ransformer Failure Analysis

To Avoid Future Failures

The WEIDMANN failure analysis is a detailed review of the remains of the failed transformer in association with a review of the original design parameters. The goal of the failure analysis is to identify the primary failure path within the transformer and its root cause. Identifying the root cause of failure can help utilities avoid future failure of similar transformers exposed to similar operating conditions.

Benefits Identify primary failure path Determine type of failure and stresses encountered Determine if the environment, operating conditions, or maintenance issues contributed to the
f failure

Features Inspection of failed transformer Consideration of transformer design, and environmental, operational, and maintenance records Finite Element Analysis, if needed Detailed report on the failure mode and root cause High voltage tests of solid dielectric insulation, if needed Physical tests of solid dielectric insulation, if needed P

nalysis of transformer failurePosted by sushant

vyas on 28 Dec, 2009 | Total Comments: (0)

POSTED BY

sushant vyas MANAGER(TECHNICAL ) at VIMLESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD

IMIA WGP 33 (03)Analysis of Transformer Failuresby William H. Bartley P.E.The Hartford Steam BoilerInspection & Insurance Co.presented atInternational Association of Engineering Insurers36th Annual Conference Stockholm, 2003- 1 -Analysis of Transformer Failuresby William H. Bartley P.E.The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co.Hartford, CT USASUMMARYThis paper will address the transformer failure statistics over the last 5 years, the aging of ourworldwide transformer fleet, and a global perspective of the transformer industry.INTRODUCTIONMajor losses involving large oil-cooled transformers continue to occur on a frequent basis. AnIMIA Working Group was established in 1995 to examine this topic and presented a report at the1996 Conference. The magnitude of the losses has increased significantly since the last study.Increased equipment utilization, deferred capital expenditures and reduced maintenance expensesare all part of todays strategies for transformer owners. To make matters worse, world powerconsumption is increasing, and the load on each aging transformer continues to grow.SCOPE OF STUDYA request was sent to all national delegations seeking information on losses of transformers rated at25MVA and above, for the period 1997 through 2001. Information was requested concerning Year ofloss, Size in MVA, Age at failure, Application (utilities, industrials etc.) Cause of failure, PropertyDamage portion, and Business Interruption portion. Data was obtained on 94 cases. An estimate of thetotal population of power transformers would have been useful, but it is impractical to obtain thisinformation. Some of the contributors were not able to identify the age of the transformers, and insome cases, the size of the transformer. Thus, the analysis is annotated wherever data is missing. Allamounts of losses were converted to U.S. dollars, using the following exchange rates: 0.9278 Euros;8.542 Swedish kronas; and 6.0858 French francs.FIVE YEAR TRENDDuring this period, the number of transformer claims reached a peak (25) in 1998. But, the dollars-paidout, reached a maximum in 2000 due to several claims in the multi-million dollar

range, plus one largeBusiness Interruption loss. The largest transformer loss also occurred in 2000, at a power plant, with aBusiness Interruption portion of over $80 million Euros, or $86million US dollars. Three of the topfour Property Damage claims were in industrial plants. Table#1 displays the annual transformer claims(We have included Property Damage, Business Interruption and Total Paid). Unfortunately, all of thedata contributed did not have size information. Thus, we could only analyze 78 claims for cost persize. The average cost (for Property Damage only) was approximately US$9000 per MVA (or $9 perkVA). Table #1-A displays the annual transformer claims and Cost per MVA.- 2 -Table 1 Number and Amounts of Losses by YearTable 1Total # ofLosses Total LossTotal PropertyDamageTotal BusinessInterruption1997 19 $ 40,779,507 $ 25,036,673 $ 15,742,8341998 25 $ 24,932,235 $ 24,897,114 $ 35,1211999 15 $ 37,391,591 $ 36,994,202 $ 397,3892000 20 $ 150,181,779 $ 56,858,084 $ 93,323,6952001 15 $ 33,343,700 $ 19,453,016 $ 13,890,684Grand Total 94 $ 286,628,811 $ 163,239,089 $ 123,389,722* Total losses in 2000 includes one claim with a business interruption portion of over $86 million USTable 1A Number and Amounts of Losses by MVA and YearTable 1 ATotal # ofLossesLossesw/dataTotal MVAreportedTotal PD(with size data) Cost /MVA1997 19 9 2567 $20,456,741 $79691998 25 25 5685 $24,897,114 $43791999 15 13 2433 $36,415,806 $149672000 20 19 4386 $56,354,689 $128492001 15 12 2128 $16,487,058 $7748Total 94 78 17,199 $15,4611,408During this five year period, the average cost is $8,990 per MVA, or about $9 per kVA.TYPE OF APPLICATIONDuring this period, the largest number of transformer claims (38) occurred in the Utility Substationsector, but the highest paid category was Generator Step Up transformers, with a total of overUS$200million. If the extraordinary Business Interruption loss is ignored, the generator step uptransformer is still significantly higher than any other category. (This is to be expected due to the verylarge size of these transformers.) Table 2 displays the annual claims, by application.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 3 -Table 2 Losses by ApplicationYear Generator Step Up Industrial Utility Substations unknown Annual Totals1997 $ 29,201,329 3 $ 2,239,393 4 $ 5,243,075 11 $ 4,095,710 1 $ 40,779,507 191998 $ 15,800,148 8 $ 3,995,229 6 $ 5,136,858 11 $ 24,932,235 251999 $ 3,031,433 4 $ 24,922,958 4 $ 6,116,535 6 $ 3,320,665 1 $ 37,391,591 152000 $ 123,417,788 10 $ 24,724,182 4 $ 2,039,810 6 $ 150,181,779 202001 $ 32,082,501 11 $ 1,261,199 4 $ 33,343,700 15Totals $ 203,533,199 36 $ 55,881,762 18 $ 19,797,476 38 $ 7,416,375 2 $ 286,628,811 94CAUSE OF FAILUREFor the failures reported, the leading cause of transformer failures is insulation failure. Thiscategory includes inadequate or defective installation, insulation deterioration, and short circuits,... but not exterior surges such as lightning and line faults. Table 3 lists the costs and number offailures for each cause of failure. A description of each cause category is found below.Table 3 Cause of FailuresCause of Failure Number Total PaidInsulation Failure 24 $ 149,967,277Design /Material/Workmanship 22 $ 64,696,051Unknown 15 $ 29,776,245Oil Contamination 4 $ 11,836,367Overloading 5 $ 8,568,768Fire /Explosion 3 $ 8,045,771Line Surge 4 $ 4,959,691Improper Maint /Operation 5 $ 3,518,783Flood 2 $ 2,240,198Loose Connection 6 $ 2,186,725Lightning 3 $ 657,935Moisture 1 $ 175,00094 $ 286,628,811The risk of a transformer failure is actually two-dimensional: the frequency of failure, and theseverity of failure. Figure 1 is a scatter plot, or sometimes referred to as an F-N curve(frequency number curve). The number of failures for each cause is on the X-axis, and thedollars paid for each cause is on the Y-axis. The higher risks are in the upper righthand corner.According to this analysis, the Insulation Failure is the highest risk for all types of transformerfailures.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 4 -Frequency / Severity PlotFigure 1Figure 1 Frequency - Severity of Transformer FailuresCause of FailureInsulation Failures Insulation failures were the leading cause of failure in this study. Thiscategory excludes those failures where there was evidence of a lightning or a line surge. Thereare actually four factors that are responsible for insulation deterioration: pyrolosis (heat),oxidation, acidity, and moisture. But moisture is reported separately. The average age of thetransformers that failed due to insulation was 18 yearsDesign /Manufacturing Errors - This category includes conditions such as: loose orunsupported leads, loose blocking, poor brazing, inadequate core insulation, inferior short circuitstrength, and foreign objects left in the tank. In this study, this is the second leading cause oftransformer failures.Oil Contamination This category pertains to those cases where oil contamination can beestablished as the cause of the failure. This includes sludging and carbon tracking.UnknownDesign /MaterialInsulationFailure$100,000$1,000,000$10,000,000$100,000,000$1,000,000,0000 5 10 15 20 25 30Number of Failures by CauseCost of FailresAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 5 -Overloading This category pertains to those cases where actual overloading could beestablished as the cause of the failure. It includes only those transformers that experienced asustained load that exceeded the nameplate capacity.Fire /Explosion - This category pertains to those cases where a fire or explosion outside thetransformer can be established as the cause of the failure. This does not include internal failuresthat resulted in a fire or explosion.Line Surge - This category includes switching surges, voltage spikes, line faults/flashovers, andother T&D abnormalities. This significant portion of transformer failures suggests that moreattention should be given to surge protection, or the adequacy of coil clamping and short circuitstrength.Maintenance /Operation - Inadequate or improper maintenance and operation was a majorcause of transformer failures, when you include overloading, loose connections and moisture.This category includes disconnected or improperly set controls, loss of coolant, accumulation ofdirt & oil, and

