21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris

http://www.cigre.org 12-112 Session 2002

© CIGRÉ

A Probabilistic Approach to Transformer Overloading

AFZAL MAJID* MUBARAK A. AL-MULHIM

Systems Planning Department

Saudi Electricity Company, Eastern Region Branch

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

SUMMARY to stress the system to undesirable levels with the aim of

economic gain. Therefore, it should essentially be based
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive
on system historical data and characteristics. Also, it
value based reliability planning analysis of substation
should be well defined and understood.
capacity addition with the long-range perspective for
different types of applications in the Saudi Electricity
2. PLANNING CRITERIA
Company in the Eastern Province (SEC/ER) system. The
analysis involves quantification and comparison of
The Old Paradigm:
major costs associated with the installation and
operation of power system components to determine the
SEC/ER has adopted single contingency (N-1) criteria
most attractive transformer overloading criteria. The
for bulk as well as residential/commercial substations.
main emphasis is on the explicit recognition of inherent
Accordingly, substations are planned with at least two
overloading capability of transformer and its
power transformers but keeping the load up to the
acceptance under critical system conditions may be
capacity of (N-1) transformers, only, so that in the event
preferable over other alternatives.
of a transformer failure, service continuity to the
customers is maintained.
KEYWORDS: Power, System Planning, Transformer
Overloading
Firm capacity (in MVA) of a substation with N identical
transformers is defined as:
1. INTRODUCTION
Firm Capacity = Transformer Rating x (N-1)
Deregulation is fostering a new competitive
environment where strong market forces will exist,
The New Paradigm:
depressing the price of wholesale energy. Therefore,
instead of relying on ‘built-in’ and ‘undefined’ margins,
The main emphasis is on the explicit recognition of
a probabilistic approach should be adopted to optimize
inherent transformer overloading capability and
capital investment on installation and operation of
acceptance of limited customer outages under single
power infrastructure so as to sustain the strong market
contingency conditions, in an effort to optimize capital
forces and maintain the market share.
investment on system expansion.
Transformer overloading above nameplate rating offers
Therefore, reinforcement projects are initiated to
flexibility in operation as well as economic benefits. The
increase the capacity of a substation or installation of a
intent of transformer overloading is to adopt a trade-off
new substation only after the load at an existing
between increased loss of life and the costs associated
substation exceeds the capacity of (N-1) transformers,
with the loss of service. However, transformer
by a certain factor. Alternatively, the substation firm
overloading criteria, if not carefully selected, would tend
capacity (in MVA) may be redefined as:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
SPD, SEC-ER, Rm. 1-200E, P.O. Box 5190, Dammam 31422, Saudi Arabia
Firm Capacity = Transformer Rating x (N-1) x F
Where, F = Overload Factor (>1)
3. THE EXISTING SYSTEM
Approximately, 25% of the SEC/ER load is contributed
by residential/commercial and light industrial customers.
These customers are supplied power mostly at 13.8 kV
distribution voltage through 115/13.8 kV or 69/13.8 kV
area substations. These area substations are supplied
power at 115 kV or 69 kV from 230/115 kV or 230/69
kV bulk supply stations.
Standard transformer ratings for different types of
substations that are generally used in the SEC/ER
system, are given in Table-I.
Transformers are connected in parallel to ensure system
reliability and security during contingency conditions. In
this mode, their aging rate is consistent with units
operating at 50~67% of their nameplate rating.
Therefore, there is a potential to operate these
transformers, during contingency conditions, at loads
greater than their nameplate ratings and above normal
temperatures without adverse results provided this is
done knowledgably.
SEC/ER transformers are generally designed to keep hot
spot temperature at 98oC or below when operated at
100% of the nameplate rating at an average ambient
temperature of 30oC. Under these operating conditions,
the transformer loss of life is taken as unity. If the hot
spot temperature is above 98oC, the loss of life is more
than unity. In other words, the rate of aging is high when
the hot spot temperature is higher than 98oC.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The climate in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is
characterized as very harsh with intense heat, humidity
and frequent strong winds. Heavy rains and sand storms
occasionally occur. The atmosphere is highly corrosive
particularly near the coastal area. During summer,
ambient temperature reaches up to 50o C. Whereas, the
monthly average of hottest month is about 400C. The
yearly average ambient temperature is 30oC.
Figure 1 – Annual Temperature Duration Curve
Figure 1 shows the (typical) annual temperature duration
for SEC/ER system. Figure 2 shows the mean of daily
maximum and average temperature for 1999. It is noted
that:
• Temperature above 300C prevails during a period of
more than six months.
• Temperature of 400C and above prevails during a
period of more than three months.
Figure 2 - Mean of Daily Average and Maximum Temperature
The weighted ambient temperature [1] is defined as a
constant temperature which during a specified time,
causes the same aging of the transformer insulation as a
variable ambient temperature acting during that time.
It should be noted that if the aging and hotspot
temperature calculations are limited to a few days of
operation with load beyond nameplate rating, it may be
found more suitable to use actual temperature profile
that is expected for that period.
IEC-354 [1] recommends a method for calculating the
weighted ambient temperature for use in transformer
loss-of-life calculations where the ambient temperature
is variable. The weighted ambient temperature is
calculated using the following equation:
θ E = θ + 0.01(∆θ) 1.85
Where,
θE = Weighted Ambient Temperature
θ = Αverage Temperature
∆θ = Μean Value of Maxima-Mean Value of Minima
For the SEC/ER system, the following weighted ambient
temperatures are calculated:
Summer 38 oC
Winter 19 oC
Fall/Spring 29 oC
5. LOAD CHARACTERISTICS

