38

Faculty of Commerce and Economics
Loss capitalization and optimum transformer design

Case Study
Jerusalem District Electricity Co. (JDECO)
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the
MSc Degree in Business Administration
Submitted By
Eng.Sari Ibrahim
Supervised By
Dr. Sameer baidon
Palestine, 2013
Loss capitalization and optimum
transformer design In (JDECO)
ABSTRACT
The substance of the problem addressed by the study, was the desire to increase
knowledge about the grounds and rules on the basis of which the design and
management of loads in the electrical networks, including the process of selecting the
types and ratings of the transformer through calculating of economic cost, resulting
from the operation of these machines. Taking into consideration all relevant aspects
such as the environment and public safety.
Increasing knowledge in this area, will be reflected positively on the performance of

companies, and relevant institutions, by contributing to reducing losses, and reduce
the negative effects as carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to minimizing the
environmental impact of the system, as well as better management of the electrical
components of the system as a whole.
The study intended to examine different types of distribution transformers (oil and dry
types of ratings 400,630 and 1000 KVA), based on capitalization of losses involving
the construction of several scenarios to explain the methodology used in the analysis,
comparison, and differentiation between types of transformers, with well reasoned
achieve optimal management of loads.
The study concluded that the process of choosing the type and capacity of the
transformers is primarily based on the nature, and type of the load, and the mechanism
by which the loads are managed within the system.
1 |Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: BROAD PROBLEM AREA 9

1.1 Introduction: 9
1.2 Research Problem: 11
1.3 Significance OF THE STUDY: 12
1.4 Study Objectives: 13
1.5 Research Questions: 13
1.6 Target Beneficiaries: 13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 15

2.1 Introduction: 15
2.2 Transformer's Losses: 16
2.3 Impacts of Transformer's Losses: 20
2.4 Transformer Loading and Determinants of Transformer's Losses: 21
2.5 Selection TR Criteria: 28
2.5.1 Selection based on economic criteria: 28
2.5.2 Selection Based On Safety Criteria: 31
2.5.3 Selection Based On Installation Criteria: 32
2.6 Cost of Losses: 33
2.7 TOC Method: 34
2.7.1 TOC Method without Environmental Cost: 34
2.7.2 TOC Including Environmental Cost: 39
CHAPTER 3: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IN JDECO 43

3.1 Introduction to Electricity Market in Palestine: 43
3.2 Background about JDECO: 45
3.3 Normal Service Conditions For Electrical System In JDECO: 46
3.4 Characteristics of Electrical System in JDECO: 46
3.5 General Overview on M.V Networks: 47
3.6 International Standards for MV Component: 48
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY OF MEASUREMENTS 50
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS 53
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion and recommendations 81
References 84
2 |Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Table Title Page

2.2.1 Load losses with system voltage 18
Not exceeding 36 KV
2.2.2 No- Load losses Values with system voltage 18
Not exceeding 36
2.2.3 Load losses Values with system voltage Not exceeding 24 KV 19
2.2.4 No- Load losses Values with system voltage 19
Not exceeding 24 KV
2.4.1 Self-cooled continuous loading on basis of average Ambient 23
temperature
2.4.2 Loading on basis of temperatures (Average ambient other than 24
30°C and average winding rise less than limiting values) (for
quick approximation) (Ambient temperature range –30°C to
50°C)
2.4.3 Winding temperature- rise limits 26
4.4.1 Characteristics of Electrical System in JDECO 45
4.6.1 Technical specifications for Medium Voltage Switchgear Panel 48
and Transformer Primary Protection Panel
4.6.2 technical specifications for DT 48
4.6.3 technical specifications for DT 49
4.6.4 and rated capacities (KVA) 49
3 |Page
LIST OF FIGURES
4 |Page
DEFENITINOS
Amorphous Core Transformers: amorphous core amorphous steel has been

especially hardened in its metallurgical process. The steel is rolled to
relatively thin sheets of the order of 0.2mm, annealed to red heat
temperatures, and then rapidly spray quenched in liquid nitrogen. The
result is steel with crystals in a random (amorphous) state, which has a
bright, hard surface. More importantly, the steel has less hysteresis
losses, and because of an increase in resistivity, less eddy current losses
when subjected to excitation (Bodger, 2002).
Cyclic loading: loading with cyclic variations (the duration of the cycle usually being
24 h) which is regarded in terms of the accumulated amount of ageing
that occurs during the cycle. The cyclic loading may either be a normal
loading or a long-time emergency loading (IEC 60076-7, 2005).
Distribution transformer (DTs): According to IEC 60076-7: Distribution

transformer is a power transformer with a maximum rating of 2 500 kVA
three-phase or 833 kVA single-phase. Traditionally distribution
transformers that transform the voltage to the domestic consumer voltage
(usually 400 V or less).
Dry-type transformer: a transformer of which the magnetic circuit and windings are
not immersed in an insulating liquid. (IEC 60076-11, 2004).
kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kW·h, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy

equal to 1000 watt hours or 3.6 megajoules.
Load loss: the absorbed active power at rated frequency and reference temperature
associated with a pair of windings when rated current (tapping current) is
flowing through the line terminals of one of the windings, and the
terminals of the other winding are short circuited. Further windings, if
existing, are open-circuited. (IEC 60076-1,1999).
5 |Page
No load loss: the active power absorbed when rated voltage (tapping voltage) at rated
frequency is applied to the terminals of one of the windings, the other
winding or windings being open-circuited. This amount is constant for all
hours that the transformer is energized. (IEC 60076-1, 1999).
N-1 criteria: n-1 principle is a situation where the unavailability of one component
(maintenance or failure) does not lead to an interruption of the electricity
supply. Voltage or load levels should stay between acceptable limits
during this situation (Grond, 2011).
Oil-immersed type transformer: a transformer of which the magnetic circuit and

windings are immersed in oil (IEC 60076-1, 1999).
Peak load: Maximum value of load during a given period of time, e.g. a day, a
month, a year (IEC 60050-601, 1998).
Power transformer: a static piece of apparatus with two or more windings which, by
electromagnetic induction, transforms a system of alternating voltage and
current into another system of voltage and current usually of different
values and at the same frequency for the purpose of transmitting
electrical power.
Rated power (Sr): a conventional value of apparent power assigned to a winding

which, together with the rated voltage of the winding, determines its
rated current. (IEC 60076-1,1999).
Rating: those numerical values assigned to the quantities which define the operation
of the transformer in the conditions specified in this part of IEC 60076
and on which the manufacturer's guarantees and the tests are based (IEC
60076-1, 1999).
Skin effect: magnetic influence of a conductor itself (IEC 60865, 1985).
6 |Page
Temperature rise: The difference between the temperature of the part under
consideration and the temperature of the external cooling medium (IEC
60076-1,1999).
7 |Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full word

AMDT Amorphous Metal Distribution Transformers
DC Direct Current
DISCOs Distribution Companies
DT Distribution Transformer
GEDCo Gaza Electricity Distribution Company
HST Hot Spot Temperature
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IECO IEC- Israel Electric Corporation
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
JDECO Jerusalem District Electricity Co.
KVA Kilo Volt Ampere
LLr Load Loss of Reference transformer
LV Low Voltage
MTBF Mean Time Before Failure
MV Medium Voltage
MVA Mega Volt Ampere
NEDCo The North Electricity Distribution Company
NLLr No Load Loss of Reference transformer
OH Over Head
PENRA Palestinian Energy and Natural Resources Authority
PEPIF Palestinian Electric Power Institutional Framework
PVC Poly Vinyl chloride
PWC Price Waterhouse Coopers
SEDCo South Electricity Distribution Company
TOC Total Owning Cost
TOT Top Oil Temperature
TV Television
UG Under Ground
UPS uninterruptible power supply
W Watt
WBGS West Bank GazaStrip
XLPE Cross-Linked Polyethelene
8 |Page
CHAPTER 1: BROAD PROBLEM AREA
1.1 Introduction:
All electrical power that is supplied to end consumers has to pass through
transformers at different stages. Transmission network delivers bulk power at high
voltages (66,161,400 Kv...etc) to distribution systems ( usually up to 33 KV systems).
Within these stages two of those used transformers can be categorized as distribution
transformers. The selection of transmission and distribution systems area is based on
economic basis related to the overall system losses.
Generally, distribution network costs consist of four main elements: energy losses,
ageing of network components, operation and maintenance, as well as the cost of
resolving network capacity limits. Most of previous researches have concentrated on
the development of methods to allocate the cost of energy losses and network capacity
limits (Zolezzi, & Rudnick, 2002, Ahmed et al; 2010). In distribution system; large
number of transformers are used, for supplying power to domestic, commercial, rural
and industrial sites, and because most of system losses are due to transformers in
distribution system; this causes the total transformer loss to have such a significant
impact on ultimate overall loss in the networks.
transformer loading is playing a vital role in determining the efficiency of

transformer, and hence it is very important to ensure optimum loading of distribution
transformers in order to have minimum energy loss. At the same time, it is also very
crucial to select the proper rating of transformer while delivering new demand of
electricity, since the selection of wrong rating / Capacity of distribution transformer
results in increase of energy losses as well as reduction of the life cycle of distribution
transformer (Bidarkar, 2010).
The losses contribute to global warming and climate change as a result of emission of
gases caused by the work of the transformers. Thus, even small improvements in
9 |Page
transformer efficiencies will lead to significant reductions in generation capacity

requirement and thus in greenhouse gas emissions ( Georgilakis & Amoiralis, 2008).
The environmental condition of our planet is getting worse with each new day, and
reducing the amount of energy that we use not only save money, but also it helps our
environment. Nowadays there is an increased interest in the protection of the
environment from greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, green certificates markets
are in operation in various electricity markets all over the world. For an electric utility
(Distribution Company) that has numerous distribution transformers in its network,
there is an opportunity to install high efficient distribution transformers that have less
total energy losses than less efficient transformers, so they pollute the environment
less (Amoiralis et al; 2007).
The designing of the most appropriate transformer starts with the definition of the
proper and detailed specification. The type of transformer, and it’s optimum Loading
plays a vital role in determining the transformer losses and thereby its money value
for the distribution Utility, However, it is more important to have energy efficient
operation of distribution transformer from the environment point of view, as more
losses causes more Carbon emissions, which is nowadays considered as major
environmental crime, as it is causing Global warming (Amoiralis et al; 2007).
The economic evaluation method of the transformers is based on two main

components:
1- The initial cost (includes purchase price and installation cost).

2- The operational cost during service time.
The designer’s task is to find the optimum transformer within the set of permitted
transformers. When Cost of Loss Reduction > Economic Value of Reduced the loss,
then the reduction measure is considered feasible, A balance between mass and losses
is reached by optimization as shown below:
10 | P a g e
Fig.1.1: Qualitative presentation of cost/ availability relation
Form above figure: increasing the cross sectional area of transformer's windings,
means higher quantity of material used, and thus higher purchase price and
investment cost.
Situation A represents that in which it is economical feasible to make measures to

increase the quality of the transformers; however situation B represents where it is
economical better to decrease quality level (Saving in investment > cost of losses).
The utility have to be very careful in determining the criteria of quality level based on
available information.
1.2 Research Problem:

The distribution system in JDECO contains more than 1850 distribution transformers
working within JDECO concession area, and more than 50 new transformers are
added every year to the system, with more than 12% of the energy purchased lost due
technical losses.
Since most transformers are rated to handle peak loads which only happen at certain
intervals during the day within certain periods within yearly seasons, distribution
transformers can remain lightly loaded for a significant portion of the day. So,
specifying the lowest loss possible reduces energy consumption, goes hand-in-hand
with increased efficiency, and can increase revenue for a power producer. This could
11 | P a g e
be achieved by finding certain criteria that enable designer to identify the optimum
solution based on economic basis with least cost solution; either when supplying new
customers or redesigning of certain areas to ensure the optimal and efficient solution.
And since there is no comprehensive standards adopted when design, it is worth to
conduct a study that put broad lines for designers to achieve cost effective solutions.
1.3 Significance OF THE STUDY:

What make this study important are the following points:
1- Most previous researches (Harden, 2011), addressed the same subject in general
way , and there was no study concerning Palestine , while this study will be the
first study which will talk directly about the electricity system in the Palestine
specifically in JDECO the first Palestinian co. which has service coverage of than
70% of west bank region.
2- system in JDECO is totally dependent on connection points with Israeli network

and Jordanian network (in Jericho), which means that JDECO purchases energy
not generate it; so every KWH lost means financial loss to JDECO, thus this study
will focus on how to reduces the percent of these losses; The results of this study
can be implemented by JDECO to enhance its electrical system through
optimization of distribution system within it.
3- There is no consideration to the environmental impact resulting from energy loss

due to working of the transformers within the distribution system, the electrical
energy has been part of continuous degradation of our environment for example:
according to International Energy Agency, 2012 each unit generated from
Anthracite fuel based thermal power plant releases about 920 gram of carbon
dioxide into atmosphere , and from Kerosene about 650 gram. Thus in this study
we'll talk briefly about the environmental impact caused by these transformers and
how we will reduce this side effect.
12 | P a g e
1.4 Study Objectives:

1- To calculate the annual cost of loss of distribution transformer (of Rating
types: 400, 630 and 1000 KVA).
2- To encompass the examination of existing distribution loading pattern of
distribution transformers, in order to assess the current loading rate of the
distribution transformers to be tested
3- To give a clear image of the extent of the environmental impact caused by
transformers.
4- To identify the optimum and Economic loading rate for oil immersed
transformers in Jerusalem district electricity co. using cost benefit analysis
criteria.
5- To study real case by comparing between two types of distribution
transformers (oil type and dry type) for the same ratings mentioned above
taking into consecration physical environment (temperature), geographical
location, and type of use.
1.5 Research Questions:

1- How much is the total cost of losses/ year for each type of transformers to be
studied?
2- What is the average loading percent for these transformers?
3- What is the environmental impact resulting from working of the distribution
transformers?
4- What are the criteria that achieve the optimal design of the transformers? And
how to identify the techno-economic feasible rate of loading?
5- What are the criteria which should be adopted by the designers to choose
between types of the transformers?
1.6 Target Beneficiaries:

1- JDECO.
2- Electricity Distribution Companies.
3- National transmission company.
13 | P a g e
4- Commercial and domestics customers.