corrosion. Inadequate maintenance has to bear the blame for not discoveringincipient troubles when there was ample time to correct it.Flood The flood category includes failures caused by inundation of the transformer due toman-made or natural caused floods. It also includes mudslides.Loose Connections - This category includes workmanship and maintenance in makingelectrical connections. One problem is the improper mating of dissimilar metals, although thishas decreased somewhat in recent years. Another problem is improper torquing of boltedconnections. Loose connections could be included in the maintenance category, but wecustomarily report it separately.Lightning - Lightning surges are considerably fewer in number than previous studies we havepublished. Unless there is confirmation of a lightning strike, a surge type failure is categorized asLine Surge.Moisture - The moisture category includes failures caused by leaky pipes, leaking roofs, waterentering the tanks through leaking bushings or fittings, and confirmed presence of moisture in theinsulating oil. Moisture could be included in the inadequate maintenance or the insulation failurecategory above, but we customarily report it separately.TRANSFORMER AGINGNotice that we did not categorize "age" as a cause of failure. Aging of the insulation systemreduces both the mechanical and dielectric-withstand strength of the transformer. As thetransformer ages, it is subjected to faults that result in high radial and compressive forces. As theload increases, with system growth, the operating stresses increase. In an aging transformerfailure, typically the conductor insulation is weakened to the point where it can no longer sustainmechanical stresses of a fault. Turn to turn insulation then suffers a dielectric failure, or a faultcauses a loosening of winding clamping pressure, which reduces the transformer's ability towithstand future short circuit forces.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 6 -Base GVA per Year Additions0204060801001201401601802001964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996YearTransformer GVA InstalledFigure 2Table 4 displays the distribution of transformer failures by age. The average age at failure was18 years.Table 4 Distribution of Losses by Age of TransformerAge at failure Number ofFailuresCost of Failure0 to 5 years 9 $ 11,246,3606 to 10 . 6 $ 22,465,88111 to 15 9 $ 3,179,29116 to 20 9 $ 10,518,28321 to 25 10 $ 16,441,930Over 25 years 16 $ 15,042,761Age Unknown * 35 $ 207,734,306* This line includes the one claim with a business interruption element of $80 million Euros or $86 million USThe age of transformers deserves special attention, because the world went through significantindustrial growth in the post World War II era, causing a large growth in base infrastructure industries,especially the electric utilities. World energy consumption grew from 1 trillion to 11 trillion kwhr inthe decades following the war. Most of this equipment is now in the aging part of its life cycle.According to U.S. Commerce Department data, the electric utility industry reached a peak innew installations in the U.S.around 1973-74. In those twoyears, the U.S.A. added about185 GVA of powertransformers. Figure #2 depictsthe total transformer additionsin the U.S.A. each year. Today,these transformers are about 30years old. With todays capitalspending on new orreplacement transformers at itslowest level in decades, (lessthan 50GVA /yr) the averageage of the entire worldtransformer fleet continues torise.A risk model of future transformer failures, based on aging, was developed by HSB and published in2000. [1]. The model is based on mortality models that were first proposed in the 19th century.The most influential parametric mortality model in published actuarial literature is that proposed byBenjamin Gompertz in1825, who recognized that an exponential pattern in age captured thebehavior of human mortality. He proposed the failure function: f(t) = a e b twhere f(t) is the instantaneous failure rate, a is a constant; b is a time constant; and t = time (in years).HSBs first publication on transformer failure predictions used the Gompertz model.In 1860, W.M. Makeham modified the Gompertz equation because it failed to capture thebehavior of mortality due to accidental death, by adding a constant term in order to correct forAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 7 -Transformer Failure Rate Functions0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100YearHazard Functionthis deficiency. The constant can be thought of as representing the risk of failure by causes thatare independent of age (or random events such as lightning, vandalism etc.).Makehams formula: f(t) = A+ a e b tSubsequent publications by HSB [2, 3] have adopted the Makeham formula.The Gompertz curve was further modified by W. Perks, R.E. Beard and others. In 1932 Perksproposed modifications to the Gompertz formula to allow the curve to more closely approximatethe slower rate of increase in mortality at older ages.Perks formula: tt(t) 1 eA ef bbma++=Thus, a more accurate model for transformer failures can be represented by Perks formula and isincluded for the first time -in this paper. The instantaneous failure rate for transformers in a givenyear is the probability of failure per unit time for the population of transformers that has survived upuntil time t. To include the frequency of random events (e.g. lightning, collisions, vandalism)separate from the aging component, the constant A is set at 0.005 (which represents of 1%).Figure 3 is the corresponding exponential curve for a 50% failure rate at the age of 50.Figure 3 Transformer Failure RateAdmittedly, the correlationbetween calendar age andinsulation deterioration issubject to some uncertainty.(Not all transformers werecreated equal.) This predictionis a simple statistical model anddoes not take into considerationmanufacturing differences orloading history. This failurerate model is based only on thecalendar age of the transformer,and does not address materialand design defects, (i.e. infantmortality).With a failure rate model andpopulation estimate for eachvintage, future failures can be predicted for the entire of transformers, by multiplying the failurerate times the population of the vintage:Number of failures (in GVA) at year "t", =[Failure rate] x [population that is still surviving]Using

the population profile from Figure #2, the predicted failures can be plotted for all U.S.utility transformers, built between 1964 and 1992. The prediction is simply intended toillustrate the magnitude of the problem facing the utility industry and the insurance industry.Figure #4 is the failure distribution. The X-axis is the year of predicted failures. The Y-axis isthe population of the failures (expressed in GVA). It should be noted that the graph is a failurerate of those that survived, until time "t". In this graph, a vertical line depicts each vintage. ByAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 8 -1975, each year has a cluster of six different vintages, (64, 66, 68, 70, 72, and 74); and after1992, each cluster is 15 vintages.Figure 4 Failure Distribution of all vintages 1964- 1992In our next chart, we take a closer look at predicted failures over the next six years (2003 to2008). Due to the increased installations, the failures of 1972- vintage transformers will overtakethe failures of the 1964-vintage in the year 2006; and by 2008, the number of 1974-vintagetransformers will easily exceed the failures of the 1964- vintage transformers. This predictionignores rebuilds and rewinds of previous failures.Figure 5 - Failure Distribution Next 6 YearsIn order to examine the total predicted transformer failures in any given year, we can take thesum of the individual vintages, for each year. Figure 6 illustrates such a prediction.Failure Distribution -next 6 years0.01.02.03.04.05.06.02003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992Failure Distribution(assuming no replacements) (50% rate)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5196419681971197419771980198319861989199219951998200120042 00720102013Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 9 -Although we have not yet seen an alarming increase in end of life failures, such a rise must beexpected eventually. The most difficult task for the utility engineer is to predict the futurereliability of the transformer fleet, and to replace each one the day before it fails. Meeting thegrowing demand of the grid and at the same time maintaining system reliability with this agingfleet will require significant changes in the way the utility operates and cares for its transformers.Figure 6 Failure Distribution - all vintagesACTION PLANOne conservative strategy suggests that the industry start a massive capital replacement programthat duplicates the construction profile of the 60's and 70's. But this would cause manytransformers to be replaced needlessly and cost the utility industry billions of US dollars.The ideal strategy is a life assessment or life cycle management program, that sets loadingpriorities, and provides direction to identify: a) transformer defects that can be corrected; b)transformers that can be modified or refurbished; c) transformers that should be re-located and d)transformers that should be retired. The insurance industry should be aware that both IEEE andCIGRE are developing guidelines for aging transformers. [5, 6]Failure Distribution (50% rate)(all vintages, assuming no replacements)0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.001964196719691971197319751977197919811983 1985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 10 -Electric Utilities and the Transformer IndustryThe deregulation of wholesale electricity supply around the world has led to a number ofchanges and new challenges for the electric utility industry and its suppliers. In the last fewyears, many electric utilities have merged to form larger international utilities, and others havesold off their generating assets. All of this is being done in an attempt to enhance revenuestreams, reduce the incremental cost per MW or react to spot market opportunities.Years ago, utilities knew the needs of their native markets and built an infrastructure to keeppace with those needs, with associated construction costs being passed back to the ratepayers.Starting in the 1980s, utilities in the US had to contend with regulatory mandates to utilizeindependent power producers to satisfy supply and meet demand. They were not able to planprojects for their native load projections. In this environment, it was possible that the utilityscapital projects may not be afforded a favorable rate structure from the local Utility Commissionin an openly competitive market. Therefore, many utilities understandably halted most of theircapital spending, due to this regulatory uncertainty. This significantly limited the activity takingplace in terms of expanding the industry's infrastructure, including their transmission anddistribution assets. In the 1990s capital spending on new and replacement transformers was atits lowest level in decades. Many of the major manufacturers (General Electric, Westinghouse,Allis Chalmers, McGraw Edison and others ) exited the power transformer business. Many ofthe remaining manufacturers have undertaken cost-cutting measures to survive.Then in 1999 2000, the transformer market experienced a brief upswing in activity primarilydue to a rush to build gas-turbine generating plants. The demand for generator step-uptransformers in the US almost doubled during these peak months. At that time, there werepredictions that 750 Gigawatts of new generating capacity would be installed worldwide,between 2000 and 2010. But, the rush to build power plants in the U.S. has subsided; many ofthe energy companies are now drowning in debt. Many developers and investors had to sell theirinterests in existing plants in order to finance the completion of new plants. In 2001, projectsworth 91 GW of generating capacity in the US, were cancelled (out of 500 GW). And in the firstquarter of 2002, orders for 57 GW of capacity were cancelled.Capital spending in the utility industry sharply declined, again. According to Dennis Boman,Director of Marketing for Power Transformers, ABB North America, the decline has farexceeded anyone's prediction to levels that post-dated the increase. Within a short six-monthperiod the power transformer market dropped by over 50%. According to Mr. Joe Durante,Vice President, Commercial Operations, North America, Elin /VATech, the boom of the latenineties and early two thousand is over, and most likely won't be seen for another 30 years.Replacement opportunities will continue to remain flat

