POWER TRANSFORMER DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS

MADE TO INCREASE OPERATIONAL LIFE

By David J. Woodcock
Jeffrey C. Wright, P.E.

Weidmann Technical Services Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION: Transformer Loading Policy and Effect on Operation

New rules in the deregulated electric utility business require Transmission and
Distribution companies to find ways to improve their competitive position. Maximizing
return on investment (ROI) is often a key financial driver when formulating a profitable
operating T & D strategy.

Increased equipment utilization, deferred capital expenditure and reduced

maintenance expense are all a part of the guidelines for today’s T & D asset strategists
and managers. Although tighter operating budgets and reduced spending are nothing
new to utility engineers and planners, today’s increased need to leverage more out of
existing equipment must be achieved with an aged asset base.

At many electric distribution companies, the majority of substation assets are 20

to 40 years old. Installed power transformer capacity has reduced from 185 GVA (giga
Volt Amperes) to 50 GVA per year over the past twenty-five years (Figure 1).(1)

200
Installed GVA

150
100
50
0
1974 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

Installed Power Transformers Per Year

FIGURE 1

1
 During the same period, average load growth moved slowly upward at a rate of
approximately 2% per year.(2) When replacement transformer are deducted from the
total installed, a shortfall in additions for real growth of the system can be found.
Obviously system growth is uneven and regionally skewed toward the south and west,
but on average transformer utilization has increased by 22% (Figure 2). For most
substation transformers a 22% increase in load equates to approximately a 48%
increase in oil hot spot temperature, at normal peak load.(3) For 65% of transformers in
service, which are 25 years and older, if the average hot spot temperature rise was
50°C in 1974, then today the average would be 73°C. This gradual increase in
temperature has the effect of reducing the peak load insulation life by approximately a
factor of 8.(4) Compared to the time when the average substation transformer was new,
there have been substantial changes in the way utilities purchase, operate and maintain
transformers. These changes have, in turn, resulted in a difference in the way new
transformer designs are optimized, and in the need to enhance some existing designs in
the field.

60
σ = Approx. accumulated load growth
υ = Increase in average hot spot temperature rise
50 ν = Increase accumulated utilization rate after replacements deducted

40
%

30

20

10

0
1974 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year

Load Growth vs. Utilization and Temperature Increase

FIGURE 2

This paper touches on changes in design practice for new transformers, but it’s
focus is on design enhancements to existing units which will have a positive impact on
life and loading capability.

2
II. New Designs and Design Modifications

Over the last fifteen years advances in analytical and computer aided design
capability have generally resulted in better transformers being built today.

• Improved 3D finite element (FEA) capability has lead to improved thermal and
dielectric analysis of insulation systems and high stressed areas.

• Advanced fluid and thermal dynamic modeling techniques have lead to

improved thermal models for directed flow forced oil cooled units which will
have an impact on monitoring hot spot vs. load in the future.

• Better technology and analysis of initial impulse distribution has lead to better
winding stress distribution and end insulation design.

• FEA improvements in mechanical design have resulted in better short circuit

withstand capability.

• High temperature insulation (hybrid) designs permit greater life vs. loading
and small unit size (higher power to weight ratio) for mobile and other special
applications.

However, failure data collected in the UK for generators step up transformers,

indicate that 35% of failures are still attributed to design defects (Table 1).(5)

TABLE I

Typical Causes of Failure

GSU – Power Station Units

Initial Cause % Failures

• Design Defects 35.0%
• Manufacturing Problems 29.0%
• Material Defects 13.0%
• Other Causes 11.0%
• Poor Maintenance 6.0%
• Lightning Surges 4.0%
• Short Circuits 2.0%

3
Section II continued,

When considering this statistic, we should understand that changes in design

parameters often result from improvements in manufacturing practices. A typical
example would be design clearances which are based on dielectric stress limits and
which are related to shop cleanliness and dry out standards. In cases where these
standards lapse, designs which were successful in the past may be considered the
cause of failure today. In any event, this data leads us to consider making changes in
transformer purchase specifications and in the need to carry out more comprehensive
design reviews prior to manufacture.

While the above referenced design improvements are important factors in buying
a new unit, it is a reality, that based on the current level of new additions to the
transformer population, these design improvements will have little impact on our system
as a whole for many years to come.

In comparison, design enhancements to the cooling and oil preservation system

of existing units can have an immediate impact on extending life and loading capability.

III. New Loading Practices and Effect on Operation

We have discussed the gradual increase in transformer load and the industry
business need to further ratchet-up normal and contingent loading limits. This is
reflected in the added flexibility provided to load planners in the 1995 revision of
ANSI/IEEE C57.19.100. The inclusion of the Planned Loading Beyond Nameplate
condition permits higher temperature for periodic or daily cyclical limits. However, the
revised limits require the user to be more rigorous in calculating the loss of insulation life
for various loading criteria. A typical transformer loading policy may include suggested
loading criteria and limits as shown in Table 2.

