Cost Benefit Analysis for Electrical Loading System for Transformers of a Barangay
Carmela Mady B. Manabat1, Marielle C. Alejo2, Loraine V. Dela Cruz3, Joseph M. Apan4, Renato D. Erasquin Jr.5

1Akshay Venkatesan*, Engineering student, North Cap University, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
2Deepanshu Sehgal, Engineering student, North Cap University, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
3
Sushant Sharma, Engineering student, North Cap University, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Manuscript received on March 15, 2021. | Revised Manuscript received on March 22, 2021. | Manuscript published on April 30, 2021. | PP: 82-88 | Volume-10 Issue-4, April 2021. | Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.D23250410421 | DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D2325.0410421
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite | Mendeley
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Abstract: The study assessed the cost and benefit of electrical loading management of transformers. There is a serious occurrence of over and under loaded transformer which deeply affects the power quality or system loss and reliability of the distribution lines. Initially, the percent loading of the 27 transformers of Feeder 21 were identified using Microsoft Excel 2016. Then, the identified transformers were classified into three categories; overload (greater than 70%), under loaded (less than 40%) and normal loaded (40-70%). Through this process, three (3) solutions were identified: Solution I – change the transformer rating, Solution II – merge and transfer transformer loadsand Solution III – combine solution I and II. The three-solution used to identify the new percent loading to meet the normal percent loading (40-69%). Subsequently, the reduced Core and Copper Losses, Annual Energy Save, Savings and Benefit/Cost Ratio were computed and analyzed to determine the impact of loadingmanagement. The results show that there was an accumulated savings of Php 332,060.08 for Solution I, Php 92,043.09 for Solution II and Php 252,045.78 for Solution III. In the case of Benefit/Cost ratio it should be greater than 1 (>1) for a project to be economically feasible and justifiable; Solution I was 1.22, Solution II was 687.3 and 1.93 for Solution III. Based on the results of the study, SolutionIII was best among the three, for it has met the criteria of all transformers were all in normal loaded (40-70%) condition, and greater than 1 benefit/cost ratio.
Keywords: Transformer, Amorphous, Cost Benefit.