and customer spending will continue onlywhen necessary.Based on HSB claims experience, new transformer prices are significantly lower than they werea few years ago. It is truly a buyers market. New power transformers are being sold at a priceless than the cost of a rewind, and the manufacturers are now providing 3-year and 5-yearwarranties.The prognosis, according to Mr. Peter Fuchs, Vice President Sales & Marketing, SiemensTransformers, is a stagnant market, on average, for the US, Europe, and the Far East.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 11 -<However>, in other parts of the world, economic growth and business development areproceeding at high levels, including a resurgence in Asia. The need for power in this areaalready exists, and as international funding becomes available, we expect to see increasedactivity in this region.Today, many of the transformer manufacturing plants and repair facilities have very littleactivity. Is this slump in the market due solely to government regulation (or deregulation)? The major three manufacturers point to a number of different problems. According to Bowman(ABB) we have seen a shift in focus to First Cost buying with little regard for any longterm impact on buy decisions. Many buyers (our insureds) are choosing the lowest bidder, withlittle regard to quality, reliability or factory service. According to Fuchs (Siemens) ..inaddition to the price-driven decision, there is very little technical evaluation, and pricedumpingcontinues to go unpunished. Durante (Elin /VA Tech) confirms that the majorobstacle is ongoing deregulation uncertainty which is hindering capital investment.According to Durante, the next growth opportunity in the North American utility market is thetransmission segment. This includes inter-tie transformers, phase-shifter transformers, andautotransformers. However, this market is heavily influenced by government regulations anddecisions, says Durante. In the U.S., the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hasmandated that all generators have equal access to transmission systems and required integratedutilities to turn over their transmission systems to independent entities. Some utilities havedecided to sell their transmission assets and purchase transmission service. Other utilities arejoining together and rolling their transmission assets into limited liability companies. But manyutilities first want to understand exactly how transmission will be regulated. In other words,utility investors want to know whether the federal government or the state government willregulate the transmission assets. Until this is clear, overall capital spending will be deferred.SummaryElectricity is much more than just another commodity. It is the life-blood of the economy and ourquality of life. Failure to meet the expectations of society for universally available low-cost power issimply not an option. As the world moves into the digital age, our dependency on power quality willgrow accordingly. The infrastructure of our power delivery system and the strategies and policies ofour insureds must keep pace with escalating demand. Unfortunately, with the regulators driving towardretail competition, the utility business priority is competitiveness (and related cost-cutting) and notreliability.REFERENCES[1] William H. Bartley, HSB, Analysis of Transformer Failures, Proceedings of the Sixty-Seventh AnnualInternational Doble Client Conference, Boston MA, 2000,[2] William H. Bartley, HSB, Failure History of Transformers-Theoretical Projections for RandomFailures, Proceedings of the TJH2B TechCon, Mesa AZ, 2001.[3] William H. Bartley, HSB, Transformers Failures, presented as Keynote Address at the annual ABBTechnical Conference, Alamo, TN, 2003.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 12 -[4] Tim Higgins, Mathematical Models Of Mortality, presented at the Workshop on Mortality Modelingand Forecasting, Australian National University, February 2003[5] IEEE C57.140, Draft 9 March, 2003, IEEE Guide for the Evaluation and Reconditioning of LiquidImmersed Power Transformers, Rowland James & William Bartley Co- Chair[6] CIGRE 12-20 Guide on Economics of Transformer Management (draft 23.7.02)THE AUTHOR:William Bartley, P.E. is the Principal Electrical Engineer in the Engineering Department of The HartfordSteam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co. Mr. Bartley earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineeringfrom University of Missouri at Rolla, and has been employed by Hartford Steam Boiler since 1971. He isresponsible for developing standards, OEM relations, fleet problems, large failure investigations, repairprocedure development, and new monitoring and testing technologies. He is a registered ProfessionalEngineer in Connecticut, and a Senior Member of IEEE, serving on both the Transformer Committee andRotating Machinery Committee. He has authored numerous papers on transformer failures..

A solution for maintaining power transformer under fequent overloadsPosted

by sushant vyas on 28 Dec, 2009 | Total Comments: (0)

POSTED BY

sushant vyas MANAGER(TECHNICAL ) at VIMLESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD

IMIA WGP 33 (03)Analysis of Transformer Failuresby William H. Bartley P.E.The Hartford Steam BoilerInspection & Insurance Co.presented atInternational Association of Engineering Insurers36th Annual Conference Stockholm, 2003- 1 -Analysis of Transformer Failuresby William H. Bartley P.E.The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co.Hartford, CT USASUMMARYThis paper will address the transformer failure statistics over the last 5 years, the aging of ourworldwide transformer fleet, and a global

perspective of the transformer industry.INTRODUCTIONMajor losses involving large oil-cooled transformers continue to occur on a frequent basis. AnIMIA Working Group was established in 1995 to examine this topic and presented a report at the1996 Conference. The magnitude of the losses has increased significantly since the last study.Increased equipment utilization, deferred capital expenditures and reduced maintenance expensesare all part of todays strategies for transformer owners. To make matters worse, world powerconsumption is increasing, and the load on each aging transformer continues to grow.SCOPE OF STUDYA request was sent to all national delegations seeking information on losses of transformers rated at25MVA and above, for the period 1997 through 2001. Information was requested concerning Year ofloss, Size in MVA, Age at failure, Application (utilities, industrials etc.) Cause of failure, PropertyDamage portion, and Business Interruption portion. Data was obtained on 94 cases. An estimate of thetotal population of power transformers would have been useful, but it is impractical to obtain thisinformation. Some of the contributors were not able to identify the age of the transformers, and insome cases, the size of the transformer. Thus, the analysis is annotated wherever data is missing. Allamounts of losses were converted to U.S. dollars, using the following exchange rates: 0.9278 Euros;8.542 Swedish kronas; and 6.0858 French francs.FIVE YEAR TRENDDuring this period, the number of transformer claims reached a peak (25) in 1998. But, the dollars-paidout, reached a maximum in 2000 due to several claims in the multi-million dollar range, plus one largeBusiness Interruption loss. The largest transformer loss also occurred in 2000, at a power plant, with aBusiness Interruption portion of over $80 million Euros, or $86million US dollars. Three of the topfour Property Damage claims were in industrial plants. Table#1 displays the annual transformer claims(We have included Property Damage, Business Interruption and Total Paid). Unfortunately, all of thedata contributed did not have size information. Thus, we could only analyze 78 claims for cost persize. The average cost (for Property Damage only) was approximately US$9000 per MVA (or $9 perkVA). Table #1-A displays the annual transformer claims and Cost per MVA.- 2 -Table 1 Number and Amounts of Losses by YearTable 1Total # ofLosses Total LossTotal PropertyDamageTotal BusinessInterruption1997 19 $ 40,779,507 $ 25,036,673 $ 15,742,8341998 25 $ 24,932,235 $ 24,897,114 $ 35,1211999 15 $ 37,391,591 $ 36,994,202 $ 397,3892000 20 $ 150,181,779 $ 56,858,084 $ 93,323,6952001 15 $ 33,343,700 $ 19,453,016 $ 13,890,684Grand Total 94 $ 286,628,811 $ 163,239,089 $ 123,389,722* Total losses in 2000 includes one claim with a business interruption portion of over $86 million USTable 1A Number and Amounts of Losses by MVA and YearTable 1 ATotal # ofLossesLossesw/dataTotal MVAreportedTotal PD(with size data) Cost /MVA1997 19 9 2567 $20,456,741 $79691998 25 25 5685 $24,897,114 $43791999 15 13 2433 $36,415,806 $149672000 20 19 4386 $56,354,689 $128492001 15 12 2128 $16,487,058 $7748Total 94 78 17,199 $15,4611,408During this five year period, the average cost is $8,990 per MVA, or about $9 per kVA.TYPE OF APPLICATIONDuring this period, the largest number of transformer claims (38) occurred in the Utility Substationsector, but the highest paid category was Generator Step Up transformers, with a total of overUS$200million. If the extraordinary Business Interruption loss is ignored, the generator step uptransformer is still significantly higher than any other category. (This is to be expected due to the verylarge size of these transformers.) Table 2 displays the annual claims, by application.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 3 -Table 2 Losses by ApplicationYear Generator Step Up Industrial Utility Substations unknown Annual Totals1997 $ 29,201,329 3 $ 2,239,393 4 $ 5,243,075 11 $ 4,095,710 1 $ 40,779,507 191998 $ 15,800,148 8 $ 3,995,229 6 $ 5,136,858 11 $ 24,932,235 251999 $ 3,031,433 4 $ 24,922,958 4 $ 6,116,535 6 $ 3,320,665 1 $ 37,391,591 152000 $ 123,417,788 10 $ 24,724,182 4 $ 2,039,810 6 $ 150,181,779 202001 $ 32,082,501 11 $ 1,261,199 4 $ 33,343,700 15Totals $ 203,533,199 36 $ 55,881,762 18 $ 19,797,476 38 $ 7,416,375 2 $ 286,628,811 94CAUSE OF FAILUREFor the failures reported, the leading cause of transformer failures is insulation failure. Thiscategory includes inadequate or defective installation, insulation deterioration, and short circuits,... but not exterior surges such as lightning and line faults. Table 3 lists the costs and number offailures for each cause of failure. A description of each cause category is found below.Table 3 Cause of FailuresCause of Failure Number Total PaidInsulation Failure 24 $ 149,967,277Design /Material/Workmanship 22 $ 64,696,051Unknown 15 $ 29,776,245Oil Contamination 4 $ 11,836,367Overloading 5 $ 8,568,768Fire /Explosion 3 $ 8,045,771Line Surge 4 $ 4,959,691Improper Maint /Operation 5 $ 3,518,783Flood 2 $ 2,240,198Loose Connection 6 $ 2,186,725Lightning 3 $ 657,935Moisture 1 $ 175,00094 $ 286,628,811The risk of a transformer failure is actually two-dimensional: the frequency of failure, and theseverity of failure. Figure 1 is a scatter plot, or sometimes referred to as an F-N curve(frequency number curve). The number of failures for each cause is on the X-axis, and thedollars paid for each cause is on the Y-axis. The higher risks are in the upper righthand corner.According to this analysis, the Insulation Failure is the highest risk for all types of transformerfailures.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 4 -Frequency / Severity PlotFigure 1Figure 1 Frequency - Severity of Transformer FailuresCause of FailureInsulation Failures Insulation failures were the leading cause of failure in this study. Thiscategory excludes those failures where there was evidence of a lightning or a line surge. Thereare actually four factors that are responsible for insulation deterioration: pyrolosis (heat),oxidation, acidity, and moisture. But moisture is reported separately. The average age of thetransformers that failed due to insulation was 18 yearsDesign /Manufacturing Errors - This category includes conditions such as: loose orunsupported leads, loose blocking, poor brazing, inadequate core

