IEEE PES Transformers Committee

Tutorial
Transformer Fleet Health
and Risk Assessment
March 13, 2007, Dallas Texas

Thomas A. Prevost
for
David J. Woodcock
Weidmann-ACTI
St. Johnsbury, Vermont

Developing Transformer
Asset Management Strategy

Due to advanced aging of substation transformers

throughout the electric power industry, many T&D system
operators are faced with the possibility of increased failure
of these important assets in upcoming years
As a first-step in developing an overall asset strategy, T&D
companies are engaged in fleet-level assessments that
evaluate condition and rank failure probability along with
gaining insight into the technical and financial risks
associated with transformer failures

Financial Awareness Associated with

Maintaining Transformer Reliability

T&D systems have a disproportionate amount of old

substation transformers that have an increasingly higher
probability of failure
Need exists to ramp-up capital spending to maintain
system reliability over the next 10 to 15 years
The narrow age-distribution of these aged assets, often
results in future peeks of spending that may need to be
levelized in today's capital forecasts
Assessment and risk ranking can support the businesscase preparation for justification of future capital
appropriation

Transmission Expenditure History

Sources: C3 Group; EEI, EIA

In 2003 Real $s

An Approaching T&D Asset Wall

Installation

Replacement

250

Today
200

150

100

50

19
40
19
47
19
54
19
61
19
68
19
75
19
82
19
89
19
96
20
03
20
10
20
17
20
24
20
31
20
38
20
45

Transformer GVA Additions

Installation of Power Transformers

The aging transformer

Population follows low
T&D capital investment
for the past 25+ years.

In the final quartile of

transformer life, Failure
Probability can change
by 5x to 10x normal
system failure-rate

180

160

140

G V A In s ta lle d

Average age of power

transformers is now
approaching 40 years

Base GVA per Year Additions

200

120

100

80

60

40

20

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

Year

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Example Rolling Five-Year Average

300

6%

250

5%

200

4%

150

3%

100

2%

50

1%

0%
5

15

25

35
Years

45

55

Probability of Failure

Units

Age Distribution and Failure Probability

Units
% Failure

65

1000 UNITS ON SYSTEM

Equipment Health and Risk

Project Justification and Goals

Drivers vary by utility jurisdiction, but typical

project goals are:

Improved Substation Reliability

Quantified technical Risk and Vulnerability Ranking of
units in the transformer fleet
Forecast Failure Probability over a fifteen year period
Quantified Impact on Customer Serving Substations
SAIDI and CAIFI loss-of-use for example
Forecast replacement, consequential and collateral
risk/cost over time

Phased Approach and Methodology

A tiered or phased approach is often chosen which has proven to

be the most reliable and economical method for assessing an
entire transformer fleet or large groups of selected units.
The macro or high-level Phase 1 assessment systematically ranks
the condition, failure probability and associated financial risk for
the selected units as a group and then selects critical transformer
candidates that require further detailed examination.
Selected units can then be analyzed in a more detailed or Phase
2 Assessment, wherein more focused unit-specific maintenance
and operational recommendations are developed and reported.

Effectiveness of Analytical
Tools and Risk Models

Although difficult to precisely predict the likelihood of

failure of any single unit over time, analytical and
probabilistic engineering methods can provide a
quantitative ranking of condition and failure probability
across a selected group or fleet of transformers
Unit specific risk models and Monte Carlo simulation can
be combined to provide an impartial and systematic
annual forecast of current and accumulated risk

Transformer Health and Risk Methods

No One-Size-Fits-All

A customized, systematic condition assessment model is

developed specifically for the selected transformer group
Although the primary model remains basically the same
from one fleet or selected group to another, key factors
can alter the model significantly.

Specification and/or historical purchasing practices

Transformer types and application
Maintenance and Loading History
Size/voltage class and mix of T&D substation units
Data/Information availability
Selected impact data and Risk Criteria and Jurisdictional PBRs
Project goals and required outputs, KPIs etc.

Development Of Analytical
and Probabilistic Models

Strategic Fleet Assessment

Assessing a fleet of transformers presents a much different

dynamic than that of appraising the condition a single transformer.
In assessing a single transformer, a great amount of time and
attention can be afforded to very fine details and nuances.
When assessing a fleet, considerable effort must be devoted to
fine-tuning a systematic approach that will allow the entire fleet to
be evaluated according to a uniform set of criteria.
The condition appraisal criteria for the T&D fleet fall under five or
more primary categories:

Age

Design

Diagnostic Tests

Insulation Aging

Through-Fault Risk

Phase 1 Objective and Model

(5) Major Data/Info Categories for Analysis:

Transformer
Fleet
Assessment
Methodology

Evaluate & Rank Transformer Condition, based on

Customized, yet systematic methodology & analysis
Service Age
Diagnostic Test Results
Design Considerations
Insulation Aging
Through-Fault Risk

Weighting and Logic-Based Factors Applied

Yielding:

Leverage P(Failure) to calculate risk

adjusted

Weighted Condition Factor (WCF) for Each Unit

Probability of Failure

Failure Cost Replacement/Outage/Collateral

Consequential to Replacement Cost Ratios

Rank & Prioritize based on P(Failure) & Risk

Cost

Risk Model is Simulated for

Each Unit in the Fleet for
Each Year in Forecast
Condition Assessment
is simulated for each
unit

