transformer for its power

consuming loads mostly with three phase 415 V, 50 Hz squirrel cage induction
motors. It is without On-Load Tap Correction (OLTC) facility for voltage
correction. The rating of transformer and the connected load details identified
and recorded during the field study are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Transformer Rating and Connected Load

Transformer Capacity 500 kVA

Primary. Voltage Rating 11000 V
Secondary Voltage Rating. 400 V
Primary current rating. 26 A
Secondary current rating.. 722 A
No of Feeders Connected 4
Connected feeder load in Horse Power (HP)
Feeder 1 255
Feeder 2 285
Feeder 3 341
Feeder 4 131
 36

3.8.3 Field Study and Data Analysis

Secondary current of the transformer at PCC and power flow to

each feeder is measured through recording of voltage, active (kW), apparent
power (kVA) at feeder end and the reactive power compensated at both feeder
and transformer end. The electrical parameters of each feeder are measured at
actual industry standard running condition during power study is as given in
Table 3.3 and Table 3.4.

Table 3.3 Feeder End Active and Apparent Power

Stopped Full Active Full Apparent

Feeder Load in HP Load Factor Power kW Power kW
Feeder 1 101.3 0.54 103 184
Feeder 2 0.0 0.56 120 136
Feeder 3 130.0 0.76 193 272
Feeder 4 0.0 0.73 71 96
Total 487 688

Table 3.4 Reactive Power Compensation

Compensation At Rated kVAr Effective kVAr ** Voltage

Transformer 300 284
Feeder 1 0 0
415 V
Feeder 2 0 0
Feeder 3 0 0
Feeder 4 0 0

** Effective value of the capacitor bank is calculated from the per

cent reduction from the ratio of measured capacitor current to the rated current
calculated at measured voltage.
 37

3.8.4 Results

With the data obtained from study, analysis was done with
conventional method (secondary current) and proposed method (power flow
analysis) to estimate the loading per cent of transformer and the result is
shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Transformer Loading Comparison

Per cent
Loading estimation by Measured Rated
Loading
733.5 A 722 A 101.6 %
Conventional Method
Proposed Method 527.2 kVA 500 kVA 105.4 % *

* Excess loading level identified with proposed method= 4%

3.8.5 Interpretation

From the analysis and interpretation, loading analysis through

power flow shows a significance difference at higher side than the secondary
current analysis method. Loading comparison of a distribution transformer
with two methods in per cent is shown in Figure.3.2.
 38

107

105.4 %
105
Loadin g in per cent

103

101.6 %

101

99
Secondary Current Method Power Flow Method
Transformer Loading Estimation

Figure 3.2 Transformer Loading Comparison

Efficiency at 50-60% load = 99.1%

Efficiency loss at 100% load@ 0.90 – 0.98 pf = 0.5%
Loss estimation using secondary current estimation = 0.5%
Loss estimation using proposed method = 0.55%
Additional loss per cent of total power identified = 0.05 – 0.1%
Total energy loss due to inefficient loading 0.55 – 0.6%
of total energy

3.9 ESTIMATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY

3.9.1 Power Flow Estimation

From the case study, it is revealed that the transformer loading is

maximum and above 100 %. Estimated energy loss through power flow study
is higher, and hence the efficiency loss of the transformer is 0.5 % more of
 39

energy handled by the transformer [Bureau of Energy Efficiency 2005]. By

keeping the loading of the transformer between 50 – 60 %, the industry is said
to be 0.55% more energy efficient. This energy loss can be conserved through
an energy conservation measure by the augmentation of transformer capacity.

3.9.2 Field Study Estimation

An energy measurement at primary and secondary side of the

transformer is carried out and is given below. It shows losses are higher than
theoretical estimation due to over loading of transformer and a comparison of
theoretical estimation with actual field study is shown in Figure.3.3.

Transformer Rating = 500 kVA

Input Energy Recorded with = 3131. 6 Units
utility meter at Primary for 6 Hours
Out Put Energy Recorded = 3065.3 Units
with Energy Meter of class 0.5 Accuracy
Difference in Energy(Input – Output) = 66.3 Units
Per Cent loss of input energy = 2.12 %
Standard Loss = 1.5 %
Excess loss due to over loading = 0.612 %
 40

0.8
Transformer Losses

0.6 0.55 % 0.612 %

Per cent Loss

0.4

0.2

0
Theoritical Estimation Units Actual Measurement Units
Loss due to Over Loading

Figure 3.3 Loss Comparison with Over Loaded Transformer

Actual loss is still higher than the theoretical estimation and so

saving potential is more if the load is brought to optimum level for a over
loaded transformer. By enhancing the capacity of the transformer to double
(1000 kVA), loading level is brought to 50 – 60 % and losses are at standard
level. Estimation of transformer loading using the proposed method is
extended to all distribution transformers in the industry (five numbers) at
standard operating condition and the loading level is given in Figure 3.4.
 41

Figure 3.4 Distribution Transformer Loading Estimation

3.10 CONCLUSION

Estimation of transformer loading with the proposed method

turned the industry‘s transformers at uneven loading level (over loaded or
under loaded). As an energy conservation measure, sharing of load among
transformers is suggested to have 64% loading as whole brings load nearer to
optimum (60%) without investment. This measure increases the energy
efficiency to 0.25% of the total industry‘s power.