Transformer Oil Leak Mitigation-123 PDF

Power Transformer Oil Leak
Mitigation—Technology Assessment
TR-111593
Final Report, December 1998
Cosponsor
Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.
4 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Project Manager
M. Lebow
EPRI Project Manager

P. Dessureau
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10567971
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS PACKAGE WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
(EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED
BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS PACKAGE
Ontario Hydro
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this package should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O.
Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (925) 934-4212.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1998 EPRI, Inc. All rights reserved.
10567971
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Ontario Hydro Technologies

800 Kipling Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Z 5S4
Project Leader
J. M. Braun
Principal Investigators
H. Azizian
M. Kotowicz
R. Lewak
P. Maak
L. McGoey
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI and Consolidated Edison Co. of New
York.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the
following manner:
Power Transformer Oil Leak Mitigation—Technology Assessment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York: 1998. TR-111593.
iii
10567971
10567971
REPORT SUMMARY
With proper care power transformers can provide reliable service well beyond their
design life, but transformer leaks become more and more likely as equipment ages and
create serious and expensive technical problems. This report evaluates current and
developing technologies for sealing leaking transformers including box welding and a
variety of commercial sealants and specially formulated high-performance gasket
materials.
Background
Transformer leaks present a complex technical challenge. Originating from gas relay
piping, packing on valves, CT pockets, tap changers, radiators, and main tank covers,
leaks have many causes. Repairing them is difficult and often costly. The sealing
systems and gasketing materials used to seal such leaks have to function in the hostile
environment of a working transformer where they will be subjected to vibrations,
fluctuating temperatures, thermal aging, and ultraviolet light. In-situ repair without
drainage of dielectric fluids is desirable from a cost and time standpoint, but any repair
will be under difficult conditions on oily surfaces and in tight spaces. Research and
development on new materials and procedures for transformer leak repair must take
these extreme conditions into account.
Objectives
To assess and improve existing technologies for sealing transformer leaks in order to
extend the service life of transformers while reducing the cost of repairs.
Approach
The project had three distinct parts: 1) Investigation of new and old welding technologies
with and without removal of oil, 2) evaluation of available gasket materials, and 3)
evaluation of available sealants. The project team defined a recommended process for
field weld repair and made suggestions on ways in which welding techniques could be
improved. The team evaluated eighteen gasket materials and nine sealants from major
suppliers. All tested sealants were chosen to be removable for future repair work. The
team performed simulation tests on the sealants in a transformer mock-up, subjecting
them to screening tests measuring their tensile and adhesive strength on oil-coated
v
10567971
painted surfaces. Tests were performed on both newly applied sealants and sealants aged
to a life equivalent of 20-30 years. The team did not evaluate the costs of tested materials
because material costs may vary widely and are generally negligible compared with the
cost of outage time, labor, and future repairs.
Results
Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) in either the semi-automatic or mechanized mode is
the recommended process for field weld repair. A free standing document included in
this report, Guidelines for Repair Welding Transformer Components Using the Shielded Metal
Arc Welding and Flux Cored Arc Welding Processes, provides a compilation of the best
welding procedures.
Tests of gasket materials identified four materials that showed superior performance by
retaining their original properties, including tensile strength and flexibility, after aging in
air and oil. Four sealants, two based on silicones and two based on polysulfides,
displayed superior strength, flexibility, and adhesive characteristics. A fifth hybrid
system also tested superior in strength, flexibility, adhesion, and aging properties. Oil
compatibility tests showed that the four primary sealants had no adverse effect on
transformer oil performance. Simulated testing demonstrated that three of the selected
sealants could effectively seal a flange leak and that a fourth was also effective when
used in conjunction with a hybrid cover coat.
EPRI Perspective
It is recommended that development of welding procedures in the vertical position be
completed and that techniques for radiator corrosion leak repair be developed using
either mechanized systems or specialized miniature hand-held torches. Final
determination of the best sealant or gasket material for field use will require
consideration of criteria such as cost and ease of sealant application that were not
evaluated in this study.
TR-111593
Interest Categories
Distribution O & M
Substation O & M
Keywords
Transformer leaks
Substation maintenance
Welding
vi
10567971
ABSTRACT
An assessment of in-situ power transformers leak repair technologies was performed,

addressing the severe multi-stress environment of an operating transformer, combining
vibration, extremes of temperature (from -40 C to well over 100 C), UV exposure, and
thermal aging, in addition to poor application conditions on oily surfaces. Oil leaks can
originate from gas relay piping, packing on valves, CT pockets, tap changers, radiators
and main tank covers; focus of the present activity was on flanges for radiators and
pumps for units 25 MVA and up. The range of applicability of welding technologies
was established. The recommended process for field weld repairing is Flux Cored Arc
(FCAW), either in the semi-automatic mode (hand held) or in a mechanized mode
(travel carriage). SMAW (Shielded Metal Arc Welding) should be considered as a
second choice after FCAW (only for materials 1/4” and thicker). Welding repairs
completed with an oil backing have no risk of paint carbonization; with an air backing,
1/2” material and thicker can be welded without concern while a multi-pass technique
should be used for welding 1/4” thick material. The best welding procedures were
compiled into a free standing document, ‘Guidelines for Repair Welding Transformer
Components Using the Shielded Metal Arc Welding and Flux Cored Arc Welding Processes’,
included in the present report. It is recommended that further development be
undertaken in the more challenging vertical welding position using both SMAW and
FCAW. In addition, it is recommended that repair welding techniques be developed for
repair of corrosion leaks on radiators.
Nine sealants and eighteen gasket materials were subjected to screening and
accelerated testing to a life equivalent of 20 to 30 years. Four sealants, two based on
silicones and two on polysulfides, were superior in terms of strength, flexibility and
adhesion. The sealants had no adverse effect on the transformer oil performance.
Simulated testing, in a transformer “mockup”, has demonstrated that three of the
sealants selected can seal a flange leak effectively. Final selection of a sealant would
depend upon other criteria such as sealant cost, ease of application and ease of removal.
Details on each of the four sealants are provided in the report. Four gasket materials
have shown superior performance in terms of retention of original properties. The
products tested included cork/rubber composites, nitrile and hydrogenated nitrile
rubbers, silicone and EPDM rubbers.
vii
10567971
The R&D project was carried out at Ontario Hydro Technologies with joint funding
from Consolidated Edison and the US Electric Power Research Institute.
viii
10567971
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by their colleagues in
their respective departments. The guidance received from Messrs. Alfieri, Isecke,
Wurzburg and Lebow from Consolidated Edison and Mr. Dessureau from EPRI is
gratefully acknowledged.
ix
10567971
10567971
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2 LEAKS AND REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................ 2-1
3 BOX WELDING TECHNOLOGIES FOR LEAK REPAIR .................................................... 3-1

3.1 Continuous Wire Welding Process Description............................................................. 3-2
3.2 Experimental Tests ....................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 Test Configuration.................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.2 Shield-Metal-Arc Welding Investigations ................................................................ 3-5
3.2.2.1 Air Backing ...................................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.2.2 Oil Backing .................................................................................................... 3-14
3.2.2.3 Gasket Tests ................................................................................................. 3-16
3.2.2.4 Conclusions for the SMAW Studies............................................................... 3-16
3.2.3 Continuous Wire Welding Investigations .............................................................. 3-17
3.2.3.1 Gas Metal Arc Welding Trials ........................................................................ 3-17
3.2.3.2 Conclusions for the GMAW Studies .............................................................. 3-20
3.2.3.3 Flux Cored Arc Welding Trials....................................................................... 3-21
3.2.3.4 Conclusions for the FCAW Studies ............................................................... 3-23
3.2.4 Conclusions of Welding Studies........................................................................... 3-24
3.3 Recommendations for Further Work ........................................................................... 3-25
4 EVALUATION OF SEALANT MATERIALS FOR LEAK REPAIR....................................... 4-1