5- State based regulatory authorities.
6- Distribution Companies (DisCos).
14 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction:
In electricity supply to final consumers, losses refer to the amounts of electricity
injected into the transmission and distribution grids that are not paid for by users.
Total losses have two components: technical and non-technical. Technical losses
occur naturally and consist mainly of power dissipation in electricity system
components such as transmission and distribution lines, transformers, and
measurement systems. Non-technical losses are caused by actions external to the
power system and consist primarily of electricity theft, non-payment by customers,
and errors in accounting and record-keeping. These three categories of losses are
respectively sometimes referred to as commercial, non-payment, and administrative
losses (World Bank, 2009).
High rate of technical and non-technical losses might cause (Bernardon et al; 2010,
dos Sanyos, 2006):
- Poor quality of service offered to customers.

- High cost due to useless or premature investments.
- Reduction in revenue resulting in cash difficulties with all ensuing economic
consequences.
According to Carlen et al; (2011), 2-3% of the total generated electric energy is lost
in distribution transformers. In Europe alone, a reduction in the losses in the installed
base of distribution transformers (DTs) by 50% is equivalent to the energy produced
by 5 large nuclear power plants. Therefore, deferral of generation, especially from
fossil fuel sources has a major impact on environmental sustainability. Energy savings
is the name of the game for the future.
Transformers according to international standard IEC 60076-1,(1999), are made up of

a magnetic core, which may vary in design, responsible for the correlation of the
magnetic flow and for a pair of copper or aluminum windings responsible for the
15 | P a g e
voltage and current level between the primary and secondary terminals. The
efficiency rate lies between 95 and 99%. The same standard stated the Preferred
values of rated power: For transformers up to 10 MVA, values of rated power should
preferably be taken from the R10 series given in ISO 3 (1973): preferred numbers:
series of preferred numbers. (100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 315, 400, 500, 630, 800, 1 000,
etc.).
Harden, (2011), described distribution transformers as they are very efficient

machines since their efficiency is greater than 95%.The power efficiency of any
electrical machine is defined as the ratio of the useful power output to the total power
input. it is therefore affected by transformer losses. The power output of a transformer
is equal to the power input to a transformer less any losses incurred by the
transformer. Since typically at low loads, the core losses dominate the transformer
loss, and at high loads the coil losses dominate the transformer loss
With reference to IEC 60076-1,(19999), transformers are classified according to the

insulating medium into two main types:
1- Oil-immersed type transformer.

2- Dry-type transformer.
2.2 Transformer's Losses:

Losses in transformers are primarily split into three categories:
1- No load loss.
2- Load loss.
3- Other losses: (due to effects of harmonics and non linear loads).
No-load losses are the continuous losses of a transformer, regardless of load, namely
they exist whenever the unit is energized (Harlow, 2004). No-load losses are also
called iron or core losses because they are mainly a function of the core materials. The
two main components of no-load losses are eddy currents and hysteresis. Hysteresis
16 | P a g e
describes the memory of a magnetic material. Eddy current losses are small
circulating currents in the core material (Tsili et al; 2008).
Load loss represents the energy loss that is dependent on the power actually flowing
through the transformer. The amount is not just a linear function of the power flow,
but varies as the square of the power (Downing et al; 1998).
The load losses of transformer consist of:
– DC or ohmic loss (I2R):has its origin in dc-measured resistance of the

windings
– Extra losses:
• Eddy current loss in windings: will have its origin in metallic parts
exposed to flux generated by the load current.
• Stray loss: caused by the magnetic field lines that are drawn away from the
primary path in the core towards other objects, such as mounting clamps,
other transformer hardware, and the transformer enclosure (Harden,
2011).
Figure below show the classification of transformer losses:
Figure 1: Classification of transformer loisses

Adapted from (De Keulenaer, 2007)
17 | P a g e
According to BS 7821-3:1995; the values of load and no-load losses for Three phase
oil-immersed Distribution transformers with highest voltage for equipment not
exceeding 36 kV, are according to Table I and Table II respectively :
Table (2.2.1): Load losses with system voltage

Not exceeding 36 KV (BS 7821-3:1995)
Table (2.2.2): No- Load losses Values with system voltage

Any combination of Po and Pk lists is allowed. With respect to the listed loss values,
deviations in the range of ± 5 % are admitted in national standards.
18 | P a g e
The standard for transformer losses (oil type) with voltage rate not exceeding 24 KV
is described in BS 7821-1:1995, and the following Table III and table IV show the
values of Load and No-load losses respectively:
Table (2.2.3): Load losses Values with system voltage

Table (2.2.4): No- Load losses Values with system voltage

With respect to the listed loss values, deviations in the range of ± 5 % are admitted in
National Standards. For list C, the admitted deviation is extended to ± 7.5 %.
NOTE For list C larger deviations, but not exceeding ± 10 %, are admitted only as
temporary national deviations. The preferred coupling values should be those of the
following list combinations: A – A½ , B – B½ , C – B½ , A – C½ , C – C½
19 | P a g e
2.3 Impacts of Transformer's Losses:

The losses within distribution transformers are far from negligible; anything that can
be done to reduce them has the potential to deliver huge savings as well as reduced
environmental impact (Engineering talk, 2008). When total losses are high, say 25
percent or higher, large consumers usually account for a large fraction of the losses.
This is referred to as the Pareto effect whereby a very small percentage of customers
account for a disproportionately high fraction of the total revenue (for example, 1
percent of customers, typically operating in the wholesale market, contributing to 30
percent of the company’s revenue) (World Bank, 2009).
The change in the load losses is proportional to the square of the transformer's load
curve. Considering the total lifetime cost of both transformers, the initial
overinvestment in the efficient transformer with respect to the none-efficient one is
paid back in six years. The non efficient transformer total lifetime cost at the end of
its life cycle is around 1000 Euros higher than the efficient one (very much lower than
in the private customer case, but still 1.5 times higher than the price difference
between both transformers). Thus, in this case, it is beneficial for the utility to
purchase efficient transformers, though the saving is lower than in the private user
case. (Frau et al; 2007).
According to Amoiralis et al; (2007), each kWh in addition to economic cost ,has an
external cost, i.e. the environmental and health costs to society that are not fully
reflected in the price of electricity. This environmental cost is coming from the cost to
buy Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission credits because of the GHG emissions
associated with supplying transformer losses throughout the transformer lifetime
(Georgilakis, 2011). Regional and global impacts are caused primarily by the
emission of atmospheric pollutants that have longer residence times, causing dispersal
over large areas. Most important among these gases is CO2, which is a greenhouse
gas and can contribute to global warming (European Commission, 2003). Globally,
these losses are estimated to account for around 2–3 percent of all electric energy
production – some 25 GW. According to a technical study by Strategies for
development and diffusion of Energy-Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT,
20 | P a g e
2008), in the EU alone, there are some 4.5 million distribution transformers, causing
38 TWh of losses each year – more than the entire amount of electricity consumed by
Denmark – and contributing 30 million tons of CO2 emissions (Sahin, 2011).
(Picanco et al; 2009) and (Targosz, and Topalis, 2007), also mentioned that within
the distribution system transformers are responsible for one third of total losses.
Hence, the total losses are important in determining the total operational costs of the
transformer. The total cost includes the transformer purchasing price and the
capitalized no-load and load losses. Blackburn, (2009), also discussed the same
issue; he said that the overall network losses in the electrical transmission and
distribution systems used to supply power to consumers can be as much as 6-9% of
the total power supplied to the transmission and distribution networks by large power
stations. Transformers, particularly in the distribution networks, make up about 30-
40% of that network loss.
Thus the huge effect of losses which is estimated by 30% from total losses within
electrical system, in addition to the its economical and environmental effects, worth to
stand, and study this issue in order to reduce the resulting impacts as much as
possible.
2.4 Transformer Loading and Determinants of Transformer's

Losses:
Transformer losses may be affected by changes to transformer design, core or
winding material, and type and amount of insulation in the transformer. In general,
higher grade steel (in the transformer core) and more copper (in the windings) will
improve a transformer’s efficiency. Design elements relevant to efficiency include the
manner in which the core plates are joined (butt-lap, mitered, wound core), and the
distance between the plates (Burgess, 2011).
Applications of loads in excess of nameplate rating involve some degree of risk.

While aging and long time mechanical deterioration of winding insulation have been
the basis for the loading of transformers for many years, it is recognized that there are
21 | P a g e
additional factors that may involve greater risk for transformers of higher
megavoltampere (MVA) and voltage ratings (IEEE Std C57.96-1999).The normal
life expectancy is a conventional reference basis for continuous duty under design
ambient temperature and rated operating conditions. The application of a load in
excess of nameplate rating and/or an ambient temperature higher than design ambient
temperature involves a degree of risk and accelerated ageing (IEC60076-5,2005).
The same standard discussed the consequences of loading a transformer above its
nameplate rating are as follows:
• The temperatures of windings, cleats, leads, insulation and oil will increase and
can reach unacceptable levels.
• The leakage flux density outside the core increases, causing additional eddy-
current heating in metallic parts linked by the leakage flux.
• As the temperature changes, the moisture and gas content in the insulation and in
the oil will change.
• Bushings, tap-changers, cable-end connections and current transformers will also
be exposed to higher stresses which encroach upon their design and application
margins.
Ambient temperature is an important factor in determining the load capability of a

transformer, since the temperature rise for any load must be added to the ambient to
determine the operating temperature. Whenever the actual ambient temperature can be
determined from readings taken at the time of the load being considered, such
temperatures should be used to determine the winding hottest-spot temperature and
the load capability of the transformer (IEEE Std C57.96. 1999).
according to (Cooper, 2013) The losses of the distribution transformer is highly

affected by temperature rise, Transformer temperature rise is defined as the average
temperature rise of the windings above the ambient (surrounding) temperature, when
the transformer is loaded at its nameplate rating, more efficient transformers tend to
have lower temperature rise, while less efficient units tend to have higher temperature
22 | P a g e
rise. Most transformers are designed to operate for a minimum of 20-30 years at the
nameplate load, if properly sized, installed, and maintained. Transformers loaded
above the nameplate rating over an extended period of time may have reduced life
expectancy. Philip & Ling, (2003), supported the same point; they mentioned that
transformers with a low operating temperature rise have often been purchased with
energy savings in mind, as published full load losses are substantially lower than
those of many other transformers. These transformers are traditionally available in
either 80°C or 115°C operating temperature rise, as opposed to the standard 150°C
rise that represents the majority of low-voltage, 3-phase, dry-type transformer sales.
With reference to IEEE Std C57.96.(1999); Loading on the basis of ambient

temperature with the loads permitted by Table below can give approximately the same
life expectancy as if the transformers had been operated at nameplate rating and
standard ambient temperatures over the same period. The operation of transformers in
cooling air above 50 °C, or below 0 °C, is not covered by Table (5) below:
Table (2.4.1): Self-cooled continuous loading on basis of average