RISK
HE

Multiple Indicators
Pr

Design
Age and Loading

Failure Probability is
set for each unit
Failure/Financial
Consequence is
known or Estimated
Increments Over Time
15-20 year horizon

AL
T

H
Fa
ilu
ob
r
ab e
ilit
y

ITY
L
ICA
T
ce
I
n
R
e
C
u
eq
s
n
Co

Monte Carlo Method

10,000 Iterations
Cost/Benefit Analysis

Diagnostics

$ NPV Capital Costs

Insulation Life

Outage Costs

Faults

Other Tests and

Expert Opinion

Criticality and impact for future

system use or loss

N-1 exposure, Customer impact

for Failure on T&D Systems

Collateral costs

Transformer Fleet Health and Risk Process Flow

Information and Data Gathering Requirements

for Assessing Health and Risk

Detailed information is vital for unit-specific condition

and Risk assessments. Each piece of information or
Condition Indicator is analyzed, weighted and
scored, which forms the basis for determining the
Weighted Condition Factor (WCF). Failure Probability
is correlated to WCF for each unit relative to the
selected group or fleet of transformers on the system.
A typical list follows:

Typical Condition Factor for Engineering

Analysis and Weighting as Input to Assess
Probable Transformer Condition
Design

Main Unit
Manufacture
Vintage/Age
Known
weakness
Winding
Arrangement
Materials
Short Circuit
BIL

Ancillary
Equipment
Oil
Preservation
LTC
DETC
Cooling
Equipment
Bushings

Operating
Environment
Source
Impedance
Protection
Scheme
Lighting
Level
Ambient
Temperature
Load Power
Factor
LTC
Regulation
Range

Historical
Tests &
Diagnostic

Usage
Historical
Loading
Pattern
Prior Overload
Conditions
Prior Through
Faults
Fault Levels
Maintenance
Practices

Maintenance
DGA
Oil Quality
Power Factor
Insulation
Resistance
Records

Extensive Data Options Exist for Analysis

TOOLS & TECHNOLOGIES

Predictive Maintenance Practices Require
On-going Condition Assessment

DGA, General Oil Quality, Furans - (Main Tank and LTC)

Transformer
Condition
Indicators
Used for ongoing
Condition Based
Maintenance

LTC Eng. Review (# of ops/load /runaway/mechanism/design)

LTC smooth-rise test
LTC Temperature gradients measurement
Total combustible gas tests of gas blanket
Partial discharge tests of Main Tank and LTC compartments
Airborne corona detection (bushings)
Ultrasonic leak detection (sealed tanks)
Vibration analysis & sound level test
Visual Inspection and Recording
Oil Leaks, Gaskets, Gauges,
Cooling system checks (automatic controls, flow, temp. diff.)
IR - Main Tank, cooling system, bushings and LTC compartments
Courtesy of Xcel Energy Denver Colorado

Phase 1 Objective and Model

(5) Major Data/Info Categories for Analysis :

Transformer
Fleet
Assessment
Methodology

Evaluate & Rank Transformer Condition, based on

Customized, yet systematic methodology & analysis
Service Age
Diagnostic Test Results
Design Considerations
Insulation Aging
Through-Fault Risk

Weighting and Logic-Based Factors Applied

Yielding:

Leverage P(Failure) to calculate risk adjusted

Weighted Condition Factor (WCF) for Each Unit

Probability of Failure
Failure Cost Replacement/Outage/Collateral
Consequential to Replacement Cost Ratios

Rank & Prioritize based on P(Failure) & Risk

Cost

Condition Assessment Example

Evaluation Tools for Scoring and Ranking

CONDITION INDICATORS METRICS AND RANKING

Service
Age
S1
S2
S3
S4

Chronological Age
Current Load Level
Average Load over Life
Future Load Growth Percent

Diagnostic
Testing
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

Historical DGA, GOQ

Curent DGA,GOQ
Current Furan
Winding PF
Bushing PF
LTC, DGA
Other Tests

Design
Review
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
K9
K10
K11
K12

OEM and Vintage DGA

HV rank
MVA Rank
BIL Rank
LTC Type
DETC Y/N
Winding Style
Winding Complexity
Cooling Type
Modern SC?
Clamping System Type
SC Factor

Insulation
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7

Avg. Load / Age

Load Cycle
Load Temp
Avg. H20 ppm
Avg. 02 ppm
55 / 65
Other Factors

Faults
F1
F2
F3
F4

SC Factor
F Frequency
Life Count
F Magnitude

Failure Probability Distribution

Percent
Distribution
Across
Transformer
Fleet

Typical Focus Area

on sub-optimal units

PF = Failure Probability

Transformer Fleet Assessment

Failure Probability- Example Weibel Distribution
Established for each selected group of transformers
WCF vs. Annual Failure Forecast
12.0%
y = 0.000417x4 - 0.003333x3 + 0.012083x2 - 0.014167x + 0.025000

Failure%

10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
1

3
Weighted Condition Factor (WCF)

Transformer Fleet Health and Risk Process Flow

Data Output
Ranked by Failure
Probability
Sorted by 5 yr
Time Intervals up
to 20 years