4.1 Sealant Selection.......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Material Considerations.......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Sealant Materials ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Testing Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.1 Tensile Property Tests .......................................................................................... 4-4
xi
10567971
4.2.2 Adhesion Tests ...................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)..................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Material Aging............................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Test Results.................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.4.1 Tensile Tests.......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.2 Adhesion Tests ...................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4.3 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Tests .................................................................... 4-10
4.5 Assessment of Sealants ............................................................................................. 4-12
4.5.1 Dow Corning 736 ................................................................................................. 4-13
4.5.2 Koppl 314............................................................................................................. 4-13
4.5.3 Loctite 5900 Silicone RTV.................................................................................... 4-13
4.5.4 PDS F-S-T............................................................................................................ 4-14
4.5.5 Devcon Flexane Transformer Oil Leak Repair Kit (DFTOLRK) ............................ 4-14
4.5.6 Devcon Flexane 80 .............................................................................................. 4-14
4.5.7 Dow Corning 730 ................................................................................................. 4-14
4.5.8 Furmanite TS/2/237 ............................................................................................. 4-14
4.5.9 Team Ceda DB 22 Bonder................................................................................... 4-14
4.5.10 Permabond EB32............................................................................................... 4-15
4.6 Conclusions From Screening Tests ............................................................................ 4-15
4.7 Devcon Flexane 80 Compatibility Tests...................................................................... 4-15
4.8 Oil Compatibility Tests ................................................................................................ 4-16
4.9 Effect Of Ozone And Ultraviolet Radiation On Sealants ............................................. 4-17
4.10 Evaluation of Selected Sealants in a Simulated Transformer Loop .......................... 4-17
4.10.1 Description of Test Apparatus ............................................................................ 4-17
4.10.2 Simulated Leaks................................................................................................. 4-19
4.10.3 Application of Sealants....................................................................................... 4-24
4.10.4 Initial Test of Sealants........................................................................................ 4-24
4.10.5 Accelerated Aging .............................................................................................. 4-24
4.10.6 Tests of Sealants Following Accelerated Aging ................................................. 4-30
4.10.7 Assessment of Sealants from Oil Loop Tests..................................................... 4-37
4.11 Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................... 4-38
4.11.1 Dow Corning 736 ............................................................................................... 4-38
4.11.2 Loctite 5900 RTV Silicone.................................................................................. 4-39
4.11.3 Koppl 314........................................................................................................... 4-39
xii
10567971
4.11.4 PDS F-S-T.......................................................................................................... 4-40
4.12 References ............................................................................................................... 4-40
5 EVALUATION OF IMPROVED GASKET MATERIALS ...................................................... 5-1

5.1 Background................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Review Of Current Materials And Experience............................................................... 5-2
5.3 Identification Of Gasket Material Suppliers ................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Identification Of Promising New Materials..................................................................... 5-4
5.5 Laboratory Evaluation Of Gasket Materials .................................................................. 5-5
5.5.1 Tensile Testing....................................................................................................... 5-6
5.5.2 DMA Tests ............................................................................................................. 5-6
5.5.3 Oil Compatibility Tests............................................................................................ 5-6
5.5.4 Conclusions to Laboratory Evaluations .................................................................. 5-9
5.6 Evaluation Of Gasket Materials in an Oil Loop ........................................................... 5-12
5.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 5-12
References ....................................................................................................................... 5-13
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 6-1
A GUIDELINES FOR REPAIR WELDING TRANSFORMER COMPONENTS USING

THE SHIELDED METAL ARC WELDING AND FLUX CORED ARC WELDING
PROCESSES .........................................................................................................................A-1
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... A-1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. A-2
WELDING REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................. A-2
Scope.............................................................................................................................. A-2
General ........................................................................................................................... A-3
Base Metal ...................................................................................................................... A-3
Welding Environment ...................................................................................................... A-3
Maximum Wind Velocity. ............................................................................................. A-3
Minimum Ambient Temperature. ................................................................................. A-4
Preparation Of Base Metal.............................................................................................. A-4
Surface Preparation. ................................................................................................... A-4
Joint Preparation ......................................................................................................... A-4
Welding Electrode Requirements.................................................................................... A-4
xiii
10567971
Storage. ...................................................................................................................... A-4
Condition. .................................................................................................................... A-5
Shielding Gas..................................................................................................................A-5
Selection of Welding Procedure ...................................................................................... A-5
Fillet Welds...................................................................................................................... A-6
Recommended Fillet Weld Sizes................................................................................. A-6
Weld Profiles ............................................................................................................... A-7
Welding Technique ......................................................................................................... A-7
Weld Cleaning................................................................................................................. A-7
SAFETY GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... A-10
General ......................................................................................................................... A-10
Welder Safety................................................................................................................ A-10
Transformer Safety ....................................................................................................... A-11
BOX DESIGNS ................................................................................................................. A-15
General ......................................................................................................................... A-15
Design Recommendations ............................................................................................ A-15
EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLE SPECIFICATIONS.................................................... A-19
Recommended Equipment............................................................................................ A-19
Recommended Materials .............................................................................................. A-19
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. A-24
B RESULTS OF TENSILE TESTS .........................................................................................B-1
C ADHESION TESTS.............................................................................................................C-1
D MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIERS’ ADDRESSES FOR GASKETS ................................D-1
xiv
10567971
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Transformer mockup in the horizontal position; new steel plates are installed
in this position ................................................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-2 Transformer mockup in the vertical position; welding is performed in this
position............................................................................................................................ 3-4
Figure 3-3 Typical badly burnt and carbonized flaky paint (air-backing). Unacceptable—
Category E in Table 3-1 .................................................................................................. 3-6
Figure 3-4 Typical slightly burnt and adherent paint (air backing). Acceptable—
Category D in Table 3-1 .................................................................................................. 3-6
Figure 3-5 Typical tarnished paint; no flake and no carbonization (air backing).
Acceptable—Category A in Table 3-1 ............................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-6 Typical tarnished ductile paint; partially detached from steel plate; (oil-
backing) Acceptable—Category B in Table 3-1............................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-7 Typical tarnished paint; brittle flake (oil-backing). Acceptable—Category C in
Table 3-1......................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-8 Typical tarnished paint; no flake and no carbonization (oil backing).
Acceptable—Category A in Table 3-1 ............................................................................. 3-8
Figure 4-1 Schematic diagram of on-line oil circulation loop................................................. 4-18
Figure 4-2 Transformer oil loop in horizontal configuration ................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-3 Leak in flange 1 as shown by discoloration on center of lower flange ................. 4-20
Figure 4-4 Leak in flange 2 ................................................................................................... 4-20
Figure 4-10 Leak in flange 8 ................................................................................................. 4-23
Figure 4-11 Leak in flange 1 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV ............................................... 4-26
Figure 4-12 Leak in flange 2 sealed using Dow Corning 736 ............................................... 4-26
Figure 4-13 Leak in flange 3 sealed using KOPPL 314 ........................................................ 4-27
Figure 4-14 Leak in flange 4 (center) sealed using KOPPL 314 and a topcoat of
Devcon Flexane 80 ....................................................................................................... 4-27
Figure 4-15 Leak in flange 5 (center) sealed using PDS F-S-T ............................................ 4-28
xv
10567971
Figure 4-16 Leak in flange 6 (center) sealed using PDS F-S-T and a topcoat of Devcon
Flexane 80 .................................................................................................................... 4-28
Figure 4-17 Leak in flange 7 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV but without removing any
oil on flange surface ...................................................................................................... 4-29
Figure 4-18 Leak in flange 8 sealed with Dow Corning 736 but without removing any oil
on flange surface .......................................................................................................... 4-29
Figure 4-19 Leak in flange 1 sealed with Loctite 5900 RTV following aging period—leak
is still sealed.................................................................................................................. 4-30
Figure 4-20 Leak in flange 2 sealed with Dow Corning 736 following aging period—leak
is still sealed.................................................................................................................. 4-31
Figure 4-21 Leak in flange 3 sealed with KOPPL 314 following aging period—leak is
still sealed ..................................................................................................................... 4-32
Figure 4-22 Flange 4 sealed with KOPPL 314 and a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80
following aging period—leak is still sealed .................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4-23 Leak in flange 5 sealed with PDS F-S-T following aging period—leak is
present indicated by drop of oil at bottom ..................................................................... 4-34
Figure 4-24 Leak in flange 6 sealed with PDS F-S-T and a topcoat of Devcon Flexane
80 after aging period—leak is still sealed...................................................................... 4-35
Figure 4-25 Leak in flange 7 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV over oily surface following
aging period—leak is still sealed ................................................................................... 4-36
Figure 4-26 Leak in flange 8 sealed using Dow Corning 736 on oily surface following
aging period—leak is still sealed ................................................................................... 4-37
Figure 5-1 Typical gasket sealing arrangement ...................................................................... 5-2
Figure A-1 Portable Generator Power Source and Suit Case Type Wire Feeder ................... A-3
Figure A-2 Intermittent or stitch welding technique and sequence ......................................... A-7
Figure A-3 Acceptable and Unacceptable Weld Profiles ........................................................ A-9
Figure A-4 Enclosed Flanges Illustrating Various Box Designs ............................................ A-18
xvi
10567971
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Paint Conditions and Interpretation ........................................................................ 3-5