Ambient temperature (IEEE Std C57.96, 1999)
The average ambient temperatures should cover 24 h time periods, (IEEE Std
C57.91-1995.R2004) stated that the associated maximum temperatures should not be
more than 10°C above the average temperatures for air-cooled and 5°C for water-
cooled transformers. Since ambient temperature is an important factor in determining
the load capability of a transformer, it should be controlled for indoor installations by
adequate ventilation and should always be considered in outdoor installations., Table-
23 | P a g e
2 below gives the increase or decrease from rated kVA for other than average daily
ambient of 30°C for air and 25°C for water. It is recommended that a 5°C margin be
used when applying the factors from table (6) below:
Table (2.4.2): Loading on basis of temperatures (Average

ambient other than 30°C and average winding rise less than
limiting values) (for quick approximation)
(Ambient temperature range –30°C to 50°C)
(IEEE Std C57.91-1995.R2004).
The primary contributor to insulation temperature is the heat generated by load losses.
Since the deterioration in the insulation is related to the insulation temperature and the
temperature distribution due to load losses is not uniform in the windings in most
cases, it is reasonable to believe that the greatest deterioration to the insulation will
happen at the part of the winding operating under the highest temperature condition
(Srinivasan & Krishnan, 2013).
The term "hot spot temperature" is another principal factor limiting the loadability of
a power transformer, the hottest-spot temperature of the winding is the sum of the
ambient temperature, the average temperature rise, and the hottest-spot allowance
(IEEE Std C57.96-1999). during rated load, the temperature of the winding hot spot
should not exceed 110°C or 80°C rise above ambient (with the ambient daily average
temperature of 30°C). These temperatures (24hr/day) result in what is defined as the
normal loss of life for the power transformer, which works out to be 0.0369% per day
.(IEEE Standard C57.115-1991).
From above, the standard normal lifetime for oil-immersed power transformer for a
continuous HST of 110˚C based on IEC and IEEE standards.
24 | P a g e
The increase in top oil temperature (TOT), and thereby increase in hot spot
temperature (HST), has the effect of reducing insulation life. The HST value depends
on the ambient temperature, the rise in the TOT over the ambient temperature, and the
rise in the winding HST over the top oil temperature. Abnormal conditions, such as
overloading, supplying non-sinusoidal loads or exposure to higher ambient
temperature than normal, can accelerate transformer aging and accordingly accelerate
the time to end of life. The increase in TOT and HST accelerates the end of the
transformer lifetime (Srinivasan & Krishnan, 2013). Thus; higher winding hot spot
temperatures cause degradation of the winding insulation material and can result in
the formation of gas bubbles which facilitate the dielectric breakdown characteristic
of the transformer oil. (Swift & Molinski, 1995).
according to IEC60076-11 (2004), The reference temperature (test temperature) of

the short-circuit impedance and load loss for dry type transformers shall be the
permitted average winding temperature rise as given in column 2 of Table (7) below
plus 20 °C.
Table (2.4.3): Winding temperature- rise limits

(IEC 60076-11)
This depends on the type of insulation material and corresponding permitted winding
temperature, while the reference temperature is 75C˚ for oil type transformers (IEC
60076-1,1999).
25 | P a g e
The risk of premature failure associated with the increased currents and temperatures;
may be of an immediate short-term character or come from the cumulative effect of
thermal ageing of the insulation in the transformer over many years, according to
IEEE Std C57.96.(1999); Aging or deterioration of insulation is a time function of
temperature, moisture content, and oxygen content. With modern oil preservation
systems, the moisture and oxygen contributions to insulation deterioration can be
minimized, leaving insulation temperature as the controlling parameter. Since, in most
apparatus, the temperature distribution is not uniform, that part that is operating at the
highest temperature will ordinarily undergoes the greatest deterioration. Therefore, in
aging studies it is usual to consider the aging effects produced by the highest (hottest-
spot) temperature.
Foregoing; the relation between temperature and losses is proportional, the higher coil
losses usually contribute to higher coil temperatures as the load on that transformer
increases to 100%, or full load, the current also increases and generates much more
heat as the full load currents flow through the coil conductors, as well as more
emission of gases. This review of literature shows that a great deal of attention has
been paid to temperature because it is an important factor in determining the load
capability and loss value of a transformer. The heat generated by load losses is the
primary contributor to insulation lifetime.
Another limiting factor for the transformer loadability and losses, is the altitude, the
influence of altitude on loading is also considerable, because transformers are
dependent upon air for dissipation of heat loss, the effect of the decreased air density
due to high altitude is to increase the temperature rise of the transformers,
transformers designed for operation at an altitude greater than 1 000 m but tested at
normal altitudes, the limits of temperature rise given in Table 7 shall be reduced by
the following amounts for each 500 m by which the intended working altitude
exceeds 1 000 m:
Natural-air-cooled transformers: 2,5 %;

Forced-air-cooled transformers: 5 %. (IEC60076-11, 2004).
26 | P a g e
Furthermore, unbalanced loading and non sinusoidal currents ( non- linear loads) are
another factor that can contribute to the line losses, where if one of the phases has
more load than the other two, the losses will be larger than that if these phases are
balanced. In addition; the unbalanced and non-sinusoidal currents are producing an
additional transformer heating due to increased losses, in mainly because of losses
due to eddy currents. (Saadat, 2002), (POP et al; 2009).
harmonics effect caused by non-linear loads, such as variable speed drives,

computers, UPS systems, TV sets and compact fluorescent lamps, cause harmonic
currents on the network. Harmonic voltages are generated in the impedance of the
network by the harmonic load currents. Harmonics increase both load and no-load
losses due to increased skin effect, eddy current, stray and hysteresis losses. The most
important of these losses is that due to eddy current losses in the winding; it can be
very large and consequently most calculation models ignore the other harmonic
induced losses.( AL-Badi et al; 2011). The harmonic currents cause higher losses in
the transformer and therefore a higher temperature, which will affect the lifetime of
the transformers. The extra losses depend on the harmonic spectrum of the load
current (Hulshorst, 2002).
The precise impact of a harmonic current on load loss depends on the harmonic
frequency and the way the transformer is designed. In a transformer that is heavily
loaded with harmonic currents, the excess loss can cause high temperature at some
locations in the windings. This can seriously reduce the life span of the transformer
and even cause immediate damage and sometimes fire (Lowenstein & M.Z, 2008).
Moreover; Over voltages caused by the unbalanced and distorting affect insulations,
which reduces the mean time before failure (MTBF) and life time of equipment
(transformers, coils, condensers). Additional losses of power (the energy losses) into
the deforming and unbalanced state, compared to the reference state (RR), involve the
operation at a bigger temperature than for the same payload in the two states (Felea et
al; 2010).
27 | P a g e
A number of methods exist to prevent overloading or failure of the distribution

system, either by accommodation or elimination of the harmonic currents.
Three phase loads usually are balanced and they have a well-defined effect on
transformer’s load losses. The probability to have imbalance in higher in a system
with a great number of single-phase loads that have different connected time and
power. Therefore, transformers in residential and commercial areas, where the
equipments are predominantly monophasic, present great chances to suffer from
unbalanced load during their operation (Salustiano et al; 2013). In addition to single
phase loads effect; As more and more harmonic-producing equipment connected to
the public distribution systems represents three-phase unbalanced loads. On the other
hand the effects of single phase non-linear loads are also becoming important; this is
due to the nonlinear behavior of losses in relation to the load. Therefore, it is required
a more individualized analysis of each equipment considering its imbalance.
(POP et al; 2009), (Salustiano et al; 2013).
2.5 Selection TR Criteria:
2.5.1 Selection based on economic criteria:

With low loss, high efficiency transformers, the higher material cost typically
requires a higher first cost. However, this will be compensated by reduced running
costs from lower losses. Beyond a certain time, the lower losses will give a net
financial saving from reduced energy costs. If higher loss transformers are
replaced with new low loss transformers, this saving becomes even greater.
Furthermore, lower losses result in cost avoidance derived from elimination or
deferral of extra generation and transmission capacity additions (ABB, 2000).thus,
the decision when choosing between high efficiency or less efficiency
transformers is primarily economic one.
To compare efficiency regarding to the type of the transformer; According to

Cooper, (2000), Liquid-filled transformers can provide the lowest total losses and
highest efficiencies because their design is inherently more compact. In addition,
28 | P a g e
they are typically designed to optimize winding and core configurations. (Edvard,
2012) supported this point; he assumed that Liquid-filled transformers are
normally more efficient than dry-types, and they usually have a longer life
expectancy. Also, liquid is a more efficient cooling medium in reducing hot spot
temperatures in the coils. In addition, liquid-filled units have a better overload
capability.But Sahin, (2011) has different opinion; according to him, there is an
important new option for customers seeking to reduce their energy losses by
specifying ultra high-efficiency distribution transformers which is AMDT
(Amorphous Metal Distribution Transformers) core technology. This, combined
with optimized coil designs, can provide significant reduction in no-load losses.
AMDT is at the heart of ABB’s new generation EcoDry ultra high efficiency dry-
type transformers.
Thus; here what we intend to say is that the type of transformer is playing
important role in economic analysis of transformers – regardless of insulating
type, according to (Mohan, 2012); amorphous core transformers are considered as
energy efficient transformers. Cost of amorphous core transformer is about 20 to
30 per cent higher than that of a conventional transformer of same KVA rating.
For economic design of a transformer, the cross sectional area of the core should
be smaller; for smaller cross sectional area the chosen flux density is high and
therefore, the core loss increases. If large rating power transformers are designed
for low flux density then cross sectional area of core becomes large; for larger
cross-sectional area of a core, costs of the core and winding are higher, therefore
the cost of the transformer becomes higher (Dasgupta 2011, Sawhney 2006, Say
M.G. 1977). Therefore, amorphous alloy is not a suitable choice for large rating
power transformers, if economy is an issue.
Compared to conventional transformers, amorphous core transformers have- low

core losses, low magnetising current, less zero sequence current, less noise, higher
inrush current, more harmonic problem, bigger size, higher initial cost, higher
efficiency, and longer life. Advantages with amorphous core transformer are
more, compared to disadvantages. At present, initial cost of amorphous core
29 | P a g e
transformer is comparatively higher; it becomes economical after a certain period

of time (Mohan, 2012).
Among several parameters, cost of winding material is a parameter, on which cost

of a transformer depends. In a transformer, the cost of winding material may be up
to 28 per cent of overall cost of a transformer. A number of new designs and
materials have demonstrated the potential to significantly reduce transformer
losses. Amorphous metal, a metallic material with a no crystalline structure, may
yield reduced core losses when used in place of silicon steel (Burgess, 2011).
Carlen (2011) agree with Shahin's,(2011) opinion mentioned above, in which

Customer interest in products that are both economically and ecologically
efficient, this inspire ABB to develop a dry-type transformer product family that
exceeds expectations in these areas. The EcoDry transformer family provides
ultra-efficient products with loss values that easily meet or exceed industry
standards or legal requirements. EcoDry enables customers to select a product
optimized for a specific application, minimizing the cost of related investments.
From mentioned above; analysis of results between transformers permits the

finding of a calculation method of the capitalized losses and risks, considering in
addition the overload profile between the standard and the efficient design for the
aging indicator evaluation. As a result of this, the purchasing process of
transformers is optimized in the form of costs versus benefits and a good power
supply continuity indicator (Picanco et al; 2009).
An important issue regarding to buying decision of transformers are based only

on the initial cost ;A more efficient transformer can pay for itself many times over
during its 25-year lifespan the transformer plays a key role in an electrical
system’s efficiency and power quality, yet 95% of buying decisions are based
solely on first cost. Buying based on life cycle cost would save literally hundreds
of thousands of dollars in operating losses over the installed life for transformers
in a typical facility. (Philip & Ling, 2003).
30 | P a g e
The utility engineers usually determine the size of transformers from the current
loading, expected future load growth, and other appropriate engineering
judgments; according to Amoiralis et al; (2007), Selection and acquisition of
distribution transformers which are optimized for a particular distribution
network, the utility’s investment strategy, the network’s maintenance policies and
local service and loading conditions will provide definite benefits (improved
financial and technical performance) for both utilities and their customers.
Optimized distribution transformers (cost-effective and Highly efficient designs)
would provide numerous global benefits to the wider public as well As local
benefits to electrical Distribution companies, Their customers And other users of
distribution transformers.
Optimization of technical losses in electricity transmission and distribution grids

is an engineering issue, involving classic tools of power systems planning and
modeling. The driving criterion is minimization of the net present value (sum of
costs over the economic life of the system discounted at a representative rate of
return for the business) of the total investment cost of the transmission and
distribution system plus the total cost of technical losses. Technical losses are
valued at generation costs (World Bank, 2009).
For an electric utility (Distribution Company) that has numerous distribution

transformers in its network, there is an opportunity to install high efficient
distribution transformers that have less total energy losses than less efficient
transformers, so they pollute the environment less. Bearing all these into mind, the
goal of this work is to redefine the Total Owning Cost (TOC) method to properly
incorporate all the aspects of the transformer life cycle, evaluating not only the
transformer losses but also the environmental externalities.(Amoiralis, et
al,2007).
2.5.2 Selection Based On Safety Criteria:

For safety reasons, and to avoid fire hazards; usually oil immersed transformers
aren’t suitable for enclosed building; According to (Carlen et al; 2011), Mineral
31 | P a g e
oil has been the dielectric fluid of choice in liquid filled DTs for decades, in spite
of its known, undesirable impact on safety and the environment. Recently,
vegetable oil based fluids have been developed as alternatives. Among these, the
BIOTEMP ® biodegradable fluid from ABB has a high flash point and provides a
safe, environmentally friendly solution. Dry-type transformers are used in
applications where safety is of major importance and in ecologically sensitive
areas. Insulation needs are satisfied by air and by epoxy based solid materials
IEEE,(2012), explained the above issue: transformers and regulators 75 KVA and
above containing an appreciable amount of flammable liquid and located indoors
shall be installed in ventilated rooms or vaults separated from the balance of the
building by fire walls. Doorways to the interior of the building shall be equipped
with fire doors and shall have means of containing liquid. In addition Barnes et
al; (1996), supported this point, where Oil type transformers are normally used
outdoors because of concerns about an oil spill or possible fire hazard. Dry-type
transformers are air-cooled, fire-resistant, non-oil devices and thus do not need
special oil-spill containment.
As a result, dry-type transformers are used in applications where safety is of major

concern and in sensitive areas; because using internal faults or short circuits in oil
type can lead to large explosions and fires, which can cause significant harm to
people and property. in JDECO this issue do not take place in important design
consideration especially in large commercial building, sensitive areas such as
hospitals, factories, and residential buildings also.
2.5.3 Selection Based On Installation Criteria:

The effects of dirt, moisture, and corrosive contaminants must be considered when
specifying a transformer for outdoor locations. Standard dry-type transformers
typically are not considered suitable for outdoor applications because of this. In
contrast, a liquid-filled transformer’s standard sealed tank and insulation system
protect the core and coil from harsh environments, helping to ensure reliable,
long-term performance in even the worst environmental conditions. (Cooper,
2000).
32 | P a g e
I think this point is true thus dry type transformers more suitable for indoor
installations.
As a summer; generally liquid filled transformers are the most compact and cost
efficient solution, whereas dry type transformers are preferred in environments
where fire safety is of special importance there are new types of transformers
(Amorphous core transformers) that can introduce sustainable solution with
respect to all environmental criteria taking into consideration loss value, TOC, and
safety. For example ABB Company offer the various technologies involved to suit
the customer’s own particular application. It is important that transformer
specifiers understand their load, in order to determine the appropriate measures to
improve transformer performance.
2.6 Cost of Losses:

According to SEEDET, (2008), Belmans et al; (2005), the annual energy losses of a
transformer can be estimated from the following formula
WLoss = (Po + Pk *L2 ) *8760
In which:
WLoss - is the annual energy loss in kWh
Po - is the no-load loss in kW. This factor is available from the transformer
specifications or can be measured.
Pk - is the short-circuit loss (or load loss) in kW. This factor is available from the
transformer specifications or can be measured.
L - is the average per-unit load on the transformer.
8760 - is the number of hours in a year.
To evaluate the total cost of losses, their Net Present Value at the moment of purchase
needs to be calculated, to put them into the same perspective as the purchase price.
This is done by calculating the Total Capitalized Cost of the losses (TCCloss) ,
33 | P a g e
calculated from the estimated average cost per kWh (C), the interest rate (i) and the
life time of the transformer in years (n), where Wloss
TCCloss = Wloss * * C* 8760
While the load profile over time and the future price evolution of energy is not known
in exactly, the use of trend line values can give good estimates of the total cost of the
losses.
2.7 TOC Method:

Energy-efficient transformers cost more but use less energy than low efficiency
transformers. The decision as to whether to purchase a low cost, inefficient
transformer or a more expensive, energy-efficient transformer is primarily an
economic one. The common practice used by the electric utilities for determining the
cost-effectiveness of distribution transformers is based on the total owning cost
(TOC) method (Kennedy BW, 1998).
The TOC technique is the most widely used transformer evaluation method used by
Transformer's manufactures for determining the cost-effectiveness of energy efficient
transformers, providing a balance between cost of purchase and cost of energy losses,
in order to optimize the design and provide the most economical transformer to bid
and manufacture, in addition to determine the relative economic benefit of a high-
first-cost, low loss unit versus one with a lower first cost and higher losses. (Khatri &
Rahi, 2012), (Georgilakis, 2011).
2.7.1 TOC Method without Environmental Cost:

Cost of a transformer is also assessed as Total owning cost (TOC) (Amoiralis,
2009). TOC is sum of initial cost of a transformer and cost of energy losses during
operation. For low TOC, the losses in a transformer should be low. As the time
passes, the TOC increases. High efficient transformers such as amorphous core
34 | P a g e
have higher initial cost with a reduced cost of energy losses; therefore they
become economical after a certain period of time (Mohan, 2012).
The TOC evaluation method has been developed as a handy tool to reflect the
unique financial environment faced by each electric utility when purchasing
distribution transformers.According to this method, the variability of the cost of
electric energy, capacity, and financing is expressed through two evaluation
factors, called A and B factors, corresponding to the unit cost of no-load and load
losses, respectively .It is important to note that the method that defines these two
factors varies according to the role of the transformer purchaser in the energy
market (two major categories can be considered: electric utilities and industrial
users and the depth of the analysis depending on the accuracy of the
representation of the transformer loading characteristics (Amoiralis et al; 2011).
To perform the economical analysis of transformer, it is necessary to calculate its

life cycle cost, sometimes called total cost of ownership, over the life span of
transformer or, in other words, the capitalised cost of the transformer. All these
terms mean the same – in one formula, costs of purchasing, operating and
maintaining the transformer need to be compared taking into account the time
value of money ( Targosz et al; 2008).
According to ABB, (2000), Al-Badi et al; (2011). The total owning cost (TOC)
method provides an effective way to evaluate various transformer initial purchase
prices and cost of losses, the losses are evaluated by their financial impact,
capitalized for an expected payback period for the transformer .Electricity
distribution companies could use the total owning cost method to make
transformer purchasing decisions. This method allows the total losses over the
whole life cycle to be taken into account. Thus the optimal selection would be the
design with the lowest TOC as calculated above. Simply put, the customer/user
will obtain a practical balance between investment and reward.
35 | P a g e
When the TOC method was developed, careful analyses were undertaken to
identify the parameters affecting lifetime loss performance; and mathematically
consistent approaches were developed to quantify the impacts of variation in these
parameters on transformer purchase decisions. The selection of the transformer
design that provides the lowest TOC is called a “hard-evaluation” approach. Many
utilities have begun to use a modification of the hard-evaluation approach in
selecting and procuring distribution transformers. This modification, called the
band of equivalence (BoE) or “soft-evaluation” approach, is used to account for
the variability in the TOC input parameters. It treats transformer designs that are
within a fixed percentage of the lowest TOC as equivalent. Normally, the lowest-
price transformer within the BoE is selected; this approach often results in
selection of a less efficient design than would have been chosen using the hard
evaluation approach (Downing et al; 1998).
Life cycle cost is performed in accordance to IEC 60300-3-3,(1999), the life cycle
of an element will be sub-divided into the following six cost-causing phases:
a) Concept and definition;

b) Design and development;
c) Manufacturing;
d) Installation;
e) Operation and maintenance;
f) Disposal.
In many cases it makes sense to combine the fore mentioned different elements of
costs into: Investment, Operating, and Recycling costs.
According to AL-Badi et al; (2011), BS7821-1, (1995), formula used for
evaluating price (capitalization of cost) summarize as follows:
Cc = initial price + Capitalized cost of losses

CC= CT + APo + BPk
Where:
Cc= Capitalized cost
36 | P a g e
CT= Tendered price

A = Value indicated by the purchaser in tender invitation expressed in monetary
value per watt corresponding to no-load loss.
Po = Guaranteed no-load loss in watts
B = Value indicated by the purchaser in tender invitation expressed in monetary
value per watt corresponding to load loss
Pk = Guaranteed load loss in watts
A= * Ce* 8760
B= * Ce* 8760 *
Where:
i: interest rate [%/year];
n – Lifetime [years];
Ce: cost of energy (KWH) = [ NIS/KWH]
I: Loading current [A]
Ir: Rated current [A]
According to Intelligent energy/Europe ,(2008) Usually, the loss evaluation

figures A and B form part of the request for quotation are submitted to the
transformer manufacturers, who can then start the complicated process of
designing a transformer to give the required performance. The result of this open
process should be the cheapest transformer, i.e. with the lowest total cost of
ownership, optimized for a given application. The drawback of this process is.
The difficulty in predicting the future load profile and electricity costs and tarrifs
with any confidence.
The same reference discussed A and B factors, where A factor expresses the
relation between the cost of no load losses and the following:
• Electricity price
• Discount rate or company interest rate or average cost of capital
• Capitalization period or expected lifetime of the transformer
37 | P a g e
Factor B, is simply the product of factor A and the square of the loading factor. (B
= A * (Loading)2), so; there is a range of possible B values that are consistent with
the particular A value and the ratio between A and B factors measure the relative
importance of no load and load losses. The loading factor used to evaluate
transformer over the lifespan is the expected of the average load over the life span
of the transformer, possibly taking harmonics into account.
The qualitative findings for A and B factors according to Georgilakis , (2011)

were as the following:
A = 13.08 $/W, B = 2.33 $/W
Depending on the values of losses evaluation parameters, the amount of electrical

steel, winding conductor material, insulation, core parts, tank size and cooling
capacity will all be affected. An optimized design will generally have more
magnetic steel in order to be more efficient. The initial price of an optimized
design will therefore be higher and it losses will be lower than a non-optimized
standard loss design. The evaluated price to the user is the sum of the initial price
and the capitalized cost of losses. The capitalized cost of losses decreases at much
faster rate than the increase in the initial price, the latter being the result of
additional material used. The initial price for an optimized design will generally
be higher than a standard unit; however, the lower operating costs will more than
make up for the premium price. In few years of operation, full payback of the
premium is realized due to the lower cost of ownership and anet return on this
additional investments starts to accumulate (Pasco, 1983), (ABB, 2000).
So by using TOC method, we are trying to find the choice which introduce the
minimum total cost on the curve below, which is to be found somewhere between
the minimum purchase price of the transformer and the price of losses. in addition
to analyze a case study by which the designer select between oversize existing
transformer or adding new one to accommodate new load demand, to meet the
optimum design.
38 | P a g e
It is important to has already been mentioned that the reference temperature for
load losses is 75 °C (oil type) .The initial results of the research about impacts of
lower reference temperatures on TOC indicate that the reference temperature 75°C
puts some limitations on transformer designs. The lower temperature limits will
promote optimized low loss transformers and dual name plate rating. (Corhodzic
& Kalam, 2013).
2.7.2 TOC Including Environmental Cost:

According to Georgilakis, (2010), the environmental cost is coming from the cost
to buy GHG emission credits because of the GHG emissions associated with
supplying transformer losses throughout the transformer lifetime.
ABB, (2000), Amoiralis, et al, (2007), pointed out to an important issue

regarding to environmental cost, both assumed that the environmental cost is
incorporated into the TOC formula and there is no universal way to account for
the cost of emissions in TOC as they are very much dependant on the regulatory
and political climate. Factors that would be used need to take into account not
only economic but also social impact; The latter is most challenging to quantify.
The main aspect of the methodology used to measure the environmental cost, is to
quantify the penalties associated to emissions due to transformer losses,
overcoming the difficulty to define the exact contribution of each transformer to
39 | P a g e
these emissions. For that purpose, a reference transformer is selected, i.e. a

transformer with reference no-load losses NLLr and reference load losses LLr. For
any given transformer that has total energy losses less than the total energy losses
of the reference transformer, there is no environmental penalty, otherwise, an
environmental cost is calculated. The key of computing the aforementioned
environmental cost is to find the energy losses that stem from the difference
between the total energy losses of the given transformer and the total energy
losses of the reference transformer (Amoiralis, et al, 2007). According to this
study, the introduction of environmental cost has resulted in a maximum increase
of the TOC value of 5.4%, which should be considered by electric utilities, as they
are already subject to rigorous European and international directives imposed for
the global reduction of gas emissions due to electric power production by
conventional generating units.
Furthermore according to Amoiralis, et al, (2007), Georgilakis, (2010), the

environmental cost of transformer losses, EC
Ec= Ae [NLL-NLLr] + Be [ LL –LLr]
Where Ae is the no-load loss environmental factor ($/W), NLL is the no-load loss
(W) of the evaluated transformer, NLLr is the no-load loss (W) of a reference
transformer, Be is the load loss environmental factor ($/W), LL is the load loss
(W) of evaluated transformer, and LLr is the load loss (W) of a reference
transformer.
• The term Ae [NLL-NLLr] expresses the environmental cost of transformer no-

load losses throughout the transformer lifetime. This formulation shows that
the environmental cost of transformer no-load losses can be positive or
negative. For example, the electric utility has to pay GHG emission penalties
due to transformer no-load loss only if NLL _ NLLr > 0.
• The term Be [ LL –LLr] expresses the environmental cost of transformer load
losses throughout the transformer lifetime. This formulation shows that the
environmental cost of transformer load losses can be positive or negative. For
40 | P a g e
example, the electric utility has to pay GHG emission penalties due to
transformer load loss only in case that LL _ LLr > 0.
The calculation of factors Ae,Be is complex process because of different factors

used depending on fuel used in generation process, in addition to market value for
each pollutant. Thus because JDECO considered as a distribution company, here
just to give an image to clarify the environmental effect we will assume the values
depending on previous reference talked about this topic, for example according to
Georgilakis, (2010), study Ae and Be have been computed as following :
Ae = 6.01 $/ W, Be = 1.23 $/W

Another study submitted by (Georgilakis & Amoiralis, 2010), this study
evaluated the distribution transformer cost incorporating environmental cost, and
the above factors were also calculated as following:
Ae = 6.2613 $/ W, Be = 1.1443 $/W
Another approach assumed by ABB, (2000) One can account economical costs for
emissions within the TOC calculation by adding emission costs (Cem) to the cost
of energy (Ce) for a total cost of energy (CE), which takes the place of Ce in the
TOC equations in the previous part :
CE = Cem + Ce
Cem = Ep x Ec
where Ep (tons/Wh) characterizes total emissions, calculated from the known

quantity of emissions for each of the pollutants while producing a certain amount
of electricity, and Ec (USD/ton) is the market value for the pollutants (ABB,
2000).
TOCe= TOC+ Ec
TOCe = CT + APo + BPk + Ec
41 | P a g e
For calculation issues, for each KWH The Average operating margin for
CO2 emission factor used is 726 gram CO2/net-KWH (IECO, 2010). And The
USD value/ ton is assumed to be 10$/ton CO2 (Wilson et al; 2012).
42 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IN JDECO
3.1 Introduction to Electricity Market in Palestine:

According to (Price Waterhouse Coopers [PWC], 2011); Palestinian Energy and
Natural Resources Authority (PENRA) designed the Palestinian Electric Power
Institutional Framework (PEPIF) to be adopted in the framework of the institutional
development and electricity sector reform in Palestine In this framework, four main
Distribution Companies (DisCos) will be responsible for supplying electricity to the
end users as follows:
• The North Electricity Distribution Company (NEDCo) Provision of electricity to

Nablus, Jenin, Salfeet, Tulkarem, Tubas and Qalqilya governorates
• The Jerusalem District Electricity Company (JDECo) Provision of electricity
Ramallah, Jerusalem, Jericho and Bethlehem
• The South Electricity Distribution Company (SEDCo) Provision of electricity to
Hebron governorate and its surrounding municipalities.
• The Gaza Electricity Distribution Company (GEDCo) Provision of electricity to
the Gaza Strip.
The three electricity distribution companies operate in the West Bank (JDECO,
SELCO, NEDCO); purchase 95% of the needed electricity from the Israel Electric
Corporation (IEC), which they transmit over a grid that is currently owned by IEC.
The remaining 5% of electric power used in the West Bank comes from Jordan. In
Gaza, the Palestine Electric Company (PEC) operates a power station, which
currently generates 70MW covering 30% of the 240 MW demand. Egypt supplies
Gaza with 20 MW and Israel supplies the remaining 150 MW (Export, 2013).
The Palestinian electrical market is highly dependent on the growth in the West Bank
& Gaza Strip (WBGS) as it is characterized by the weight of the demographic
evolution rather than on the economy of households which are the major electricity
consumers. The Palestinian electricity market is dominated mainly by household
43 | P a g e
clients The total estimated number of clients in the WBGS reaches 921,622 with
households subscribers representing 84% (770,370 clients) of the total number of
establishments followed by Internal Trade representing 9% (82,576 clients ) and
Services with a percentage of 4% (39,645) (PWC, 2011).
According to (PENRA, 2010), Electricity sources are presently distinctive of the

following features:
• Almost complete dependence on Israel as a source of electricity. Taking into

account that it is the only source that supplies the sole Palestinian electricity
generation station, Israel controls 97.4% of electricity supply in Palestine.
• The quantity of energy contracted with currently available energy sources, is not
sufficient to meet local needs. The Gaza Strip suffers from a deficit of 15% (about
40 megawatts) of the local demand. Supplies are also insufficient to meet the
growing demand on electricity. The contracted quantity with Israel is
approximately 750 megawatts, with Jordan 20 megawatts, and with Egypt 17
megawatts. Not a further single megawatt can be procured from either Jordan or
Egypt because respective distribution lines cannot accommodate any further
capacity.
• Energy imported from Israel is not regulated by a purchase agreement, but by

bilateral contracts between Palestinian local government units and distribution
companies on the one hand, and the Israeli Electricity Company on the other.
• Electricity generated by the Gaza Electricity Generation Plant is expensive due to

reliance on diesel. Maximum capacity of the plant is not exploited due to
insufficient fuel and lacking appropriate infrastructure of transmission network
The electricity consumption in the central West Bank region rose up to

830,809MWh, 22% electricity consumed in WBGS and its features reflect part from
the total part of the overall consumption picture of the WBGS (PWC, 2011).
44 | P a g e
3.2 Background about JDECO:

Established in 1914, the Jerusalem District Electricity Company (JDECO) is among
the first Palestinian Public-Private Partnership (PPP) institutions and one of the most
important Palestinian national economic institutions. Despite exceptional
circumstances and decades of regional political unrest, the name JDECO has
remained linked to Al-Quds Al-Sharif since its inception during the days of the
Ottoman Empire. The JDECO concession area covers 25 percent of the West Bank
(366 km2 - an area equal to that of the Gaza Strip) and includes the Jerusalem Area
(East Jerusalem), which encompasses 47 towns and villages in an area of 82 km2; the
Ramallah Area, which includes 72 towns and villages in an area of 174 km2; the
Bethlehem Area, which includes 43 towns and villages in an area of 80 km2; and the
Jericho Area, which has 7 population centres and covers 30 km2. The Palestine
National Authority recently extended the JDECO concession in Jericho to cover large
parts of the northern Jordan Valley (Abudaka,2013).
The total number of customers at the end of 2013 was 224231 [1].Ramallah locates
43% of the total clients, followed by Bethlehem (17%), Jerusalem (35%) and Jericho
(4%).
JDECo’s Mission & Strategy:

• Delighting Customers and Becoming a Customer-Centric Company
• Motivate and Inspire Employees by Providing them Any Necessary Training to
Develop their Capabilities
• Develop Excellent Relationship with Business Partners by Building Mutual
Benefit Strategies
• Take Care of Shareholders by Achieving Good Financial Profit
JDECo’ Vision:
To be the Leaders in the Region by Providing the Best Quality Services Using Most
up-to-date and Superior Technologies.
[1]: JDECO Customer numbers report 12-2013
45 | P a g e
3.3 Normal Service Conditions For Electrical System In JDECO:

IEC 60076 gives detailed requirements for transformers for use under the following
conditions:
1- Altitude: A height above sea level not exceeding 1 000 m.

2- Temperature of cooling air The temperature of cooling air not exceeding: 40
°C at any time; 30 °C monthly average of the hottest month; 20 °C yearly
average. and not below:
–25 °C in the case of outdoor transformers;

–5 °C in the case of indoor transformers.
where the monthly and yearly averages are as defined in 3.12 of IEC 60076-1
The relative humidity of the surrounding air shall be less than 93 %.
3.4 Characteristics of Electrical System in JDECO:

The system equipment shall be designed to withstand the design criteria given below
without damage and disruption of service. All tests shall as a minimum is based on
these design parameters.
Table (3.4.1): Characteristics of Electrical System in JDECO
item No. description unit Nominal voltage

1 Nominal system voltage phase to phase kV 33 11 0.4
2 Highest system voltage phase – phase 1) kV 36 12 4) 0.42
3 System Frequency Hz 50 50 50
4 System earth ---- Solid Solid Solid
5 Minimum Design Short circuit Current (1 kA 25 25 25
sec. arch test) 2)
6 Impulse withstand voltage (1.2/50 msec kV peak 170 75 -
wave) 3)
7 Power frequency withstand voltage (1 kV 70 28 2.5
min.) 3)
8 Min creepage distance over outdoor cm 90 31
insulators (Pollution class 3- severe, IEC
60815/85 – 2.5cm/kV)
46 | P a g e
Wherever any of these maximum or 24 hour average temperatures exceed the normal
service condition temperatures of the IEC Recommendations for the relevant
equipment, or of such other standard which is approved to be applied, the permissible
temperature rises of the recommendations or the standard shall be reduced by the
same amount as the difference between the above figures and the normal service
condition temperatures.
3.5 General Overview on M.V Networks:

The network structure is formed by overhead lines, underground cables, the
transformers, buses between the points of power injection and power consumption.
The number of voltage transformations from the highest voltage level to the lowest
voltage level determines the principle network structure of a system ( Schavermaker
&van der Sluis,2008).
JDECO MV network operated on 33 or 11 KV voltage levels. The medium voltage

networks have a transmission function in addition to the distribution function.
• MV transmission networks, distribute the electric energy supplied from the Israel
Electric Co. (and from Jordan side in Jericho) to the secondary distribution
substations using over head (OH) or underground cables (UC); the n-1 principle is
mostly applied to the MV network.
• MV Distribution networks distribute the electric energy from MV substation to
various MV distribution stations (customer stations).
1) Ref. IEC 60038
2) For all current carrying parts the permissible short circuit duration shall be at least 1 second. Indoor
equipment shall be arch tested in accordance with IEC 60298 amendment 2. The dynamic or momentary
short circuit current on which the equipment design shall be based shall be computed by multiplying the
r.m.s. value of the symmetrical short circuit current by the factor 1.8 x 2.
3) Ref. IEC 60071
4) Except for Under Ground Cables Highest system voltage phase – phase is 15kV
47 | P a g e
For MV networks there has to be made a difference between MV/MV transformers,

and MV/LV transformers; MV/MV transformers in JDECO are used to transform
electric energy from a medium voltage to another medium voltage level ( from 33 KV
to 11KV); where MV/LV transformers ( with voltage level from 33 or 11/0.4 KV) are
called distribution transformers which are used to supply energy to end customers .
3.6 International Standards for MV Component:

1. Medium Voltage Switchgear Panel and Transformer Primary Protection Panel
Table (3.6.1): Technical specifications for Medium Voltage Switchgear Panel and
Transformer Primary Protection Panel
Operating voltage 11KV or 36KV Maximum
voltage 42KV
Rating current: 400,630A
Symmetrical Breaker Capacity 20KA (Minimum 16KA)
Durability for Impulse 170KV (Peak)
The equipment shall meet the
applicable IEC standard or equivalent
Load break switch IEC265
Load break switch + Fuses IEC420
Circuit breaker IEC 56
Earthing switch IEC129
Monitoring and Control IEC801
Degree of Protection IEC529
Metal enclosed switchgear IEC298
2. Underground cables (UG):
Table (3.6.2): technical specifications for UG cables
Specifications
1 L.V cables 4x150 mm2-circular stranded Aluminum conductors with XLPE insulated, type
N2XY, with P.V.C sheathed.
4x50 mm2-circular stranded copper conductors with XLPE insulated, type N2XY,
with P.V.C sheathed.
2 M.V cables 3*(1*240) mm2-almunium conductor with XLPE insulated Type NA2XS (F)
2Y, 18/30 KV with P.V.C sheathed.
48 | P a g e
3. Distribution transformers:
Table (3.6.3): technical specifications for DT
Specifications
1 33 or11/0.4 KV , 50HZ
2 comply with IEC 60076
3 three Phase transformers to Vector Group reference Dyn 11
4 Oil Natural Air Natural (ONAN) cooling
5 low viscosity mineral insulating oil, which compiles in every respect with
the provision of IEC 60296
No. of Steps on tape changer

1 2 3 4 5 6
for distribution Transformers
Range -2.50% 0 2.50% 5% 7.50% 10%
Voltage on L.T. 390 400 410 420 430 440
Table (3.6.4): DT and rated capacities (KVA)
Transformers (KVA)
Region Total
100 160 250 400 500 630 1000
Jerusalem 6 32 97 126 44 197 33 535
600 5120 24250 50400 22000 124110 33000 259480
Ramallah 19 114 142 203 46 130 19 673
1900 18240 35500 81200 23000 81900 19000 260740
Bethlehem 16 34 143 111 47 127 8 486
1600 5440 35750 110 23500 80010 8000 154410
Jericho 23 25 49 35 11 22 1 166
2300 4000 12250 14000 5500 13860 1000 52910
Total NO. 64 205 431 475 148 476 61 1860
Total power 6400 32800 107750 145710 74000 299880 61000 727540
(KVA)
Phase Connections:
a-H.V. Delta Delta Delta Delta Delta Delta Delta Delta
Windings
b- L.V. Winding Star Star Star Star Star Star Star Star
c-Vector Group Dyn Dyn Dyn 11 Dyn 11 Dyn Dyn 11 Dyn 11 Dyn 11
11 11 11
Cooling ONAN ONAN ONAN ONAN ONAN ONAN ONAN ONAN
** JDECO monthly report 1-2013
49 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY OF MEASUREMENTS
The methodology underlying the study focused on building two aspects:

the first is to choose power substations of the company's franchise areas, and
monitoring the behavior of the transformer during almost two months, as a case study
can be applied to any other transformer based on the same criteria, and foundations of
the underlying analysis of data and information, in addition to calculating the
economic loading for transformers used in electric system in the Jerusalem District
electricity company using TOC method.
The following module will be used for analysis:
The second case, involved the construction of several scenarios to explain the
methodology used in the analysis, comparison, and differentiation between types of
transformers, with well reasoned achieves optimal management of loads.
According to IEEE Std 1159. (1995); the energy analyzer used to carry out the
measurements based on continuous mode within the monitoring period. The
monitoring period is a direct function of the monitoring objective. Usually the
monitoring period attempts to capture a complete power period, an interval in which
the power usage pattern begins to repeat itself. An industrial plant, for example, may
repeat its power usage pattern each day, or each shift. Depending on the monitoring
objective, it may be necessary to monitor as little as one shift.
To determine the monitoring period; three previous studies aimed to evaluate

transformer loading based on load profile measurements submitted by : Jardini et al;
(1997) , Jardini et al; (1999), Jardini et al; (2000), in those studies The transformer
daily load curve yields the demand through the transformer at regular time intervals
(15-minute intervals are used ), so a daily load curve is made up of 96 pairs of time
and demand values, and the transformers were monitored during 15-30 days, another
study conducted by Energy Management Center –Kerala in collaboration with
Bureau Energy Efficiency [1] aimed to identify the technical loss reduction in
50 | P a g e
distribution system, in this study three distribution transformers were selected in

Kerala state, and the transformer load was monitored continuously for 15 to 20 days
with a rate of one reading /10 minutes. The same philosophy adopted by (Fidalgo et al;
2010), for the load profiles, losses profiles will be settled on a monthly basis,
considering a typical 24-hour diagram for workdays, another for Saturdays and yet
another for Sundays.
The tested transformer in this study was monitored using VIP system (energy
analyzer) during two equally periods of 56 days, in total the data will be recorded with
a rate of 1 reading/ 15 minutes, variations will also be observed from day to day in
transformer within the period. in order to take these variations in our consideration,
two daily curves were obtained from the measurements: a mean curve and a standard
deviation curve. These curves give the mean and standard deviation values,
respectively, in each 15-minute interval, and then TOC method used to capitalize
losses of distribution transformer.
The analysis part includes the following:

1- Calculation of the annual cost of loss for the selected transformer.
2- Identifying the optimum and Economic loading rate for the transformer using cost
benefit analysis criteria.
3- A Scenario discusses comparison based on choosing between two types of
distribution transformers (oil type and dry type) for the same ratings taking into
consecration all related factors.
4- Building a model that will be useful for conducting distribution loss evaluation for
other areas of the utility.
[1] Energy Management Center –Kerala and Bureau Energy Efficiency. Identification of technical loss
reduction and realization of secondary distribution system at selected typical three distribution
transformers of Kerala state electricity board. Available on www.keralaenergy.gov.in.
51 | P a g e
The Implementation strategy of this study consists of:

- Identify location area.
- Collect and collate the secondary data available.
- Prepare a methodology describes the technical study.
- Conduct the technical study.
- Prepare comprehensive report showing detailed analysis and finding.
- Suggest recommendations for improvement to supplement the effort of JDECO in
optimizing distribution transformers.
52 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS
This chapter Contains 4 parts:

Part A- Economic loading for oil types used in JDECo with ratings 250,400,630 and
1000 KVA in addition to TOC [$] for each type, in Addition to real case study for
AL-manara Substation.
Part B: Financial comparison for replacing, or adding, or loading existing transformer

depending on new load had been added to the system; including real case analysis for
630 KVA transformer installed in new existing neighborhood project.
Part C: financial comparison between oil and Eco dry type's transformer ( including
applying analysis to Al-manara case study).
Part D: Environmental analysis for CO2 cost.
Part F: Analysis summery.
Part A : Economic loading :

1- relationship between no load and load loss, percent load and efficiency for
typical 1ooo,630,400 and 250 KVA transformers respectively:
53 | P a g e
Fig.(5.1). Relationship between no load and load loss, percent load and efficiency for
typical 1ooo KVA transformer
Fig.(5.2). relationship between no load and load loss, percent load and efficiency for
typical 63o KVA transformer
54 | P a g e
typical 400 KVA transformer
typical 250 KVA transformer
From the above relationships, the points that achieve minimum percent of losses with
maximum efficiency for each type are summarized in the following table:
Table (5.1): max. Efficiency points for transformers
Transformer capacity (KVA) Max efficiency point

1000 40%
630 44%
400 45%
250 45%
This relationship is very important for transformer users in order to obtain the most
cost effective transformer according to user application. This optimization is
accomplished by the manufacturer if missing information is provided by the user
(client).
All parameters used to evaluate price model equations for the transformer are
controlled by manufacturer except price losses and percent load information which
are determined by the user's application in the tender document.
55 | P a g e
The result is that the manufacturer custom designs a transformer that is the most
economical for the application.
To evaluate this model that optimize the design, TOC method is used in analysis. In
our calculations the following inputs are used in TOC equation:
i= 6.7% Ce =0.1214 $/KWH
A= * Ce* 8760 B= * Ce* 8760 *
A= 12735 $ B= A*(loading 2 )
CC= CT + 12738 Po + A*(loading 2 ) Pk
Below different values of B for selecting values for load factor :
Table (5.2): B values with different load factor values
Load factor 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

B values [$] 4585 5381 6240 7164
2- economical loading for 250.400.630 and 1000 KVA transformers used in

JDECO calculated based on TOC equation:
56 | P a g e
Fig.(5.5).Economical loading for typical 1000KVA transformer
57 | P a g e
The following table (5.3) summarizes the above results:
Table (5.3): Economic loading for different transformer capacities
Transformer capacity (KVA) Economic loading %

1000 77%
630 88%
400 91%
250 95%
The following Fig. (5.9). summarizes the total Cc [$] for all types for different loads
values:
58 | P a g e
Fig.(5.9).Cc [$] for 250, 400,630 and 1000KVA transformers for different Load
values
3- Case study: AL-Manara substation (11/0.4 KV, 630 KVA TR) analysis
Period 1 : 30 days readings
1- Avg loading ,Total losses (KWH) and cost of losses ($):
Fig.(6.10).Mean and SD for period 1
Avg. loading for period 1 = 47%
The KWH losses and cost of losses are shown in table (6.4) below:
Table (5.4): Total losses Total losses (KWH) and cost ($) for period 1
losses (KWH) Cost of losses ($)

Period 1=30 days 1,631.2 214.39
Year =365 days 19,846.56 2,608.41
59 | P a g e
Period 2 : 26 days readings:
1- Avg loading ,Total losses (KWH) and cost of losses ($):
Fig.(6.11).Mean and SD for period 2
Avg. loading for period 1 = 41%
The KWH losses and cost of losses are shown in below table (6.5):
Table (5.5): Total losses Total losses (KWH) and cost ($) for period 2
losses (KWH) Cost of losses ($)

Period 2=26 days 1,246.2 163.8
Year =365 days 17,494.4 2,299.3
60 | P a g e
Part B: Applying financial comparison for replacing, or adding, or

loading existing transformer depending on new load had been added
to the system:
1- Financial analysis for 630 KVA TR 11/0.4 KV loaded 40% with new
200KVA load due to new project:
The current transformer assumed to have 40% loading factor and due to new
demand equal to 200 KVA ( after 5 ,10, 15, or 20 years). Here we have to decide
whether to add, replace or increase the loading of current transformer based on
TOC method.
The results obtained for this analysis are shown in the below table:
Table (5.6): Financial analysis for Add, replaces, or increase loading for existing
630 KVA transformer Loaded 40%
5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years

Total cost replaced with 1000 ($) 72868.02 76825.87 63876.79 69091.16
Total cost with 400 KVA added ($) 89278.17 87884.7 78262.15 81007.75
Total cost for 630 KVA loaded 72% ($) 56736.78 56736.78 56736.78 56736.78
From above results: it is shown that loading the existing transformer will
incrase the loading to 72% and this will be the most economical solution
compared to other choices.
2- Financial analysis for 630 KVA TR 11/04 KV loaded 65% with new 200KVA
load due to new project:
The current transformer assumed to have 65% loading factor and due to new
demand equal to 200 KVA ( after 5 ,10, 15, or 20 years). Here we have to
decide whether to add, replace or increase the loading of current transformer
based on TOC method.
61 | P a g e
Table (5.7): Financial analysis for Add, replace, or increase loading for
existing 630 KVA transformer loaded 65%
5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years

Total cost replaced
102482.1 106229.7 93106.3 98178.61
with 1000 ($)
Total cost with 400
117975.7 116476.2 106707.2 109250.2
KVA added ($)
Total cost for 630
137697.6 137697.6 137697.6 137697.6
KVA loaded 97% ($)
From above results: it is shown that replacing the existing transformer with
another one with rating of 1000 KVA is the best choice and this will be the
most economical solution compared to other choices.
3- Financial analysis for real existing 630 KVA TR 11/0.4 KV loaded 5%

(installed in new existing neighborhood project) and the load expected to
increase along coming years according to the following assumption :
The analysis will show how economical to install the full rated capacity
transformer from the beginning, or install transformers with different
capacities gradually until meet the full rated capacity along time.
The estimated load for this project calculated to be 445 KVA, assumptions for
load forcast within coming years are shown in below table:
Table (5.8): Assumption for increasing load for existing 630 KVA transformer
1st year 2nd year 3d year 4-7 8-10 10-25

years years years
percent load 5% (real 15% 30% 40% 70% 80%
value)
KVA ratings 630.00 31.50 94.50 189.00 252.00 441.00 504.00
Percent load for different transformer ratings
KVA ratings 250 13% 38% 76% 101% 176% 202%
400 8% 24% 47% 63% 110% 126%
The results for this scenario are described in below table (6.9):
62 | P a g e
Table (5.9): Result obtained for scenario 3:
($)
Total cost for keeping 630 KVA TR ($) 79196
Total cost for 250 KVA replaced after 3 years with 630 KVA ($) 81,970.09
Total cost for 400 KVA replaced after 7 years with 630 KVA ($) 88,432.97
For this case: installing transformer that meet the full demand is better than installing
different transformers in parallel with load increased.
Part C: Applying financial comparison between oil and Eco dry types
transformers:
The analysis will compare how feasible to use eco dry type transformers comparing to
oil types used in JDECO.
1- General comparison 1000 KVA rating :