insulation, inferior short circuitstrength, and foreign objects left in the tank. In this study, this is the second leading cause oftransformer failures.Oil Contamination This category pertains to those cases where oil contamination can beestablished as the cause of the failure. This includes sludging and carbon tracking.UnknownDesign /MaterialInsulationFailure$100,000$1,000,000$10,000,000$100,000,000$1,000,000,0000 5 10 15 20 25 30Number of Failures by CauseCost of FailresAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 5 -Overloading This category pertains to those cases where actual overloading could beestablished as the cause of the failure. It includes only those transformers that experienced asustained load that exceeded the nameplate capacity.Fire /Explosion - This category pertains to those cases where a fire or explosion outside thetransformer can be established as the cause of the failure. This does not include internal failuresthat resulted in a fire or explosion.Line Surge - This category includes switching surges, voltage spikes, line faults/flashovers, andother T&D abnormalities. This significant portion of transformer failures suggests that moreattention should be given to surge protection, or the adequacy of coil clamping and short circuitstrength.Maintenance /Operation - Inadequate or improper maintenance and operation was a majorcause of transformer failures, when you include overloading, loose connections and moisture.This category includes disconnected or improperly set controls, loss of coolant, accumulation ofdirt & oil, and corrosion. Inadequate maintenance has to bear the blame for not discoveringincipient troubles when there was ample time to correct it.Flood The flood category includes failures caused by inundation of the transformer due toman-made or natural caused floods. It also includes mudslides.Loose Connections - This category includes workmanship and maintenance in makingelectrical connections. One problem is the improper mating of dissimilar metals, although thishas decreased somewhat in recent years. Another problem is improper torquing of boltedconnections. Loose connections could be included in the maintenance category, but wecustomarily report it separately.Lightning - Lightning surges are considerably fewer in number than previous studies we havepublished. Unless there is confirmation of a lightning strike, a surge type failure is categorized asLine Surge.Moisture - The moisture category includes failures caused by leaky pipes, leaking roofs, waterentering the tanks through leaking bushings or fittings, and confirmed presence of moisture in theinsulating oil. Moisture could be included in the inadequate maintenance or the insulation failurecategory above, but we customarily report it separately.TRANSFORMER AGINGNotice that we did not categorize "age" as a cause of failure. Aging of the insulation systemreduces both the mechanical and dielectric-withstand strength of the transformer. As thetransformer ages, it is subjected to faults that result in high radial and compressive forces. As theload increases, with system growth, the operating stresses increase. In an aging transformerfailure, typically the conductor insulation is weakened to the point where it can no longer sustainmechanical stresses of a fault. Turn to turn insulation then suffers a dielectric failure, or a faultcauses a loosening of winding clamping pressure, which reduces the transformer's ability towithstand future short circuit forces.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 6 -Base GVA per Year Additions0204060801001201401601802001964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996YearTransformer GVA InstalledFigure 2Table 4 displays the distribution of transformer failures by age. The average age at failure was18 years.Table 4 Distribution of Losses by Age of TransformerAge at failure Number ofFailuresCost of Failure0 to 5 years 9 $ 11,246,3606 to 10 . 6 $ 22,465,88111 to 15 9 $ 3,179,29116 to 20 9 $ 10,518,28321 to 25 10 $ 16,441,930Over 25 years 16 $ 15,042,761Age Unknown * 35 $ 207,734,306* This line includes the one claim with a business interruption element of $80 million Euros or $86 million USThe age of transformers deserves special attention, because the world went through significantindustrial growth in the post World War II era, causing a large growth in base infrastructure industries,especially the electric utilities. World energy consumption grew from 1 trillion to 11 trillion kwhr inthe decades following the war. Most of this equipment is now in the aging part of its life cycle.According to U.S. Commerce Department data, the electric utility industry reached a peak innew installations in the U.S.around 1973-74. In those twoyears, the U.S.A. added about185 GVA of powertransformers. Figure #2 depictsthe total transformer additionsin the U.S.A. each year. Today,these transformers are about 30years old. With todays capitalspending on new orreplacement transformers at itslowest level in decades, (lessthan 50GVA /yr) the averageage of the entire worldtransformer fleet continues torise.A risk model of future transformer failures, based on aging, was developed by HSB and published in2000. [1]. The model is based on mortality models that were first proposed in the 19th century.The most influential parametric mortality model in published actuarial literature is that proposed byBenjamin Gompertz in1825, who recognized that an exponential pattern in age captured thebehavior of human mortality. He proposed the failure function: f(t) = a e b twhere f(t) is the instantaneous failure rate, a is a constant; b is a time constant; and t = time (in years).HSBs first publication on transformer failure predictions used the Gompertz model.In 1860, W.M. Makeham modified the Gompertz equation because it failed to capture thebehavior of mortality due to accidental death, by adding a constant term in order to correct forAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 7 -Transformer Failure Rate Functions0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100YearHazard Functionthis deficiency. The constant can be thought of as representing the risk of failure by causes thatare independent of age (or random events such as lightning, vandalism etc.).Makehams formula: f(t) = A+ a e b

tSubsequent publications by HSB [2, 3] have adopted the Makeham formula.The Gompertz curve was further modified by W. Perks, R.E. Beard and others. In 1932 Perksproposed modifications to the Gompertz formula to allow the curve to more closely approximatethe slower rate of increase in mortality at older ages.Perks formula: tt(t) 1 eA ef bbma++=Thus, a more accurate model for transformer failures can be represented by Perks formula and isincluded for the first time -in this paper. The instantaneous failure rate for transformers in a givenyear is the probability of failure per unit time for the population of transformers that has survived upuntil time t. To include the frequency of random events (e.g. lightning, collisions, vandalism)separate from the aging component, the constant A is set at 0.005 (which represents of 1%).Figure 3 is the corresponding exponential curve for a 50% failure rate at the age of 50.Figure 3 Transformer Failure RateAdmittedly, the correlationbetween calendar age andinsulation deterioration issubject to some uncertainty.(Not all transformers werecreated equal.) This predictionis a simple statistical model anddoes not take into considerationmanufacturing differences orloading history. This failurerate model is based only on thecalendar age of the transformer,and does not address materialand design defects, (i.e. infantmortality).With a failure rate model andpopulation estimate for eachvintage, future failures can be predicted for the entire of transformers, by multiplying the failurerate times the population of the vintage:Number of failures (in GVA) at year "t", =[Failure rate] x [population that is still surviving]Using the population profile from Figure #2, the predicted failures can be plotted for all U.S.utility transformers, built between 1964 and 1992. The prediction is simply intended toillustrate the magnitude of the problem facing the utility industry and the insurance industry.Figure #4 is the failure distribution. The X-axis is the year of predicted failures. The Y-axis isthe population of the failures (expressed in GVA). It should be noted that the graph is a failurerate of those that survived, until time "t". In this graph, a vertical line depicts each vintage. ByAnalysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 8 -1975, each year has a cluster of six different vintages, (64, 66, 68, 70, 72, and 74); and after1992, each cluster is 15 vintages.Figure 4 Failure Distribution of all vintages 1964- 1992In our next chart, we take a closer look at predicted failures over the next six years (2003 to2008). Due to the increased installations, the failures of 1972- vintage transformers will overtakethe failures of the 1964-vintage in the year 2006; and by 2008, the number of 1974-vintagetransformers will easily exceed the failures of the 1964- vintage transformers. This predictionignores rebuilds and rewinds of previous failures.Figure 5 - Failure Distribution Next 6 YearsIn order to examine the total predicted transformer failures in any given year, we can take thesum of the individual vintages, for each year. Figure 6 illustrates such a prediction.Failure Distribution -next 6 years0.01.02.03.04.05.06.02003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992Failure Distribution(assuming no replacements) (50% rate)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5196419681971197419771980198319861989199219951998200120042 00720102013Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 9 -Although we have not yet seen an alarming increase in end of life failures, such a rise must beexpected eventually. The most difficult task for the utility engineer is to predict the futurereliability of the transformer fleet, and to replace each one the day before it fails. Meeting thegrowing demand of the grid and at the same time maintaining system reliability with this agingfleet will require significant changes in the way the utility operates and cares for its transformers.Figure 6 Failure Distribution - all vintagesACTION PLANOne conservative strategy suggests that the industry start a massive capital replacement programthat duplicates the construction profile of the 60's and 70's. But this would cause manytransformers to be replaced needlessly and cost the utility industry billions of US dollars.The ideal strategy is a life assessment or life cycle management program, that sets loadingpriorities, and provides direction to identify: a) transformer defects that can be corrected; b)transformers that can be modified or refurbished; c) transformers that should be re-located and d)transformers that should be retired. The insurance industry should be aware that both IEEE andCIGRE are developing guidelines for aging transformers. [5, 6]Failure Distribution (50% rate)(all vintages, assuming no replacements)0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.001964196719691971197319751977197919811983 1985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 10 -Electric Utilities and the Transformer IndustryThe deregulation of wholesale electricity supply around the world has led to a number ofchanges and new challenges for the electric utility industry and its suppliers. In the last fewyears, many electric utilities have merged to form larger international utilities, and others havesold off their generating assets. All of this is being done in an attempt to enhance revenuestreams, reduce the incremental cost per MW or react to spot market opportunities.Years ago, utilities knew the needs of their native markets and built an infrastructure to keeppace with those needs, with associated construction costs being passed back to the ratepayers.Starting in the 1980s, utilities in the US had to contend with regulatory mandates to utilizeindependent power producers to satisfy supply and meet demand. They were not able to planprojects for their native load projections. In this environment, it was possible that the utilityscapital projects may not be afforded a favorable rate structure from the local Utility Commissionin an openly competitive market. Therefore, many utilities understandably halted most of theircapital spending, due to this regulatory uncertainty. This significantly limited the activity takingplace in terms of expanding the industry's infrastructure, including their transmission anddistribution assets. In the 1990s capital spending on new and replacement transformers