Table 3-2(a) Shielded Metal Arc Welding Studies with Air Backing ...................................... 3-10
Table 3-3 Recommended SMAW Procedures ...................................................................... 3-12
Table 4-1 Transformer Leak Sealant Products ....................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Aging Parameters for Sealants............................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-3 Fracture Strength And Change After 20 Years ....................................................... 4-7
Table 4-4 Fracture Elongation And Change Over 20 Years ................................................... 4-8
Table 4-5 Fracture Energy And Change Over 20 Years ......................................................... 4-9
Table 4-6 Linear Adhesion And Change Over 20 Years....................................................... 4-10
Table 4-7 Complex Modulus And Change With Temperature............................................... 4-11
Table 4-8 Tan δ And Change with Temperature ................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-9 Overall Ranking for Sealants ................................................................................ 4-13
Table 4-10 Adhesion Tests With Devcon Flexane 80 Cover................................................. 4-16
Table 4-11 Results of Oil Compatibility Tests ....................................................................... 4-16
Table 4-12 Flanges And Sealants ........................................................................................ 4-25
Table 5-1 Results Of Tensile Tests......................................................................................... 5-7
Table 5-2 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Test Results............................................................ 5-8
Table 5-3 Results Of Oil Compatibility Tests........................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-4 Overall Rank Of Gasket Materials ........................................................................ 5-10
Table A-1 Recommended Welding Procedures for Transformer Repairs ............................... A-6
Table A-2 Recommended Fillet Weld Size vs. Material Thickness ....................................... A-12
Table A-3 Commonly Available Square Hollow Structural Steel Sections ............................ A-16
xvii
10567971
10567971
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Power transformers are long lived but, as a consequence, often exhibit leaks of varying
severity, occasioned by improper sealing at mating faces and/or corrosion. Leak repair
of large transformers can be extremely costly because of high outage costs, in addition
to material costs and manpower requirements. There is thus a considerable incentive to
perform repairs in-situ and without the need to remove the dielectric fluid, eliminating
also possible contamination problems. In response to the utility needs, industry has
responded with a variety of repair technologies. The solutions are typically based on
proprietary sealants and sealant delivery systems. Generally the proposed solutions are
quite costly and successful only in a very limited number of applications and for a
limited time. Often the proposed solutions not only fail, but their implementation has
created a worse situation than existed before, e.g., rendering removal of bushings
nearly impossible.
The present report documents R&D undertaken to assess and/or extend several
existing technologies for sealing leaking transformers. The technologies covered
include the welding of a channel “box” for leak sealing, a technology used successfully
at Ontario Hydro, along with the assessment of commercial sealants and especially
formulated high performance gasket materials.
Leaks can originate from gas relay piping, packing on valves, CT pockets, tap changers,
radiators and main tank covers. In the case of Con Edison, the main priorities involved
flanges for radiators and pumps (units of 25 MVA and greater) with various gasket
materials including neoprene, corprene, Buna-n and Viton. Valve stem and packing
from various manufacturers associated with the above units were a secondary concern.
Both sealant repair systems and gasketing materials are required to exhibit superior
characteristics to perform in the severe multi-stress environment of an operating
transformer, combining vibration, extremes of temperature (from -40 C to well over 100
C), UV exposure, and thermal aging, often following poor application conditions on
oily surfaces. A key aspect of the R&D program was the inclusion of the above factors
in the evaluation of new materials and procedures.
The range of applicability of welding technologies was established. Welding repairs

completed with an oil backing have no risk of paint carbonization, while repairs
completed without oil backing risk paint carbonization; with an air backing, 1/2”
xix
10567971
material and thicker can be welded without concern while a multi-pass technique
should be used for welding 1/4” thick material. 1/8” material should only be welded
when all other alternatives have been exhausted. The recommended process for field
weld repairing is Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW), either in the semi-automatic mode
(hand held) or in a mechanized mode (travel carriage). SMAW (Shielded Metal Arc
Welding) should be considered as a second choice after FCAW (only for materials 1/4”
and thicker). GMAW (Gas Metal Arc Welding) offers no advantage over FCAW or
SMAW. The best welding procedures were compiled into a free standing document
‘Guidelines for Repair Welding Transformer Components Using the Shielded Metal Arc
Welding and Flux Cored Arc Welding Processes’, included in the present report.
It is recommended that further welding procedure development be completed in the

vertical position using both SMAW and FCAW. In addition, it is recommended that
repair welding techniques be developed using either mechanized systems or
specialized miniature hand held torches for repair of corrosion leaks on radiators.
Sealant products were obtained for evaluation from the major suppliers. Nine sealants
were subjected to screening tests, involving tensile and adhesive strength on oil coated
painted surfaces; tests were performed on both newly applied sealants and sealants
which had been aged to a life equivalent of 20 to 30 years. Four sealants, two based on
silicones and two on polysulfides, were superior in terms of strength, flexibility and
adhesion. A fifth hybrid system, including a material which is not used as the primary
sealant in contact with an oily surface but as a topcoat for the polysulfide sealants, also
displayed superior strength, flexibility, adhesion and aging properties. Oil
compatibility tests showed that the four primary sealants had no adverse effect on the
transformer oil performance.

sealants selected can seal a flange leak effectively. The performance of the sealant
which did not seal effectively, could be enhanced through use of an appropriate cover-
coat. Final selection of a sealant would depend upon other criteria such as sealant cost,
ease of application, and ease of removal. Details on each of the four sealants are
provided in the report.
Eighteen gasket materials provided by five manufacturers were evaluated; four have
shown superior performance in terms of retention of original properties. The best four
materials were able to maintain their original tensile strength and flexibility after aging
in air and oil to the equivalent of a lifetime of 20 to 30 years at an operating
temperature of between 30 and 50 C. All materials are available in sheet form from
which gaskets may be cut. The products tested included cork/rubber composites,
cork/ethylene acrylic rubber composites, nitrile rubbers, hydrogenated and highly
saturated nitrile rubber, silicone rubbers, EPDM materials.
xx
10567971
The R&D project was carried out at Ontario Hydro Technologies with joint funding
from Consolidated Edison and the US Electric Power Research Institute.
xxi
10567971
10567971
1
INTRODUCTION
Power transformers exhibit very low failure rates and can continue to provide reliable
service well beyond their design life. Transformer replacement is often dictated more
by power system requirements than “aging” of the insulation systems. However, an
attendant consequence of a transformer’s long life is the failure of the ancillary systems
to exhibit a comparable resilience. It is not uncommon to find that every transformer in
an older substation has, or has had, leaks of varying severity, occasioned by improper
sealing at mating faces and/or corrosion. To minimize environmental impact,
considerable resources are marshaled by utilities to remedy the problem and effect
satisfactory repairs.
Leak repair of large transformers can be extremely costly because of high outage costs,
in addition to material costs and manpower requirements. Major gasket replacement of
a transformer is extremely costly, estimated to be in excess of $350,000 for a 65/93 MVA
transformer. Obviously there is a considerable incentive to perform repairs in-situ and
without the need to detank, thereby eliminating possible contamination problems and
the associated oil-treatment requirements. Many utilities have maintained extensive
databases of their leaky transformers and assessed novel leak repair solutions, to
ensure that the priority problems are addressed and to ascertain the efficacy of the
solutions.
In response to the utility concerns, industry has responded with a variety of solutions.
Typically, the solutions are based on a proprietary sealant—and its attendant delivery
system; generally the proposed solutions are quite costly and are warranted only if
applied by the vendor’s staff. However, experience shows that most of the proposed
solutions are successful only in a very limited number of applications and for a limited
time. Often the proposed solutions not only fail, but their implementation has created a
worse situation than existed before; a typical example is the use of thermoset sealant
injection technology which ultimately renders removal of bushings nearly impossible.
The present report documents R&D undertaken to assess and/or extend several
technologies for sealing leaking transformers. The technologies covered include the
application of box welding for leak sealing, a technology used successfully at Ontario
Hydro, along with the assessment of commercial sealants and novel high performance
gasket materials. The report addresses the key issues of identification of solutions and
their assessment through accelerated testing.
1-1
10567971
10567971
2
LEAKS AND REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES
Large utilities typically spend over $1 million per year on overhaul of leaking power
transformers. A key element of overhaul programs is to develop a database to
inventory transformers by manufacturer and leak type as well as to track the type of
repair effected to gauge the efficacy of any new material and/or repair procedure
employed. As part of the assessment of leaks in transformers, a systematic steam
cleaning prior to intervention is essential to assess both the severity and true source
location of leaks, particularly on older transformers which, at first sight, appear
covered in oil; leak severity is then used to prioritize the sequence of repairs.
Experience indicates that leaks can be divided into six major groups:
• gas relay piping
• packing on valves
• CT pockets
• tap changers
• radiators
• main tank cover
In the case of Con Edison, the main priorities regarding leak configurations to be
addressed were:
• Flanges for radiators and pumps for units 25 MVA and larger, with the majority in
the 55 to 65 MVA range. The flanges are of various shapes and sizes up to 12” in
diameter with various gasket materials including neoprene, corprene, Buna-n and
Viton.
• Valve stem and packing from various manufacturers associated with the above
units.
Given the considerable cost of transformer regasketting, it is essential to develop

techniques and strategies to effect all leak repairs quickly and on site, including main
cover tank regasketing. Furthermore to minimize possible ingress of contamination and
2-1
10567971
Leaks and Repair Technologies
moisture (and the attendant costs to remedy these situations which could readily lead
to failure) Ontario Hydro has developed welding kits and procedures to overcome the
need for regasketing in many instances. Careful attention in kit design to the need for
speedy installation to minimize outage costs and recognition of possible future need for
disassembly has provided successful solutions, along with the need for informed
welding procedures and expertise. Further improvements with this approach to leak
repairs are detailed in this report.
In many instances, welding is not a practical solution, because of the materials involved
and/or the need for future removal. Leak repair technology based on either material
injection or containment have been proposed by a number of vendors. Many utilities
including Con Edison and Ontario Hydro have assessed these technologies and
performed field trials for the most promising approaches. However, while sealing of
the leak is usually successful at first, recurrence of leakage is invariably experienced
after a relatively short time in service. None of the technology evaluated in the past can
be described as providing more than an emergency temporary repair, requiring a
permanent solution in due course. It is believed that the severe multi-stress
environment of an operating transformer, combining vibration, extremes of
temperature (from -40 C to well over 100 C), UV exposure and thermal environments,
and poor application conditions on oily surfaces are responsible for such poor
performance. A successful solution must demonstrate that the above factors are
considered in elaborating new materials and procedures.
In addition to the unavailability of permanent retrofit leak repair technologies, utilities