The load demand undergoes large seasonal variations.

Figure 3 shows the average temperature and load profile
for the year 1999 in SEC/ER system. It is noted from
Figure 3 that the area load is largely dependent on the
ambient temperature. A major component of residential
and commercial load is air-conditioning. Accordingly,
the peak load occurs during summer.

Figure 5 – Daily Load, Temperature Profiles and LDC

Figure 5 also shows typical load duration curve for a

typical summer day. It is noted from this curve that load
above 85% of the peak may last for more than 12 hours.

6. COST DATA

Figure 3 - Daily Maximum Demand and Average Temperature The costs for different types of transformers, are given
in Table-1. These material costs are of study quality and
Figure 4 shows the annual load duration curves (LDC) do not include the cost of terminations and the
for the SEC/ER system and the most densely populated associated equipment such as relay panels, surge
area in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. From the arresters and foundations etc. It should be noted that the
load duration curves, the following is noted: cost of associated equipment and installation may vary
from 30% to more than 100% of the transformer cost.
• Peak load of 80% or more occurs for a period of 4
months. Table-I Standard Transformers and Material Costs.
• During the low load period, the load ranges
between 20~50% of the annual peak. Voltage Ratio Transformer Sizes (*) Cost ($)
100/133/167 MVA 1,965,000
150/200/250 MVA 2,288,000
230/115 kV
200/250/300 MVA 2,611,000
300/400 MVA 3,256,000
100/133/167 MVA 1,907,000
230/69 kV 135/180 MVA 2,053,000
150/200/250 MVA 2,200,000
30/40 MVA 667,000
115/13.8 kV
50/67 MVA 763,000
30/40 MVA 533,000
69/13.8 kV
50/67 MVA 733,000
* ONAN/ONAF/ONAF2
Figure 4 – Annual Load Duration Curves
Figure 6 shows the different cost components of a
The actual daily load profile is very unique. On an typical 69/13.8 kV substation. It is noted that, regardless
hourly basis, the large dependence of the demand on of the substation design optimization, transformer rating
temperature is quite apparent. plays a vital role in deciding the substation firm capacity
and contributes to 24% of the overall substation cost.
Figure 5 shows the typical summer daily load and Keeping in view that almost 76% of the capital cost
temperature profiles for a 69/13.8 kV substation. It is accounts for the substation facilities other than the
noted that hourly load profile shows a time lag of 2 to transformers, it becomes quite important to increase the
3-hour between the maximum temperature and the transformer utilization factor in order to effectively
maximum demand. This is because of the dominantly air increase the substation capacity before substation
conditioning load. The figure also reveals the high daily reinforcement or installation of a new substation.
load factor of about 89%, during summer, in the
SEC/ER system.

