×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

(OP)
I believe that NEC Article 450.3 Overcurrent Protection (and Table 450.3) directly determines the secondary side breaker sizing (and bus sizing).
For example, if I have a 2500kVA, 13.8-0.48kV Transformer, the rated secondary side current is 3007A. As per Table 450.3, for 480V secondary (<1000V), the breaker maximum rating or setting shall be 125% of Transformer rated current i.e 3007 x 1.25 = 3759A. The closest standard rating is 4000A. Thus breaker and bus rating on secondary side MCC shall be 4000A each.
So far so good.
Now let us say that this Transformer is rated at 30degC and undergoes a derating for 50degC ambient.
As per IEEE C57.91 Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Transformers and Step-Voltage Regulators’, Section 6, the derating shall be 1.5% for each degree rise above 30degC (ONAN only).
Thus for 50degC ambient i.e 20degC rise, the derating shall be 20 x 1.5 = 30%.
Thus the derated kVA of the Transformer shall be 2500 x 0.7 = 1750kVA. The corresponding current is 2105A.
Going back to NEC Article 450.3 requirement, max. secondary side breaker rating or setting shall be 2105 x 1.25 = 2631A.
Closest higher standard rating or setting is 3000A. Thus both CB and bus bar can be sized at 3000A.

Is the above correct? By not following the nameplate Transfrmer rating but following the derated rating, am I flouting NEC requirement?

RE: Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

You wrote it yourself - the NEC calculations provide maximum ratings. Why are you concerned about going with lower ratings?

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

As noted, you can size the breakers for less than the maximum allowable rating, as needed for any derating.

I just wanted to note that you need to be careful about assuming you can always go to the "next larger size" breaker. In the NEC, that rule only applies up through 800 A, unless something has changed recently. You can get rating plugs for some breakers that would meet the requirement, even if a larger breaker is used. So a 4000 A breaker with a 3000 A rating plug is essentially a 3000 A breaker for NEC purposes.

RE: Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

(OP)
Thanks xnuke & dpc. The main reason for this query is: At a later point, say 10 years down the line, when we add loads, an adequacy check is always done. This check is only on the Transformer capacity and not on the downstream bus / breaker. If we choose lower than the 125% rated value of the derated capacity of the Transoformer, the hidden bottleneck is the bus / breaker, not the Transformer. Many engineers are not aware that in-panel rating of breakers is 80% of their nampelate rating (unless the breaker is rated and duly marked for 100% rating). Hence the concern.

RE: Transformer Secondary Side - Bus sizing & Breaker sizing (NEC)

Anecdote alert:

Quote:

At a later point, say 10 years down the line, when we add loads, an adequacy check is always done. This check is only on the Transformer capacity and not on the downstream bus / breaker.
I was involved with such a check once.
The customer hired an engineering firm to conduct the check.
As the contractor who did troubleshooting and repairs for the plant we were contracted to install recording equipment on the mains in order to accumulate data to show the inspection department that the service had adequate capacity to support the intended upgrade.
Data was accumulated for several months.
Some time later, when the customer knew us better, they asked us to correct their power factor.
Made a phone call to the customer's accounts payable department.
"Is it possible to get copies of the power bills for the last two years?"
The next day I picked up two years of past power bills, and in an hour or so knew how many KVARHr per month we needed to install.
And incidentally, also had the maximum monthly demand for the last two years, at revenue metering accuracy.
This may not apply to your installation, cherryg, but I mention it for the possible benefit of others following this thread.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close