have been frustrated by the insufficient quality of gasketing materials. In spite of the
higher cost of performing a regasketing, where such is necessary, the failure of
replacement gaskets, exhibiting leakage after relatively short times, even when
installed with utmost care and competency, imposes a severe and unnecessary financial
burden on utilities. These issues were recognized and the need for improved
replacement materials addressed in the present project. Though demanding, the service
conditions of operating transformers are not beyond present technology as made
available to other industries. For instance, new materials are available with long term
aging characteristics exceeding those of nitrile rubber by an order of magnitude, as
shown in this report.
A critical element of the R&D undertaken by OHT has been the consideration of the
main aging factors responsible for performance degradation, namely:
• thermal expansion
• oil compatibility: oil resistance and freedom from contamination
• adhesion to oil contaminated metal surfaces
2-2
10567971
Leaks and Repair Technologies
• environmental resistance and aging: UV, heat, ozone
• low amplitude vibration
• ease of removal for future dismantling
Accordingly accelerated aging tests were also performed on the material combinations
which proved successful in initial screening tests.
2-3
10567971
10567971
3
BOX WELDING TECHNOLOGIES FOR LEAK REPAIR
Shielded-metal-arc welding (SMAW) has been used extensively at Ontario Hydro for
repairing leaked components of power transformers. Weld repairs were performed on
main tank covers, current transformer pockets and tap mounting flanges. In this type of
repair, prefabricated boxes or channels are used for boxing-in the leaked components.
SMAW is used to join the box onto the components. Where appropriate, weld repairs
are carried out without draining the oil. Welding is therefore carried out with either air
or oil at the backside of the component wall.
The inside wall of most transformer components is painted. Weld repair must be
carefully carried out to avoid overheating the inside wall surface and thus causing
peeling and carbonization of the paint. Carbonized particles may adversely affect the
dielectric properties of the transformer oil and thus the performance of the power
transformer. The amount of heating is affected by the weld heat (i.e., weld parameters),
welding technique/process, the box thickness and transformer component wall
thickness. In addition, different paints may also have different thermal properties and
behave differently under the weld heat. Welding may also cause burning and
disintegration of the gasket material, which may contaminate the transformer oil. Effect
of weld heat on gasket material also requires further investigation and is addressed in
this report.
Alternative welding processes such as Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) and Flux
Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) were also evaluated. These processes are referred to as
continuous wire welding processes, which offer the advantage of fewer starts/stops
than the SMAW process. Fewer starts/stops will likely reduce the defect rate. GMAW
and FCAW also offer the advantage of mechanization, which will provide better
control of the welding speed and thus heat input, reducing the risk of overheating
thinned-walled components. These continuous wire welding processes can also offer
significant improvements on joint completion rates. For mechanized welding, a track-
based system is used. Continuous wire welding processes and mechanized welding is
also desirable for welding in confined spaces.
This section of the report describes the R&D performed to support the use of welding
technologies for transformer leak repair and guidelines are provided as Appendix A
for carrying out these activities.
3-1
10567971
Box Welding Technologies for Leak Repair
3.1 Continuous Wire Welding Process Description
There are essentially two processes that are classified as continuous wire welding
processes, Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) and Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW).
Each of the FCAW and GMAW has variations to the process which further subdivide
them by their altering factors.
The FCAW process has two major variations to the process; the first variation uses a
consumable for welding that gains its protection from atmospheric contaminants by an
external shielding gas, generally referred to as Flux Cored Arc Welding–Gas Shielded
(FCAW-GS). The second variation uses a consumable for welding that gains its
protection from atmospheric contaminants by use of fluxing agents contained within
the consumable, no external shielding gas required, this process is generally referred to
as Flux Cored Arc Welding–Self Shielded (FCAW-SS).
The mode of metal transfer across the arc is typically used to categorize the GMAW
process. The most common modes of metal transfer used are Short Circuit, Globular,
and Spray. Each mode of metal transfer has advantages and disadvantages.
The Short Circuit mode is generally used on thin materials (<3/16”) because of its low
heat input. Short Circuit transfer is also used for welding out of position because of its
ability to keep the weld puddle from sagging. The main disadvantage to the Short
Circuit technique is limited production capability and it is susceptible to lack of fusion
defects because of its limited heat input.
The Globular mode has limited use, but can be used for welding thin materials (3/16”–
5/16”), but limited to flat and horizontal. The Globular technique is typically not used
because of its high rate of spatter, and the Short Circuit and Spray techniques can do
the same applications while offering superior advantages.
The Spray mode is commonly used for welding thicker materials (> 1/4”). The spray
mode has essentially no spatter and offers excellent fusion characteristics on all
thicknesses. The disadvantage to this technique is, this mode of transfer is limited to
welding in the flat and horizontal positions because of its very fluid weld puddle. The
fluidity of the spray mode weld puddle can be overcome by using a power source with
additional capability to ‘pulse’ the arc. This variation to the process is commonly
referred to as Pulse Gas Metal Arc Welding (P-GMAW). The ability to weld out of
position, using minimal heat input, obtaining excellent weld quality, with minimal
spatter, while achieving high joint completion rates was considered essential for
repairing transformers. The P-GMAW variation was considered as the best variation of
the GMAW process to meet each of these variables, although the GMAW-SC mode may
be advantageous for welding materials of 1/8” thickness.
3-2
10567971
3.2 Experimental Tests
3.2.1 Test Configuration
A transformer mockup in the form of an oil tank was designed and custom-built (see
Figure 3-1 and 3-2). The mockup was filled with 60 gallons of transformer oil. With this
mockup, welding trials were carried out on carbon steel plates, which were painted at
the backside surface to simulate repairing of transformer components in the presence of
oil.
Plates
Oil Tank
Figure 3-1
Transformer mockup in the horizontal position; new steel plates are installed in
this position
3-3
10567971
Plates
Oil Tank
Figure 3-2
Transformer mockup in the vertical position; welding is performed in this position
All weld tests were performed on A36 carbon steel plates of various thickness’ (1/8,
1/4 and 1/2 inch). This thickness range accounts for most transformer component wall
thicknesses. Test coupons were fabricated using carbon steel plates (18 x 22 and 22 x 6
inch). These test plates were tack welded into a T-joint configuration. Both E7018 and
E6013 welding electrodes were used for the SMAW tests. The large plate and the
smaller plate represent the component wall and box wall respectively. After assembling
the test coupon, thermocouples were spot welded onto the backside. A custom-built
data acquisition system was used to record the temperature readings on the backside
surface of the plate during welding. The backside surface of the larger plates were
coated with typical paints:
• Pittsburgh/54-200 Gloss Deeptone Tint Base
• Glyptal/G2215 ASA61 Grey Gloss Enamel
• ICI/Speed Enamel Quick Dry White MSDSY4300
Weld tests were carried out on Nitrile rubber and Corprene (cork & rubber) gasket
materials using a typical flange assembly
3-4
10567971
3.2.2 Shield-Metal-Arc Welding Investigations
SMAW tests were performed on the painted carbon steel T-joint test assemblies.
Following each weld tests, photographs of the painted surface were taken. The
temperature profile of the painted surface was recorded during welding using a
computer data acquisition system. In both air-backing and oil-backing tests, the weld
heat caused different degrees of peeling and burning of the paints. The conditions of
the heat-affected paints are presented in Table 3-1. The typical paints conditions are
shown in Figure 3-3 to 3-8.
Table 3-1
Paint Conditions and Interpretation
Backing
Category Paint Condition Environment Interpretation and Acceptability
A Tarnished; Air/Oil Acceptable; tarnished and intact.

