Transformer replacement

[Volta]

Please elaborate.

It is a phrase suggesting frustration.

The OP is trying to determine why the transformers failed. The first (of 2) was energized, until it failed.

Why might that be?



You stated, "The spare transformers need to be kept energized...". You further put forth the suggestion that it is a widespread industry practice to energize spare units. It has been suggested by several members here, and even written in one of the links you provided, that the unused transformers are generally expected to be left de-energized, with relatively few exceptions.

In post #30 you felt that a perfectly reasonable question was a "put down" to Design Engineers, without addressing the issue at hand. In post #28 you seemed to suggest that the logic of conflicting information (links provided by yourself) might be overruled by what one wanted to see.

I felt it had become difficult to move forward on an exploration of the original cause of failure in this thread, thus my comment.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

QUOTE=Volta;1337314]It is a phrase suggesting frustration.

The OP is trying to determine why the transformers failed. The first (of 2) was energized, until it failed.

Why might that be?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion,the OP did not furnish sufficient information to provide a definitive answer.

You stated, "The spare transformers need to be kept energized...". You further put forth the suggestion that it is a widespread industry practice to energize spare units. It has been suggested by several members here, and even written in one of the links you provided, that the unused transformers are generally expected to be left de-energized, with relatively few exceptions.

In post #30 you felt that a perfectly reasonable question was a "put down" to Design Engineers, without addressing the issue at hand. In post #28 you seemed to suggest that the logic of conflicting information (links provided by yourself) might be overruled by what one wanted to see.

I felt it had become difficult to move forward on an exploration of the original cause of failure in this thread, thus my comment.

For your para-1 above,go through my previous post #38

For your para-2,it was my genuine feeling and so I expressed.

For your last para,I hope I cleared your path through my above two lines and now you can move forward.

 

[renosteinke]

I suppose it's a design matter.

As I post this, I'm looking out at a row of racks, filled with various transformers and other equipment 'just in case-' because things do fail. On my drive home, I get to pass a gravel lot with row upon row of PoCo transformers, sitting on pallets, 'just in case.' It appears that condensation isn't the gremlin described by that 'well respected book.'

A word on that idea .... EVERY publishing house has marginal works. All they do is put the ink on the paper. A book is the authors' words, not the publishers. All a book can do is describe what the author thinks he saw someone else actually do - so even the best are second-hand sources. An idea has to be able to stand on its' own, and not hide behind the "reputation" of the speaker, writer, publisher, merchant, or anyone else.

Returning to the OP, I think he has something else going on; transformers ought not fail regularly. Again .... looking down that row of spare transformers .... the facility I'm in has a host of issues. They're pushing the equipment well beyond its' design specifications; their distribution network is a flawed design, in poor repair; they're introducing all manner of power quality issues with their machinery. Small wonder they 'let the smoke out' on a regular basis. The OP won't solve the problem until he digs deeper, and finds the cause.

 

[Volta]

For your last para,I hope I cleared your path through my above two lines and now you can move forward.

Okay.

And I agree that a good amount of information is lacking from the OP. Good questions have been asked already...

 

[Besoeker]

That means the electrical installation is a poorly designed one.

It might. On the other hand, it might also mean that devices were correctly rated for all known and anticipated conditions. There could be some unforeseen event or even combination of unforeseen events that result in failure. Or human error. Or willful damage. Or even mindless vandalism. Or a upstream transformer insulation failing and subjecting your units (all of those energised) to excessive voltage. I actually have an example of this last event that I'm currently dealing with.

Also please note that now a days U.S courts do not admit damages due to surge as an act of god.

I think I already mentioned to you that I am not in the US.

You should see the rationale behind keeping the standby transformer energized and take suitable action in particular cases accordingly.

Which is not quite what you said in post #8. And, if you want to keep transformers energised, why not other wound components like spare electric motors for example. But who does?


Anyway, back to the OP.
A number of good points have been made. Another possibility is that, if the two transformers that failed were manufactured by the same manufacture as a single order at the same time, there could be a manufacturing defect. I've come across this on some fairly big motors.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

An idea has to be able to stand on its' own, and not hide behind the "reputation" of the speaker, writer, publisher, merchant, or anyone else.

This is not the way science progresses.Listen what Newton said ''If I am looking taller than others,it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants''.It means that his ideas are not solely his own but a continuation of other great scientists' ideas.Even Einstein depended on other scientists' ideas to develop his theory of relativity

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

It might. On the other hand, it might also mean that devices were correctly rated for all known and anticipated conditions. There could be some unforeseen event or even combination of unforeseen events that result in failure. Or human error. Or willful damage. Or even mindless vandalism. Or a upstream transformer insulation failing and subjecting your units (all of those energised) to excessive voltage. I actually have an example of this last event that I'm currently dealing with.

I am still convinced that Engineering Technology has advanced to such a level that to provide an electrical installation free from ALL adverse conditions is just a matter of money.

I think I already mentioned to you that I am not in the US.

Just admit it.That is enough.

Which is not quite what you said in post #8. And, if you want to keep transformers energised, why not other wound components like spare electric motors for example. But who does?

Look closely.I did not mention any time element in it.

This thread is about transformer.

 

[Besoeker]

I am still convinced that Engineering Technology has advanced to such a level that to provide an electrical installation free from ALL adverse conditions is just a matter of money.
Just Like Piper Alpha, Bhopal, and Fukushima?

Just admit it.That is enough.

Admit what? I don't live in the US and I am not a US citizen. That's not an admission - it's a simple statement of the facts.

Look closely.I did not mention any time element in it.

Nor did I say that you had. But, since you mention it, "need to be kept energized" my reasonably be taken to mean indefinitely.

This thread is about transformer.

The rationale in your second link was about keeping the transformer energised to prevent the ingress of moisture. That rationale would be just as applicable to any would equipment that could be damaged or degraded by the ingress of moisture. That was my point.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Admit what? I don't live in the US and I am not a US citizen. That's not an admission - it's a simple statement of the facts.


Nor did I say that you had. But, since you mention it, "need to be kept energized" my reasonably be taken to mean indefinitely.


The rationale in your second link was about keeping the transformer energised to prevent the ingress of moisture. That rationale would be just as applicable to any would equipment that could be damaged or degraded by the ingress of moisture. That was my point.

''Just Like Piper Alpha, Bhopal, and Fukushima?''
Do not go to extreme cases about which we both know too little and also such cases have no relevance for this topic of thread:transformers.So,in case of transformers,are there any adverse factors of electrical nature beyond the capabilities of present day technology?

''Admit what? I don't live in the US and I am not a US citizen. That's not an admission - it's a simple statement of the facts.''
It is not necessary to be a U.S citizen to acknowledge/admit a fact.

Nor did I say that you had. But, since you mention it, "need to be kept energized" my reasonably be taken to mean indefinitely.
Analyse before taking a decision.

''The rationale in your second link was about keeping the transformer energised to prevent the ingress of moisture. That rationale would be just as applicable to any would equipment that could be damaged or degraded by the ingress of moisture. That was my point.''

Do you think humidity problem is not taken care of in rotating machinery?