Impact of failure, Risk Calculation

Models and Methodology

Probability calculations and consequence criteria

associated with replacement of failed units, outage
cost, loss of use (or loss-of-utility), safety,
environmental and other collateral impacts such as loss
of goodwill, shareholder value and public relations
State-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations are used to
develop statistical data that is used to forecast the
likelihood of failures over time and the accumulated
impact

Substation Transformer Applications

Factors Crucial for Future System Use

Maintenance

Planning

Operations

Application (use)

Growth Areas

Load Served

Voltage Class

System Location

Contingency

Size of Units

Capital budget

Customer Contracts

Type / Brand

Available Spares / Risk

System Impact

Age / Vintage

Load Limits/factors

Risk - Redundancy

Historical Problems

- High

Network - Radial

LTC Problems

- Low

PBR, CAIFI, SAIDI

Fault Levels
Ancillary Equipment
- Bushings
- Tap Changers
- Oil System
- Cooling System

Population Density

Risk Calculation Model

Total Includes risk/cost associated with three areas:
R t = Replacement + Outage + Collateral damage

Activity

Undesirable
event

C1

R1=P1 C1 Replacement

P2

C2

R2=P2 C2 Outage

P3

C3
.
.
.

R3=P3 C1 Collateral
.
.
.

.
.
.
Likelihood
/Probability

General Risk Model

P1

Consequence
/

RiskLevel

Examples of Selected Risk Criteria and Metrics

Selected
impact criteria
and metrics are
assigned
uniquely to
each unit being
evaluated

Fleet Health and Risk Assessment

Examples of Output and Reports

1. Portfolio Statistics and Ranking

2. Health and Failure Projections
3. Economics and Financial Forecasts

Fleet Age Distribution

35%

27%

30%

20%

25%
20%

18%

18%
15%

15%
10%

8%

10%

15%

18%
15%

13%
5%

12%

3%

5%
0%
0

Example system has unusual age distribution, comparatively flat.

Many utilities have disproportionate percentage of older transformers.

0
>6

6
<=
50

5
<=
40

4
<=
30

3
<=
20

0
+1

2
<=
10

0<

Age

X system operator
Industry Average

Transformer Fleet Assessment

Distribution of Failure Forecasts for Fleet
14
12

# Transformers

10
8
6
4
2
0
10%

9-10%

8-9%

7-8%

6-7%

5-6%

4-5%

3-4%

2-3%

Average Annual Failure Forecast for Next 15 Years

Failure Rate Distribution over

Forecasted 20 Yrs
Scenario 1: No CBM

Scenario 2: With CBM

Percentage of Portfolio with P(Failure)

between X% & Y% for 5 Yr Periods

Percentage of Portfolio with P(Failure)

between X% & Y% for 5 Yr Periods
100%

100%

80%

80%
> 2%
1.5% <= 2.0%

60%

> 2%
60%

1.5% <= 2.0%

1% <= 1.5%

1% <= 1.5%
40%

0.5% <= 1%
0% <= 0.5%

20%
0%

40%

0.5% <= 1%
0% <= 0.5%

20%
0%

Yr 1 - 5

Yr 6 - 10

Yr 10 - 15 Yr 15 - 20

Ex. Approx 50% of

Units have Greater
than 3% Annual
Probability of Failure in
Years 15 through 20

Yr 1 - 5

Yr 6 - 10

Yr 10 - 15 Yr 15 - 20

Without condition based maintenance, condition values decline, are never

raised, and lead to increased WCF increased Failure Probabilities.
Case w/ condition based maintenance shows benefits of CBM: fewer units
with high failure probabilities.

Transformer Fleet Assessment Output

Risk-Cost Ranking
ID #
49
15
34
29
50
17
3
30
21
24
18
23
35
38
32
13
20
19
39

Location
W abam un
East Calgary
Metiskow
Langdon
W est Brooks
East Edm onton
Am oco Em press
Langdon
Janet
Josephburg
East Edm onton
Josephburg
North Calder
Peigan
Medicine Hat
Dow Chem ical
Gaetz
East Edm onton
Red Deer

P(Fail)
9.2%
7.1%
10.0%
4.8%
8.6%
5.8%
3.4%
3.4%
4.4%
6.5%
5.2%
6.1%
4.0%
4.2%
7.2%
6.1%
4.6%
4.4%
4.8%

Repl.
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$1,250
$1,250
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000

Failure Costs ($000)

Conseq. Collateral
$333
$3,450
$644
$3,850
$75
$225
$8
$325
$8
$1,225
$75
$3,675
$75
$700
$8
$325
$644
$3,850
$8
$225
$75
$3,675
$8
$225
$644
$3,850
$508
$3,500
$8
$2,850
$52
$4,225
$8
$2,675
$8
$3,725
$33
$700

Total
Risk-Cost
$5,783
$247
$6,494
$215
$2,300
$210
$4,333
$196
$3,233
$184
$5,750
$142
$4,775
$141
$4,333
$138
$6,494
$133
$2,233
$132
$5,750
$126
$2,233
$123
$6,494
$120
$6,008
$120
$4,108
$112
$5,527
$105
$4,683
$105
$5,733
$104
$2,733
$100

Risk Ranking Outputs

Example: Ranking Total Risk

Failure probability does not necessarily follow age.
Risk does not necessarily follow failure probability.
Replacement and collateral costs are not always in the same proportion

