F06-Presentation.pdf

8/16/2019 F06-Presentation.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/f06-presentationpdf 1/33

IEEE Std. C57.100IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Thermal

Evaluation of Liquid-ImmersedDistribution and Power Transformers

11:00 am to 12:15 am

Monday, 23 October 2006

St. Laurent RoomDelta Centre-Ville Hotel

Montréal, Québec Canada



Agenda

1. Introduction and Rosters

2. Approval of Minutes from 20 March 2006 Meeting

3. Patent Disclosure (if applicable)

4. Discussion of DuPont – Weidmann Test of PowerTransformer Model

5. Discussion regarding work and how to implement

into our document.

6. Open items from past meetings



Discussion of DuPont - Weidmann

Test of Power Transformer Model

• Comparison Aging Curves to Historical Curves(C57.91-1981 and C57.92-1981)

• Comparison of Model Testing to Sealed Tube

Tests• Comparison of DP Life Curves to 50% Tensile

Life Curves

• Comparison of Upgraded to Non-Upgraded Paper • Oil Quality vs. Life Testing

• Work in Progress/Future Work



DuPont- Weidmann Test

• Review of purpose of test from last meeting• Findings to Date

• Next Steps in Testing• Evaluate test methodology to determine use

as an IEEE method.



DuPont – Weidmann TestPurpose – Utilize the IEC 62332 methodology to evaluate

thermally upgraded kraft – comparing results to historical data

presented in C57.100.

Products to test: Range of kraft papers from 0% Nitrogen (non-

upgraded paper) to 2.74% Nitrogen content (Insuldur) [0, 1.0,1.6, 2.48 and 2.74% N2]

Will evaluate the conductor insulation using mechanical testing(tensile strength) and DP. Will evaluate spacer material using

mechanical testing (compressibility) and DP. Will evaluate bulk

oil insulation using mechanical testing (tensile strength) and DP.

Will evaluate the oil after aging with DGA, moisture, furans, etc.



DuPont – Weidmann Test

Compare data from this model to other aging curves(distribution transformers, sealed tube test).

Later, Compare existing insulation system with proposed

system to determine allowable hottest spot temperature.



Progress Since Last Meeting

• Life Curves for non-upgraded paper nearing

completion with data past 50% tensile retentionfor most temperatures

• Life Curve for one of the upgraded papers nearing

completion• Analysis of DP, Furans, Initial Oil Quality testing

• Prototype test of moisturizing conducted.

• Modifications/upgrades to test cells identified.



Non-Upgraded Temperature Plots140C Plot

y = -1.929 115E-09x3 + 1.256510E-05x2 - 3.217868E-02x +

1.000000E+02

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

148C Plot

y = -3.669 80E-09x3 + 2 .72147E-05x2 - 5.84560E-02x +

1.00000E+02

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

156C Plot

y = -7.58079E-09x3 + 4.42508E-05x2 - 7.65712E-02x +

1.00000E+02

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

164C Plot

y = -6.668 87E-08x3 + 1.84167E-04x2 - 1.63725E-01x +

1.00000E+02

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

172C Plot

y = -2 .1186 5E-07x3 + 4.02724E-04 x

2 - 2.68155E-01x +

1.00000E+02

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 200 400 600 800 1000

180C Plot

y = -2.20338E-06x3 + 2.16653E-03x

2- 6 .49023E-01x +

1.00000E+02

0.00

20.00

40.0060.00

80.00

100.00

0 200 400 600



180 172 164 156 148 140

Initial Aging vs. Historic Life Curves



Per Unit Plot – Three paper Types

Limited data points for 1.60% N2. Still, life is seen between other

two curves

3 Paper Arrhenius

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.00205 0.0021 0.00215 0.0022 0.00225 0.0023 0.00235 0.0024 0.00245

1/T

L o g L i f e

2.74%N2 0%N2 1.60%N2



Comparison of New Method to

Sealed TubeConducting sealed tube tests with the same cell configuration (in an

oven) – all materials at 148C. Historical expectation would be for

264 hours life. Historical aging, however likely involved sealedwith air and/or moisture content. Predicted life for the sealed tube

is 888 hours with our test set up and oil processing.

