© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1

DOE Efficiency

MVLF Analysis

Wes Patterson, PPTR-NAM, 13 Sep 2011
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2

2010 Pad Market

DOE pre-analysis

Poles Pads Substations Networks
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 3

MVLF – Pads

Loss distribution by phase/BIL

DOE Scope 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 4

MVLF – Pads 

MVA distribution by phase/BIL

DOE Scope 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 5

MVLF – Pads 

Units distribution by phase/BIL

DOE Scope 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 6

DOE Representative Units

DOE pre-analysis

Poles Pads Substations Networks
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 7

MVLF Market

 Additionally the DOE considered basically two 

constructions option: pads and poles

 However the market is more accurately 

represented by

 ~85% of the shipped MVA ---

Pole-mounted transformers

Pad-mounted transformer

 ~15% of the shipped MVA – not addressed

Substation transformers

Network transformers

 Losses, and therefore efficiency, are a function 

of MVA and not units

 Per the DOE, 

 ~44% of the MVA produced is 1ph

~56% of the MVA produced is 3ph

 However the DOE’s representative units cover

 ~56% of the 1ph MVA (with only 2 designs)

~20% of the 3ph MVA (mainly with one design)
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 8

Pad Market Representation in DOE Analysis

by the “Representative Units”

 Only the 1500 KVA 3ph rating was actually shipped 

anything in 12 months ending in July 2011

 And this only represented 1% of the market

 As there is little change in losses or cost between 

all voltage ratings within a given phase/KVA/BIL

combination thus the DOE representative units 

cover 

 From a Units perspective

1ph : 14% of all / 23% of 1ph

3ph : 6% of all / 15% of 3ph

 From an MVA perspective

1ph = 2.4% of all / 18% of 1ph

3ph = 11% of all / 13% of 3ph

 Thus the DOE theoretical analysis spans less than 

1⁄4 of the true market
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 9

MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU01 (1ph, 50KVA) by BIL

 The DOE calculations overstate 

the price of MVLF, 1ph, 50 KVA, 

95 BIL pads

ABB = red dots

DOE = non-red dots

 RU01 was a pad
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 10

MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU02 (1ph, 25KVA) by BIL

 The DOE calculations 

understate the price of MVLF, 

1ph, 25 KVA, 125 BIL pads

 Note: the DOE calc assumes a 

pole configuration which does 

have a marginally lower price 

than a corresponding pad

ABB = red dots

DOE = non-red dots

 RU02 was a pole
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 11

MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU03 (1ph, 500KVA) by BIL

 Per the DOE, RU03 represents ~0% 

of the 1ph units shipped in 2009

 And ~1% of the 1ph MVA

 In 2010, ABB shipped NO units 

matching the RU03 specification: 

1ph, 500 KVA, 150 BIL

 ABB had one design at 60 BIL which 

was considerably higher in price than 

any of the corresponding DOE 

designs

ABB = red dots

DOE = non-red dots

 RU03 was a pole
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 12

MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU04 (3ph, 150KVA) by BIL

 The DOE calculations overstate 

the price of MVLF, 3ph, 150 

KVA, 95 BIL pads using CGO

 The DOE calculations 

understate the price of MVLF, 

3ph, 150 KVA, 95 BIL using SA

ABB = red dots

DOE = non-red dots

 RU04 was a pad
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 13

MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU05 (3ph, 1500KVA) by BIL

 The DOE calculations overstate 

the price of MVLF, 3ph, 1500 

KVA, 125 BIL pads

ABB = red dots

DOE = non-red dots

 RU05 was a pad
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 14

2010 Efficiency Standard

DOE pre-analysis
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 15

LVDT Standard Evolution

 DOE adapted NEMA TP-1 as the National standard
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 16

MVLF Standard Evolution
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 17

MVDT Standard Evolution

20-45 BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 18

MVDT Standard Evolution

46-95 BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 19

MVDT Standard Evolution

>95 BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 20

2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

MVLF + MVDT (95BIL)

 Both MVLF and MVDT markets are dominated by 95 BIL and complete for the same 

business outside the Utility markets

 The relatively higher LF efficiencies in the lower kva’s results in them being much 

less competitive than an equivalently rated DT and, potentially, a larger kva LF

 In either case the result is an INCREASE in the losses in the electrical network

 This ‘kink’ in MVLF is un-natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva-1ph and 300 kva-3ph

in the LF relative to the DT

 The dielectric medium in LF transformers (oil) 

is much better than that is DT (air) resulting in 

less clearances between the windings and the 

core and the a smaller amount of core steel

 As the No Load losses in the core are the 

dominate loss element in the efficiency this 

accounts for the DT having a lower efficiency 

than an equivalently rated LF

MVLF-1ph

MVLF-3ph

MVDT-1ph

MVDT-3ph

 MV efficiency at 50% load
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 21