Transformer Fleet Assessment

Cost-Ratio Ranking
Provides unique financial perspective of Replacement versus
Consequential Costs while also considering Failure Probability
ID #
45
13
49
32
15
14
17
21
18
35
38
19
20
44
47
7
37

Location
Sheritt
Dow Chemical
Wabamun
Medicine Hat
East Calgary
Dow Chemical
East Edmonton
Janet
East Edmonton
North Calder
Peigan
East Edmonton
Gaetz
Shell Waterton
Sundance
Bickerdike
North Lethbridge

P(Fail)
5.08%
6.08%
9.24%
7.23%
7.09%
3.89%
5.83%
4.38%
5.18%
3.98%
4.20%
4.37%
4.60%
2.42%
4.13%
4.22%
3.61%

Failure Costs ($000)

Repl.
Conseq.
Collateral
$500
$8
$3,450
$1,250
$52
$4,225
$2,000
$333
$3,450
$1,250
$8
$2,850
$2,000
$644
$3,850
$1,250
$52
$4,225
$2,000
$75
$3,675
$2,000
$644
$3,850
$2,000
$75
$3,675
$2,000
$644
$3,850
$2,000
$508
$3,500
$2,000
$8
$3,725
$2,000
$8
$2,675
$1,250
$8
$3,075
$1,250
$75
$1,725
$1,250
$8
$1,725
$2,000
$8
$3,225

CostRatio
6.92
3.42
1.89
2.29
2.25
3.42
1.88
2.25
1.88
2.25
2.00
1.87
1.34
2.47
1.44
1.39
1.62

P(Fail) *
Cost Ratio
0.35
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06

Financial Output Replacement Candidates

Ratio of Unplanned Failure to

Replacement Cost & Failure Probability

Upper Right Quadrant =

Hi P(Failure) &
Hi Collateral Cost Ratio.

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

P(Failure)

This report was created for a customer to prioritize

transformers for possible early retirement or preemptive replacement. Top candidates, in red, have
a high ratio of consequential to replacement costs.
In this analysis, a 20 to 30 unit sub-set of 260
transformers was analyzed.

Transformer Fleet Assessment

Utilization of Monte Carlo Program
Failure Probability over time

Monte Carlo Simulation:

Probable Accumulated Replacement Cost
Scenario 1 without CBM
20 Yr NPV Costs

Example shows: A mean NPV of $37.4 MM is forecasted for replacement

spending over a 20 year period

Simulation: Scenario 2 with CBM Reflects lower forecast

spending over time due to overall improvement on failure rate
20 Yr NPV Costs

Example
$37,411K Scenario 1
$23,806K Scenario 2
$13,605K NPV
Savings

Transformer Health and Risk

Learning Outcomes

The application of rigorous methods that assess

equipment condition and risk of failure overtime can provide insight resulting in:

Overall Improved Substation Reliability

Quantified technical Risk and Vulnerability Ranking of
units in the transformer fleet
Forecast Failure Probability up to a fifteen year period
Quantified Impact on Customer Serving Substations
SAIDI and CAIFI loss-of-use for example
Forecast replacement, consequential and collateral
risk/cost over time

Power Transformer
Analytical
Assessment The
Micro Approach

ABB TRES
Transformer
Remanufacturing &
Engineering Services

ABB Inc. 2007 - 1 -

IEEE/PES Transformers Committee Tutorial

Transformer Life Extension for Better Asset Management
March 13, 2007
Craig L Stiegemeier

Transformer Assessment Program

Program Processes
Probability of failure / Risk

Phase 1: Fleet Screening

High

Before assessment

Medium
Low

After program implementation

Transformers

Phase 2: Detailed
Assessment
Condition
Assessment
Design
Assessment

Phase 3: Life
Profiling
Life
Assessment
(Profiling)

Phase 4:
Implementation

Engineering
Solutions:
Solutions
-Retrofit/Upgrade
- Remanufacturing
- Maintenance
- Adv. Diagnostics
- Monitoring
- Spares/New units

Transformer Assessment Program

T ra n s fo rm e r
F le e t

Fleet Screening
Design/ ConditionAssessment

Advanced
Diagnostics

Engineered
Solutions
Replacement

Refurbishment

Cooling
U d

Risk of Failure

AdvancedLife
Assessment

Relative Importance

Corrective Maintenance Actions

Asset Management: Maintenance Optimization

RISK OF FAILURE PER TRANSFORMER
MAINTENANCE $$$ PER TRANSFORMER

UNDERSPENDING

US

30-50% OF MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITY IS UNNECESSARY
(CIGRE-2000)

$$
$
$

24 %

OVERSPENDING

OS
OS=US - balanced budget
OS>US - lower maintenance $$$
TRANSFORMERS

Probability of Failure Assessment

Risk of short-circuit failure

based on assessment of the short-circuit strength of the windings and
clamping structure and the incidence and magnitude of short-circuit
through fault events.

Winding thermal condition

based on the condition of the paper insulation since aged, brittle insulation
is more likely to fail under the mechanical and electrical stress conditions

Risk of dielectric failure

based on the assessment of the dielectric withstand capability of the
transformer insulation system (oil, paper, etc.) and the electrical stress
imposed by the power system and naturally occurring events

Accessory failures
failure of a transformer accessory such as a bushing, pump, or tap
changer, may cause a failure, or loss of service of the transformer.