Non-upgraded Kraft Aging

y = -6.471933E-08x3 + 1.455028E-04x2 - 1.344885E-01x + 1.000000E+02

R2 = 9.884772E-01

0.00

20.00

40.0060.00

80.00

100.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Hours at 148C

P e r c e n t T e

n s i l e

R e t e n t i o n

Model Testing Sealed Tube Testing



Sealed Tubes

Same materials as in Dual temperature cells, at ½ the

size, due to reduced amount of oil in the cell to allow

for expansion due to the high temperatures of the oil.

Insulation pictured is just the conductor loop.



Sealed Tube Comparison

Acid Number vs. Aging Method

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.150.20

0.25

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Hours at 148C

A c i d N u m b

e r


Moisture Content of Oil vs. Aging Method

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Hours at 148C

p p m M o i s t u r e


Comparing test

results at 148C, the

model test maintains

better oil quality,

allowing an

evaluation of the

solid insulationseparately.



DP vs. Tensile – Paper Samples

DP of un-aged non-upgraded paper – 1224

DP of 2.74% N2 paper - 1129



DP Plots140 DP vs. Aging Time

y = -0.09822x + 684.77114R2 = 0.84626

0.0200.0400.0600.0800.0

1000.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Aging Time - hours

D P V a l u e

148 DP vs. Aging

y = -0.06052x + 588.57989R2 = 0.78196

0.0

500.0

1000.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Aging Time in Hours

D P V a l u e

156 DP vs. Aging

y = -2.22198E-07x3 + 1.25302E-03x2 - 1.99078E+00x +

1.22400E+03

R2 = 8.04791E-01

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Aging Time in Hours

D P V a l u e

164 DP vs. Aging

y = -1.27157E-06x3 + 3.75188E-03x2 - 3.40509E+00x +

1.22400E+03

R2 = 7.62215E-01

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Aging Time in Hours

D P V a l u e

172 DP vs. Aging

y = -6.97560E-06x3 + 1.18769E-02x2 - 6.26896E+00x +

1.22400E+03

R2 = 9.63037E-01

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Aging Time

D P V a l u e

180 DP vs. Aging

y = -6.25532E-05x3 + 5.23884E-02x2 - 1.32695E+01x +

1.22400E+03

R2 = 9.75089E-01

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

0 100 200 300 400 500

Aging Time

D P V a l u e



DP Arrhenius – non-upgraded



DP Plots by Paper Type

DP Arrhenius vs. Nitrogen Content

y = 6941.1x - 12.474

R2 = 0.924

y = 7815.9x - 14.908

R2 = 0.8776

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.00205 0.0021 0.00215 0.0022 0.00225 0.0023 0.00235 0.0024 0.00245

1/T

L o g L i f e

2.74%N2 0% N2



Arrhenius Plots - 2.74%N2



Oil QualitySample oil with syringe for DGA data and

then sample oil after cool-down for oil

properties. Oil samples to date have all

been very clear with little to no sludging.Acid Number vs. % Tensile

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Acid Number

P e r c e n t T e n s i l e

Moisture in Oil vs. Percent Tensile

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Moisture in Oil (ppm)

P e r c e n t T e n s i l e



Furan Testing

Equation is Log (Fur) = 4.086 - .0033DP (based on ppb)

Equation is Log (Fur) = 1.086 - .0033DP (based on ppm)

Equation from Weidmann website (Chengdong):

Log (Fur) = 1.51 - .0035DP

Log (2-furaldehyde) vs. DPy = -0.003309x + 4.085901

R2 = 0.642043

0

12

3

4

5

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

l o g ( 2 - f u

r a l d e h y d e -

p p b )

Log(5-Hydoxy-methyl-furaldehyde) vs. DPy = -0.003214x + 2.968184

R2 = 0.573999

0

1

2

3

4

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

L o g ( 5 - H y d o x y - m e t h y l -

f u r a l d e

h y d e - p p b )