Figure 6 –Cost Components of a Typical 69/13.8 kV Substation
The average cost of a typical conventional 69/13.8 kV
indoor type substation with two 30/40 MVA
transformers, is $10.7 million, including the cost of
underground cables. The cost of an outdoor type
115/13.8 kV substation is slightly higher than that of an
indoor type 69/13.8 kV substation because of various
factors involved.
Further, a factor called the Capital Recovery Factor
(CRF) is used in the study. It is the cost of a transformer
spread over its useful life, and is given by:
Where,
P = Capital Cost of Transformer
i = Interest Rate (p.u.)
n = Transformer Life (years)
This factor is used to estimate the cost of loss-of-life of
a transformer.
7. TRANSFORMER OVERLOADING
The transformer overloading concept is based on the
following:
1) Transformers have the ability to withstand overloads
for short periods with additional loss of life.
2) Typical peak load condition lasts only for a limited
period of time.
3) Transformer failures are generally remedied by load
transfer and then replacement with a spare which is
assumed to be always available.
4) Transformer failures are rare and random.
5) Appropriate protection schemes are employed to
limit the overload in order to prevent sudden and
catastrophic failure.
Transformers can be operated at hot spot temperature
above 98oC, but below 140oC (with top oil temperature
not exceeding 115oC), during an annual load cycle
provided at other times during the same year the hot
spot temperature is kept below 98oC to compensate for
additional loss of life which takes place during operation
above 98oC.
An example of transformer overload and rise in hot spot
temperature during contingency condition, is shown in
Figure 7.
Figure 7 – Transformer Overload Event
The major consequences of operating transformers
above their nameplate ratings are:

Higher operating temperature reduces the life of
insulation at increasingly higher rates. Therefore,
long term overloading policies do not permit
winding hotspot temperature which substantially
reduces the life a transformer.

Bubble formation which is believed to occur when
hot spot temperature adjacent to oil exceeds 140 0C
approximately. Therefore, overloads have to be
restricted to avoid this hazard.

Usually heavy loading can cause high temperatures
within the winding with a high aging rate of the
insulating paper.
It may be necessary to accept overloading the
transformer or even customer outages to some extent,
in case of emergency conditions, because it may be
preferable to other alternatives such as huge capital
investment on new facilities or load shedding to a large
extent.
The following points should be kept in focus while
establishing the Transformer Overloading Criteria:
* The overloading criteria should not be too optimistic
and it should be applicable to all the transformers at
different locations and regardless the age of the
transformer.
* It should be chosen such that the other accessories
and substation components are not exposed to
undesirable operating conditions which they are not
designed for.