4
 TABLE II

Typical Loading Criteria and Limits

Normal Life Planned Long Term 12 hour 2 hour

Expectancy Loading Contingent Contingent Contingent
Beyond
Nameplate
Insulated
Conductor 120°C 130°C 140°C 160°C 180°C
Hot
Temperature
Other
Metalic Hot 140°C 150°C 160°C 180°C 200°C
Spot
Temperature
Limits
Top Oil
Temperature 105°C 110°C 110°C 110°C 110°C

Per Unit
Load Current 1.3pu – 1.5pu 1.3pu – 1.5pu 1.3 to 1.5pu 1.5 to 1.5 to
1.8pu 2.0pu
Loss Of
Insulation *.037% *.037% 0.5 to 1.0% 1.0 to 2.0% 2.0 to 4.0%
Life Per
Cycle

*Based on 65,000 hour design life at constant load and ambient limits for 50% insulation
tensile (not 200 DP).

5
Section III continued,

To establish the loading limits for any given transformer it is necessary to

calculate the above criteria or which ever limit occurs first, for the expected seasonally
adjusted loading cycle and ambient temperature. The temperature calculations (in
degrees C) should also include:

a) Top oil
b) Top duct oil
c) Bottom oil
d) Winding hot spot
e) Average oil rise
f) Average winding rise
g) Winding hot spot gradient
h) Average winding gradient
i) Bushing gradient
j) Cable gradient
k) Tap changer contact gradient

It is necessary to have specific design data or to make assumptions based on

normal design practice in order to calculate some of the above parameters. In addition
to the above temperature limits, when considering upper loading limits, it is important
that the other following calculations be performed for some or all cases:

a) Loss of life in %
b) Bubble evolution probability (Table 2)
c) Regulation and voltage drop in %
d) Loading capability in peak output kVA and per unit accounting for
voltage regulation.
e) Current in amps accounting for voltage regulation
f) Regulated and unregulated output voltage

It is also important that the above data be available for any specific transformer
when considering design modification to existing equipment in the field, as discussed
latter in this paper.

6
IV. New Loading Criteria Effects Replacement Policy

In many cases, the adoption of planned loading above nameplate, along with
seasonally adjusted loading and ambient temperature cycles, has provided planners
with new criteria for considering transformer replacements or additions to their system.
Other improvements in utilization have been gained by the ability to switch load from
one substation to another more quickly and with greater flexibility. This has resulted
from investment in automation controls and equipment. This added switching flexibility
enables greater utilization of the overall transformer contingent load capability.
The above factor has had an impact on increasing normal transformer loading and has
in a number of cases switched the criteria for replacement from the normal to the
contingent load limit.

Depending on the inherent thermal margin of the transformer cooling system, a

given transformer may be limited in it’s normal or contingent load capability by its hot
spot or top oil temperature. By performing the seasonally adjusted load case analysis
for all the cases shown in Table 1, the point at which the unit becomes top oil
temperature limited becomes apparent. For substation transformer designs, operated
at normal cyclical summer load and ambient temperatures, the general rule for thermal
limits is show on Table 3.

TABLE III

Thermal Limits

Loading Criteria Limiting Temperature Factors

Normal Loading Most probably limited by hot spot

Planned Loading Above Nameplate Probably limited by hot spot

Long Term Contingency Either temperature limit may apply

12 Hour Contingency Probably limited by top oil

2 Hour Contingency Most probably limited by top oil

When seeking design enhancement candidates for increased loading, the best
opportunity will result from those units limited by top oil temperature and with a large
margin between calculated and target hot spot temperature.

7
V. Re-Engineering Transformer Cooling System

The financial drivers in the new electric T & D business demand increased
utilization of transformer assets. The effects of revised loading policy and temperature
limits have previously been discussed along with the opportunity to increase optimum
loading levels. Consistent with this direction, the principal area for design change which
can have the most impact on the existing transformer population, is the transformer
cooling system. The immediate benefits to the T & D Company are:

• Reduced temperature of the transformer and ancillary equipment: fewer

alarms, less maintenance

• Longer insulation system and ancillary equipment life at existing loads

• High normal and contingent loading resulting higher ROI and deferred capital
spending

• Higher contingent load capability purchased at the lowest cost per kVA,
compared to adding more/bigger units to system

Options for Modifying Existing Cooling Systems

The following thermal design enhancement options exist for most power
transformers.

• Add fans
• Convert to high speed fans
• Add radiators and/or coolers
• Add pumps

The economic feasibility for these options is based on the calculated added life or
increased load capability at normal or contingent operation. An additional factor to the
initial cost of the added equipment is the cost of installation and whether down time for
installation is required. In most cases, even including down time, the cost per kVA for
the incremental load capability is only a fraction of the cost of new transformer
additions.

Prior to modifying the cooling system a detailed loading analysis with the
parameters given on page 5 should be performed. In addition, an engineering review of
other potential limiting factors should be considered:

8
Section V continued,

Temperature Limits
• Hot spot or bubble formation
• Top oil expansion space
• Loss/increase in insulation life
Cooling and Control Equipment
• Space availability for mounting additional fans, radiators, coolers
• Control equipment load current ratings (wiring, breakers, starters, CT’s,
etc.)
• Control cabinet arrangements and space
Ancillary Equipment
• Bushing ratings
• Tap changer ratings
• Lead temperature rise
Design Limitations
• Noise level
• Stray flux heating
• Eddy and circulating currents

In addition to cooling system enhancements, re-engineering the transformer oil

preservation system can also minimize the risk of bubble formation and extend
insulation life. This design option is discussed later in this paper.