Log (5-methyl-2-furaldehyde) vs. DPy = -0.003525x + 3.168439

R2 = 0.692426

0

1

2

3

4

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

L o g ( 5 - m e t h y l - 2 -

f u r a l d

e h y d e - p p b )



Furan Testing - Continued

Data appears to

be similar for

both types of paper

Data correlates

well with published data

Log 2-furaldehyde vs. Paper DP

0.0

100.0

200.0300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

Log (2-furaldehyde - ppb)

P a p

e r D P

Paper DP

Upgrade DP

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 200 400 600 800 1000

DuPont-Weidmann Aging Chengdong Aging

Linear (DuPont-Weidmann Aging)



DGA Analysis

Log (CO) vs. DP y = -0.0016416x + 4.2348137

R2 = 0.3454258

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

L o g ( C O - p p m )

Log (CO2) vs. DP

y = -5.749843E-04x + 4.652324E+00R2 = 5.383712E-02

01

2

3

4

5

6

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

L

o g ( C O 2 - p p m )

Gas Concentration vs. DP

y = -0.001311x + 2.215512

R2 = 0.314097

y = -0.000742x + 1.286202

R2 = 0.0831300

1

2

3

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

DP

L o g (

G a s - p p m )

Log (H2) Log (CH4)



Pressboard TestingWill evaluate spacer material using mechanical testing

(compressibility) and DP. Will evaluate bulk oil insulation

using mechanical testing (tensile strength) and DP.

Are starting to get initial results for each.



Cool Board Test DataCooler Board H20 vs. Aging

y = 0.0167x + 0.2393

R2 = 0.1399

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

H 2 0 C o n t e n t

Cooler Board Tensile vs. Aging y = -3.5059x + 5326

R2 = 0.0019

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

T e n s i l e

S t r e n g t h ( p s i )

Little to no correlation here with tensile retention – good,since the cooler board should not be seeing high temperature

Water seems to be

collecting in the

cooler board –

which helps extendthe aging of the

paper – likely

similar to a realtransformer



Hot Board Test Data

Hot Board H20 vs. Aging y = 0.0101x + 0.1915

R2 = 0.1893

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

P e r c e n t H 2 0

Hot Board Tensile vs. Agingy = -0.6039x3 + 47.032x2 - 1122.5x + 17572

R2 = 0.5482

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

T e n s i l e S t r e n g t h ( p s i )

Hot Board Compression % vs. Agingy = -0.0228x + 3.6654

R2 = 0.0354

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

C o

m p r e s s i o n %

Compression Set vs. Aging y = 0.0216x + 0.6368

R2 = 0.1537

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Aging Factor

C o m

p r e s s i o n S e t

Best correlation appears to be tensile retention vs. aging factor.



DP Data - Location within Cell



Next Steps in Testing from 3/06

• Complete aging of all paper types

• Develop methodology to evaluate the effect of

oxygen (bottled gas with known O2/N2 content)and moisture (suggestions?).

• Need to understand target levels of oxygen and

moisture for evaluation. This may also be neededfor other two methods in C57.100.

• Conduct additional sealed tube tests with similar

insulation configuration.• Evaluate what criteria should be used to evaluate

systems.



Discussion regarding work and how

to implement into our document

For example:• What standard conditions (moisture, oxygen)

should be tested to qualify a system, for each of

the methods?• What qualifies a system combination as good

(solid data only, solid and fluid data, etc.), for

each of the methods?

• Other topics?



Open items from past meetings:

a. IEC document (62332) – still need to get

approval for use.

b. Search for other applicable IEC documents.

c. Need volunteers to look at sections of document

for the revision of C57.100.- Distribution Transformer Testing (Lockie)

- Sealed Tube Test (Annex)



Existing C57.100 Methods



Sealed Tube Method (Annex)



Finish Up meeting

F06-Presentation.pdf

Documents

Transcript of F06-Presentation.pdf