* It should also encompass the possibility of more
severe contingency conditions.
* The economic gain should be carefully calculated
before any criteria is adopted.
* The transformer parameters such as top oil
temperature rise, average oil temperature rise should
be chosen such that they cover the whole spectrum
of transformers.
* Adequacy of transmission circuits and other allied
facilities should be taken into account.
8. TRANSFORMER LOADING GUIDES
Transformers can supply loads beyond their nameplate
ratings as per IEC354 [1] and ANSI C57.91 [2], for
various periods of time with normal or accelerated aging
of their insulation life depending upon several factors.
The loading guides provide recommendations on both
short term and long term overloading .
As a result of operation at increased temperatures, the
transformer insulation ages at an increased rate.
Consequently, the expected life of the transformer is
shortened. In fact, the normal insulation life is not an
absolute indicator of the life of a transformer. Rather, it
is a value that is based on the past experience and
laboratory testing and represents average time of the
degradation of the insulation to a point where it is no
longer safe for continued operation without a high risk
of failure. An average life of 180,000 hours has been
used in the study [2].
IEC loading guide [1] does not define the life time of
the insulation. Instead it relies solely on ‘the relative
loss of life’ and a reference temperature of 98 oC at
which the transformer will have ‘normal life’ The
temperature gradient causing the degradation rate to
double is assumed to be 6 K. The relative aging rate (V)
is defined as:
Where,
θh = Hot Spot Temperature
With varying operating conditions and temperature, the
relative aging rate (relative loss-of-life) over a certain
period of time is then equal to:
Where,
n = number of each time interval
N = Total number of equal time intervals
IEC Loading Guide [1] describes three general types of
transformer overloading which are defined primarily by
the overload duration and reflect the generally accepted
concept that risk of accelerated aging or loss-of-life can
be tolerated for short periods of time.
‘Normal Cyclic Loading’ – for overloading conditions
that may occur continually over an extended period of
time or may be throughout the life time of the
transformer. It is the most conservative rating in terms
of allowable equipment temperature.
‘Long-time Emergency Cyclic Loading’- for
overloading conditions that are quite rare and generally
result from the prolonged outage (of undefined duration)
of some system components that will not be reconnected
before a steady state temperature rise is reached in the
transformer. This is not a normal operating condition
and its occurrence is expected to be rare, but it may
persist for weeks or months and can lead to considerable
aging. However, it should not be the cause of
breakdown due to thermal destruction or reduction in
dielectric strength.
‘Short-time Emergency Loading’- for abnormally
heavy loads due to more unlikely events causing serious
disturbance in the system, resulting in the hot spot
temperature to dangerous levels and a temporary
reduction in the dielectric strength. Acceptance of this
loading condition may be preferred over other
alternatives but the load at the transformer must be
reduced rapidly or it should be disconnected from the
system within a short time in order to avoid its failure.
Typically, it would be less than half an hour (t<30
minutes). The permissible duration of this load is less
than the thermal time constant of the transformer and
depends upon the ambient temperature.
In general, planned overloads are tolerated and winding
hotspot temperatures are allowed to exceed 980C. Under
expedient emergency short-term overload conditions,
the winding hot spot temperature is almost universally
restricted to 140 0C [4].
The aging calculations are based on the determination of
winding hot spot temperature. In the study, IEC method
is used in calculating the winding hot spot temperature
and loss of life. For OF cooling, the steady state winding
hotspot temperature can be calculated as:
For transient temperature, the oil temperature rise (i.e.
for bottom oil) is given by the following equation:

Definitions of different parameters in these equations
are given in [1].
Figure 8 – Permissible Overloads for Standard Transformer
Using the above equations and the tables given in [1], it
can be shown that (Figure 8) if a standard IEC
transformer is operated at 30oC, it can be loaded to
120% of its nameplate rating at an increased aging rate,
if the hot spot temperature is allowed to reach the 140oC
limit and 116% of its nameplate rating if the hotspot
temperature is limited to 130oC maximum. Therefore, it
is concluded that a standard transformer can be safely
operated at 115% of its nameplate rating during
contingency conditions at an increased aging rate. This
conclusion can be easily generalized for transformers in
the SEC/ER system.
9. DETERMINISTIC APPROACH
SEC/ER has adopted an overloading criteria of 15% for
emergency operation. However, this criteria is not used
for planning purposes. In this section, a brief description
of the approach is given to establish the 15%
overloading criteria applicable for 69/13.8 kV
substations with two 30/40 MVA transformers. The
approach and the conclusions are similar for the other
types of transformers. A flat load profile and an
overload duration of 12 hours has been assumed.
A transformer would be loaded to a maximum of 57.5%
of its nameplate rating throughout its lifetime except
during the period when it experiences overloading under
contingency conditions. Assuming that it takes 12 days
to replace the failed transformer and there is no load
transfer, calculations show that the transformer hotspot
could rise to 133oC (θα=35 oC) and the aging rate will
be accelerated to 23 ‘normal days’ per day resulting in
the transformer loss of life equivalent to 276 ‘normal
days’ per incident, during the assumed overload
duration. Whereas, the loss of life would be not more
than 11 ‘normal days’ for the rest of the year. So, the
transformer loss of life under contingency is well
compensated and there is essentially no additional loss
of life.
The capital cost (material only) of a 69/13.8 kV 40
MVA transformer is assumed to be $0.53 million. For a
useful transformer life of 21 years, the cost of each
overloading incident because of transformer loss of life,
would be approximately $19,200 per incident.
On the other hand, the saving in capital investment using
the 15% overloading criteria would be $76,267 per year
per substation, assuming $0.27 million per MVA capital
cost. This indicates that there is a net economic gain
of approximately $57,067 per substation per year, if
the transformer fails during that year and
approximately $76,267 if the transformer does not
fail.
However, if an attempt is made to establish the
overloading criteria over 15% (say 20%), the resulting
hotspot temperature exceeds the 140oC limit, and hence
not possible regardless of the aging rate and the net
economic gain. This approach has drawbacks because it
does not consider that:
* Transformer outages are rare and random.
* Transformer overloads are of varying magnitude and
duration.
* Load can be transferred to other neighboring
substations within a few hours.
* For a short duration, a transformer can handle load
more than 115% of its nameplate rating (Figure 8).
In spite of the drawbacks of this approach, it is
concluded that there is a potential of economic gain if
transformers are planned for overloading by 15%
beyond their nameplate ratings.
10. STUDY METHODOLOGY
There are two fundamental approaches for reliability
evaluation of power system components: Analytical
techniques and Monte Carlo methods. Analytical
techniques involve assessment of system failure by
modeling which is based on the past outage statistics of
the system. In Monte Carlo methods, system
contingency conditions are simulated through random
variables representing specific contingency conditions.
In this study, the focus is on establishing the transformer
overloading criteria by using a probability model and
simulating outage conditions using Monte Carlo
technique. Such a study would tend to recommend a
higher overloading criteria. However, the important
factors that should be considered are given in Section 7.
For the purpose of this study , it is assumed that:
a) Transformer outage rate is computed for different
substation arrangements and for the overall system.
b) For certain applications, the outage duration can be
considered as constant depending upon the time
required for load transfer or transformer
replacement.
c) Load and temperature profiles are standardized.
Reliability related costs involve loss of life of
equipment, loss of revenue and customer costs related to
the interruption of service. Quantification of these costs
involve simulation of the system conditions associated
with equipment loss of life, repair and service
interruption.
Figure 9 – Two-State Model
At any time, a transformer at a substation can be in
either of the two states: in-service and out-of-service,
and the state changes randomly from time to time. The
transition to the out-of-service state is an outage event
and the transition to the in-service state is the
restoration. The entire process consists of repetitions of
outage-to-restoration and restoration-to-outage process.
A transformer is modeled with a constant failure rate