was atits lowest level in decades. Many of the major manufacturers (General Electric, Westinghouse,Allis Chalmers, McGraw Edison and others ) exited the power transformer business. Many ofthe remaining manufacturers have undertaken cost-cutting measures to survive.Then in 1999 2000, the transformer market experienced a brief upswing in activity primarilydue to a rush to build gas-turbine generating plants. The demand for generator step-uptransformers in the US almost doubled during these peak months. At that time, there werepredictions that 750 Gigawatts of new generating capacity would be installed worldwide,between 2000 and 2010. But, the rush to build power plants in the U.S. has subsided; many ofthe energy companies are now drowning in debt. Many developers and investors had to sell theirinterests in existing plants in order to finance the completion of new plants. In 2001, projectsworth 91 GW of generating capacity in the US, were cancelled (out of 500 GW). And in the firstquarter of 2002, orders for 57 GW of capacity were cancelled.Capital spending in the utility industry sharply declined, again. According to Dennis Boman,Director of Marketing for Power Transformers, ABB North America, the decline has farexceeded anyone's prediction to levels that post-dated the increase. Within a short six-monthperiod the power transformer market dropped by over 50%. According to Mr. Joe Durante,Vice President, Commercial Operations, North America, Elin /VATech, the boom of the latenineties and early two thousand is over, and most likely won't be seen for another 30 years.Replacement opportunities will continue to remain flat and customer spending will continue onlywhen necessary.Based on HSB claims experience, new transformer prices are significantly lower than they werea few years ago. It is truly a buyers market. New power transformers are being sold at a priceless than the cost of a rewind, and the manufacturers are now providing 3-year and 5-yearwarranties.The prognosis, according to Mr. Peter Fuchs, Vice President Sales & Marketing, SiemensTransformers, is a stagnant market, on average, for the US, Europe, and the Far East.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 11 -<However>, in other parts of the world, economic growth and business development areproceeding at high levels, including a resurgence in Asia. The need for power in this areaalready exists, and as international funding becomes available, we expect to see increasedactivity in this region.Today, many of the transformer manufacturing plants and repair facilities have very littleactivity. Is this slump in the market due solely to government regulation (or deregulation)? The major three manufacturers point to a number of different problems. According to Bowman(ABB) we have seen a shift in focus to First Cost buying with little regard for any longterm impact on buy decisions. Many buyers (our insureds) are choosing the lowest bidder, withlittle regard to quality, reliability or factory service. According to Fuchs (Siemens) ..inaddition to the price-driven decision, there is very little technical evaluation, and pricedumpingcontinues to go unpunished. Durante (Elin /VA Tech) confirms that the majorobstacle is ongoing deregulation uncertainty which is hindering capital investment.According to Durante, the next growth opportunity in the North American utility market is thetransmission segment. This includes inter-tie transformers, phase-shifter transformers, andautotransformers. However, this market is heavily influenced by government regulations anddecisions, says Durante. In the U.S., the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hasmandated that all generators have equal access to transmission systems and required integratedutilities to turn over their transmission systems to independent entities. Some utilities havedecided to sell their transmission assets and purchase transmission service. Other utilities arejoining together and rolling their transmission assets into limited liability companies. But manyutilities first want to understand exactly how transmission will be regulated. In other words,utility investors want to know whether the federal government or the state government willregulate the transmission assets. Until this is clear, overall capital spending will be deferred.SummaryElectricity is much more than just another commodity. It is the life-blood of the economy and ourquality of life. Failure to meet the expectations of society for universally available low-cost power issimply not an option. As the world moves into the digital age, our dependency on power quality willgrow accordingly. The infrastructure of our power delivery system and the strategies and policies ofour insureds must keep pace with escalating demand. Unfortunately, with the regulators driving towardretail competition, the utility business priority is competitiveness (and related cost-cutting) and notreliability.REFERENCES[1] William H. Bartley, HSB, Analysis of Transformer Failures, Proceedings of the Sixty-Seventh AnnualInternational Doble Client Conference, Boston MA, 2000,[2] William H. Bartley, HSB, Failure History of Transformers-Theoretical Projections for RandomFailures, Proceedings of the TJH2B TechCon, Mesa AZ, 2001.[3] William H. Bartley, HSB, Transformers Failures, presented as Keynote Address at the annual ABBTechnical Conference, Alamo, TN, 2003.Analysis of Transformer FailuresIMIA 2003- 12 -[4] Tim Higgins, Mathematical Models Of Mortality, presented at the Workshop on Mortality Modelingand Forecasting, Australian National University, February 2003[5] IEEE C57.140, Draft 9 March, 2003, IEEE Guide for the Evaluation and Reconditioning of LiquidImmersed Power Transformers, Rowland James & William Bartley Co- Chair[6] CIGRE 12-20 Guide on Economics of Transformer Management (draft 23.7.02)THE AUTHOR:William Bartley, P.E. is the Principal Electrical Engineer in the Engineering Department of The HartfordSteam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co. Mr. Bartley earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineeringfrom University of Missouri at Rolla, and has been employed by Hartford Steam Boiler since 1971. He isresponsible for developing standards, OEM relations, fleet problems, large failure investigations, repairprocedure development, and new monitoring and testing technologies. He is a registered ProfessionalEngineer in Connecticut, and a Senior

Member of IEEE, serving on both the Transformer Committee andRotating Machinery Committee. He has authored numerous papers on transformer failures..

Performance Enhancement by Design of Distribution Transformers for Field Working ConditionPosted by sushant vyas on 10 Jan, 2010
| Total Comments: (0)

POSTED BY

sushant vyas MANAGER(TECHNICAL ) at VIMLESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD

Distribution Transformer Key to Electricity Distribution Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 1. Tank 9.Breather Pipe 2.Core 10.Conservator Tank 3.Oil Drain Valve 11.Guage glass 4.HT.Winding 12.Equaliser Pipe 5.LT.Winding 13.Thermometer 6.Breather 14.Air Drain Valve 7.Tap Switch 15.Oil Drain Valve 8.Buchholz Relay 16.Cooling Pipe Introduction The distribution transformer is basically a static electrical device which steps down the primary distribution voltage of 11 KV or 22 KV to secondary distribution of 400 volts between phases and 230 volts between phase and neutral through delta - star windings by electromagnetic induction without change in frequency. The secondary distribution, adopted by Tamilnadu Electricity Board is the phase four wire system with solidly earthed neutral. Before taking up the study on the failure of distribution transformer, it is considered as essential to explain about the salient parts of distribution transformer, indicated below, which are susceptible for damage and failures when exposed to abnormal conditons. 1. Laminated iron core for the magnetic circuit. 2. Primary and secondary windings for the electric circuits with off-load tap - change of the primary side. 3. Main tank to house the core and windings with cooling fins or pipes, conservator, breather and explosion vent. 4. Insulating oil, filled up in the tank which also acts as a cooling medium for conduction of heat, generated in the windings. 5. H.V. and L.V. bushings to bring out the terminal connections of the windings. The following are the protection, provided for the distribution transformer sub-station, erection outdoor both in rural and urban areas, feeding different types of power loads, such as industrial agricultural, commercial and domestic. Protective Gear Protection Afforded 1. Horn - gap fuse Against over current on primary side 2. Open type fuses Against over current on secondary side 3. H.T. Lightning arrester Lightning strokes or surges on primary side 4. L.T. Lightning arrester Lightning strokes or surges on secondary side 5. Explosion vent with a To protect the main tank from bursting by itself thin diaphragm acting as a relief valve. 6. Breather with silica gel To allow free flow of air between the transformer and Oil seal tank and outside atmosphere due to expansion / contraction of oil account of heating / cooling. 7. Earthing System Transformer neutral provides a path for body earthing to provide safety from the earth fault current so as to blow out the fuses. Causes of Transformer Failure may be due to the Following Aspects I) Ageing II) Manufacturing Defects III) Board Side Defects IV) Improper construction of Distribution transformer V) Natural Calamities structure/ Erection of Distribution transformer Ageing IE ACT 1948 Table 7 specifies that The expected years of service for the distribution transformer above 100 KVA capacity is 35 years and 100 KVA capacity is 25 years. But most of the failures are even prior to 20 years. Year back the Distribution Transformer Manufactures allowed more factor of safety in design. In recent years manufactures adopt cost - benefit ratio in the design aspects and just satisfies the requirements of IS specification. hence many transformers are not serving for the expected full life period. Even if they are in service they may fail at any time. Hence giving top priority in replacing the transformers in service who have served full life period will reduce the transformer failure. Manufacturing Defects In the past, Distribution transformers were served for more than 60 years, twice to that of fair life period even without calling for any repair during this period. But now many distribution transformers fail, after a few years of service and they have to be got repaired twice or thrice more during their fair life period. The cost of repairs during the fair life period added to the initial cost is called the estimate cost of the transformer and it is at present a few times more than the initial cost at which the DT is procured. The following are the causes for the pre-mature failure of the distribution transformer. Inadequate / Poor Design The trend of design is now towards to make a unit at very low cost, at the cost of quality, as the tender analysis is mostly confining towards the initial cost, ignoring the estimate cost of the transformer upto the end of its fair life period. Consequently the factor safety reduces