Miscellaneous or Random Failure risk

due to other causes of Failure or Loss of service

Risk Of Failure Determination

Input Data

Risk Categories

ROF

Nameplate Information
Application Information

Short-Circuit Risk

Loading History
Service Record
Mechanical Design Information
Electrical Design Information

Thermal Risk

Thermal Design Information

Through-Fault History
Site Inspection Information
Bushing type and Diagnostic Data

Dielectric Risk

Conservator type and Condition

Load Tap Changer Type and Diagnostics
Cooling Equipment Type and Condition
DGA and Oil Quality Data
Electrical Test Data (PF, Resistance, PD.)

Accessory Risk

Maintenance History
Failure History of Similar Units
Leaks and Environmental Concerns
Relative Importance to System

Miscellaneous Risk

ROF

Benefits of a Transformer Asset Program

A properly designed program
addresses the aging transformer
assets and produces tangible
benefits for the asset owner
through.

Prioritization of critical assets

Improved capital forecasting
Reduced O&M spending
Improved availability and reliability
Improved operational efficiencies
Improved environmental, public safety
profile

Core Form Transformer

Stresses Acting on Power Transformers

Mechanical

Between conductors, leads and windings due to overcurrents or

fault currents caused by short circuits and inrush currents

Thermal

Stresses

Due to local overheating, overload currents and leakage fluxes

when loading above nameplate ratings; malfunction of cooling
equipment

Dielectric

Stresses

Stresses

Due to system overvoltages, transient impulse conditions or internal

resonance of windings

Typical Design Issues for Simulation

Avoid electrical

breakdown

Dielectric
Problems
Thermal El-Mech.
Problems Problems

Avoid material

Avoid mechanical

degradation

deformations

caused by thermal
overheating

caused by shortcircuit faults

Mechanical Stresses in Power Transformers

A

short circuit gives rise to:

Mechanical forces
Temperature rise
The

transformer is designed so that

permanent damage does not take
place
Electromagnetic forces tend to
increase the volume of high flux

Inner winding to reduced radius

Outer winding towards increased
radius
Winding height reduction

Mechanical Stresses in Power Transformers

Electromagnetic

field analysis
permits accurate mapping of forces
Forces can be split into:

Radial components
Axial components

Mechanical Stresses in Power Transformers

Radial

forces result in:

Buckling for inner windings

Increased radius for outer windings

Inner
winding

Outer
winding

Mechanical Stresses in Power Transformers

Axial

forces cause:

Mechanical withstand of insulation material

Risk for tilting

Mechanical Risk: Short Circuit Forces & Stresses

Through

faults often cause

transformer failures

Many older designs have

insufficient margin for todays fault
currents
Loose coils due to aging can
cause failures
Normal aging can cause brittle
insulation and increased failures
Even brief overloading may cause
significant aging
Oxygen in the oil can double the
aging rate
Moisture in the insulation
increases aging rate 2-5 times
depending on the amount of
moisture

Thermal Stresses in Power Transformers

Loading

is primarily limited by highest permissible

temperatures in the transformer, especially within the
windings
Temperature limits are based on:

Expected lifetime
The risk for oil vaporization
Permissible

temperatures are generally expressed as

temperature rises above ambient
Ambient temperature is defined by standards, but varies
widely in practice

Winding Temperature Rise and HS Calculation

Hot spot calculation
Winding hot spot

pp
er
co

hot spot factor

Wi
nd
ing

Wi
nd
ing

Tan
k oil

oil

Top oil rise

Winding average rise

Copper over tank oil gradient

Copper over winding oil gradient

Winding

Ambient

Bottom oil

Temperature

Risk: Intensive aging

Risk: Intensive aging

Transformer Assessment: Thermal Aging

Number of Transformers

Based on assessment
process experience, it is
Below ANSI Standard
Above ANSI Standard
estimated that up to 70% of all
transformers have a hot-spot
above ANSI standards when
carrying full nameplate load.
Fact:
Without a design analysis it
would be impossible to
62.5 67.5 72.5 77.5 82.5 87.5 92.5 97.5 103
173
accurately evaluate loss of
Hot Spot Rise Degrees C.
insulation life of individual
Transformer Hot Spot Rise for 80 Different Large
transformers or
Network and Generator Transformers
transformers operating
capability.
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Winding Temperature Rise and HS Calculation

Loss distribution in
the tank wall
caused by LV
current

Dielectric Stresses in Power Transformers

Overvoltage integrity
Overvoltages can be divided into two classes:

Continuous
Transitory
Continuous

overvoltage is related to the core and its

magnetization (normal 50Hz or 60 Hz stresses)
Transitory overvoltage refers to intermittent stresses
placed on the insulation system, usually at much higher
levels than the power frequency stresses

Dielectric Stresses in Power Transformers

Overvoltage integrity
Transitory overvoltages are normally divided into three
classes depending on the duration of the overvoltage:

Temporary ~ 1s
Switching ~ 1/1000 s
Lightning ~ 1/1 000 000 s

Main Insulation Design

2 D Field Plot

2 D field plots
can be used to
check the
design of the
main insulation

Insulation Design Outside the Windings

3 D Field Plots

3 D field plots
can be used to
check the
design of
winding exits
and
connections

In real life, the transformer . . .

