It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:17 am

Author Message

 Post subject: Dual Rated Xfmr's & Fault CurrentPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:33 am

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 48
Location: Mid-West
I recently came across a project that is utilizing an oil filled xfmr w/fans and is dual rated so the ratings read: 3000/3360; 3750/4200. When you have a transfomer like this (5.75%Z) at what value do you calculate the fault current at? If I understand correctly the xfmr.'s dual rating is directly related to the temperature so the impedance of the xfmr does not change as the windings are the windings correct? Does ANSI have a method that the %z is based on a paticular rating or would this be defined by the manufactuer?

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:40 am
 Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
Base rating

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:32 am

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:20 am
Posts: 3
mike01 wrote:
I recently came across a project that is utilizing an oil filled xfmr w/fans and is dual rated so the ratings read: 3000/3360; 3750/4200. When you have a transfomer like this (5.75%Z) at what value do you calculate the fault current at? If I understand correctly the xfmr.'s dual rating is directly related to the temperature so the impedance of the xfmr does not change as the windings are the windings correct? Does ANSI have a method that the %z is based on a paticular rating or would this be defined by the manufactuer?

I agree, use base 3000 kVA and base %Z

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:24 am

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:44 am
Posts: 23
Location: Atlanta, GA
The nameplate %Z is based on the nominal (base) rating (i.e. no fans and no temperature rise) of the transformer. In your case, the 3,000 KVA rating is what should be used with the nameplate 5.75 %Z in order to calculate the impedance of the transformer. The impedance is calculated by the manufacturer based on the ANSI C57 standards. As long as it is an ANSI rated transformer, the manufacturer will be in step with the ANSI standard. This will not be true for non-ANSI rated transformers.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:34 pm
 Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
The percent impedance is obtain via a short circuit test. The secondary terminals are shorted and the %Z is actually the %IZ (percent voltage) that is necessary on the primary to create rated full load current to flow on the secondary. The rated full load current is based on the base / air cooled rating so that means the % impedance is also based on the base rating.

This is used for the infinite bus short circuit calculation.

If %Z (primary voltage) results in the rated full load current (FLA)
Then 100% voltage results in the maximum short circuit amperes (SCA) on the secondary.
• %Z results in FLAsecondary
• 100% results in SCAsecondary
Rearranging the two relationships produces the well known (?) equation:
• Maximum SCA = (FLAsecondary x 100) / %Z
Many refer to this as the infinite bus short circuit calculation.

The FLAsecondary is the based on the lower/base kVA rating as others have noted.

Here are two examples to illustrate what would happen if the higher kVA rating is used:

Example 1: Short circuit current using the 3000 / 3360 kVA AA/FA and 5.75%Z - I assumed 480 volts

AA/FA where AA is the air cooled (base) rating and FA is the fan cooled rating

Using the air cooled rating (AA):
• FLA = 3000kVA / [0.48kV x sqrt(3)] = 3608.4 Amps
• SCA = [3608.4 x 100] / 5.75% = 62,760 amps (rounded up)
Example 2: If the 3360 kVA FA fan cooled rating was used:

The %Z would be higher. Remember it is the % Primary Voltage that results in the FLA. If the larger kVA is used, the larger FLA is also used which results in the %Z = 6.44% (scaled by the kVA ratings)

In this case:
• FLA = 3360 kVA/[0.48kV x sqrt(3)] = 4041.5 Amps
• SCA = [4041.5 x 100] / 6.44% = 62,760 (rounded up)
If the transformer was tested with the larger kVA rating, the %Z would be greater but the end result of the short circuit calculations would be the same.

Hope this helps shed a little more light on this topic (or confusion - it's a fine line )

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 7 hours

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

 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Forum Library / Articles The Lounge    Question of the Week - What Do You Think?    Arcflashforum.com Feedback and Announcements    Off Topic Discussions    News in Electrical Safety Arc Flash and Electrical Safety    General Discussion    Electrical Safety Practices    Equipment to Reduce Arc Flash Dangers    Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Arc Flash Studies    General Discussion    Arc Flash Labels    Software for Arc Flash Studies    System Modeling and Calculations    NEW! Electrode Configuration Library â 2018 IEEE 1584 Codes and Standards    CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety    EAWR Electricity at Work Regulations, HSE - Europe    OSHA CFR Title 29    IEEE 1584 - Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations    NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code - NEC (R)    NESC - ANSI C2 - National Electrical Safety Code    NFPA 70E - Electrical Safety in the Workplace    2015 NFPA 70E Share It Here    Arc Flash Photos    Your Stories    What's Wrong Here? by Joe Tedesco
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883