VI. Thermal Enhancement Case Studies

The following case studies show the before and after thermal characteristics and
changes on load capability for units with re-engineered cooling systems.

Description of Case Study 1

The purpose of this case study was to determine the additional loading capability
that can be practically achieved for this transformer with modifications to the existing
cooling system. The physical arrangement of the transformer was reviewed to
determine whether enhancements could be made. There was no on-site inspection
done on this unit, therefore data from the outline drawing and accessory schematic was
used for this evaluation. The drawings indicate that there is room for an additional 5
fans. There are currently five (5) 850 RPM 24” diameter, 4 –blade fans on the unit. As
a result, the cooling upgrade option considered was to increase the fan quantity from 5
fans to 10 higher velocity fans.

9
Section VI continued,

Methods

The original temperature rises were adjusted based on the cooling modification
option listed above. (Refer to the following before and after comparison for a summary
of the upgraded temperature rises and cooling data.) The enhanced loading
capabilities, temperatures and loss of life were determined based on the adjusted
temperature rises and the specified load and ambient cycles. Calculations were done
according to the ANSI/IEEE Loading Guide for Transformers C57.91.1995.

Transformer Type: Three-Phase, Load Tap Changing

MVA & Cooling: 18/24/30/33.6, 55/65°C Rise, OA/FA/FOA

Volts & Connection: 67000 Delta – 13090 Wye
HV Taps: +/-5% in 4 – 2.5% Steps, FC
LV Load Taps: +/-10 in 32 – 0.625% Steps, FC/RC

Before and After Comparison

Thermal Characteristics & Cooling Data at 65°C Rise

Existing Upgraded
Hot spot rise (HSR) 66.9* 50.7*
Top Oil rise (TOR) 50.3 34.2*
Average Winding Rise (AWR) 62.1 46.0*

Hot spot over Top Oil (HS Grad) 16.6* 16.6*

Average Oil Rise (AOR) 48.3* 32.2*
Average Winding over Average Oil (Wdg Grad) 13.8* 13.8*
Top Oil over Average Oil (1/2 Delta T) 2* 2*

# of Fans: 5 10
Diameter – in. 24 24
# of Blades 4 4
RPM 850 850
CFM (per fan) 3900 3900

Upgrade Cost Estimates (Includes control enclosure, ------ $8,200.00

Fan accessories, design, and installation supervision)

*Calculated Values

10
Thermal Enhancement and Cooling Data continued,

As shown on Figure 3 and based on the 24 hour Summer Normal Peak Loading
capability improvement, the upgraded cost value is approximately $0.96 per kVA
compared to the current market value of $10.50 per kVA for new power transformers.

Peak MVA - Summer Load Cycle and Ambient

60
51.7
50 47
42.5
39.1
40 33.6
MVA

30

20

10

0
M ax 24 Hr Enhanced M ax 4 Hr Enhanced
Top Nameplate Rating M ax Normal Load M ax 4 Hr Contingency
Load Contingency

Series1 33.6 39.1 42.5 47 51.7

Loading Table and Chart

Increase in Normal and Contingent Loading

FIGURE 3

The modification to the cooling system in Case Study 1 are best described by the
before and after loading analysis data shown in Figure 4 and 5 respectively. The
addition of the fans enabled an increase of 8 MVA or 20% at normal load, which is
limited by the same hot spot temperature. The four (4) hour contingent load capability
was increased 9 MVA or 21.6% at the same top oil temperature limit of 110°C with a
negligible increase in loss of insulation life, Figure 6 and 7. The detailed temperature
characteristics versus the per unit load are shown of Figure 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively.

11
Case 1 24-Hour Normal, Base Load Summer
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.906 26.8 82.1 69.2 78.6 65.9 30,454
1 0.807 25.8 80.1 66.7 76.5 63.5 27,127
2 0.755 25.4 75.3 62.8 72.0 59.9 25,365
3 0.722 25.1 71.1 59.2 68.0 56.6 24,269
4 0.705 24.7 67.7 56.1 64.7 53.8 23,682
5 0.706 24.5 65.5 54.0 62.6 51.8 23,721
6 0.727 24.2 64.7 52.9 61.6 50.7 24,426
7 0.744 24.4 64.8 52.7 61.7 50.6 25,013
8 0.835 25.4 67.8 54.3 64.2 52.1 28,066
9 0.953 27.7 74.7 59.2 70.5 56.8 32,020
10 1.032 29.7 83.7 66.6 78.9 63.8 34,682
11 1.088 31.2 92.7 74.6 87.5 71.2 36,560
12 1.129 32.3 100.8 82.0 95.3 78.1 37,931
13 1.156 32.9 107.7 88.4 101.9 83.9 38,831
14 1.162 33.6 112.6 93.3 106.8 88.4 39,027
15 1.165 34.2 116.1 96.7 110.2 91.6 39,144
16 1.164 34.4 118.3 99.0 112.4 93.7 39,105
17 1.157 34.2 119.3 100.1 113.5 94.7 38,870
18 1.152 33.5 119.4 100.3 113.6 94.9 38,713
19 1.137 32.5 118.4 99.6 112.7 94.1 38,205
20 1.120 30.9 116.3 97.8 110.7 92.3 37,617
21 1.125 29.3 114.3 95.8 108.6 90.3 37,813
22 1.094 28.3 111.4 93.4 105.9 88.1 36,756
23 1.017 27.4 106.0 89.2 101.0 84.2 34,173
24 0.906 26.8 97.7 82.8 93.4 78.2 30,454
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 105.0 100.4
Hot Spot Temperature = 120.0 119.4
Loss of Life = 0.0371 0.0303