to

just 1, where as it was many times for the units procured in the past. 1) Transformer Tank Size Inadequate clearance for free circulation of oil in many Makes of Transformer, have led to abnormal temperature rise, causing sufficient damage to the HV winding insulation and consequently premature failure of transformers. 2) Percentage of Impedance (Mechanical Strength of Coil) Most of the Distribution Transformers are located in remote areas and special attention cannot be given to the operating conditions of the transformers. The solution to this problem is to design transformers with increased impedance to increase the short cicuit withstand capacity of the transformers. Percentage of impedance depends upon 2 factors. a) Size of Wire used in HV Coils Economical size of coil will yield lower size gauge wire, but this will reduce mechanical capability of coils as a result the coils may not be able to withstand higher current densities which occur during the short circuit conditions. b) Radial Distance between HV & LV Coils Increasing the radial distance between HV and LV coils increases the percentage of impedance and this will lead to higher cost. But this will lead to better mechanical strength of the coil to withstand higher short circuit stresses developed during short circuit conditions. c) Effect of Impedance on the Short Circuit Stresses The short circuit stresses are proportional to the square of the short circuit current. If instead of keeping the impedance as 4.5%, if the impedance is increased to 5 % & to 5.5%, effect on the short circuit stresses developed in the transformer is reduced. The short circuit stresses of the 100 KVA transformer with increased impedance is calculated as under. Case - I When Percentage Impedance is 4.5 100 x 100 ISC = -------------- = 116 Amps 3 x 11x 4.5 SC Stresses = (116)2 = 13456 Case - II When Percentage Impedance is 5 100 x 100 ISC = -------------- = 104 Amps 3 x 11x 5 SC Stresses (I) = 10816 Case - III When Percentage Impedance is 5.5 100 x 100 ISC = -------------= 95.27 Amps 3 x 11x 5.5 SC Stresses (I) = 9076 Ratio of SC Stresses Case - II to Case I = 80% Ratio of SC Stresses Case - III to Case I = 67% From the above it is seen that the short circuit stresses are reduced by 20% with 5% impedance and by 33% with 5.5% impedance (with the increase of 1% impedance only) .If the impedance of the transformer can be raised by the above levels the short circuit stresses on the transformer are reduced to a considerable extent and the cost of the transformer will not be increased to that extent. 3) Improper Use of Aluminium Wires This leads to HV Coil failure. REC recommends use of Aluminium conductors for windings upto 200 KVA transformers. Use of higher cross section wires with paper cover insulation instead of standard wire adopted may be insisted. Because super enamel covering aluminium wire tends to crack during asymmetrical condition that leads to coil failure. This can be done away with double paper covering conductor. 4) Improper Use of Inter Layer Papers Major portion of coil failures are seen as electrical failures. These electric failures occurs once when interlayer insulation breaks down or at the end of the turn and creeps to the next layer. This type of insulation failure can be avoided by using folding papers and reinforcing the end turn insulation with proper sleevings. The HV coil, are to be separated uniformly along with the inner coil spacers so as to avoid pressing of only end turns as well as to avoid any further shrinkage during service. 5) Use of Inferior Quality Materials Use of inferior quality wires for coils, poor quality of oil and other insulation material etc., to bring down the cost of the transformer will definitely affect the life of the transformer before full life of the transformer. Improper Workmanship 1) Improper Alignment of HV Windings When the transformer is loaded, the primary and secondary ampere turns acts in magnetic opposition with respect to the core and coils and the space between these are magnetically excited. In case of a small error in the alignment of either of the coils, an asymmetrical ampere turn balancing, leads to production of cross fluxes resulting in mechanical failure of the coils. 2) Improper Clamping Arrangement Inadequate clamping arrangements of the HV Coils lead to vibration and move the coils during short circuit conditions resulting in failure of HV Coils. 3) Improper connections In many cases the connecting delta leads to the bushing are not properly supported on the frame work, resulting in breaking during transshipment or at the first charge. Improper soldering of leads will result in open circuit due to even normal full load conditions also such transformer may fail during encountering the first fault or a few faults. 4) Inadequate tightening of Core Even with proper fuse protection on the HV side, inadequate tightening will result in failure of transformer due to collapse of the windings. Even under minor fault condition in the LT distribution, due to mechanical vibration in the core and windings due to the above fault, the transformer will fail. 5) Continuous over heating and higher no load losses In addition to normal full load, continuous over heating and higher no load losses may reduce the life of the transformer, due to reduction in life of insulating papers, oil etc. The quantity and grade of input materials of core and windings furnished in the tender may be verified with the design calculation of the tenderers and ensuring the above actual by the transformer by the strip test now being conducted will ensure the losses and impedance furnished in the tender would have been achieved in the transformers. Testing of transformer to avert failure due to the manufacturing defects In order to ensure whether the Distribution Transformers are built with adequate electrical strength to compact with over voltage (due to switching surges) impinging on the winding causing flash over and with adequate mechanical strength to bear the mechanical stresses

developed on the winding during short circuits, the following tests are necessarily to be conducted on the units before their acceptance. But in practice these are usually dispensed just for want of testing facility at the utilities laboratories. 1) High voltage Test 2) Induced Voltage Test 3) Short Circuit Test 4) Test on oil 1. High voltage Test This test is made to check the dielectric strength of the insulation between the windings operating at different voltages (HV & LV) and between each of these windings and earthed parts of the transformer. This test is frequently called the major insulation test for the transformers. 2. Induced Voltage Test The dielectric strength of the inter-turn, inter layer, inter disc and interphase insulation tested by induced voltage test. This test is usually called minor Insulation Test. 3. Short Circuit Test The CPRI experience on this is as follows. Data on the short circuit Tests reveals that the failure rate of transformers manufactured by Small and Medium Scale Industries seems to be at par with those of large scale industries. But in practice the rate of failure is very high. Probably at the time to bulk supply the materials used may not be the same as that of transformer produced for testing purposes. This is possible since in Transformers, majority of the cost of manufacture goes toward materials cost thus encouraging the manufacturers to use inferior quality materials to bring down the cost to compete in the highly competitive market. Hence there is need for proper quality assurance at the manufacturing stage even though the prototype has successfully passed the short circuit with stand Test. 4. Testing of Transformer oil It has now become important to check whether the oil used is a new one or a reconditioned one or a reclaimed one. At present the oil is subjected to BDV test to ensure its electrical strength and other tests to confirm the other important characteristics such as acidity, IFT, resistivity are not carried out before accepting the Bulk supply. In view of this there is every possibility to use inferior quality of oil, leading to poor insulation resistance between High Voltage to Earth, Low Voltage to Earth and High and Low Voltages and the cooling rate is also reduced, giving rise to abnormal temperature rise even before loading the transformer to its rated capacity. The condition of oil should be checked before the transformer is installed. Both water and water saturated oils are heavier than clean and dry oil and sink to the bottom of container. Inspection of Samples : Colour and odour give useful information a) Cloudiness -Suspended solid matter such as iron oxide / sludge b) Muddy colour -Moisture c) Dark brown -Presence of dissolved asphaltenes d) Green colour -Presence of dissolved copper compounds e) Acids smell -indicates presence of volatile acids which can cause corrosion. Acidity Test : Transformer oil deteriorates gradually while in service through oxidation process. The acidity in the oil cause rusting of ironing work inside the tank above the oil level and attached varnish on the windings. The recommended limits for acidity test are 1) Acidity below 0.5 mg KOH/gm. No action need to be taken provided oils is satisfactory in all other aspects 2) Acidity between 05. & 1.0 mg. KOH/gm. Oil kept under observation 3) Acidity exceeds 1.0 mg. KOH/gm. Oil should be treated or discharged Analysis of Dissolved Gases The table gives the permissible concentrations of dissolved gases in the oil of a Healthy Transformer. Gas Less than 4 years 4-10 years in More than 10 years in service service in service Hydrogen 100 / 150 PPM 200 / 300 PPM 200 / 300 PPM Methane 50 / 70 PPM 100 / 150 PPM 200 / 300 PPM Acetylene 20 / 30 PPM 30 / 50 PPM 100 / 150 PPM Ethylene 100 / 150 PPM 150 / 200 PPM 200 / 400 PPM Ethane 30 / 50 PPM 100 / 150 PPM 800 / 1000 PPM Carbon monoxide 200 / 300 PPM 400 / 500 PPM 600 / 700 PPM Carbon dioxide 3000 / 3500 PPM 400 / 500 PPM 600 / 700 PPM Drying out of transformer If as a result of tests carried out, the presence of moisture is indicated or the oil does not withstand the dielectric strength test, or the insulation resistance readings are not satisfactory, it shall be necessary to dry out the transformer. Methods of drying out Normally hot oil circulation method should be used for drying out distribution transformer. In special circumstances where the above method does not give satisfactory results, short circuit with hot oil circulation should be used. In this method both core and winding inside the tank are simultaneously dried out/streamline with filter. The moisture is dried out from the windings into the oil and is removed from the oil by evaporation and filtering. Board Side Defects Improper Operation a) Over loading of distribution transformer Inadvertent connecting of extra load due to unauthorized load can be identified by periodic test of current in distribution transformer using Tong Tester at peak hours and other times of the day (or) connecting maximum demand ammeter to exactly find out the maximum load current drawn from the transformer. Transferring the load to the near by transformer or enhancement of the existing transformer capacity or proposing a new transformer will avoid transformer failure. Unequal loading in three phase may also cause over loading in one phase. Redistribution of the loads will avoid transformer failure. b) Usage of Improper size of fuse wises (HG fuse and feeder fuses) HG fuse is the only main reliable protection for the distribution transformers under condition of fault in LT distribution. Non availability of proper size HG fuse wire and not realizing the seriousness, higher size HG fuses are likely to be used in distributions. The LT fuses being of a heavy size for dealing high currents on the LT side, the chance of LT fuses blowing in short time is less and