No Flakes;
No Carbonization.
B Tarnished; Oil Acceptable; part of the paint is partially

Partially Detached; detached from the surface and is still very
Ductile; ductile; there is no risk of any paint particles
No Carbonization. (non-carbonized) to get into the oil.
C Tarnished; Oil Acceptable; part the paint is partially

Brittle Flakes; detached from the surface and becomes
No Carbonization. very brittle; there is no carbonization; loose
non-carbonized paint particles may get into
the oil, which may not affect the dielectric
properties of the oil.
D Burnt; Air Acceptable; burnt, but still adhering tightly

No Flakes; to the surface with no risk of contaminating
Carbonization. the oil.
E Burnt; Air Unacceptable; burnt into carbonized

Carbonized Flakes. particles.
3-5
10567971
Figure 3-3
Typical badly burnt and carbonized flaky paint (air-backing). Unacceptable—
Category E in Table 3-1
Figure 3-4
Typical slightly burnt and adherent paint (air backing). Acceptable—Category D in
Table 3-1
3-6
10567971
Figure 3-5
Typical tarnished paint; no flake and no carbonization (air backing). Acceptable—
Category A in Table 3-1
Figure 3-6
Typical tarnished ductile paint; partially detached from steel plate; (oil-backing)
Acceptable—Category B in Table 3-1
3-7
10567971
Figure 3-7
Typical tarnished paint; brittle flake (oil-backing). Acceptable—Category C in
Table 3-1
Figure 3-8
Typical tarnished paint; no flake and no carbonization (oil backing). Acceptable—
Category A in Table 3-1
3-8
10567971
3.2.2.1 Air Backing
The air-backing weld test parameters and results, including the observed paint
conditions, are shown in Table 3-2. Based on these paint conditions, welding
procedures were established for various combinations of component wall thickness and
box-thickness (see Table 3-3). Observations are as follows:
• Case A: Transformer wall thickness: 1/8 inch
— Box thickness: 1/8 inch
— Fillet size: 1/8 inch
— (Weld Test 1,2,3,4,13,16)
The weld test results indicated that it was extremely difficult to weld repair 1/8 thick
components (see Table 3-2). The weld heat penetrated the thin material quickly and
heated the paints into carbonized flakes (i.e., Category E as shown in Table 3-1 and
Figure 3-3). The peak temperature readings ranged from 470C to 1000C.
Weld test #4 parameters produced an acceptable paint surface (i.e., Category D as

shown in Table 3-1). The paint was burnt but still adhered tightly to the steel plate
surface. In this weld test, a small diameter (1/16 inch) E6013 electrode was employed
for preparing the two-pass 1/8-inch fillet weld. In comparison to an E7018 electrode, an
E6013 electrode is a low penetration electrode. By changing the polarity from direct
current electrode positive (DCEP) to direct current electrode negative (DCEN), less
weld heat was transferred to the base metal. The peak temperature reading was about
470 C. This test was done in the horizontal position. Although the procedure provided
some promising results, it was considered that this procedure would require a highly
skillful welder to produce sound welds. In comparison to E7018 electrode, it is
anticipated the defect rate would likely be higher with the small diameter 1/16 inch
E6013 electrode. This procedure may be difficult to implement in the field.
In the vertical up welding position, a welder would tend to employ lower welding
speed and thus higher heat input. Additional tests will be required to determine
suitable weld parameters for welding in the vertical up position. Gas-metal-arc welding
(GMAW) will also be examined closely for 1/8-inch thick material. In comparison to
SMAW, GMAW will produce less base metal heating under similar welding conditions.
Furthermore, mechanized GMAW will also allow the use of higher welding speed and
thus lower heat input.
3-9
10567971
Table 3-2(a)
Shielded Metal Arc Welding Studies with Air Backing
Transformer Fillet Number

Wall Box Weld Amperage of Peak
Weld Thickness Thickness Size Electrode Electrode Position of Used for Welding Temp Paint Appearance
# Paint Brand (inches) (inches) (inches) Type Size Welding Test Passes (oC) (Category)
1 Pittsburgh 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 90 1 1005 Burned-Off (E)
10567971
3 Pittsburgh 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E6013 * 3/32” Horizontal 95 1 540 Burned-Off (E)
4 Pittsburgh 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E6013 * 1/16” Horizontal 70 2 470 Intact-Burned (D)
5 Pittsburgh 1/4” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Vertical Up 100 1 455 Intact-Burned (D)
7 Pittsburgh 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 100 2 400 Intact-Burned (D)
8 Pittsburgh 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E6013 * 3/32” Horizontal 95 2 330 Intact-Burned (D)
9 Pittsburgh 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 3/32” Vertical Up 100 2 510 Burned-Off (E)
10 Pittsburgh 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 130 1 270 Intact-Tarnished (A)
11 Pittsburgh 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Vertical Up 125 1 350 Intact-Tarnished (A)
12 Pittsburgh 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 3/32” Vertical Up 100 2 360 Intact-Tarnished (A)
13 Glyptal 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 90 1 910 Burned-Off (E)
14 Glyptal 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 660 Burned-Off (E)
15 Glyptal 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 130 1 280 Intact-Tarnished (A)
16 ICI 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 90 1 835 Burned-Off (E)
17 ICI 1/4” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 90 1 490 Intact-Burned (D)
18 ICI 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 655 Burned-Off (E)
19 ICI 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 135 1 275 Intact-Tarnished (A)
Tests were completed using Direct Electrode Positive.

These tests were completed using Direct Current Electrode Negative.
3-10
Table 3-2(b)
Shielded Metal Arc Welding Studies with Oil Backing
Transformer Fillet Number

Wall Box Weld Amperage of Peak
Weld Thickness Thickness Size Electrode Electrode Position of Used for Welding Temp Paint Appearance
# Paint Brand (inches) (inches) (inches) Type Size Welding Test Passes (oC) (Category)
20 Pittsburgh 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 95 1 845 Detached-Ductile (B)
21 Pittsburgh 1/4” 1/8” 3/16” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 95 2 415 Detached-Ductile (B)
10567971
22 Pittsburgh 1/2” 1/8” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 225 Intact-Tarnished (A)
23 Glyptal 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 95 1 875 Detached-Brittle (B)
24 Glyptal 1/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 520 Detached-Brittle (B)
25 Glyptal 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 210 Intact-Tarnished (A)
26 ICI 1/8” 1/8” 1/8” E7018 3/32” Horizontal 95 1 980 Detached-Ductile (B)
29 ICI 1/2” 1/2” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Horizontal 125 1 215 Intact-Tarnished (A)
Table 3-2(c)
Shielded Metal Arc Welding Studies with Gasket Material
Fillet Number
Flange Box Weld Amperage of Peak
Weld Type of Thickness Thickness Size Electrode Electrode Position of Used for Welding Temp Paint Appearance
# Rubber (inches) (inches) (inches) Type Size Welding Test Passes (oC) (Category)
30 All Rubber 3/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Vertical Up 125 1 190 No Melting
31 Cork-Rubber 3/4” 1/4” 3/16” E7018 1/8” Vertical Up 125 1 190 Slight Discoloration
3-11
Table 3-3
Recommended SMAW Procedures
Transformer Fillet
Welding Wall Box Weld Electrode No. of Welding Weld Remaining
Procedure Weld Backing Thickness Thickness Size Welding Electrode Diameter Weld Current (A) Length Weld Stub
No. Test Environment (inch) (inch) (inch) Position Type Polarity (inch) Passes (inch) (inch)
1 17 air 0.25 0.125 0.125 Horizontal E7018 DCEP 0.09375 1 85-105 N/A N/A
10567971
2 5 air 0.25 0.125 0.125 Vertical Up E7018 DCEP 0.09375 1 85-105 N/A N/A
3 7 air 0.25 0.25 0.1875 Horizontal E7018 DCEP 0.09375 2 85-105 5.5 3.25/7
4 10 air 0.5 0.5 0.1875 Horizontal E7018 DCEP 0.125 1 120-140 N/A N/A
5 11 air 0.5 0.5 0.1875 Vertical Up E7018 DCEP 0.125 1 120-140 N/A N/A
6 20 oil 0.125 0.125 0.125 Horizontal E7018 DCEP 0.09375 1 85-105 N/A N/A
7 ? oil 0.125 0.125 0.125 Vertical Up E7018 DCEP 0.09375 1 85-105 N/A N/A
13 11 oil 0.5 0.5 0.1875 Vertical Up E7018 DCEP 0.125 1 120-140 N/A N/A
? = These procedures are based on horizontal test results with oil backing, as all oil backed tests show that temperature has no effect on paint carburization levels.
3-12
• Recommendation:
— Gas-metal-arc welding will be examined for welding of thin material at higher

welding speed (i.e. lower heat input);
— Investigate the feasibility of employing greater box thickness, which will serve
as a greater heat sink
• Case B: Transformer wall thickness: 1/4 inch
— (Weld Test #5 and #17)
Acceptable paint condition (Category D as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4) could be
obtained using test parameters #5 and #17 for welding in the vertical up position and
horizontal position, respectively (Table 3-2). The peak temperature readings were in the
range of 455 C to 490 C. The paint was burnt, but still adhered tightly to the steel plate
surface. In this case, a small 1/8-inch fillet weld was used.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedures #1 and #2 (based on weld tests #17 and #5) for welding in
the horizontal position and vertical up position respectively (Table 3-3).
• Case C: Transformer wall thickness: 1/4 inch
— (Weld test #6, #7,#8, #9, #14, #18)
Acceptable burnt/adherent paint condition (Category D as shown in Table 3-1 and