must

withstand severe mechanical strain

is subjected to extended high temperatures or load
conditions
experiences unusually high or frequent overvoltages

periodic maintenance plan and diagnostic tools can be

used to identify when the transformer is at an unusually
high failure risk if operation is continued

Why Simulation is Important

Industry

Situation

Aging fleet of power transformers is approaching 40 years with

unknown life expectancy
Size of installed base in US (130,000 + power transformer)
GSU has 1.3 units/design - Fleet of prototypes
Vast

majority of the installed transformers were not

designed with finite element method (FEM) tools

Experience has shown that key technical issues can be analyzed

and solved only by 3D FEM modeling

3D

Simulation Based Transformer Services (SBTS) is the

tool for analysis of:

Field failures, problems or upgrades

New designs for replacement transformers
Life and condition assessment for units in operation
Condition

observations are used to verify the simulation

CAD-Based Simulations

Geometry
Design

Mesh
Generation

Analysis

Industry Standard
Programs
Pro/E
Pro/E
Ideas
Ideas
Catia
Catia
SolidWork
SolidWork
SolidEdge
SolidEdge
......

ProE
ProE
CADfix
CADfix
Patran
Patran
Ideas
Ideas
......

Criteria
Evaluation

OEM
FEM
FEM
Ansys
Ansys
Maxwell
Maxwell
Vector
VectorFields
Fields
...
...
BEM
BEM
Polopt
Polopt

Optimal
solution

Mechanical Risk: Short Circuit Forces & Stresses

Design Margin

Little Risk of Failure

Slight Risk of Failure

Design #1
Design #2
Design #3

High Risk of Failure

HV Radial HV Axial LV Radial LV Axial

(Hoop)
(tipping or (Buckling) (tipping or
crushing)
crushing)

Design #4

LTC
Winding
Radial
(Buckling)

LTC
Winding
Axial
(tipping)

Diagnostic Techniques for Power Transformers

PROBLEMS

SERVICE CONDITIONS

PROVEN

OF THE EQUIPMENT[1]

EFFECTIVENESS[2]

OFF-S
OFF-S
OFF-S
OFF-S
OFF-S

M
L
H
M/H
H

GAS-IN-OIL ANALYSIS
6. Gas chromatography
7. Equivalent Hydrogen method

ON
ON

H
M

OIL-PAPER DETERIORATION
8. Liquid chromatography-DP method
9. Furan Analysis

ON
ON

M/H
M/H

HOTSPOT DETECTION
10. Invasive sensors
11. Infrared thermography

ON
ON

L
H

OIL ANALYSIS
12. Moisture, electric strength, resistivity, etc.

ON

OFF-S

ON
ON

M/H
M/H

OFF-S
OFF-S

H
H

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES

1. Excitation Current
2. Low-voltage impulse
3. Frequency response analysis
4. Leakage inductance measurement
5. Capacitance

MECHANICAL

THERMAL

13. Turns ratio

DIELECTRIC

PD MEASUREMENT
14. Ultrasonic method
15. Electrical method
16. Power Factor and Capacitance
17. Dielectric Frequency Response

[1]
[2]

OFF-S = equipment out of service at site, OFF-L = equipment out of service in laboratory, ON = equipment in service
H=High, M=Medium, L=Low

Diagnostic Testing
For critical transformers, state-of-theart testing methods are used to
detect operating difficulties and
pinpoint repair activities to speed
restoration of service

Materials and Oil Testing

Metal in Oil Testing

CCD Testing for Sulfur contamination
Particle count
Oxidation Inhibitor Testing
Furanic Analysis
Degree of Polymerization Testing

Advanced Diagnostics

SFRA Measurements
Dielectric Spectroscopy (DFR)
Field Induced Testing
Recurrent Surge Testing
Advanced DGA
Acoustics

Life Profiling - Loss of Life

Reasons For Higher Risk

Possible Risk Mitigation for Urgent Ranked Transformers

ID
#

Location

Serial
Number

Manufacturer

Possible Risk Mitigation Actions

[L1] = ASAP, [L2] = 1 Yr.
[L3] = 2 - 3 Yrs., [L4] = 3 5 Yrs

Reasons for
Higher Risk

AR 2

702282

Federal Pacific

Through-Fault failure,
dielectric failure

BA 5

MLL939216

ABB

Possible Arcing in the tap

changer compartment

Investigate for possible PD including installing Hydran

[L1]
Perform Acoustic PD measurements [L1]
Increase DGA sampling to trend H2 production [L1]
Perform complete oil screening test from samples taken
when transformer is hot [L1]
Condition Assessment [L2]
SFRA test [L2]
Review PF and capacitance history [L2]
Implement measures to reduce number of through faults
such as tree trimming [L2]
Limit auto-reclosing to 1 reclose [L3]

Resample oil in tap changer for DGA. If Acetylene is

confirmed, then remove from service and perform internal
inspection on LTC compartment [L1].