Maximum kVA Load = 39,144

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.165

FIGURE 4

Case 1 24-Hour Normal, Thermally Enhanced Load Summer

P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 1.089 26.8 66.4 53.6 62.8 50.5 36,597
1 0.970 25.8 73.0 57.2 68.4 53.5 32,599
2 0.907 25.4 70.6 55.9 66.3 52.3 30,482
3 0.868 25.1 67.6 53.5 63.6 50.2 29,165
4 0.847 24.7 65.1 51.4 61.2 48.3 28,459
5 0.848 24.5 63.7 50.0 59.8 47.1 28,506
6 0.874 24.2 63.6 49.6 59.7 46.7 29,353
7 0.895 24.4 64.4 50.0 60.4 47.1 30,059
8 1.004 25.4 68.7 52.6 64.0 49.5 33,728
9 1.145 27.7 77.6 59.0 72.0 55.4 38,479
10 1.240 29.7 88.1 67.8 81.7 63.3 41,677
11 1.308 31.2 97.7 76.3 90.8 70.9 43,935
12 1.357 32.3 105.7 83.6 98.4 77.3 45,582
13 1.389 32.9 111.9 89.3 104.3 82.4 46,664
14 1.396 33.6 115.8 93.2 108.2 85.8 46,899
15 1.400 34.2 118.2 95.6 110.5 88.0 47,040
16 1.399 34.4 119.5 97.0 111.8 89.2 46,993
17 1.390 34.2 119.6 97.3 112.0 89.5 46,711
18 1.385 33.5 119.0 96.8 111.4 88.9 46,523
19 1.366 32.5 117.3 95.5 109.9 87.6 45,911
20 1.345 30.9 114.5 93.1 107.2 85.3 45,205
21 1.352 29.3 112.3 90.7 104.9 83.1 45,441
22 1.315 28.3 109.1 88.1 101.9 80.7 44,171
23 1.222 27.4 102.8 83.3 96.3 76.4 41,066
24 1.089 26.8 93.4 75.9 87.7 69.9 36,597
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 105.0 97.4
Hot Spot Temperature = 120.0 119.7
Loss of Life = 0.0371 0.0314

Maximum kVA Load = 47,040

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.400

FIGURE 5

12
Case 1 4-Hour Contingency, Base Load Summer
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.778 26.8 82.1 69.2 78.6 65.9 26,141
1 0.693 25.8 74.9 63.3 71.9 60.4 23,285
2 0.648 25.4 68.6 57.8 65.9 55.4 21,773
3 0.620 25.1 63.8 53.5 61.3 51.4 20,832
4 0.605 24.7 60.3 50.3 57.9 48.4 20,328
5 0.606 24.5 58.0 48.1 55.6 46.4 20,362
6 0.624 24.2 57.0 46.9 54.5 45.2 20,966
7 0.639 24.4 56.8 46.5 54.3 44.9 21,470
8 0.717 25.4 59.0 47.5 56.1 45.9 24,091
9 0.818 27.7 64.3 51.2 60.9 49.5 27,485
10 0.886 29.7 71.3 56.9 67.5 54.8 29,770
11 0.934 31.2 78.3 63.0 74.2 60.6 31,382
12 0.969 32.3 84.8 68.7 80.3 65.9 32,558
13 1.255 32.9 100.0 79.0 93.7 75.4 42,164
14 1.261 33.6 113.7 92.5 107.3 87.7 42,376
15 1.265 34.2 122.4 101.2 115.9 95.7 42,504
16 1.264 34.4 127.7 106.7 121.2 100.7 42,461
17 1.256 34.2 130.5 109.7 124.0 103.5 42,206
18 0.989 33.5 121.0 104.7 116.1 98.8 33,230
19 0.976 32.5 111.1 95.2 106.4 90.1 32,794
20 0.961 30.9 104.3 88.5 99.7 83.8 32,290
21 0.966 29.3 99.5 83.7 94.9 79.3 32,458
22 0.939 28.3 95.3 79.8 90.9 75.7 31,550
23 0.873 27.4 90.0 75.5 85.9 71.7 29,333
24 0.778 26.8 83.0 70.0 79.5 66.7 26,141
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 110.0 109.9
Hot Spot Temperature = 160.0 130.5
Loss of Life = 1.0000 0.0363