Figure 3-4) was achieved in weld tests #7 and #8. This could only be achieved in the
smaller 3/16-fillet weld with the use of two weld passes. A lower peak temperature of
330 C was recorded in test #8 with the use of an E6013 electrode in the horizontal
position. A higher peak temperature of 400 C was obtained with an E7018 electrode.
Both weld tests were performed in the horizontal welding position.
The paints were burnt and became flaky (Category E) when welding in the vertical up
position with an E7018 electrode (i.e., test #9). Additional tests will be required for
welding in the vertical up position.
3-13
10567971
• Recommendation:
— Weld procedures #3 (based on weld tests #7) for welding in the horizontal
position (Table 3-3);
— Additional weld tests will be required for welding in the vertical up position;
this can be done by modifying the weld bead deposition sequence in weld test
#9
• Case D: Transformer wall thickness: 1/2 inch
— (Weld test # 10, #11, #12, #15, #19)
Excellent paint condition (Category A as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5) could be
obtained in all weld tests. For the 1/2-inch thick materials, SMAW only caused the
paint to become tarnished; no carbonization was observed. In the horizontal welding
position, the peak temperature readings were in the range of 270 C to 280 C. In the
vertical up welding position, the peak temperature readings were in the range of 350 C
to 360 C. It is concluded that SMAW will not affect the paint (dielectrically) and thus
the performance of the transformer.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedures #4 and #5 (based on weld tests #10 and #11) for welding in
the horizontal position and vertical up position respectively (Table 3-3)
3.2.2.2 Oil Backing
SMAW tests were performed on painted steel plates using the transformer mockup; oil
was present for cooling the inside painted steel plate surface during welding. The test
results are as follows:
— Fillet weld size: 1/8 inch
— (Weld tests #20, #23 and #26)
3-14
10567971
Acceptable paint conditions were obtained in all weld tests. As shown in Table 3-2, the
peak temperature readings were found to be in the range of 845 C to 875 C. All three
types of paints partially detached from the steel plate. The “Pittsburgh” paint and the
“ICI” paint remained ductile (Category B as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6). The
Glyptal became brittle. However, no carbonization was observed. (Category C as
shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-7).
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedure #6 (based on weld test #20) for welding in the horizontal
welding position and welding procedure #7 for welding in the vertical up
position (Table 3-3)
— (Weld test #27)
Acceptable paint condition (Category B as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6) were
acquired in weld test #27 for welding in the horizontal position.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedure #8 (based on weld test #27) for the horizontal welding
position and welding procedure #9 for welding in the vertical up position
(Table 3-3)
— (Weld test #21, #24, #28)
Acceptable paint conditions were obtained in all weld tests (Table 3-2) The peak tem-
perature readings were in the range of 415 C to 520 C. No carbonization of the paints
was observed. All three types of paints partially detached from the steel plate. The
“Pittsburgh” paint and the “ICI” paint remained ductile (Category B as shown in Table
3-1 and Figure 3-6). The Glyptal became brittle (Category C as shown in Table 3-1 and
Figure 3-7).
3-15
10567971
• Recommendation:
(Table 3-3)
• Case D: Transformer wall thickness: 1/2inch
— (Weld test #25, #29, #31)
Excellent paint condition (Category A as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-8) was
obtained in all weld tests (Table 3-2). The peak temperature readings were only in the
range of 210 C to 215 C and the weld heat only caused the paints to become tarnished.
• Recommendation:
(Table 3-3)
3.2.2.3 Gasket Tests
SMAW tests were carried out on two types of gasket materials, Nitrile rubber and
Corprene. As shown in Table 3-2, transformer box thickness of 3/4-inch and box
thickness of 1/4 inch was selected for these tests. Only minor discoloration was found
on these gasket materials. The peak temperature readings were about 190 C. The results
indicated that weld repair should have no effect on the disintegration of these materials
and thus the performance of the transformer.
3.2.2.4 Conclusions for the SMAW Studies
With air backing and 1/8-inch thick components, it was shown that SMAW would
cause the formation of loose carbonized paint flakes, which would affect the dielectric
property of the transformer oil. It would be very difficult to avoid overheating and to
obtain acceptable paint condition consistently for such a thin material. Other weld
repair options including the use of GMAW or FCAW is recommended . SMAW repair
procedures have been established for repair components with wall thickness ranging
from 1/4 to 1/2 inch. For the thinner 1/4-inch material, weld heat might cause some
burning of the paint, but the carbonized paint would still adhere tightly to the steel
3-16
10567971
plate surface. For the thicker 1/2-inch material, weld heat will only cause the paint to
become tarnished.
With oil backing, SMAW imposed no risk of formation of loose carbonized paint flakes
for the repair of component wall thickness’ ranging from 1/8 to 1/2 inch. Weld heat
will only cause partial detachment of the paint from the steel plate surface.
Weld heat seemed to have negligible effect on gasket materials. For component with
wall thickness equal or greater than 3/4 inch, it is safe to consider that weld repair will
have no effect on gasket material and no risk of contaminating the transformer oil.
3.2.3 Continuous Wire Welding Investigations
All Gas Metal Arc Welding and Flux Cored Arc Welding trials were completed on the
painted carbon steel T-joint assemblies using an air backing, as it was proven from the
earlier Shielded Metal Arc Welding trials that no carbonization occurs while using oil
backing. It was also proven that paint type displayed only minor differences in degrees
of carbonization levels when using the same welding heat input, from this it was
decided that only the Pittsburgh Gloss White paint would be used for the continuous
wire welding trials. Tests were conducted to examine the effects of welding process,
wire diameter, gun angle, effect of multi-pass welds, etc.
3.2.3.1 Gas Metal Arc Welding Trials
— (Weld Test 6b, 6c, 6d)
components (see Table 3-4). The weld heat penetrated the thin material quickly and
heated the paints into carbonized flakes (i.e., Category E as shown in Table 3-1 and
Figure 3-3).
3-17
10567971
Table 3-4
Gas Metal Arc Welding Studies
Transformer
Electrod Wall Box Fillet Welding Welding No. of
Weld Welding e Thickness Thickness Weld Current Voltage Welding Torch Weld Paint Paint Description
Test Process Diameter (inch) (inch) Size (A) (V) Angle Passes Category
(inch) (inch)
10567971
1 P-MIG 0.045 0.5 0.5 0.1875 245 24 Normal 1 A tarnish; no flake
2 P-MIG 0.045 0.25 0.25 0.1875 245 24 Normal 1 B tarnish; lifted
3a P-MIG 0.045 0.25 0.25 0.1875 200 21 normal 1 D slightly burnt, no flake
3b P-MIG 0.045 0.25 0.25 0.1875 200 21 15 degree lead 1 D slightly burnt, no flake
3c P-MIG 0.045 0.25 0.25 0.1875 200 21 30 degree lead 1 D slightly burnt, no flake
3d P-MIG 0.045 0.25 0.25 0.1875 200 21 15 degree drag 2 D slightly burnt, no flake
4 P-MIG 0.035 0.25 0.25 0.1875 95 16 normal 3 B tarnish; lifted
5 P-MIG 0.035 0.25 0.125 0.125 95 21 normal 1 B tarnish; lifted
6a Short-circuit 0.035 0.25 0.125 0.125 95 21 normal 1 E burnt; carbonized flakes

MIG
6b Short-circuit 0.030 0.125 0.125 0.125 90 16 normal 2 D slightly burnt, no flake

MIG
6c Short-circuit 0.035 0.125 0.125 0.125 125 19 normal 1 E burnt; carbonized flakes
MIG
6d Short-circuit 0.030 0.125 0.125 0.125 90 16 normal 1 E burnt; carbonized flakes

MIG
3-18
Weld test #6b parameters produced an acceptable paint surface (i.e., Category D as
shown in Table 3-1). The paint was burnt but still adhered tightly to the steel plate
surface. In this weld test, a small diameter 0.030” wire was employed for completing a
two-pass 1/8-inch fillet weld. This test was done in the horizontal position. Although
the procedure provided adequate results, it was considered that this procedure would
require a highly skillful welder to produce sound welds. This procedure would also be
extremely difficult to implement in the field.
• Recommendation:
— Employ greater box thickness (3/16” to 1/4”) which will serve as a heat sink,
when welding onto 1/8” thick transformer walls.
— (Weld Test #5 and #6a)
Acceptable paint condition (Category B as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6) could be
obtained using test parameters #5 (Table 3-4). The paint was tarnished, but still adhered
tightly to the steel plate surface. In this case, a small 1/8-inch fillet weld was used.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedure #5 for welding 1/8” fillet welds on 1/4” transformer wall
thickness.
— (Weld test #3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4)