The comparison includes comparing total KWH losses for different percents of
load, TOC and net saving [$] for this comparison:
a- Total KWH losses: fig. (5.12) shows the total KWH losses for 1000 KVA
different types of transformers:
Fig. (5.12) total KWH losses for 1000 KVA different types
of transformers Vs load percent
63 | P a g e
The results show that oil type has the highest value for KWH losses all the time. For
other types, at high percents of loads 99plus and ultra types have lowest values of
losses, where basic and ultra types presented the lowest values of losses for small
ranges of loads.
b- Total CC [$]: the Cc [$] capitalized the total values of losses along transformer
lifetime in addition to the initial cost for each type.
fig. (5.13) show the total Cc [$] for 1000 KVA different types of transformers:
Fig. (5.13) total CC [$] for 1000 KVA different types of transformers Vs
load percent
From the above fig.(5.13): it is feasible to use basic type for small ranges of loads and
to use ultra or 99plus for high percents of loads.
c- Total savings ($) for each type of eco dry transformers compared to oil for period
for 20%,40%,60% and 80% load percents:
This will show different scenarios assumed for percents of loads, the analysis will
show how the loads determine which type to use based on economical evaluation.
64 | P a g e
1- 20% load percent :in this case 1000KVa transformer assumed to have avg. load
with 200 KVA that equal to 20% loading of total transformer capacity :
Fig.(5.14). Total saving ( 20% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to ultra dry type )
Fig.(5.15). Total saving ( 20% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to basic dry type )
65 | P a g e
Fig.(5.16). Total saving ( 20% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to 99plus dry type )
The net saving [$] for this scenario is shown in fig (6.17) below:
Fig.(5.17). Net saving for 20% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to eco dry types
2- 40% load percent : in this case 1000KVa transformer assumed to have avg. load
with 400 KVA that equal to 40% loading of total transformer capacity :
66 | P a g e
67 | P a g e
Fig.(5.20). Total saving ( 40% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to 99plus dry type )
3- 60% load percent : in this case 1000KVa transformer assumed to have avg. load
with 600 KVA that equal to 60% loading of total transformer capacity
68 | P a g e
69 | P a g e
Fig.(5.24). Total saving ( 60% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to 99 plus dry type)
4- 80% loading percent : in this case 1000KVa transformer assumed to have avg.
load with 800 KVA that equal to 80% loading of total transformer capacity :
70 | P a g e
71 | P a g e
Fig.(5.28). Total saving (80% loading of 1000KVA oil compared to 99 plus dry type)
72 | P a g e
2- AL-Manara substation (11/0.4 KV, 630 KVA TR) analysis : comparing 630KVA
oil type with eco dry types:
A- Period 1 analysis: the results obtained for comparing oil type used with eco
dry types are below table (6.10):
Table (5.10): Comparison between 630 KVA types ( oil, ultra,basic and 99
plus types) for Almanara "period 1"
Oil Vs ultra Oil Vs Basic Oil Vs 99Plus
Total Saving ($) 2,029.66 5,620.86 (5010.76)
The below figures show the total savings ($) for each type of eco dry transformers
compared to oil for period 1:
Fig.(5.30). Period 1 total saving ( 630KVA oil compared to ultra dry type )
73 | P a g e
Fig.(5.31). Period 1 total saving ( 630KVA oil compared to basic dry type )
Fig.(5.32). Period 1 total saving ( 630KVA oil compared to 99 plus dry type )
The net saving [$] for period 1 is shown in fig (6.33) below:
74 | P a g e
Fig.(5.33) Net saving for Almanara period 1 compared to Eco dry types
B- Period 2 analysis: the results obtained for comparing oil type used with eco dry
types are below table (6.11):
Table (5.11): Comparison between 630 KVA types ( oil, ultra,basic and 99
plus types) for ALmanara "period 2"
Oil Vs ultra Oil Vs Basic Oil Vs 99Plus
Total Saving ($) 684.51 4,790.75 (6048.71)
The below figures show the total savings ($) for each type of eco dry transformers
compared to oil for period 2:
75 | P a g e
Fig. (5.34). period 2 total saving ( 630KVA oil compared to uultra dry type )
Fig.(5.35). Period 2 total saving (630KVA oil compared to basic dry type )
76 | P a g e
Fig.(5.36). Period 2 total saving (630KVA oil compared to 99 plus dry type )
The net saving [$] for
period 2 is shown in fig (6.37) below:
Fig.(5.37) Net saving for Almanara period 2 compared to Eco dry types
77 | P a g e
Part E : Environmental analysis for CO2 emissions:

This section provides a approximately perception about the environmental impact per
kilowatt electricity that had been generated without getting benefit of it; in other
words, the environmental cost that can be saved in case of choosing the optimal
design for the transformers within electrical system.
Three scenarios will be introduces to show the impact with following inputs:
CO2 emission for each KWH = 726gm.
Cost for CO2 ton= 10$/ton.
1- General comparison between 1000 KVA oil type transformer compared to

efficient Eco dry types for 60% loading percent :
The results below show that ultra type achive the best solution for
environmental savings
Table (5.12): Net KWH and [$] saving for 1000KVA oil type Tr
compared to Eco dry types
Oil Vs.
cost for saving Oil Vs. Basic Oil Vs. 99 plus
Ultra
annual saving KWH 23,936.7 14,541.6 17,238.8

CO2 tonns/year 17.38 10.56 12.52
environmental cost ($) /year 173.78 105.57 125.15
CO2 tonns/25year 434.45 263.93 312.88
environmental cost ($)/ 25year 2,198.12 1,335.36 1,583.05
78 | P a g e
Fig.(5.38) Net KWh and [$] saving for 1000KVa oil compared to Eco dry types
2- Replacing Almanara 630 KVA Transformer with Eco dry type:
The results below show that the ultra and basic types achieve the highest
environmental savings.
Table (5.13): Net KWH and [$] saving for Almanra 630 KVA
oil type compared to Eco dry types
cost for saving Oil Vs. Ultra Oil Vs. Basic Oil Vs. 99 plus
annual saving KWH 9,277.9 9,067.5 3,082.0
CO2 tonns/year 6.74 6.58 2.24

enviromental cost ($) /year 67.36 65.83 22.38
CO2 tonns/25year 168.39 164.58 55.94
enviromental cost ($)/ 25year 851.99 832.67 283.02
79 | P a g e
Fig.(5.39) Net KWh and [$] saving for Almanara 630 KVa oil compared to Eco dry
types
Part F: Analysis summery:
80 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusion:
1- Total system replacement: Using less energy can not only saves money, it can also
reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which
are released when electricity is generated. In distribution systems; a significant
amount of CO2 and thousands KWH of energy, could be saved if all distribution
transformers were immediately replaced by new efficient units. However,
immediate replacement of all distribution transformers is not practical. Because
this approaches to save energy would not be cost-effective solution.
Total system replacement is also impractical because it could not be accomplished
during routine utility maintenance and because transformer manufacturers do not
have the capacity to produce the large number of transformers required meeting
such a high demand within short and limited period of time.
2- The process to add or replace transformers weighs the life-cycle costs of adding/
replacing an existing transformer with a new transformer versus the life-cycle
costs of continuing to use the existing transformer with replacement occurring
later. The costs of each process either to add or replace; include the capital costs,
the cost of energy losses and other related costs. The comparative evaluation is
driven by two important factors:
• The assumption of the remaining life of the replaced transformer.

• The cost of adding, or reinstallation in addition to any other costs.
The energy costs of the alternatives vary with the differences in the no-load and load
losses and with the rates at which these losses are valued, the rates of loss
valuation are determined through valuing the cost of KWH at distribution system
without any overheads.
81 | P a g e
3- Choosing between transformers (either in type or capacity) is basically based on

the nature/behavior of load. For example, the use of dry transformers in hospitals
or residential buildings is a sufficient justification, regardless of the financial
issues; here the safety is the dominant factor. Financial matters can be addressed
by selecting the appropriate capacity for the required load; here the designer must
be aware of all the technical and financial details to get to the optimal design for
the system that achieves the minimum loss while maintaining other factors such as
public safety and environment.
4- It is shown that it is more economical to overload an existing transformer up to a

certain level and accept the extra cost of increased loss of life, than to relieve the
loading by installing larger or more transformers. It is recognized that such a new
policy, if followed, will lead to a greater dependence on the short-term or
emergency overload capabilities of existing transformers.
5- It is shown that replacing existing oil transformer ( ALmanara case ) will be more
economical than keeping current oil transformer over the life time of transformer.
6- The design process requires a full and comprehensive knowledge of the designer
of load required the grounds, and the criteria on which the selection of the type
and capacity of the transformer, is ultimately reflected positively on the economic
situation of the company, and contribute to reduce technical losses of the system,
in addition to reducing the adverse environmental impact of carbon dioxide
emissions and ensure the safety of people around the system.
Recommendations:
1- To use dry types in schools, institutions, hospitals and commercial buildings
where reliability and safety are mandatory. in case of any fault occurs inside oil
transformer, it might result in a significant explosion that puts all surrounding
equipment and nearby persons in direct danger, As well as the enormous financial
cost that will be incurred by companies.
82 | P a g e
2- It is important for JDECO and other utilities to have a distribution transformer

maintenance program that involves inspection, minor and/or major refurbishment,
and retirements. Distribution transformers are usually removed from service for
different reasons:
• Replacement due to extra loads.

• Lightning, storms and difficult weather conditions that affect the transformer
operation and may damage it.
• Traffic accidents.
• Changes in the nature of networks and routs.
• Relocation due to street or roads construction.
• Destruction of transformer due to break down of insulation resulting from
aging.
The removed units are replaced with new units or delivered to the maintenance
department, where they are examined to determine if they are to be refurbished
and returned to stock or retired to scrap. For example: some utilities used to retire
(and replace) a transformer when the associated load reached 100% of transformer
nameplate capacity. Some utilities also used to retire a transformer when its
calendar age reached an arbitrary value of 30 to 35 years (Bartley, 2012).
3- It is recommended to conduct studies that discuss the effect of non linear loads
mainly (VR Air conditioner systems, inverters.., and another study to discuss the
effect of unbalanced load on system losses, because There is a close relationship
between the presence of harmonics, nonlinear and unbalanced loads and percent of
losses within distribution system.
4- It is important to also pursue a policy regarding the use of high efficient

transformers that not only concern about initial cost.
83 | P a g e
References:
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard 60076-1. (1999). Power

transformers –Part 1: General.(2nd ed.).
IEEE Standard C57.115 . (1991). Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Power
Transformers Rated in Excess of 100 MVA.
IEEE Std C57.96. (1999). Guide for Loading Dry-Type Distribution and Power Transformers.
IEEE Std 1159. (1995.; IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring Electric Power Quality.
JAICA. (2008). Loss reduction & reliability improvement in Distribution System.
Salwa Ali Ahmed, Mohammed Abd El Latif Badr, Abla Soliman Atia.(2010). Investigation,
Estimation And Methods of Loss Reduction In Electrical Distribution
Systems.
Hans De Keulenaer. (2007). Energy Saving Opportunities for Transformers. . Retrived May
18.2013 from www.seai.ie
Alessandra PICANCO, Jussara DIAS, Manuel MARTINEZ.(2009).efficient transformers for
medium voltage networks- analyses and proposal.
Kenneth Duane Harden. (2011). Optimizing energy efficiency standards for low voltage
transformers.
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard 60076-11-2004. Power
transformers – Part 11: Dry-type transformers (1st ed.).
Schneider Electric.(2009). Use and Maintenance of Oil-immersed Distribution Transformers-
User manual.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). (1999). IEC 60300-3-3 / Dependability
management Part 3-3: Application guide – Life cycle costing.
Philip J.A. Ling, P.E.(2003). Overcoming transformer losses.
S. Corhodzic, A. Kalam. Assessment of distribution transformers using loss capitalization
formula. Retrived October 10.2013 from http://www.itee.uq.edu.au
Roman Targosz, Frangiskos Topalis, Wolfgang Irrek. (2008). Selecting Energy Efficient
Distribution Transformers A Guide for Achieving Least-Cost Solutions.
T R Blackburn. (2007). Distribution Transformers: Proposal to Increase MEPS Levels.
P.S. Georgilakis, E.I. Amoiralis. (2008). Distribution transformer cost evaluation
methodology incorporating environmental cost
A.H. Al-Badi , A. Elmoudi, I. Metwally , A. Al-Wahaibi, H. Al-Ajmi and M. Al Bulushi
.(2011).Losses Reduction In Distribution Transformers.
84 | P a g e
Glenn Swift, Tom Molinski. (1995).POWER TRANSFORMER LIFE-CYCLE COST