Maximum kVA Load = 42,504

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.265

FIGURE 6

Case 1 4-Hour Contingency, Thermally Enhanced Load Summer

P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.778 26.8 66.4 53.6 62.8 50.5 26,141
1 0.693 25.8 60.5 49.0 57.4 46.4 23,285
2 0.648 25.4 55.7 45.1 53.0 42.9 21,773
3 0.620 25.1 52.4 42.3 49.9 40.4 20,832
4 0.605 24.7 50.2 40.4 47.8 38.7 20,328
5 0.606 24.5 48.9 39.2 46.6 37.6 20,362
6 0.624 24.2 48.6 38.7 46.2 37.1 20,966
7 0.639 24.4 48.9 38.7 46.4 37.2 21,470
8 0.717 25.4 51.3 40.1 48.5 38.5 24,091
9 0.818 27.7 56.7 43.7 53.3 42.0 27,485
10 0.886 29.7 63.1 48.9 59.3 46.8 29,770
11 0.934 31.2 69.1 54.0 64.9 51.4 31,382
12 0.969 32.3 74.1 58.3 69.7 55.4 32,558
13 1.528 32.9 98.3 73.0 90.0 68.2 51,330
14 1.535 33.6 118.7 93.4 110.0 86.0 51,589
15 1.540 34.2 128.3 103.4 119.5 94.7 51,744
16 1.538 34.4 132.7 108.1 124.0 98.8 51,692
17 1.529 34.2 134.2 109.9 125.5 100.3 51,382
18 0.989 33.5 111.7 95.9 106.4 88.1 33,230
19 0.976 32.5 94.1 78.5 89.2 72.9 32,794
20 0.961 30.9 85.3 69.8 80.6 65.2 32,290
21 0.966 29.3 80.4 64.9 75.8 60.7 32,458
22 0.939 28.3 76.8 61.6 72.3 57.7 31,550
23 0.873 27.4 72.3 58.1 68.2 54.5 29,333
24 0.778 26.8 66.6 53.8 63.0 50.7 26,141
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 110.0 109.9
Hot Spot Temperature = 160.0 134.2
Loss of Life = 1.0000 0.0441

Maximum kVA Load = 51,744

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.540

FIGURE 7

13
Case 1 2 4 - H o u r N o r m a l, B a s e L o a d Sum m er
Temperature Curves

180.0

160.0

140.0
A m b ient Temp.
120.0
Hot Spot Temp.

Temp. (ºC)
100.0 Top Oil Temp.
Top Duct Oil Temp.
80.0
B o t t o m O il T e m p .
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

Load Curve

2.000

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200
P.U. Load

P.U. Load
1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

FIGURE 8

Case 1 2 4 - H o u r N o r m a l, T h e r m a lly E n h a n c e d L o a d Sum m er

Temperature Curves

180.0

160.0

140.0

120.0 Ambient Temp.

Hot Spot Temp.
Temp. (ºC)

100.0
T o p O il T e m p .
80.0 Top Duct Oil Temp.
Bottom Oil Temp.
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

Load Curve

2.000

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200
P.U. Load

P .U . L o a d
1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

FIGURE 9

14
Case 1 4-H o u r Contingency, Base Load Sum m er
T e m p e rature Curves
180.0

160.0

140.0

120.0 Ambient Temp.

Hot Spot Temp.

Temp. (ºC)
100.0
Top Oil Temp.

80.0 Top Duct Oil Temp.

Bottom Oil Temp.
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

Load Curve

2.000

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200
P.U. Load

1.000 P.U. Load

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

FIGURE 10

Case 1 4 - H o u r C o n t i n g e n c y , T h e r m a lly E n h a n c e d L o a d Sum m er

T e m p e rature Curves

180.0

160.0

140.0

120.0 Ambient Temp.

Temp. (ºC)

Hot Spot Temp.

100.0
Top Oil Temp.
80.0 Top Duct Oil Temp.
Bottom Oil Temp.
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

Load Curve

2.000

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200
P.U. Load

1.000
P.U. Load
0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

FIGURE 11

15
 Description of Case Study 2

The purpose of Case Study 2 is to determine the additional loading capability that
can be practically achieved for this transformer with modifications to the existing cooling
system. The physical arrangement of the transformer was reviewed to determine
whether enhancements could be made to the cooling system.

The external inspection data and the outline drawing indicate that there are 4
banks of removable radiators on this unit. There are 2 banks of 2 radiators each on the
HV side, and 2 banks of 2 radiators each on the LV side of the unit. Each radiator is
118” high x 75” wide x 11” deep. There are a total of 28 fans on the unit, 7 on each
bank. Based on the radiator dimensions and an estimated fan diameter of 24”, there is
space available to mount 4 additional fans on this unit. Based on the original fan speed
of 1140 RPM, the fan speed can be increased to 1750 RPM.

Methods

The original temperature rises were adjusted based on the cooling modification
options listed above. Refer to following before and after comparison for a summary of
the upgraded temperature rises, cooling data, and noise levels. The enhanced loading
capabilities, temperature, and loss of life were determined based on these adjusted
temperature rises and the specified load and ambient cycles. Calculations were done
according to the ANSI/IEEE Loading Guide for Transformers C57.91-1995.