Industrial Transformer Supply

Furnace transformer power supply desire to increase
production capacity of facility
Four single phase transformers
HV: 230 kV w/ +/- 5% De-energized taps
LV: 19.92 kV
OA/FA/FA cooled (natural oil circulation with fans)
Max. Power: 18.67/24.89/31.11 MVA
(56.01/74.67/93.33 MVA, 3 phase)
Thermally

upgraded insulation

65oC winding rise

80oC hot spot rise

Industrial Transformer Supply

Allowable loading with original cooling equipment
218.5 to 19.92 kV
kVA
Loading type
HV winding rise C
LV winding rise C
Top oil rise C
Effective oil rise C
Bottom oil rise C
Winding hot spot rise C
Cable hot spot rise C
Taped lead hot spot rise C
Ambient C
Winding hot spot temperature C

31110
Continuous
60.9
56.0
43.2
30.9
21.0
75.1
78.2
78.2
30.0
105.1

31110
With harmonics
*
61.4
56.5
43.7
31.4
21.5
78.2
78.2
78.2
30.0
108.2

* Worst case harmonics calculated during bore-in without SVC

Limits

65
65
65

80
80
80
110

Industrial Transformer Supply

Allowable cyclical loading with harmonics
MVA (3 phase)- peak
Loading type
HV winding rise C
LV winding rise C
Top oil rise C
Effective oil rise C
Bottom oil rise C
Winding hot spot rise C
Ambient C
Winding hot spot temperature C
Loss of life per cycle - %
Life of transformer in years

78
Cyclical
40.3
36.7
25.8
18.5
12.5
51.1
30.0
81.1
.0000158
493

106
Cyclical
70.0
63.6
43.0
30.7
20.8
88.7
30.0
118.7
.0010054
7.75

Limits
Cyclical

.00105 *
7.5

* Limit based on normal 0.037 % loss of life for 24 hours

Peak loads above 106 MVA are possible only by adding more cooling fans to the radiator banks

Industrial Transformer Supply

Load calculation for 30 year life
MVA (3 phase)- peak
Loading type
HV winding rise C
LV winding rise C
Top oil rise C
Effective oil rise C
Bottom oil rise C
Winding hot spot rise C
Ambient C
Winding hot spot temperature C
Loss of life per cycle - %
Life of transformer in years

97.5
Cyclical
59.6
54.2
37.0
26.4
17.9
75.7
30.0

Limits
Cyclical

.0002590
30.11

.00026
30

Hydro Electric Station Assessment

Risk

of failure assessment of 32 selected transformers

Analysis indicated significant thermal issues on three
transformers
Several units have potential issues with short circuit
mechanical withstand
Design analysis aimed to avoid unforeseen failures

Hydro Electric Station Assessment

Design Study, Conclusions: Design #1
Table 1 HV winding short circuit forces and stresses
Winding

HV axial
force lbs

HV axial
stress psi
Limit= 3515

HV disk

793276

3468

HV radial
outward
stress psi
Limit= 21939
24457

Table 2 XV winding short circuit forces and stresses

Winding

XV axial
force lbs

XV axial
stress psi
Limit= 2108

XV radial inward
stress psi
Limit= 4075

XV helical

1158203

3284

12464

Table 3 YV winding short circuit forces and stresses

Winding

XV axial
force lbs

XV axial
stress psi
Limit= 8570

XV radial inward
stress psi
Limit= 11094

YV layer

35293

265

939

Hydro Electric Station Assessment

Table 2 Customers Transformers Color Coded by Risk in 2005
ID
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Total Risk
of Failure

Relative
Importance

2.6680
0.8477
0.2727
1.3195
5.3479
2.9976
5.8554
4.1667
2.8410
4.3087
1.4018
0.0578
0.2919
1.2888
2.1831
0.9303
0.8696
0.8006
1.8124
1.6514
1.6990
1.7728
2.0952
3.9537
0.7852
1.9287
2.9722
2.9970
1.1556
0.8310
1.2466
1.6766

90.000
92.500
95.500
83.000
83.500
83.500
83.500
84.000
84.000
84.000
84.500
49.500
49.500
34.500
32.500
41.000
43.500
43.000
41.500
33.000
33.000
33.000
33.000
33.000
43.000
33.500
32.500
33.500
33.500
40.000
33.500
45.000