the most reliable protection for the transformer is the HG fuses. If HG fuses is of higher size, the fault will sustain for longer period until heavy size fuse will blows. Causing extent to the transformer failure. Even in case of fault within the transformer, the damage to the transformer will be minimized if the HG fuses of proper size is used. Proper size of fuses on LT feeder depending upon the load has to be ensured to avert transformer failure. Sl.No. Transformer 22 KV Side 11 KV Side LTOpentype Capacity in KVA HG fuses HG fuses fuses Current SWG Current SWG Current SWG 1. 25 1.0 40 1.5 38 or 35 33 21 2. 50 1.5 38 3.0 33 or 30 66 18 or 2 x 20 3. 63 2.0 38 4.0 33 or 30 82 2x 20 4. 75 2.5 35 4.5 33 or 28 99 2x20or 2x18 5. 100 2.75 35 5.5 32 or 26 133 2x18 or 2x16 6. 200 5.25 32 10.5 26 or 24 266 2 x 15 7. 250 7.0 32 13.25 23 333 2 x 14 8. 500 13.25 26 26.5 20 666 2 x 12 c)Two phasing in rural areas i) Two phase supply is being maintained on rural distribution feeders so as to prevent operation of three phase motors during staggering period of peak hours. However agriculturists / consumers have invented so many methods to start the motor and run it under 3 phase conditions. The total power intake of the motor under 2 phase will be approximately the same as for under 3 phase, contributing unbalanced over load in 2 phases. In turn the distribution transformer will also be subjected to overload in these 2 phases and the core of the transformers will have unbalanced magnetic field in the region of saturation point. This will also cause failure. ii) On all the areas covered by the distribution lines with 2 phase arrangements, all the single phase lighting loads are dumped in 2 phases so that supply is available under all conditions. Then there will be heavy unbalance current through the neutral conductor and the transformer is likely to be overloaded in these 2 phases. Further the flow of unbalanced current in neutral will raise the potential of the neutral with respect to earth which is danger to the consumers. d) Use of metal diaphragm in the explosion vent Use of metallic diaphragm will result in the explosion of the transformer itself due to the development of high pressure. To avoid this a thin breakable diaphragm used in the explosion vent will cause the explosion of the vent alone under high pressure condition. e) Adopting Diversity Factor for loads TNEB is assuming diversity factor (DF) for different categories of load to decide the capacity of the transformers. Due to reduced hours of supplying in the event of critical power generation, the actual DF is less than the assumed value, thus over loading the transformers and causing failure. f) Non standard methods adopted 1. Use of ACSR conductor, bare or enclosed in PVC pipe from the transformer bushing as against insulated PVC cables. 2. Use of open type fuse for the secondary control of the transformer as against the standard porcelain fuses and also to control more than one feeder. 3. Use of Aluminium strands of ACSR conductors as fuses in LT open type fuses and HG fuses as against tinned copper. Improper Maintenance a) Tree fouling on LT lines Sustained tree fouling with LT conductors may result in conductor snapping or cracked LT Pin Insulators. This causes heavy earth fault current which may lead to failure. b) Tree fouling on HT lines This may cause failure of transformers due to flow of earth fault current since the primary of all the transformers are delta connected and all the 3 windings from cluster of transformers connected to this HT distribution line will feed the fault apart from the source of EHTSS. c) Non maintenance of Breather Non provision of flynuts for the breather container will create a gap through which moisturized air will enter into the transformer tank. To arrest this gap, neophrine gaskets are to be provided instead of rubber gaskets. Rubber will damaged if it comes in contact with transformer oil. If oil is not filled in the breather, then the dust particles will not be absorbed from the air entering the transformer tank causing transformer failure. d) Non removal of water condensate in the transformer Due to absorption of moisture from atmosphere for a long period large quantity of water may be collected in the transformers. Water being of higher density gets collected at the bottom of the transformer and the water level is likely to even reach the bottom level of the windings, resulting in failure of transformers and some times bursting also due to silt formation at the bottom of oil, preventing escape of gas formed, resulting in bursting of bottom of the tank. Occasional draining of oil from bottom of transformer will check collection of such large quantity of water.The conservator tank is also acting as collector of water- condensate of the moisture entered through the breather. This should be removed before it contaminates the oil and causing transformer failure. e) Oil leak in bushings or any other weak part of the transformer Oil leak may be due to excessive heating or pressure developed in the bushing this will bring down the oil level in the tank and also moisture will find access into the tank through the aperture from which oil is oozing. Because of this oil in the tank will be contaminated resulting in deterioration of HV/LV insulation and ultimately to transformer failure. To avoid this bimetallic clamps with proper size of bolt and nuts connected to the LT bushing will reduce excessive heating and damage to bushing rods. f) Low Oil Level The non-visibility of the oil level in the gauge glass level due to accumulated dust, may not show the exact level in the tank. The oil is likely to go below the core level, the jumper wire from core winding assembly to the bushing rod will not be covered with oil, this leads to excessive temperature rise and the failure of inter turn insulation and flash over the

windings. g) High Oil Level The Oil should be filled upto the marking in the conservator tank. There should be space in the conservator tank for expansion of oil when the transformer is loaded. If the conservator tank is filed with oil, then the transformer may fail due to high pressure by explosion of vent pipe. h) Low BDV of the oil Oil contamination may cause the BDV of the transformer oil to be very low. This results in the increase of the carbon content and decrease of resistance in the oil. The temperature of the oil will not be reduced and hence acidity of the oil increases resulting in deterioration of insulation of the windings and transformer failure. To avoid this oil has to be filtered to remove the dust and processed through the reclamation plant to reduce the acidity and improve the BDV value of the oil. Rated Voltage of the transformer Min Break Down Value of transformer oil Upto 66 KV 30 KV Above 66 KV Upto 110 KV 40 KV Above 110 KV Upto 230 KV 50 KV i) Low IR value This may be due to moisture content in the oil and in the winding insulation. This may cause transformer failure. To avoid this the transformer core with windings entire should be placed in Hot air chamber till the moisture content is removed from the core and winding insulation. Rated Voltage of the Winding Minimum safe insulation resistance in Meg ohm, at temperature 300C 400C 500C 600C 66 KV and above 600 300 150 75 22 KV and 33 KV 500 250 125 65 6.6 KV and 11 KV 400 200 100 50 Below 6.6 KV 200 100 50 25 If the LT line are very loose / sag, this may cause frequent blowing of feeder fuses due to the shorting of LT lines. This may cause conductor snapping if proper size of fuses are not used or if the structure is not properly earthed. To avoid this phase separators may be used or lines should be resagged. k) Improper maintenance of fuse gaps in HT/LT side of the transformer Non-maintenance of the following gap setting will result in either frequent blowing or non-blowing of fuses. 11 KV HG fuse gap 8 inches 22 KV HG fuse gap 10 inches LT open type feeder fuse gap 6 inches Improper construction of Distribution of transformer structure / Erection of Distribution of transformer IE rules 1956 specifies various standard clearances to be maintained during erection. The following clearances adopted during erection will avert transformer failure. 1. HT bushing - ground 13 2. ABS switch fixed contact to HG fuse 7 3. Guy Shackle to ground 10 4. If the length of the jumper is more than 5 then LT / HT pin insulators are used to fix the jumper. Due to Natural Calamities a) Heavy lightning If the HTLAS fails to divert the direct stroke or surges due discontinuity in earthing system, this will result in either failure of HV winding due to surge voltage or bursting of HT lightning Arrestor itself. b) Bushing Flash Over Dust and chemicals carried away with air and deposited on the bushings will reduce the electric leakage distance causing flashover. To avoid this, clean the bushings (both HT & LT) periodically with banian waste. If cotton waste is used for cleaning this may cause scratches in the bushing & subsequently leading to flashover of bushing. c) Failure due to bird fault To avoid failure of DT due to squirrel crossing the DT or due to the birds sitting on the transformer, the HT / LT bushing and HT / LT jumper leads from the bushing may be covered with yellow tape insulation. This yellow tape insulation will also indicate the overloading phase of the transformer by the colour of the tape changing from Yellow to Black. REASONS FOR FAILURE OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS D.Ts. Failed Due to Failure General Observation Damage to HV Coils 65% Compressed building, Open Circuit Insulation failure, Dislodged spacers, Broken support/bolts inadequate. Damage to LV Coils 05% Overloading, Defective Termination, Inadequate size of fuses. Damage to Both 10% Any reason under (1) and/or (2) Other Reasons 20% Building of TF Tank, Defective Joints,Oil oozing out, Punctured radiators and bushing gaskets, damaged tap changers etc., ANNEXURE-IV GUARANTEED TECHNICAL & PERFORMANCE PARTICULARS M-10 100 KVA/ 11KV 1. a) Makers name and Address : M/s.Geeta Electrica Indore Pvt.Ltd, 222, Sector-E, Sanwer Road, Indore - 452 015. b)Phone No. Fax No. & E Mail : Phone 0731-2722387 FAX;0731-2721693 2. Brand name : No Brand Name 3. Voltage between phases at rated full load a) HV Side : 11KV b) L.V. Side : 22 KV 4. Nominal ratio of transformer : 11000/433 V 5. Maximum Hot spot temperature for which unit s designed : 115.9 Deg C. 6. Type of cooling provided : ON- AN 7. Maximum current density in winding at CMR a) H.V. Windings : 1.6 Amps/sq mm. b) LV. Windings : 1.6 Amps/sq mm. 8. Resistance at rated current and frequency a) H.V. Windings / phase : 34.10 Ohms b) L.V. Windings / phase : 0.0128 Ohms 9. No