Transformer Type: 3 Phase, Load Tap Changing, Autotransformer

MVA & Cooling: 120/160/200//224, 55/65°C Rise, OA/FA/FA

Volts & Connection: 230000 GrdY – 67231 GrdY
HV Taps: +/-5% in 4 – 2.5% Steps, FC
LV Load Taps: +/-10 in 32 – 0.625% Steps, FC/RC

16
Thermal Enhancement and Cooling Data continued,

Before and After Comparison

Thermal Characteristics & Cooling Data at 65°C Rise

Existing Upgraded
Hot spot rise (HSR) 73.8* 62.8*
Top Oil rise (TOR) 58.2 47.2*

Average Winding Rise (AWR) 61.2 50.2*

Hot spot over Top Oil (HS Grad) 15.6* 15.6*

Average Oil Rise (AOR) 48.2* 37.2*
Average Winding over Average Oil (Wdg Grad) 13.0* 13.0*
Top Oil over Average Oil (1/2 Delta T) 10.0* 10.0*

# of Fans: 28 32
Diameter – in. 24* 24
# of Blades 4 4
Horsepower 1/6 1/2

Voltage 230 230

RPM 1140 1750
CFM (per fan) 5200 7800

Fan Noise – dB 73.5* 86.5*

Core Noise – dB 71* 71*

Total Noise – dB 75.5* 87*

Noise Guarantee – dB (10dB below NEMA Std.) 74 N/A

Upgrade Cost Estimates ------ $37,600.00

Includes fans, accessories, a control enclosure,
design, and installation supervision)

*Calculated Values

Base on the 24 hour Summer Normal Peak Loading Capability, the upgraded cost value
is approximately $1.10 per kVA based on the current market value of $10.50 per kVA
for new power transformers.

17
 Peak MVA - Summer Load Cycle and Ambient

350

308
300
272.2 276.6

252
250
224

200

MVA
150

100

50

0
M ax 4 Hr Enhanced
Top Nameplate Rating M ax Normal Load M ax 4 Hr Contingency M ax 24 Hr Enhanced Load
Contingency

Series1 224 252 272.2 276.6 308

Loading Table and Chart

Increase in Normal and Contingent Loading

FIGURE 12

The modification to the cooling system in Case Study 2 is best described by the
before and after loading analysis data shown in Figure 13, 14,15 and 16.

The addition of the high velocity fans enabled an increase of 24.6 MVA or 9.8%
at normal load and with the same hot spot temperature. The four hour contingent load
capability was increased by 34.2 MVA or 12.5% at the same top oil temperature limit.

18
Case 2 24-Hour Normal, Base Load Summer
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.710 26.8 77.0 68.5 64.9 52.1 159,012
1 0.665 25.8 73.6 64.7 62.1 49.0 148,990
2 0.621 25.4 69.2 61.0 58.3 46.2 139,201
3 0.593 25.1 65.3 57.7 55.1 43.6 132,786
4 0.570 24.7 62.1 54.9 52.5 41.5 127,743
5 0.560 24.5 59.6 52.7 50.5 39.8 125,407
6 0.572 24.2 58.1 51.1 49.3 38.6 128,151
7 0.615 24.4 58.2 50.5 49.6 38.3 137,866
8 0.661 25.4 59.7 51.2 51.1 39.1 148,063
9 0.727 27.7 63.9 53.4 54.5 41.3 162,784
10 0.801 29.7 70.3 57.5 59.4 44.8 179,470
11 0.897 31.2 78.8 63.3 65.9 49.4 200,866
12 0.983 32.3 88.3 70.5 73.5 55.0 220,222
13 1.054 32.9 97.9 78.4 81.4 61.2 236,204
14 1.110 33.6 106.8 86.1 89.0 67.4 248,663
15 1.119 34.2 113.0 92.7 94.8 72.7 250,628
16 1.125 34.4 117.3 97.4 99.0 76.4 252,000
17 1.115 34.2 119.4 100.4 101.3 78.8 249,664
18 1.100 33.5 119.7 101.6 102.0 79.6 246,364
19 1.063 32.5 118.0 101.0 100.6 78.9 238,206
20 1.011 30.9 114.4 98.4 97.3 76.6 226,563
21 0.966 29.3 109.4 94.3 92.7 73.0 216,403
22 0.912 28.3 103.4 89.5 87.4 68.9 204,351
23 0.813 27.4 95.6 83.6 80.6 64.0 182,029
24 0.710 26.8 86.7 76.6 73.0 58.4 159,012
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 105.0 101.6
Hot Spot Temperature = 120.0 119.8
Loss of Life = 0.0371 0.0235

Maximum kVA Load = 252,000

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.125

FIGURE 13
Case 2 24-Hour Normal, Thermally Enhanced Load
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp.
0 0.779 26.8 67.4 58.9 55.6 43.1
1 0.730 25.8 67.5 57.4 55.8 41.8
2 0.682 25.4 64.4 55.2 53.3 40.2
3 0.651 25.1 61.5 52.9 50.9 38.5
4 0.626 24.7 58.9 50.8 48.8 37.0
5 0.615 24.5 56.9 49.1 47.3 35.8
6 0.628 24.2 56.0 48.0 46.6 35.0
7 0.676 24.4 56.7 47.9 47.3 35.0
8 0.726 25.4 58.9 49.2 49.3 36.1
9 0.798 27.7 64.1 52.0 53.2 38.8
10 0.880 29.7 71.2 56.7 58.7 42.6
11 0.984 31.2 80.4 63.1 65.7 47.4
12 1.079 32.3 90.5 70.7 73.5 53.1
13 1.158 32.9 100.3 78.7 81.3 59.1
14 1.219 33.6 109.1 86.2 88.7 64.8
15 1.228 34.2 114.7 92.1 93.9 69.5
16 1.235 34.4 118.3 96.0 97.3 72.5
17 1.224 34.2 119.5 98.0 98.7 74.0
18 1.207 33.5 119.0 98.4 98.6 74.1
19 1.167 32.5 116.5 96.9 96.5 72.8
20 1.110 30.9 111.9 93.6 92.4 69.8
21 1.061 29.3 106.1 88.9 87.3 65.8
22 1.001 28.3 99.7 83.7 81.8 61.6
23 0.892 27.4 91.3 77.6 74.8 56.8
24 0.779 26.8 82.0 70.5 67.1 51.4
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 105.0 98.4
Hot Spot Temperature = 120.0 119.5
Loss of Life = 0.0371 0.0226