(λ) and a constant repair rate (µ). If a transformer was
restored to service at time t=0, the average outage rate
(λ) of a transformer is defined as the probability that a
transformer experiences an outage at time t. Similarly, if
a transformer entered into an outage state at time t=0,
then restoration rate (µ) can be defined as the
probability that the transformer is restored at time t, i.e.
the transformer remained in the outage state up to time
‘t’. For a constant outage rate, R(t), the probability of
survival of a transformer at time ‘t’, is given by:
R(t) = e-λt
And, the in-service duration distribution is given by:
-λt
Fi (t) = 1 - e
Where, λ is the failure rate, i.e.
λ = 1/MTTO
MTTO= Mean Time to Outage
Fi (t) is the probability that a transformer experience Ist
outage prior to time ‘t’ given that it was restored at time
t=0. In other words, the in-service duration distribution-
means that the transformer has survived up to time ‘t’
when it enters into a failure state.
Likewise, the out-of-service duration distribution is
given by:
µt
Fo (t)= 1 - e-
Where,
µ = 1/MTTR
MTTR= Mean Time to Restoration
It is the probability that restoration to service occurs
before time ‘t’, given that the unit entered the outage
state at time t=0.
Monte-Carlo method is used to simulate the life history
of a transformer. Random sampling of an outage event is
done by generating a random number (between 0 and 1)
to simulate the outage event and using the in-service
distribution, the time when the transformer enters into an
outage state is identified. Likewise, the time when the
transformer is restored is identified by generating
another random number and using the out-of-service
distribution. Depending upon the load and temperature
at the time of the simulated event, the remaining
transformer may get overloaded. An overload that is
beyond the transformer nameplate rating will cause the
transformer aging at a higher rate.
Each simulation run consists of at least 1000
replications. In each replication, a random transformer
outage is selected during one year of operation. A limit
is set on the magnitude of overload and the
corresponding outage duration is computed. During
outage, the transformer overload, loss-of-life and MWH
load curtailed is computed. The average values are
computed and converted into economic figures for
trade-off analysis.
The following data was used in the study:
Ambient Temperature : 20/30/40 oC
(winter/fall/summer)
Cost of Energy not Served : 1000 $/MWH
Mean Time to Failure : 87600 hrs (10 years)
Mean Time to Repair : 672 hours
Interest Rate : 10%
: 20.5 Years
Transformer Useful Life
Each simulation was performed using the hourly load
profile for a specific annual peak load i.e. the maximum
overload that each transformer would be exposed to
under contingency conditions. The transformer was
assumed to operate in the same fashion every year
throughout the entire useful life of the equipment. The
purpose of these computations is to identify the
maximum level of overload that a transformer can
tolerate before an additional unit is needed.
Each substation is assumed to have two identical
transformers. The hourly load profile at each substation
is according to its historical loadings. The hourly loads
were scaled up according to the ratio of the specified
annual peak load (overload limit) divided by the
observed peak load.
Simulations were also carried out for a fixed outage
duration of 7 days. This was done to study the
practicality and economic aspects of Transformer
Overloading Criteria with regards to ‘Transformer
Replacement Strategy’. For these simulations, a
representative temperature profile was used instead of
fixed temperatures for different seasons and load
shedding was allowed in order to limit the transformer
hotspot temperature. Also, it was assumed that the
transformer will operate under the same conditions for 7
days. The amount of load shedding (MWH curtailed)
and the loss-of-life were computed.
11. STUDY RESULTS
The results from the transformer loss-of-life
computations, are presented in the section.
An outage event which results in a transformer overload
above 100% of its rating, a transformer loss-of-life is
computed Also, the MW and the hours of overload are
recorded to give an annual MWH exposure. This
number represents the amount of load which must be
curtailed if transformer overload is to be avoided
completely. The amount of load curtailed (also called
energy-not-served, or ENS) is converted to economic
figures.
For each transformer, the capital cost of a replacement
transformer [Table-I] is used in calculating the CRF
which is then multiplied by the loss-of-life in years to
give the cost of loss-of-life per year. The cost of the
energy-not-served (ENS) is assumed to be incurred
every year. The numbers are then accumulated over 20.5
years of identical operation and present worthed to get
the cost of ENS.
Figure 10 – Present Worth Cost for 115/13.8 kV Substation
Figure 10 shows the results of loss-of-life computations
for 115/13.8 kV transformers, assuming that each
transformer is operated in a similar fashion for every
year of its useful life. The cumulative present worth cost
of loss-of-life and cost of ENS for different levels of
overloads, are shown in this figure.
It should be noted that in the probabilistic calculations,