Load Loss at a) Normal voltage and frequency : 260 Watts b) Maximum voltage and normal : frequency, ie. at 112.5% of rated voltage : 435 Watts 10. Full load loss at rated full load current at 75 Deg. C at principal tapping : 1760 Watts (Max ) 11. Total losses at rated voltage and frequency : 2020 Watts (Max) 12. Reactance drop on full load : Approximate 530 V at HV side and 12 V at LV side 13. Reactance of windings per phase : 4.81 % at 75 Deg C. 14. Impedance drop on full load :Approximate 550 V at MV side and 13 V at LV side. 15. Percentage impedance at 75 Deg C. :5% +1- Tolerance as per IS 16. Regulation at full load at 75 Deg C. a) at UNITY P.F. :1.90 b) at 0.8 P.F. lag :4.50 17. Efficiency at maximum permissible temperature at At Unity P.F. At 0.8 lag a) 100 % load 98.00 % 97.50 % b) 75%load 98.30 % 97.90 % c) 50 % load 98.60 % 98.20 % d) 25%load 98.50 % 98.10% e) 125% load 97.00 % 96.30 % 18. Over load capacity for two hours a) Starting from cold : As per IS 6600 b) After continuous full load run : -do- 19. Impulse strength of MV windings : 75 KV Peak (State Wave form adopted ) 20. Total radiating surface : 5.04 sq.m. 21. Type of tank & construction : Conventional type 22. Oil Data BDV at the time of filling : 60 KV across 4 mm 23. Location of Conservator : Top and towards LV side 24. Insulation Materials used between H.V. & LV. Windings : DPC 25. Insulation materials used for a) Tapping : MPC b) Tapping Connection : Kraft paper 26. Whether windings are dried under vaccum and flooded with hot dry oil : Yes 27. Percentage end turn reinforcement : Uniform insulation thro 28. Thickness of core plates : M 4 29. Test voltage for a) Over potential : 28 for 1 minute on HV side b) Induced voltage : 866 V for 1 minute on LV side 30. Insulation of core laminations : Carlit 31. Does the name plate include all particulars as per IS 1180 Part-I/1981: Yes 32. Minimum qty of oil for first filling after absorption by the core & the windings : 190 litres 33. Voltage per turn : 3.47 volts 34 Painting : As per specification 35. Make of the Bushings : Jaipur glass /maxwell/ any Reputed make 36. Rating of the Bushing as per IS 2099 &JS. 7421 HV Windings : 12 KV LV Windings : 1.1 KV 37. Dry power frequency withstand voltage for HV & LV HV LV 28 5 38. Wet power frequency withstand voltage for HV&LV 28 5 39. Dry standard lightning impulse voltage HV Windings : 75 KV peak LV Windings : - 40. Visible (power frequency) discharge voltage for HV & LV) HV Windings : As per IS 3347 LV Windings : -do- 41. Power frequency puncture withstand voltage for LV & HV HV Windings : As per IS 3347 LV Windings : -doPerformance Enhancement by Design of Distribution Transformers for Field Working Condition (Er.H.KAILASARAMAN, M.E., MIE.,) Executive Engineer/T.N.E.B. (Retd.) INTRODUCTION This paper presents an attempt for the performance enhancement of Distribution Transformers, in the prevailing working conditions by adopting same design standards during manufacturing. WORKING CONDITIONS The distribution transformers, erected and maintained by the utilities, are un attended stations, with no regulation of working parameters possible and hence they have to bear the grant of the working circumstances. Where as the Distribution transformers maintained by the H.T. industries are well attended and well regulated for the loads of the industries. The adverse aspects of the prevailing working conditions of Distribution transformers maintained by the power supply utilities to supply low tension loads are listed below : Load conditions deviating from the maximum efficiency area of transformer Actual loading, being greater than contracted loads. Unequal loading on three phases, resulting in over loading in one or more phases. Possible short circuit between phase conductors (or) between phase and Neutral/Earth Impact of External and Internal surges. Absorption of moisture and impurities. Increase of Acidity due to oxidation process by Heat in the oil with oxygen in the air. FUNCTIONAL ACCESSORIES OF DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS The functional accessories of a Distribution Transformer are : Magnetic core designed based on a working flux density H.T. & L.T. coils with their number of TURNS for the operating voltages and with the size of conductors based on the current handled according to their capacity rating Oil used as a insulant and coolant. The other

supporting accessories are : (1) Main tank where in functional accessories are placed (2) Oil handling systems Conservator, breather, oil level indicator & (3) Protective systems (i.e.) Explosion vent and Air release plug. DESIGN BASED ON MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY It is not necessary that maximum efficiency of a Distribution Transformer occurs at full load. The Resistive part of the winding is responsible for the copper loss, which is proportional to the load and working power factor. The losses occurring due to Hysterisis and eddy current (i.e.) Iron loss is fixed The efficiency is maximum when Iron loss = copper loss. EFFICIENCY = [ 1 - LOSSES ] x 100 INPUT Where LOSSESS = FIXED LOSS + COPPER LOSS X % OF LOAD INPUT = RATED KVA X P.F. X % OF LOAD The ( LOSSES - INPUT ) can be kept less than 0.02. Hence the fixed losses can be kept to the minimum by designing the magnetic circuit, say x watts. The copper losses can be kept equal to Iron loss between 90% to 100% of load by designing proper conductor sizes. Number of turns and mean length, say y watts. The Input power computation for the above design can be done at 0.8 PF lag. P watts. So that x + y < 0.02 P Thus maximum efficiency can be maintained around 90% of load, in a varying power factor range of 0.8 to unity. DESIGN BASED ON LOAD CONDITON The Distribution transformer is generally subjected to overload condition, though occasionally in peak load hours of the day. Due to financial considerations and competitive market, the factor of safety adopted is generally 1, or even slightly lesser. The overloading is a major factor for NON PERFORMANCE of a Distribution transformer upto its life expectancy (i.e. 20-25 years) Hence a factor of safety of 1.2 is suggested, in the following design. (a) Size of conductors of winding sufficiently huge to meet the overload (b) Insulating materials of required quality to meet the THERMAL STRESSES (c) Higher quantity of oil and volume of Main tank, with sufficient spacing around the core and with large height from core of top cover (d) Improved cooling system to dissipate heat with double entry of retrieval system. MEETING OUT SHORT CIRCUIT FORCES : The occurrence of a fault in low tension line results in heavy flow of current, in the order of 10-15 times of the load current. The protective arrangement clears the fault. The windings are expected to withstand the heavy forces, occurring in the duration between the in caption of fault and its isolation. The mechanical rigidity of the winding should be made strong with its spacers and vertical duct arrangement, properly introduced with regid fixing of the windings, between the top and bottom frames. Also, considerably increasing the % impedance of the winding in its design will reduces the short circuit stresses, by limiting the short circuit current This is explained below for a 100KVA 11KV/400V, 5.25/133 Amps Distribution Transformer A. LEVEL OF SHORT CIRCUIT FOR A FOR 4% IMPEDANCE Per Unit impedance = 0.04 Per unit short circuit current = 1.0 = 25 0.04 Base current . p.u. = 5.25 A (H.T. side) Therefore I short circuit = 1 SH = ISc p.u. x Base current = 25 x 5.25 = 140 A on H.T. side Short Circuit Force = ISc 2 Therefore Short Circuit Force (140) 2 19600 Unit B. LEVEL OF SHORT CIRCUIT FORCE FOR 5% Per unit ISc = 1.0 = 20 0.05 ISH = 20 x 5.25 = 112.5 A on H.T. side Short Circuit Force (112.5)2 in x 12656 Unit Increasing the % impedance from 4% to 5% will have the reduction of short circuit forces by 35% [i.e. 19600 12656 ] x 100 ] 19600 The design may be done by choosing proper requirement of turns and its mean length. However this will increase the power loss in the transformer, which should also be kept in limits, to achieve the desired efficiency. CONSIDERATION OF SURGES The lightning arrestors employed, independently for the THREE PHASES, before and after the Distribution transformer diverts the High voltage, High frequency surges, coming on the line, to the EARTH AND saves the windings from damage. Proper selection of lightning arrestors, to prevent damage of winding is one external solution; strengthening of winding is another solution. Special end windings, with lesser number of turns, but with more insulation are placed on the Top and Bottom ends of the winding, with special mechanical rigidity also. Though this is in practice for power transformer in sub-station, it can be adopted for Distribution transformers also, and the Basic Impulse Insulation level (BIL) value of Transformer, can be made sufficiently high and duly co-ordinated with the lightning arrestors. MODIFICATION IN OIL HANDLING SYSTEM : Absorption of impurities of Moisture, increase of acidity in oil, are the other important factors for the Non-performance of Distribution Transformers It is important that the working condition of the transformer is to be linked with atmospheric pressure, to avoid damages due to undue pressures. Hence the conservator top portion inside, is maintained with atmospheric air. Any improper maintenance of Breather unit with silicagel, results in impurities and moisture entering the transformer and get absorbed in the windings. Hence the following is suggested. A. USE OF BELLOWS IN CONSERVATOR 1. Bellow on bladder, made up of Non-reactive material with oil, may be placed inside the conservator and the breathing system connected to this bellow only. This system will maintain the volume of oil expansion and contraction, without direct contact with AIR. 2. A side cover for the conservator, must be available is open and check the condition of bellows. 3. Since direct contact with Air/Oxygen, with hot oil is avoided, increase the acidity due to oxidation is controlled. B. MODIFICATION OF EXPLOSION VENT The explosion vent uses a shattering type Diaphragm to spurt

out the oil during failure. Non replacement of this diaphragm, in its broken condition results in heavy entry of moisture and suspended impurities. Hence it is suggested that NON-SHATTERING type vent (spring operated) of a small size (Miniature PRV) suitable for Distribution transformers will be the best alternative to the conventional shattering type vents. ARRANGEMENT TO RECORD MAXIMUM TEMPORATURE & MAX. LOAD Since the Distribution transformers is an un attended station, it is necessary to record the maximum temperature and load current, so as to have our idea of loading condition and resort the corrective measures. (a) Installation of a Dial type Thermometer with maximum temperature indicator and its resetting arrangements. This arrangement is to be thought of by providing the thermometer stem, directly under the top cover, with an oil seal and the top oil temperature is measured, without using the thermometer pocket, since the availability of oil in thermometer pocket cannot be ensured is field. (b) Maximum Demand Meter, showing ampere loading in all the three phases with maximum amps indicators, along with current transformers (C.T.) installed in separate enclosures, duly protected by RAIN & SHINE. CONCLUSION The Distribution transformer is prone to many odds. the frequent failure result in heavy expenditure for replacement, transport and repairs. Also the event attract the wrath of consumers Hence increase in expenditure by improved design suggested will be justified, comparing the expenditure to meet the failure. A minimum cost may be worked out for our basic requirement and purchase can be made accordingly with a permissible Margin, to maintain the quality. Inspecting the transformer manufacturer at factories, and conducting strip test after their delivery will ensure the guaranteed manufacture and thus avoid failure. Finally, installation of a plain type 3 phase oil circuit breaker on L.T. side with C.Ts. and overload relays, can also be resorted to along with transformer, atleast in urban areas, where continuous load is incident, since the time taken to reach and replace blown out L.T. fuses, (or) to switch on the Breaker will be the same else provision of HRC fuses can be resorted to for efficient fusing. .