Maximum kVA Load = 276,640

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.235

FIGURE 14

19
 Case 2 4-Hour Contingency, Base Load Summer
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Tim e Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.631 26.8 77.0 68.5 64.9 52.1 141,344
1 0.591 25.8 70.8 63.1 59.6 47.8 132,436
2 0.552 25.4 65.4 58.5 55.2 44.3 123,734
3 0.527 25.1 61.2 54.7 51.7 41.5 118,032
4 0.507 24.7 57.8 51.8 49.0 39.2 113,549
5 0.498 24.5 55.2 49.4 47.0 37.5 111,473
6 0.509 24.2 53.7 47.8 45.8 36.3 113,912
7 0.547 24.4 53.5 47.1 45.9 35.9 122,547
8 0.588 25.4 54.5 47.5 47.1 36.4 131,612
9 0.646 27.7 57.8 49.2 49.9 38.3 144,697
10 0.712 29.7 63.2 52.5 54.1 41.2 159,529
11 0.797 31.2 70.3 57.4 59.6 45.1 178,547
12 0.874 32.3 78.3 63.4 65.9 49.7 195,753
13 0.937 32.9 86.2 69.8 72.3 54.7 209,959
14 1.199 33.6 104.7 80.0 85.2 62.6 268,556
15 1.208 34.2 116.7 92.6 96.4 72.6 270,678
16 1.215 34.4 124.4 101.3 104.0 79.6 272,160
17 1.204 34.2 128.7 106.8 108.5 83.9 269,637
18 1.188 33.5 130.2 109.5 110.4 86.0 266,073
19 0.945 32.5 120.4 105.6 102.8 82.7 211,739
20 0.899 30.9 110.9 97.2 94.2 75.6 201,389
21 0.859 29.3 102.7 89.9 87.0 69.4 192,358
22 0.811 28.3 95.2 83.3 80.4 64.0 181,646
23 0.722 27.4 87.1 76.9 73.5 58.7 161,803
24 0.631 26.8 78.8 70.2 66.4 53.5 141,344
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 110.0 109.6
Hot Spot Temperature = 160.0 130.2
Loss of Life = 1.0000 0.0377

Maximum kVA Load = 272,160

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.215

FIGURE 15

\
Case 2 4-Hour Contingency, Thermally Enhanced Load Summer
P.U. Ambient Hot Spot Top Oil Top Duct Oil Bottom Oil kVA
Time Load Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Load
0 0.631 26.8 67.4 58.9 55.6 43.1 141,344
1 0.591 25.8 62.0 54.4 51.2 39.7 132,436
2 0.552 25.4 57.5 50.6 47.7 37.1 123,734
3 0.527 25.1 54.0 47.7 45.1 35.1 118,032
4 0.507 24.7 51.4 45.5 43.1 33.5 113,549
5 0.498 24.5 49.5 43.8 41.7 32.4 111,473
6 0.509 24.2 48.5 42.7 40.9 31.6 113,912
7 0.547 24.4 48.7 42.4 41.4 31.5 122,547
8 0.588 25.4 50.1 43.1 42.8 32.3 131,612
9 0.646 27.7 53.6 45.0 45.8 34.4 144,697
10 0.712 29.7 59.0 48.5 50.0 37.3 159,529
11 0.797 31.2 65.9 53.3 55.3 40.8 178,547
12 0.874 32.3 73.3 58.9 61.0 44.9 195,753
13 0.937 32.9 80.3 64.6 66.5 49.0 209,959
14 1.357 33.6 106.4 76.9 83.4 58.0 303,921
15 1.368 34.2 121.9 93.4 97.6 70.5 306,323
16 1.375 34.4 130.4 103.2 105.9 78.1 308,000
17 1.362 34.2 134.3 108.5 110.1 82.1 305,145
18 1.344 33.5 135.0 110.4 111.2 83.5 301,111
19 0.945 32.5 117.3 102.0 97.3 76.7 211,739
20 0.899 30.9 102.5 88.7 84.6 66.0 201,389
21 0.859 29.3 92.2 79.3 75.9 58.5 192,358
22 0.811 28.3 84.1 72.2 69.2 53.1 181,646
23 0.722 27.4 76.3 66.1 62.8 48.4 161,803
24 0.631 26.8 68.6 60.1 56.6 44.0 141,344
Limit Actual
Top Oil Temperature = 110.0 110.4
Hot Spot Temperature = 160.0 135.0
Loss of Life = 1.0000 0.0531

Maximum kVA Load = 308,000

Maximum P.U. Load = 1.375

FIGURE 16

20
VI. Bubble Formation Design Modifications

In some cases bubble formation at contingent loading can become a concern

and can limit the units capability before reaching it’s maximum hot spot limit.

