Transformer efficiency: Minimizing transformer losses

06/12/2013


Figure 2: This graph compares core and load losses of 80-C rise and 150-C rise transformers. Courtesy: Lovorn Engineering Assocs.Distribution transformers and TP-1

Transformers that have primary voltages of 34.5 kV or less and secondary voltages of less than 600 V also must meet the efficiency ratings of TP-1 at a linear loading of 35%. However, TP-1 covers only 3-phase distribution transformers between 15 kVA and 1,000 kVA, so the larger transformers are not addressed by this standard. In addition, the distribution transformers are traditionally designed to be loaded to between 50% and 75%. As noted previously on the smaller, dry-type transformers, loadings that exceed the 35% TP-1 point will have significantly greater losses than the tabularized values. So while the goal of TP-1 was very lofty, it does not apply as well to actual installations. 

Historically, it was common to see distribution transformers that had impedance ratings of 5.75%. As the electrical utilities have worked to reduce their operating costs, the impedance for distribution transformers has dropped to values as low as 1.5% impedance. Since the utilities typically absorb the transformer losses as a part of their operating costs, reducing the impedance percentage from 5.75% to 1.5% has saved more than 70% of their losses at the transformer. This turned out to be very convenient because TP-1 was requiring that these transformers have higher efficiencies at the same time that the utilities were attempting to reduce their operating costs. 

This process had a negative side effect that was not immediately evident but had a major impact on the electrical engineer’s design: the available fault duty on the secondary of the transformer. A 1,000 kVA transformer with 5.75% impedance will have an available fault duty of 21,000 A at 480 V, assuming an infinite bus on the primary side. Given the same criteria for a 1.5% impedance transformer would result in an available fault duty of 80,000 A. The same transformer operating with a 120/208 V secondary will have available fault duties of 48,000 A and 185,000 A, respectively. This operating efficiency improvement has a major impact on the electrical system design, particularly at the lower secondary voltage of 120/208 V (see “Sizing stepdown transformers”). 

While TP-1 did not address transformers that were rated larger than 1,000 kVA, there have been similar reductions in their impedances to affect matching savings for these larger transformers. As one would anticipate, available fault currents for a 2,500 kVA transformer are dramatically, though proportionally, larger. At 480 V, the fault duties would increase from 52,000 A to more than 200,000 A for a 1.5% impedance transformer. Thank goodness transformers of this size do not commonly come with a 208-V secondary, because the fault current would approach 500,000 A.

Application

In the engineer’s quest to reduce energy consumption, matching the transformer to its anticipated load is critical in achieving that goal. By applying a 150-C rise transformer to a lightly loaded linear circuit, the losses noted in TP-1 will be very close to the actual losses. However, heavier transformer loadings will suggest the engineer design around one of the lower temperature-rise transformers, such as the 115 C or 80 C transformers. When there are significant harmonically rich loads that are to be fed by a dry transformer, the lowest losses are likely to be achieved by using K-rated transformers that are sized for the anticipated harmonic currents.

Injudicious transformer selection can exceed the losses shown in TP-1 by 300% to 400%, resulting in a negative return on investment for the increased cost of the higher efficiency transformers.

Know the loss data, loading when specifying transformers

In researching this article, the author found it quite interesting that published loss data for all of the major manufacturers queried was virtually nonexistent. When asking about losses for operating points other than the 35% loading for TP-1, there appeared to be nothing available. Also, loss data for transformers operating at 80-C rise, 115-C rise, and K-rated transformers were also unavailable. Asking your local transformer sales representative for loss data at the operating point to which you are designing and for the type of transformer that you are designing around may save your client many dollars in energy savings. However, inserting the standard 150-C rise transformer into your design, while planning on operating the transformer at a point other than 35% loading and with a significant percentage of nonlinear loads, could cost your client significantly over the life of a transformer.

Sizing stepdown transformers

One cautionary note on stepdown transformers: When transforming from 480 V to 120/208 V, these low-loss, dry-type transformers can sneak up on your design. With the higher impedances of yore, an engineer usually did not have to worry about having higher interrupting duty branch circuit breakers when they were connected downstream from a dry transformer and the rest of the distribution system was a fully rated system. With the lower impedances, transformers as small as 112.5 kVA can have available fault duties that would require the use of breakers with an interrupting duty of more than 10,000 A. When using dry transformers such as a 300 kVA, 480/120/208 V, available fault duties can exceed 40,000 A, requiring your electrical design to use 65,000 AIC breakers. It is better to break the 120/208 V load into small divisions so that the maximum transformer size does not exceed 75 kVA with an impedance of at least 2% and the lower interrupting breakers (read: less expensive) may be used. 

 


Lovorn is president of Lovorn Engineering Assocs. He is a member of the Consulting-Specifying Engineer editorial advisory board.


<< First < Previous 1 2 Next > Last >>

Anonymous , 06/27/13 11:00 AM:

My opinion on footnote at the bottom the June 2013, Article "Minimizing Transformer losses" gives me the opinion that the author did not try very hard to get transformer loss data. I was able to find data from several vendors on the internet without to much effort. For example, http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Electrical/ProductsandServices/ElectricalDistribution/Transformers/LowVoltageDry-TypeDistribution/EnergyEfficientCSL-3Compliant/index.htm#tabs-2

One item that should have mentioned was the definition of efficiency.
Paraphrasing the efficiency definition in NEMA TP-1,

Efficiency = Power OUT/Power IN

%EFF = 100 x kVA x Output/(kVA x Output + kW losses at Output loading)

A reader could have been mislead in believing percent base is the transformer full load rating. In the article 1000W at 35% loading on a 75kVA transformer would be 1000*100/(0.35*75000)=3.8% losses and not 1.3% as stated.

As mentioned the transformer loss are the sum of the no-load losses and load losses. The load losses are proportional to the square of the load on the transformer and not protortional to the load. Since most of the load losses are I^2*R, transformer with low impedance and resistance tend to have lower load losses. Since the curve 'total losses(kW)' verses 'Transformer loading*%)' did not state the basis for the curve it could be missleading. For the curve to be useful the percent coil resistance would have to be the same. Generally the lower the %impedance to lower the full load losses. On small transformers the user does not have much control over the impedance since the small transformers tend to be off the shelf types. Sometimes the same size transformer from different vendors can significantly different impedance. Lower impedance also means higher fault currents which is another item that has to be considered.
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.