It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:13 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Labeling transformers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:02 pm
Posts: 3
do you label transformers? How about transformers less than 125kva with 208/120Y secondary. Are they excluded along with the panelboard they feed?
Can you set an incident energy less than 1.2 to create a label or use the calculated value?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Labeling transformers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1820
Location: North Carolina
The upstream side can still be a hazard. If both primary and secondary are in the same compartment, that's an issue. If they are separate then maybe only one side needs to be labelled. But if you don't intend on accessing it live then a label may not be required at all as per NEC. On oil filled transformers particularly padmounts where the oil sample and instrument gauges are inside the door, a label is needed. In a lot of dry transformers a label may not be required at all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Labeling transformers
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:53 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:01 am
Posts: 135
PaulEngr wrote:
The upstream side can still be a hazard. If both primary and secondary are in the same compartment, that's an issue. If they are separate then maybe only one side needs to be labelled. But if you don't intend on accessing it live then a label may not be required at all as per NEC. On oil filled transformers particularly padmounts where the oil sample and instrument gauges are inside the door, a label is needed. In a lot of dry transformers a label may not be required at all.


^^^^ This ^^^^^

Dry types - no.

Oil filled pad mounts - yes.

Incidentally, I recently went to a sales pitch disguised as a learning session about at least one of the pad mount guys (Eaton/Cooper) offering VFI switches on the pad mount primary with CT's on the secondary so the primary side could be tripped from the CT's thereby reducing incident energy on the pad mount secondary enough to allow opening the secondary door while energized with appropriate PPE. This will also reduce the energy at the line side of the MDP main. I think I am going to specify that feature for the next pad mount I buy. I usually buy 1 or 2 pad mounts or so per year for the university I work at. We already went to exterior lockable oil drain valves and sampling ports a couple years ago so we could take oil samples for DGA while energized and not have to open the secondary door.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Labeling transformers
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1820
Location: North Carolina
Good plan. The VFI is a bit pricey and there are other switches/breakers on the market such as the ABB magnetic breaker, and PDP has repackaged it with an integral disconnect switch for a really nice compact setup. I've used Tavrida's mounted on stands and you can really use anyone's recloser if you are already distributing over a pole. And there are a couple really well made underground breakers that work excellent, too. I've driven them with an SEL-651. This is really intended as a recloser type of protective relay but the big advantage is that this single relay has 6 CT inputs on it and comes with the battery and other hardware needed for essentially a self-contained unit that is already done for you if you buy it that way. Just have to turn all the reclosing stuff off and change the labels to be a little more human readable.

But here's another interesting version. I had a semi-remote pumping station with two transformers feeding two medium voltage MCC lineups from a single feeder. Either transformer was capable of feeding both MCC's. So when I went in to rebuild/upgrade the delapidated feeder breakers, I realized I could get primary breakers cheaper than secondaries. So I bought two primary side breakers to feed each of the transformers with primary and secondary CT's in the so-called "virtual breaker" arrangement. Then on the secondary side I bought 3 switches with trapped key interlocks with two keys so that only two of the 3 switches could be closed at a time. The manual switches were arranged in a main-tie-main arrangement. So under normal operation the two transformers fed two switches which fed the two MCC's. The switches would be closed and the third switch (tie) was open. During transformer maintenance, one breaker and one switch could be opened while the tie would be closed, isolating the transformer. The switches were vastly cheaper than the same arrangement would have been with 3 breakers and say two primary side fused disconnects and in addition the arc flash rating was obviously very low for the entire arrangement, particularly since the tie could not be closed with both transformers energized.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883