the relationship between the cost of loss-of-life and the
maximum transformer loading was studied without
regards to temperature limits.
It is noted that the costs of energy-not-served are
substantially higher than the costs of transformer loss-
of-life, suggesting that some degree of transformer
overload, and hence, loss-of-life, has to be tolerated
before load curtailment is considered. In other words,
curtailing load as soon as the transformer is loaded to
100% of its rating is not an economic option.
When the cost of loss-of-life exceeds the capital
recovery factor (CRF), then it is more economical to add
a new transformer by substation reinforcement or install
a new substation. For example, in the case of a 115/13.8
kV transformer, the break even point is about 170%
using normal parameters and about 160% using more
pessimistic assumptions (maximum summer ambient
temperature equal to 50oC). This means that the
substation annual peak load can grow to about 160% to
170% of the transformer rating before third transformer
needs to be installed.
Figure 11 – Present Worth Cost for 230/69 kV Substation
Similar observations are made from the results of loss-
of-life computations for 230/69 kV transformers. The
break-even point between the cost of loss-of-life and the
CRF is noted to be at 171%.
Figure 12 – Present Worth Cost for 69/13.8 kV Substation
Figure 12 shows the results of loss-of-life computations
for 69/13.8 kV transformer, assuming that the overload
period would last for 7 days continuously and during
this period no load transfer takes place. Instead, load
curtailment is carried out during the outage events
causing the hotspot temperature to exceed beyond the
acceptable limit. This is the reason for lower
incremental increase in loss-of-life at higher overload
limits. The cost of load curtailment for such events is
also shown. The transformer is assumed to have
identical operation every year throughout its life time. It
is interesting to note that the there is almost no risk if the
transformer is allowed to be overloaded to 130% of its
rating, or very limited risk if it is allowed to be
overloaded to 150%
12. CONCLUSIONS
As demonstrated, it is concluded that the present
concept of firm capacity, i.e. (N-1) criteria or even 15%
emergency overloading criteria is quite conservative. A
substantial savings can be realized by allowing the
transformers to overload during contingency conditions.
In the SEC/ER system, load curtailment has never been
an option regardless of the overloading criteria. Instead,
capital investments are made to install new facilities or
reinforce the existing ones. The acceptance of loss-of-
life merely helps and relaxes the planning criteria
resulting in substantial cost savings through deferral of
capital investment. Employing an overloading criteria
as a part of System Planning virtually raises the firm
capacity of a substation at the cost of reduction of life of
the transformer. Reliability calculations indicate that an
overload up to 50% may be allowed with reasonable
loss-of-life and limited risk but, in fact, a transformer
alone can not be considered as an independent
component in the system. It is in fact a component of a
complete system in which the capability of other
elements cannot be ignored.
From economical perspective and, as well as, keeping in
view the capability of the allied facilities and the risk of
load shedding, an overloading criterion of 130% for
planning and operation of power transformers appears to
be quite practical, assuming that a desired amount of
load in excess of transformer rating can be removed
within a specified period either by load transfer or
customer interruption for a limited period of time.
Figure 13 – Cost Savings for 69/13.8 kV Substation
Figure 13 shows the cost savings for 69/13.8 kV
substations. These savings can be realized by deferring
the new substation or reinforcement projects. The
savings are quite substantial and it is noted that an
overloading criteria of 130% would results in a
reduction of cost per MVA by 23% and a saving of $3.7
million in case of a new substation and $1.6 million in
case of reinforcement.
It should be generally acceptable that transformers are
not routinely overloaded. Weather and load conditions
should always be taken into account to determine the
overload magnitude and duration because the
recommended overload may cause transformer
operating temperature to exceed the acceptable
operating limit, resulting in customer outages.
The probabilistic calculations, however, do point out
that occasional loadings of up to 130% may be a more
reasonable criterion, balancing risk of customer outages
and economics.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to take this opportunity to thank Mr.
Joseph Pilleteri of Systems Planning Department of
SEC/ER, for his continuous support and valuable
comments during the development of this paper.
14. REFERENCES
[1] Loading Guide for Oil Immersed Power
Transformers [IEC-354 (1991)]
[2] IEEE Guide for Loading Oil Immersed
Transformers [IEEE-C57.91-1995]
[3] Lifetime Evaluation of Transformers
[CIGRE WG12.09]
[4] ‘Survey of Power Transformer Overloading Field
Practices’. [CIGRE WG 12-09]
[5] ‘Survey of Power Transformer Overload Field
Practices’ [CIGRE WD 12.09]