Figure 3-4) was achieved in weld tests #3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d. Weld test #4 using an 0.035”
diameter wire and employing a multi-pass (three passes) technique, provided better
results, but a reduction in productivity. It was also concluded from tests 3a – 3d that a
gun angle ‘normal to the surface’ reduced the amount of heat on the backside of the
plate.
3-19
10567971
• Recommendation:
— Weld procedure #4 (Table 3-4), should be used for welding 1/4” plate;
— Multi-pass welding is recommended for reducing the amount of heat introduced

to the back side of the transformer wall;
— A gun angle ‘normal’ to the surface should be employed at all times to reduce
the amount of burn-through.
— (Weld test # 1)
obtained in all weld tests. For the 1/2-inch thick materials, GMAW only caused the
paint to become tarnished; no carbonization was observed. It is concluded that GMAW
will not affect the paint (dielectrically) and thus the performance of the transformer.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedure #1 should be used for welding 1/2” plate.
3.2.3.2 Conclusions for the GMAW Studies
The tests completed with P-GMAW using a 0.045” diameter wire showed that welding
on 1/4” and 1/2” material could be completed without adverse effects on the painted
surfaces with a single pass weld. The preferred gun angle is ‘normal’ to the surface.
Alternatively a small diameter wire, 0.035” could be used in a multi-pass weld to limit
the heat input (paint carbonization) with the adverse affect of limiting production rates.
The tests completed with GMAW-SC showed that welding could be completed on 1/8”
material using a 0.030” diameter wire, with a multi-pass technique. The success of this
technique is limited, and if being used, it is recommended that trial welds are
completed on alternative material prior to implementing a repair on a transformer,
great care must be taken to minimize paint carbonization.
A listing of welding trials completed with the GMAW process with the variables of
interest (process variation, wire diameter, gun angle, travel speed, etc...) is detailed in
Table 3-4.
3-20
10567971
3.2.3.3 Flux Cored Arc Welding Trials
— (Weld Test #8a, 8b, 8c, 8d)
components (see Table 3-5). Weld test #8d parameters produced an acceptable paint
surface (i.e., Category B as shown in Table 3-1). In this weld test, a small diameter
0.035” self-shielded wire was employed for completing a single pass 1/8-inch fillet
weld, using a high travel speed. This procedure would require a skillful welder to
produce sound welds, but it would be the most likely to succeed in the field.
• Recommendation:
— Use self-shielded wires for completing small fillet welds;
— Use high travel speeds when possible to avoid heat buildup on the transformer
wall.
• Case E: Transformer wall thickness: 1/4 inch
— (Weld Test #9a and #9b)
Acceptable paint condition (Category D as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4) could be
obtained using test parameters #9b (Table 3-5). The paint was tarnished, but still
adhered tightly to the steel plate surface. In this case, a small 1/8-inch fillet weld was
used.
3-21
10567971
Table 3-5
Flux Cored Arc Welding Studies
10567971
Transformer Fillet
Electrode Wall Box Weld Welding Welding Welding No. of
Weld Diameter Thickness Thickness Size Current Voltage Travel Torch Weld Paint
Test Welding Process (inch) (inch) (inch) (inch) (A) (V) Speed Angle Passes Category Paint Description
7 Gas-shielded FCAW 0.045 0.5 0.5 0.1875 280 26 normal 1 A tarnish, no flake
8a Self-shielded FCAW 0.045 0.125 0.125 0.125 110 17 normal 1 E burnt; carbonized flakes
8b Self-shielded FCAW 0.035 0.125 0.125 0.125 60 15 normal 1 D slightly burnt, no flakes
8c Self-shielded FCAW 0.035 0.125 0.125 0.125 80 16 normal 1 D slightly burnt, no flakes
8d Self-shielded FCAW 0.035 0.125 0.125 0.125 100 17 faster than normal 1 B tarnish, lifted
8b and 8c
9a Self-shielded FCAW 0.035 0.125 0.25 0.125 90 16 normal 1 E burnt, carbonized flakes
9b Self-shielded FCAW 0.035 0.125 0.25 0.125 90 16 normal 1 D slightly burnt, no flakes
3-22
• Recommendation:
— Where possible, employ greater box thickness (3/16” to 1/4”) which will serve
as a heat sink, when welding onto 1/8” thick transformer walls.
— (Weld test #10)

Figure 3-4) was achieved in weld test #10. Weld test #10 used an 0.045” diameter gas
shielded wire, employing a multi-pass technique.
• Recommendation:
— Weld procedure #10 (Table 3-5), should be used for welding 1/4” plate;
— A gun angle ‘normal’ to the surface should be employed at all times to reduce
the amount of burn-through.
— (Weld test # 7)
obtained in all weld tests. For the 1/2-inch thick materials, FCAW only caused the
paint to become tarnished; no carbonization was observed. It is concluded that FCAW
will not affect the paint (dielectrically) and thus the performance of the transformer.
• Recommendation:
— Welding procedure #7 should be used for welding 1/2” plate.
3-23
10567971
3.2.3.4 Conclusions for the FCAW Studies
The tests completed with FCAW-GS process showed that satisfactory welds can be
completed on both 1/4” and 1/2” thick materials. A multi-pass technique is
recommended for 1/4” thick material. The tests completed with FCAW-SS proved that
a satisfactory weld, no paint carbonization could be completed with this process, when
using the proper wire size and parameters. Although a 1/8” fillet weld can be
completed on 1/8” base material thickness, this procedure should be used with extreme
caution when welding with an air backing. The FCAW-SS process is the recommended
technique for repairs to be completed on 1/8” thick transformer walls.
3.2.4 Conclusions of Welding Studies
Welding repairs completed with an oil backing have no risk of paint carbonization,
while repairs completed without oil backing carry a risk of paint carbonization
depending on material thickness.
When welding with an air backing, 1/2” material and thicker can be welded without
concern of paint carbonization. It is recommend that a multi-pass technique is used for
welding 1/4” thick material and 1/8” material should only be welded when all other
alternatives have been exhausted.
The recommended process for field weld repairing power transformers is Flux Cored
Arc Welding. Self-shielded wires are preferred if the transformer is exposed to winds
and for welding thinner materials (1/8” through 1/4”), while gas-shielded wires are
recommended for welding thicker materials (1/4” and greater). The FCAW process can
be used either in the semi-automatic mode (hand held welding gun) or in a mechanized
mode (travel carriage). The process is very adaptable to a range of material thickness
and versatile for all welding positions.
The SMAW process is considered the most portable, adaptable and readily available
process. The disadvantages of SMAW may be inconsistent quality due to increased
number of starts and stops compared to continuous wire welding processes, and lower
productivity. SMAW should be considered as a second choice after FCAW. SMAW is
recommended for welding materials 1/4” and thicker.
The Pulse variation of GMAW is the preferred choice of the GMAW process due to its
adaptability for varying material thickness. The disadvantage of P-GMAW lies with
field repairs because specialized power sources are required for this process. These
power sources are less portable, generally heavier, bulkier, and availability is limited as
rental units This process offered no apparent advantage over FCAW or SMAW, while
having the aforementioned limiting factors, its use for repair welding transformers is
therefore discouraged.
3-24
10567971
Welding processes and procedures were evaluated as the focus of this program, with
the best procedures inserted into the ‘Guidelines for Repair Welding Transformer
Components Using the Shielded Metal Arc Welding and Flux Cored Arc Welding
Processes’. Although the aforementioned document serves as a very good basis for
repairs, it is recommended that proper training be provided to the repair personnel on
the recommended welding techniques. This is especially true if the personnel have
limited FCAW experience.
3.3 Recommendations for Further Work
The focus of this program was to evaluate the welding processes that would likely offer
the best advantages for repair welding leaking transformer components. Most tests
were completed in the horizontal position for this program, while preliminary testing
was completed in the vertical-up position using SMAW. It is recommended that further
procedure development be completed in the vertical position using both SMAW and
FCAW.
FCAW was considered to be the best process for repair welding transformers; its main
advantages are productivity, superior quality, and adaptability to confined spaces
when compared to SMAW. No procedure development was completed using a
mechanized track based system. However, it is recommended that procedure
development be undertaken with FCAW using gas shielded and self-shielded wires in
conjunction with commercially available track based systems. A demonstration is
recommended on a mock-up transformer, followed by a repair on a transformer.
Corrosion of radiators is a common problem encountered with the maintenance of

transformers. It is recommended that repair welding techniques be developed using
either mechanized systems where appropriate or specialized miniature hand held
torches where necessary. Considerable knowledge and experience has been developed
within Ontario Hydro using these techniques for other applications.
3-25
10567971
10567971
4
EVALUATION OF SEALANT MATERIALS FOR
LEAK REPAIR
4.1 Sealant Selection
The objective of this section of the report is to identify a suitable leak sealant product or
system which is capable of sealing transformer leaks in-situ, and which is capable of
sealing the leak for a period of up to 20 years. In addition, the sealant should be easily
removable.
4.1.1 Material Considerations
The multi-stress operating environment of an operating transformer combines

vibration, extremes of temperature, UV exposure, thermal environments, and, at the
start, application onto dirty and oily surfaces. This multi-stress environment can cause
a sealant failure in two basic manners, failure of the sealant at the transformer
metal/sealant interface, or failure of the sealant in a tensile mode. Therefore, a
successful leak sealant must have the following properties:
• Adequate initial tensile strength and flexibility in order to withstand the stress of
temperature swings and vibration.
• Adequate adhesive bonding strength to dirty, oil-coated painted steel surfaces.
• Resistance to aging due to environmental effects such as ozone, temperature, and