Bubble formation is a well documented problem for transient operation

conditions, particularly for units with high moisture in oil levels.(6) Several mathematical
models have been proven by lab testing and have demonstrated that under worse case
conditions bubbles can form at temperatures as low as 100°C. The presence of
bubbles in the winding hot spot area can substantially reduce the dielectric strength in
that area which can then lead to failure. The problem is caused by the sudden increase
in load and temperature on a normally cool transformer. The partial pressure of the
concentration of gases in the oil adjacent to the hot spot is increased to a point where
their sum is greater than the static pressure above the oil. The static pressure is
caused by the static head plus the pressure at the surface of the oil. This pressure can
be caused by atmosphere or a nitrogen blanket. In the latter case, the partial pressure
of the dissolved nitrogen decreases almost linearly with temperature. However, as the
water is driven out of the insulation, the partial pressure increases at a greater than
linear rate. At the point that the sum of their partial pressure exceeds the static
pressure (about 130°C) free gas bubbles will form in the oil (Figure 17).

Sum of Partial Pressure

FIGURE 17

21
 This problem is exaggerated by higher moisture level in the insulation. As a
general rule, older transformers have higher moisture which, in part, is due to release of
CO, CO2 and H2O from the aging insulation. In performing the bubble formation
calculations, it is necessary to make assumption for moisture level and transformer type
as shown in Table 5.

TABLE V

Solid Insulation Average Moisture Content

Voltage Class
Transformer <230 kV ≥230 kV
Age
New 1.0% .5%
5-20 1.5% 1.0%
21-40 2.5% 1.5%
40+ 3.0% 2.0%

In addition to bubble formation, high moisture level can cause a rapid

deterioration in the cellulose insulation system (Figure 18). With the drive to increase
transformer loading it becomes significantly more important to reprocess the
transformer oil to minimize the moisture level. Another redesign solution can also have
a positive impact on reducing the possibility of bubble formation in more highly loaded
units.
Aging Rate Multiplier

100

10

1
0.1 1 10

% Moisture Content

Aging Rate vs. Moisture Content

FIGURE 18

22
VII. Re-engineering the Oil Preservation System

For conventional nitrogen blanketed units which may have over pressure
problems, which can lead to high levels of dissolved gas, or for units which may be
prone to bubble formation at higher loads, redesigning the tank to add a bladder type oil
preservation system is a relative easy solution. The addition of the bladder can prevent
the nitrogen from dissolving in the oil. This feature in addition to the higher static head,
which can be achieved by the location of the tank, can mitigate the risk of bubbling.
However, when specifying or selecting the bladder it is important to determine the leak
rate or potential for air leakage. An additional problem can exist in oil preservation
system which leak air and introduce oxygen to the transformer oil. Oxygen in oil is
known to significantly reduce insulation life (degree of polymerization DP), particular at
elevated temperatures (Figure 19). Tests of transformers with open conservators and
leaking oil preservation systems, compared to units with low oxygen levels, have been
made.(7) The results show that significant reduction in insulation DP can result from the
introduction of air from a leaky bladder (membrane systems). The potential optimum
design solution is to add an oil preservation system (tank and bladder) and pressurize
the bladder with nitrogen, utilizing the existing nitrogen system or with a modified low
pressure controller.

900
Degree of Polymerization

800

700

600 65° C
500 65° C + Oxygen
55° C
400
55° C + Oxygen
300

200

100

0
0 80 160
Days at 120° C

Impact on Oxygen on Cellulose Insulation

FIGURE 19

23
VIII. Conclusion

Utility deregulation is changing the way T & D assets are utilized. Due to
financial drivers, such as ROI and capital deferment, utility planners are striving to get
more load capability from aged transformers.

Electric T & D companies are revising long standing loading policies for normal
and contingent operation. The need to analyze temperature rise and loss of life criteria
for various operation parameters can lead to opportunity to re-engineer existing cooling
and oil preservation systems.

Compared to design changes to new units, which will take many years before
having an impact on the transformer population as a whole, re-engineering to meet
today’s upgraded operating requirements will have an immediate impact. Lower
operating temperatures, incremental load capability, increased insulation system life
and less risk of bubble formation are all benefits from design changes discussed in this
paper.

24
 REFERENCES

1. US Department of Commerce Data

2. NERC/IEEE Statistical Data, 1996

3. IEEE/ANSI C57.91 – 1996, “IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil Immersed

Transformers”.

4. IEC 354: 1991, “Loading Guide for Oil-Immerse Power Transformers”.

5. Allen, Professor D.J., “Transformer Reliability by Design”, TechCon 1996, New

Orleans, LA. February 1-2, 1996.

6. McNutt, Bill, ESERCO Report, 1989.

7. Bassetto, Dr. Armando, TechCon 99, New Orleans, LA. February 17-19, 1999.

General References

IEEE/ASNI C57.119 – 1996, “Recommended Practice for Performing

Temperature Rise Tests on Oil-Immersed Power Transformers at Loads Beyond
Nameplate Ratings”.

Pierce, Linden W., “Predicting Liquid Filled Transformer Loading Capability”,

1992 at IEEE IAS Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference.
September 28-30, 1992.

Moore, Harold R., “Use of Oil Testing to Determine Transformer Condition and
Life Extension”, TechCon 98, New Orleans, LA. February 16-18, 1998.

25