REDUCTION.
Eleftherios I. Amoiralis, Marina A. Tsili2, Pavlos S. Georgilakis, and Antonios G. Kladas.
(2007). Energy Efficient Transformer Selection Implementing Life Cycle
Costs and Environmental Externalities.
D. J. Downing,B. W. McConnell, P. R. Barnes, S. W. Hadley, J. W. Van Dyke. (1998).
Economic Analysis of Efficient Distribution Transformer Trends.
Juan Frau, Jordi Gutierrez and Alonso Ramis. (2007). Consider the True Cost Of Transformer
Losses.
BS 7821-1:1995, Three phase oil-immersed Distribution transformers, 50 Hz, from 50to 2500
kVA with highest voltage for equipment not exceeding 36 kV — Part 1:
General requirements and requirements for transformers with highest voltage
for equipment not exceeding 24kV.
BS 7821-1:1995, Three phase oil-immersed distribution transformers, 50 Hz, from 50 to 2500
kVA with highest voltage for equipment not exceeding 36 kV-Part 3:
Supplementary requirements for transformers with highest voltage for
equipment equal to 36 kV
P. R. Barnes, J. VI. Van Dyke, 5. W. McConnell, S. Das.(1996). Determination analysis of
energy conservation standards for distribution transformers.
IEEE standards association.(2012).national electrical safety code.
J. H. Harlow.(2004).Electric Power Transformer Engineering, CRC Press, New York.
Nitesh Bidarkar. (2010). Energy loss reduction by optimum loading of distribution
transformers. Journal International Association on Electricity Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, Volume : 22and23.
Eleftherios I. Amoiralis, Marina A. Tsili, Pavlos S. Georgilakis.(2011). The state of the art in
engineering methods for transformer design and optimization: a survey.
Transforming efficiency, (2008). Available online.
http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news /sfp/sfp116. html.
Martin Carlen, Ulrika Överstam, Vr.V Ramanan.(2011). Life cycle assessment of dry-type
and oil-immersed distribution transformers with amorphous metal core.
Edvard.(2012). Right Choice of Dry Type or Liquid-Filled Transformer.
Cooper.(2000). Rethinking Transformers For Safety, Performance, and Value.
W.T.J. Hulshorst, J.F. Groeman.(2002). ENERGY SAVING IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS.
Ceyhun Sahin.(2011). EcoDry raises the bar for ultra high-efficiency transformers.
85 | P a g e
Martin Carlen .(2011).Responding to a changing world.

International Energy Agency. (2012). Co2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion/ Documentation
For Beyond 2020 Files.
Man Mohan.(2012). Amorphous-Core Transformer with Copper Winding Versus Aluminium
Winding-A Comparative Study.
Jess Burgess.(2011). Commercial and Industrial Distribution Transformers Initiative.
Engineeringtalk .(2008).Transforming efficiency . Available on line.
http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/sfp/sfp116. html
European Commission, External Costs: Research results on socioenvironmental damages due
to electricity And transport, Directorate General For Research, Brussels, Study
20198, 2003.
Targosz, R. and Topalis, F.V.,” Energy efficiency of distribution transformers in Europe”, 9th
International Conference on Electrical Power Quality a Utilization, 9-11 Oct.
2007 pp.1 – 5.
World Bank Group Energy Sector Strategy. (2009). Reducing Technical and Non-Technical
Losses in the Power Sector.
Hadi Saadat, “Power System Analysis”, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Primis Custom
Publishing, 2002.
D. P. Bernardon, V. J. Garcia, A. S. Quintela and L. N. Canha.(2010). “Multicriteria
Distribution Network Reconfiguration Considering Subtransmission
Analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 2684-2691.
C. M. P. dos Sanyos. (2006). “Determination of Electrical Power Losses in Distribution
System,” IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition
Latin America, Venezuela, pp. 1-5.
M.Srinivasan & A.Krishnan.(2013). Effects of Environmental Factors in Transformer’s
Insulation Life.
Fernando Alvarado & Shmuel Oren.2006. Transmission System Operation and
Interconnection.
P. Schavermaker and L. van der Sluis. (2008). “Electrical power system essentials,” Delft
University of Technology.
Ing. M.O.W. Grond.2011.Impact of Future Residential Loads on Medium Voltage Networks
Mashhour Abudaka .(2013). Jerusalem District Electricity Company Getting Smarter.
Retrieved July 7.2013 from http://www.thisweekinpalestine.com.
IEC 60076-7: “Power transformers - part 9: Loading guide for oil-immersed power
transformers,” 2005.
86 | P a g e
E. I. Amoiralis, M. A. Tsili, and A. G. Kladas, “Transformer design and optimization: A

literature survey,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 4, 797 pp. 1999–2024,
Oct. 2009.
Eleftherios I. Amoiralis, Marina A. Tsili, and Antonios G. Kladas.(2011). Power Transformer
Economic Evaluation in Decentralized Electricity Markets.
J. M. Zolezzi, H. Rudnick, “Transmission cost allocation by cooperative games and coalition
formation”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 17, pp. 1008–1015, 2002.
PWC.(2011). Structuring Management of the Electricity Sector in Palestine.
Helping U.S companies export .(2013).Palestinian Market Briefs
Retrieved September 9,2013 from
http://export.gov/westbank/palestinianmarketbriefs/index.asp
ABB.(2000). green distribution transformer program Partnership in a sustainable
environment.
Ronnie Belmans, Jan Declercq, Hans De Keulenaer, Katsuaki Furuya, Mayur Karmarkar,
Manuel Martinez, Mike McDermott, Ivo Pinkiewicz8. (2005). The Potential
for Global Energy Savings from High Efficiency Distribution Transformers.
PENRA.(2010).Palestinian national plan 2011-2013/energy sector strategy.
Kennedy BW.(1998). Energy efficient transformers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pavlos S. Georgilakis. (2010). Environmental cost of distribution transformer losses.
Dasgupta I. (2011). Design of transformers, Tata McGraw Hill publishers.
Sawhney A.K. (2006). Electrical Machine Design, Dhanapat Rai publishers, India.
Say M.G. (1977). Performance and Design of AC Machines, Pitman, London.
Man Mohan. (2012). An Overview on Amorphous Core Transformers.
J. A. Jardini, H. P. Schmidt, C. M. V. Tahan, S. U. Ahn. (1999). Selection And Management
Of Distribution Transformers Using Artificial Neural Networks.
José Antonio Jardini, Hernán Prieto Schmidt, Carlos M. V. Tahan, Carlos C. B. de Oliveira,
Se Un Ahn. (2000). Distribution Transformer Loss of Life Evaluation: A
Novel Approach Based on Daily Load Profiles.
J.A. Jardini, C.M.V. Tahan, S.U. Ahn, E.L. Ferrari.(2002). Distribution Transformer Loading
Evaluation Based on Load Profiles Measurements.
Pat Bodger, David Harper, Matthew Gazzard, Matthew ONeill. (2002). The Performance Of
Silicon And Amorphous Steel Core, Distribution Transformers At Ambient
And Cryogenic Temperatures.
87 | P a g e
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard 60865-1. (2011). Short-circuit

currents – Calculation of effects–Part 1: Definitions and calculation
methods.(3nd ed.).
José Nuno Fidalgo, Manuel A. Matos, Humberto Jorge. (2010). Deriving Loss Profiles for
Market Purposes.
Gabriel POP, Mircea Chindriş, Radu Bindiu. ( 2009). Determination Of Power Losses In
Transformers Working In Unbalanced And Harmonic Polluted Networks
Rogério Salustiano, Estácio Neto ,Manuel Martinez. (2013). The Unbalanced Load Cost On
Transformer Losses At A Distribution System.
Russell A. Pasco. (1983).Transformrer loss evaluation leads to lower costs.
Lowenstein, M.Z. .(2008). Eliminating harmonic neutral current problems, IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, 21-24 .
Felea, D. Popovici, Albuţ-Dana Daniel. (2010). Impact Analysis of Unbalanced and Loading
Degree on Power Losses Weight in a Distribution Network.
Retrieved November 16,2013 from http://www.infomesr.org/en/scientific-
research/journals
IEC- Israel Electric Corporation. (2011). IEC GHG grid emission factor 2006 – 2010+build
margin+average operating margin.
Retrieved December 25,2013 from www.iec.co.il
Wilson et al., (2012). “2012 Carbon Dioxide Price Forecast,”
http://www.synapseenergy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2012-
10.0.2012-CO2-Forecast.A0035.pdf.
William H. Bartley.(2012). Life Cycle Management of Utility Transformer Assets.
Ajay Khatri, O.P. Rahi.(2012). Optimal Design Of Transformer: A Compressive
Bibliographical Survey.
Martin Carlen, David Xu, Johannes Clausen,Tommy Nunn, V. R. Ramanan, Douglas M
Getson. (2010). Ultra High Efficiency Distribution Transformers
88 | P a g e

38

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

38

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty of Commerce and Economics

Loss capitalization and optimum transformer design

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the

MSc Degree in Business Administration

Increasing knowledge in this area, will be reflected positively on the performance of

CHAPTER 1: BROAD PROBLEM AREA 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 15

CHAPTER 3: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IN JDECO 43

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY OF MEASUREMENTS 50

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion and recommendations 81

Table No. Table Title Page

Amorphous Core Transformers: amorphous core amorphous steel has been

Distribution transformer (DTs): According to IEC 60076-7: Distribution

kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kW·h, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy

Oil-immersed type transformer: a transformer of which the magnetic circuit and

Rated power (Sr): a conventional value of apparent power assigned to a winding

Skin effect: magnetic influence of a conductor itself (IEC 60865, 1985).

Abbreviation Full word

CHAPTER 1: BROAD PROBLEM AREA

transformer loading is playing a vital role in determining the efficiency of

transformer efficiencies will lead to significant reductions in generation capacity

The economic evaluation method of the transformers is based on two main

1- The initial cost (includes purchase price and installation cost).

Fig.1.1: Qualitative presentation of cost/ availability relation

Situation A represents that in which it is economical feasible to make measures to

1.2 Research Problem:

1.3 Significance OF THE STUDY:

2- system in JDECO is totally dependent on connection points with Israeli network

3- There is no consideration to the environmental impact resulting from energy loss

1.4 Study Objectives:

1.5 Research Questions:

1.6 Target Beneficiaries:

4- Commercial and domestics customers.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

- Poor quality of service offered to customers.

Transformers according to international standard IEC 60076-1,(1999), are made up of

Harden, (2011), described distribution transformers as they are very efficient

With reference to IEC 60076-1,(19999), transformers are classified according to the

1- Oil-immersed type transformer.

2.2 Transformer's Losses:

The load losses of transformer consist of:

– DC or ohmic loss (I2R):has its origin in dc-measured resistance of the

Figure below show the classification of transformer losses:

Figure 1: Classification of transformer loisses

Table (2.2.1): Load losses with system voltage

Table (2.2.2): No- Load losses Values with system voltage

Table (2.2.3): Load losses Values with system voltage

Table (2.2.4): No- Load losses Values with system voltage

2.3 Impacts of Transformer's Losses:

2.4 Transformer Loading and Determinants of Transformer's

Applications of loads in excess of nameplate rating involve some degree of risk.

Ambient temperature is an important factor in determining the load capability of a

according to (Cooper, 2013) The losses of the distribution transformer is highly

With reference to IEEE Std C57.96.(1999); Loading on the basis of ambient

Table (2.4.1): Self-cooled continuous loading on basis of average

Table (2.4.2): Loading on basis of temperatures (Average

according to IEC60076-11 (2004), The reference temperature (test temperature) of

Table (2.4.3): Winding temperature- rise limits

Natural-air-cooled transformers: 2,5 %;

harmonics effect caused by non-linear loads, such as variable speed drives,

A number of methods exist to prevent overloading or failure of the distribution

2.5 Selection TR Criteria:

2.5.1 Selection based on economic criteria:

WLoss = (Po + Pk L2 ) 8760