2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

MVLF + MVDT (95BIL)

 MV losses (watts) at 50% load
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 22

2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

LVDT + MVDT (45BIL)

 LVDT and MVDT both use air as the dielectric medium

 As the voltage increases in the MVDT the clearance to 

the core increases, producing more core steel, more no 

load losses, and lower efficiency relative to the LVDT

 In the existing standard the MVDT has HIGHER 

efficiency than the corresponding LVDT – which is 

illogical. The LVDT efficiency should be higher than the 

equivalent rated MVDT

 This ‘kink’ in LVDT is un-natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva-1ph and 300 kva-3ph

in the LVDT relative to the units greater than 100/300 kva

 This may push the utilization of a larger unit which would result 

in GREATER losses in the electrical network

MV-1ph

MV-3ph

LV-1ph

LV-3ph

 LV efficiency at 35% load

MV efficiency at 50% load
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 23

2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

LVDT + MVDT (45BIL)

 LV efficiency at 35% load

MV efficiency at 50% load
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 24

2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

MVDT (all BIL’s)

1ph

20-45 BIL

46-95 BIL

> 95 BIL

3ph

20-45 BIL

46-95 BIL

> 95 BIL

 MV efficiency at 50% load
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 25

2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

MVDT (all BIL’s)

 MV losses (watts) at 50% load

 This ‘kink’ in LVDT is un-natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva-1ph and 300 kva-3ph

in the LVDT relative to the units greater than 100/300 kva

 This may push the utilization of a larger unit which would result 

in GREATER losses in the electrical network
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 26

Candidate Standard Levels

DOE pre-analysis
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 27

CSL Discrepancies 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 28

Candidate Standard Levels

% Increase in %Efficiency

1 While the 

% increase in the 

% Efficiency 

appears very small 

the % reduction in 

losses in dramatic 

2 ---

3 ---.

4 ---
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 29

Candidate Standard Levels

% Reduction in Losses (watts)

1 While the 

% increase in the 

% Efficiency 

appears very small 

the % reduction in 

losses in dramatic 

2 CSL1 reduces the 

current standard by 

MVLF 10%

LVDT 11-14%

MVDT 10-13%

3 CSL5 reduces the 

current standard by

MVLF 33-44%

LVDT 35-58%

MVDT 51-64%

4 ---
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 30

MVLF – 1ph – CSL’s

% Efficiency
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 31

MVLF – 1ph – CSL’s

Losses (watts) 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 32

MVLF – 3ph
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 33

MVLF – 3ph

 CSL7 not defined
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 34

MVDT – 3ph – 46-95 BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 35

MVDT – 3ph – 46-95 BIL

 CSL7 not defined
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 36

MVDT – 3ph – 20-45 BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 37

MVDT – 3ph – 20-45 BIL

 CSL6 and CSL7 not defined
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 38

MVDT – 3ph – 95+ BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 39

MVDT – 3ph – 95+ BIL

 CSL6 and CSL7 not defined

only 1 point defined for CSL1,2,3,4,5
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 40

MVDT – 1ph

 No CSL’s defined for 20-45 BIL

 No CSL’s defined for 46-95 BIL

 No CSL’s defined for 95+ BIL
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 41

LVDT – 1ph
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 42

LVDT – 1ph

 only 1 point defined for all CSL levels
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 43

LVDT – 3ph
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 44

LVDT – 3ph

 only 1 point defined for CSL6 and CSL7
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 45

Candidate Standard Levels

Impact on Core Steel Grades

DOE pre-analysis
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 46

Candidate Standard Levels

% Reduction in Losses (watts)

1 While the 

% increase in the 

% Efficiency 

appears very small 

the % reduction in 

losses in dramatic 

2 CSL1 reduces the 

current standard by 

MVLF 10%

LVDT 11-14%

MVDT 10-13%

3 CSL5 reduces the 

current standard by

MVLF 33-44%

LVDT 35-58%

MVDT 51-64%

4 ---
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 47

Max % Loss Reduction from 2010 Standard

by Core Grade

 Basically CSL4 (a 40% reduction in losses from today’s standard) and higher are only achieved with SA
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 48

Min % Loss Reduction from 2010 Standard

by Core Grade