From: Corkran, Jerry L [mailto:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 6:22 PM To: Robert Berman; Brian Coffey Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; ClaGary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Phil Hopkinson; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rosset

Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert 

Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Marusinec, Richard M; Trujillo, Antonio; Ruppel, David J; Moore, Jack C Subject: RE: Engineering Data Exchange 

Regarding Mr. Berman’s comments, the A and B factors are good additions. Regarding his and other individuals suggestions for changes in how the DOE handles the losses, I suggest the 

group of engineers with hundreds of years of experience building and using transformers. The suggestions by the various special interest groups to diverge from the well thought out IEE

Transformer Efficiency working group that will result in little progress to meet our objectives.

The two attachments are very informative about how the NEMA TP‐1 standard was conceived. The Loading company slides can be discussed at the upcoming meeting by Phil Hopkinson 

WG meeting by several of the Working Group members. If there are questions about these attachments before the meeting, please address them to Phil Hopkinson.

Regarding the discussions about transformer loading; I am suggesting that the committee members refer to the NEETRAC Distribution Transformer Thermal Test Procedure Revision 

this standard that shows the 24 hour loading cycle generated as an example by combining 27 U.S. utility load cycles as shown in the graph listed below. From this standard, the 24 hour ex

out to about 83.5% of the full load rating for the 24 hour daily loading cycle. The calculation listed below came out to a 105 year life. What this means that when the IEEE overload guides 300% for 30 minutes for pole type liquid filled transformers and up to 200% for other distribution transformers. When these over loads are considered, the expected life is back to the 20.5 yFor anyone who still questions the 20.5 year average expected transformer life, I challenge them to look at some transformers that are 20 and 30 years old. Rust is a major concern for the when they should be replaced. 
NEETRAC Distribution Transformer Thermal Test Procedure 

Revision 02 29 May 2002 

Normalized Load Profiles 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

'i:: " y / ~ [' 

"0 .

"-"'-

• 0 

-' 

- 0.6 0 

::J 

......... \ ~ 'x 

" • c. 

0.4 

.x 

, ~ , 

x0.2 

0.0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Hour of the Day 

Composite Load Cycle • Miss. Power Commercial )( Miss. Power Residential )I( Florida Power & Light I 
Regards,

Jerry Corkran

From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:17 AM To: Brian Coffey Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; ClaGary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Corkran, Jerry L; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rosse

Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert 

The composite load cycle provides an as expected shape of an early morning 

peak. The composite load cycle, w hen applied to ANSI example transformer c

follow ing results: 

Load Cycle and/or Ambient Modification: 

Global Load Profile Multiplier 1.00 1.048 Max

Global Ambient Temp. Adder: 00 °C 0.564 Mi ni

0.835 Equi

Load Cycle Loss of Life Summary Results: per ANSI 

C57.91-1995 

Average Dai ly Life Consumption Feqa = 0.195 days 

Average Daily Percent Loss of Life % loss = 0.0026 % 

NSI Life (guideline of 180,000 hrs or 20 55yrs) Life = 105.4 yrs 

ANSI C57.91-1981 Transform

Average Daily Ambient Temperature Tamb = 25.0 °C 

Minimum Daily Top Oil Temperature TOTmin = 59.9 °C 

Minimum Daily Hot Spot Temperature HSTmin = 71.0 °C 

Maximum Daily Top Oil Temperature TOTmax= 79.8 °C 

Maximum Daily Hot Spot Temperature HSTmax = 105.8 °C 
Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Re: Engineering Data Exchange Good Morning Brian, The most significant design details missing from the spreadsheet are the A & B factors for the least-cost design of each CSL/dEL/TSL and the no-load or core losses and the temperature rise also be shown as 75C rather than 65C. Showing the weight of the core assembly, radiator size and weight and insulation would also be helpful. The A & B f

environmental or social costs) by setting a particular CSL/dEL/TSL as a MEPS. 

Finally, it's not clear why we are sill looking at core steel grade below M3 for liquid-filled. My understanding is that M3 is the lowest grade that can reasonably be used unde

Regards,Robert A. Berman, PrincipalBerman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand CourtVienna, VA 22182

703‐281‐0490

703‐655‐8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Brian Coffey wrote: MV Committee Members,

Several of the group have proposed that DOE facilitate a bidirectional exchange of engineering data. Attached is one kind of template that could be used to compare the ways in which di

spreadsheet with detailed design information for the least cost transformers able to achieve the draft efficiency levels using different steels.

Data provided to DOE could then be compared to the DOE designs and differences explained. Because this data would likely be considered confidential, Navigant is willing to enter into n

be used to verify the engineering analysis of the current representative units and could be expanded to analyze scaling relationships.

We welcome comments and specific suggestions of how this process could be implemented.

Best,Brian Coffey

______________________________________________________________ Brian Coffey | Senior Consultant | Energy | Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1801 K Street NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20006 +1.202.481.7521 Office

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information which is confidential and may also be privileged. This communication is for the exc

please return it with the title "received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com, and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. In addition, this communication is subject to, and incor

Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com. 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719 Registered in Delaware, USA Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606 
<Engineering Validation Template ‐ 2011 10 04.xlsx>