Location

Position

Serial
Number

Manufacturer

Year
Manufactured

Transformer Vault

T1

A3s5318

Westinghouse

1985

Transformer Vault

T2

287403

CGE

1990

Transformer Vault

T3

289924

ABB

1996

Transformer Vault

T4

A3s7771

Westinghouse

1971

Transformer Vault

T5

A3s7773

Westinghouse

1972

Transformer Vault

T6

A3s7772

Westinghouse

1972

Transformer Vault

T7

287405

CGE

1972

Transformer Vault

T8

A3s7774

Westinghouse

1973

Transformer Vault

T9

287406

CGE

1973

Transformer Vault

T10

287407

CGE

1973

Transformer Vault

T11

A3s7812

Westinghouse

1974

Switch Yard

TS2

287404

CGE

1971

Switch Yard

TS1

A3s7770

Westinghouse

1971

Switch Yard

T71A

6513535

ASEA

1974

Switch Yard

T71B

6199661

ASEA

1970

Switch Yard

T71C

287394

CGE

1987

Switch Yard

T72A

289923

ABB

1992

Switch Yard

T72B

289371

ABB

1991

Switch Yard

T72C

6199668

ABB

1988

Switch Yard

T73A

6199664

ASEA

1971

Switch Yard

T73B

6199665

ASEA

1971

Switch Yard

T73C

6199666

ASEA

1971

Switch Yard

T74A

287377

CGE

1971

Switch Yard

T74B

287378

CGE

1971

Switch Yard

T74C

287379

CGE

1991

Switch Yard

T75A

6199667

ASEA

1972

Switch Yard

T75B

6199662

ASEA

1970

Switch Yard

T75C

6199669

ASEA

1972

Switch Yard

T76A

287380

CGE

1972

Switch Yard

T76B

287375

CGE

1985

Switch Yard

T76C

287382

CGE

1972

Switch Yard

T7S1

287376

CGE

1995

Industrial Application Design Review & Fleet Assessment

Regulating Transformer

Industrial Application Design Review & Fleet Assessment

Main Unit
Designation

Regulating
Transformer No. 1

Regulating
Transformer No. 2

Regulating
Transformer - Spare

Original
Manufacturer

Type

Transformer
Serial Number

HV
kV
L-L

XV
kV
L-L

Westinghouse
Electric

Core

ZDS7972-1

34.5

Westinghouse
Electric

Core

ZDS7974-1

Westinghouse
Electric

Core

ZDS7973-1

MVA (top
rating)
65C

Cooling Class

34.5

236.0

OA/FA

34.5

34.5

190.4

OA/FA/FA

34.5

34.5

190.4

OA/FA/FA

Industrial Application Design Review & Fleet Assessment

192

188
186
184
182
POTLINE 2
POTLINE 1

180
178

8/
1/
05

6/
1/
05
7/
1/
05

4/
1/
05
5/
1/
05

2/
1/
05
3/
1/
05

1/
1/
05

11
/1
/0
4
12
/1
/0
4

176
9/
1/
04
10
/1
/0
4

Transformer Loading (MVA)

190

Average Monthly Loading for Regulating Transformers

Industrial Application Design Review & Fleet Assessment

0.6

Cumul. Loss of Life (%)

Age accel. factor

0.5
0.4

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.1

Profile of Aging Acceleration Factor and

Cumulative Loss of Life for Regulating
Transformer (9/2004 8/2005)

08/01/05

07/01/05

06/01/05

05/01/05

04/01/05

03/01/05

02/01/05

01/01/05

12/01/04

11/01/04

0
10/01/04

Aging Accel. Factor

0.4

09/01/04

Cumulative Loss of Life (%)

0.5

Industrial Application Design Review & Fleet Assessment

Cumulative % Thermal Loss of Insulation Life

100
90

%LOL (PL1 - 2005 Load Levels)

80

%LOL (PL2 - 2005 Load Levels)

70

%LOL (10% Increase in PL1 Loading Beginning in 2006)

%LOL (10% Increase in PL2 Loading Beginning in 2006)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year of Service

Cumulative Percent Loss of Insulation Life of

Regulating Transformers

2030

Utility Power Overload Study

Utility

has peak generation in winter

Question How much the units can be overloaded at low
ambient temperatures (0C to -25C)?
(ANSI overload guidelines only go to 0C)
A

design study generates a table of overload vs low

ambient temperatures
Design considerations

Thermal
Short circuit
Current carrying capacity of leads, bushings, tapchanger etc

Utility Power Overload Study

Very

different loading capacity between the units could

only know this by doing a design study
Overload Rating
70%
GE 66MVA Unit
ASEA 50 MVA Unit - Present LV Bushings

60%

ASEA 50 MVA Unit - Higher rated LV Bushings

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-30

-25

-20

-15
Temperature

-10

-5

Bus Duct Overheating Problem

Transformer Data:

Task

840 MVA GSU transformer,

manufactured in 1974, core form,
three phase, 348/18 kV
Using 3D simulation explain the
thermal hot-spots in bus-duct
interface

Calculation cycle

Current distribution in the bus duct

Magnetic field distribution
Eddy currents & losses distribution
Temperature calculation

Bus Duct Overheating Problem

SIMULATION

~140

~125

vs.

MEASUREMENT

~80

~74

~195

~220

Advanced DGA Analysis

GSU

was gassing

Year of Manufacture 1981

Rating 575 MVA, 234/22.8kV, 3ph, 65C rise
Cooling Mode Forced Oil/Forced Water
Oil Preservation Free breathing conservator
Analyzed

the gassing data

Increase of combustible and high temperature gases

Recommended that unit could be kept on line and gave shut down
criteria

12/30/05

12/16/05

12/2/05

11/18/05

11/4/05

10/21/05

10/7/05

9/23/05

150

9/9/05

200

8/26/05

250

8/12/05

7/29/05

7/15/05

7/1/05

Conc. (PPM)

Gassing Analysis
Hydrocarbon Gases

300

H2

CH4

C2H6

C2H4

C2H2

100

50

Internal Inspection 10 months later

HV

lead had nearly burned itself right through

Leaking Transformer

Mechanical Stress Analysis Study

Modeled

transformer tank on ProEngineer (3D CAD)

Calculated 3D FEM Mechanical Stress

ProMechanica (polynomial element analysis)

COSMOS (classical finite element analysis)
Examined

each leak for different loading cases (vacuum,

oil pressure)

Stress on Vertical Stiffener

HV Side Repair Near Completion

Engineering Simulation Reliability Increase