UV radiation
• Compatibility with transformer oil so as to not affect the dielectric properties of the
oil where the sealant comes in contact with oil.
4-1
10567971
Evaluation Of Sealant Materials For Leak Repair
4.1.2 Sealant Materials
The sealant materials selected are divided into two basic classes:
• Leak sealant materials specifically developed as leak sealant systems for the
singular purpose of sealing transformer leaks
• Materials which have been developed for other purposes, e.g. aerospace or
automotive sealants and adhesives which may have application as a transformer
leak sealant.
A survey was made of the manufacturers of leak sealant systems and the following
systems were selected:
• Teamceda DB22 Bonder
• Devcon Flexane Transformer Oil Leak Repair Kit (DFTOLRK)
• Furmanite TS/2/237
• Koppl sealant 314
• PDS Oil Sealant F-S-T
Similarly a survey was made of “generic” sealant manufacturers with good adhesion to
oil contaminated painted metal surfaces. Four sealants were selected for testing:
• Dow Corning 730
• Dow Corning 736
• Permabond EB32
• Loctite “The Right Stuff” also known as Loctite 5900 RTV Silicone
The components of the nine sealing systems are described in detail in Table 4-1.
4-2
10567971
Table 4-1
Transformer Leak Sealant Products
Sealant* Components Comments
Devcon 1 minute Fast cure epoxy resin Leak repair process consists of 3 components.
epoxy Stop leak using fast cure epoxy (only product
contacting metal surface). 2nd step is application of
Fasmetal epoxy over 1 minute epoxy. 3rd step is
application of Flexane 80 over epoxies.
Devcon Fasmetal Slow cure epoxy resin

epoxy
Devcon Flexane 80 Isocyanate terminated
Dow-Corning 730 Fluorosilicone RTV Aerospace sealant for fuel lines and storage tanks
elastomeric Reacts with moisture in air to cure
Dow-Corning 736 High temperature RTV Aerospace gasketing and high temperature sealing
/silicone rubber applications
adhesive/sealant
containing iron oxide
particles
Furmanite TS/2/237 Polyurethane sealant

containing fibrous
material
Koppl 314 Two part Polysulfide

rubber compound
Loctite 5900 High temperature RTV Automotive gasketing material
PDS F-S-T Two part Polysulfide

rubber compound
Permabond EB32 Two component epoxy Automotive applications

resin
Teamceda DB 22 Polybutadiene rubber Only dielectric properties available

Bonder cured
* Ordered alphabetically
4-3
10567971
4.2 Testing Protocols
In order to compare the sealant systems test protocols were devised based on the
desirable functions listed above. The tests were as follows:
4.2.1 Tensile Property Tests
Sealants were molded or pressed into sheets where possible and ASTM tensile
specimens were cut from the sheet. However in case of the Loctite 5900 RTV, tensile
specimens were made from a bead of material extruded from the pressurized canister.
At least five specimens of each material were tested. Test speed was 50 mm/min.
Fracture load and final gauge length were recorded along with initial specimen
dimensions.
4.2.2 Adhesion Tests
To simulate a transformer metal surface at a leak site, 2 cm wide strips of mild
steel were painted with Ontario Hydro transformer paint and given a light coat of
Voltesso transformer oil. The strips were bonded together using the various sealants so
that an approximate 7 cm length of metal would be bonded. Tabs were affixed to the
specimens so that the bond strength could be tested using a tensile testing machine. At
least three specimens of each material were tested (note: for the DEVCON system, only
the 1 minute epoxy actually is required to make contact with the oil coated transformer
metal surface, so no other DEVCON component was tested for adhesion). The
maximum load required to break the bond was recorded along with specimen
dimensions.
4.2.3 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)
In Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) a small material specimen is subjected to an

oscillating strain. This strain, the stress required to achieve it, and the time lag between
the stress and strain signals are accurately measured. Because the sealants are
viscoelastic materials the oscillating stress and strain waves are not coherent but are,
instead, separated by a phase angle δ. The modulus of elasticity for the sealant
materials is a complex value composed of an elastic (sometimes referred to as storage)
modulus, E’, and a viscous or loss modulus, E”. The value of the tangent of the phase
angle δ, is equal to the ratio of the viscous modulus to the elastic modulus. The
temperature of the specimen may be varied and increased monotonically so that a
relationship between viscoelastic properties and temperature may be determined. For
sealant DMA tests, the temperature was varied between -40 and 100 C so that the
4-4
10567971
variation with temperature in viscoelastic properties could be measured and compared

for each sealant.
4.3 Material Aging
A twenty year lifetime was chosen as an acceptable lifetime for sealant performance. A
key standard of comparison between the sealant systems is the ability to maintain the
performance over the lifetime of the sealant. In order to measure this quality of the
sealant it is required to test aged material in the test protocols described previously.
Since the acquisition of sealant exposed to 20 years of service is impossible, it is
necessary to age new sealants in an accelerated manner. To do so an accelerated aging
model is chosen. For this project the Arrhenius model was used in which:
L = Bexp(Ε/kT)
in which L = lifetime
B = constant
Ε = activation energy (eV)
k = Boltzmann’s constant (0.8617 x10-4 eV/K)
T = absolute temperature (K)
This equation can be manipulated to form:
t2 = t1 exp [Εk(1/T2–1/T1)]
where t2 = Time at elevated temperature T2
t1 = 20 years at temperature T1, 40 C
Therefore if the activation energy of the material is known then the time at an elevated
temperature may be determined which is equivalent to 20 years at an average
transformer sealant temperature of 40 C. The determination of the activation energy of
a particular material is a long and complex process, the scope of which is beyond this
project. Therefore, values of activation energy for the sealants were based on previously
published values of the majority component in each sealant. Table 4-2 contains the
values of activation energy used plus the time and temperature used to age each sealant
to duplicate a lifetime of 20 years at 40 C.
Both tensile and adhesion specimens were aged for the length of time at the
temperatures specified in Table 4-2. Specimens for DMA were cut from broken tensile
specimens.
4-5
10567971
Table 4-2
Aging Parameters for Sealants
Sealant* Activation Aging Aging

Energy (eV) Time Temperature °C
Furmanite TS/2/237 0.45 90 days 110
Devcon Flexane 80 0.45 90 days 110
Koppl 314 0.8 60 days 85
PDS F-S-T 0.8 63 days 85
TeamCeda DB22 0.824 20 days 100
Permabond EB32 0.98 7 days 100
Devcon 1 minute epoxy 0.98 10 days 100
Devcon Fasmetal Epoxy 0.98 10 days 100
Dow Corning 730 1.08 3 days 100
Dow Corning 736 1.2 2 days 100
Loctite 5900 1.2 2 days 100
* Ordered by Activation Energy
4.4 Test Results
4.4.1 Tensile Tests
Fracture strength is defined as the stress required to fracture a specimen, with the
harder materials exhibiting the higher values. The average baseline fracture strength
for each sealant product, as well as the average fracture strength for each sealant aged
to an equivalent 20 year life and the percentage change are shown in Table 4-3.
Highest among the baseline fracture strengths are those of the epoxy resins. There is a
large decrease to the next group, that of the polyurethanes from Furmanite and Devcon,
followed by the polybutadiene from TeamCeda. At approximately half that value is the
next group, that of the silicone rubbers and the polysulfides from PDS and Koppl.
Almost all the sealant products increase in fracture strength with age. The most
significant increase is in the polyurethanes and in the polysulfide rubber from Koppl.
The complete test data can be found in Appendix B.
4-6
10567971
Table 4-3
Fracture Strength And Change After 20 Years
Baseline Fracture 20 year Fracture % Change in

Sealant Material* Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) 20 years
Koppl 314 1.2 3.9 230
PDS F-S-T 1.5 1.6 3
Dow Corning 736 1.6 1.5 -1
Loctite 5900 1.9 1.9 -1
Dow Corning 730 3.6 3.7 11
TeamCeda DB22 4.9 7.0 44
Furmanite TS/2/237 5.1 16.5 220
Devcon Flexane 80 7.7 21.7 180
Permabond EB32 23.6 41.0 74
Devcon Fasmetal epoxy 28.0 31.8 14
Devcon 1 minute epoxy 28.4 33.9 20
*Ordered by Baseline Fracture Strength
Fracture elongation or, elongation at break, is the average percentage increase in the
gauge length of the specimens at the point of break. Rubbery materials typically exhibit
very high numbers as they stretch extensively prior to rupture. Table 4-4 gives the
baseline elongations, the 20 year aged elongations and the percentage change.
The highest values of fracture elongation are shown by the polysulfide and the silicone
rubber sealants. The lowest values are shown by the epoxy sealants which are several
orders of magnitude lower than the highest value. Most sealants exhibit a decrease in
fracture elongation with aging. The most significant of these is that of the Koppl 314
which shows a greater than 90% loss in fracture elongation. The other polysulfide
product, PDS F-S-T, has a much lower decrease in fracture elongation with age. The
silicone rubber sealants show very little change in fracture elongation with age. As for
the polyurethanes, the Devcon Flexane 80 has a high baseline elongation which does
not deteriorate with age while the Furmanite TS/2/237 has a relatively low baseline
elongation which decreases significantly with age. All three of the epoxies are very
brittle with low baseline elongations. The Devcon epoxies elongations improve with
age by several orders of magnitude but starting from such a low baseline value the
improvements still leave the epoxies in a brittle condition. Complete test data for
fracture elongation are also documented in Appendix B.
4-7
10567971
Table 4-4
Fracture Elongation And Change Over 20 Years
Baseline Fracture 20 year Fracture % Change in Fracture

Sealant Material* Elongation % Elongation % Elongation
Devcon Fasmetal 0.8 6.4 700

epoxy
Permabond EB32 9.6 0.7 -92
Furmanite TS/2/237 44 16 -64
TeamCeda DB 22 53 94 78
Devcon Flexane 80 210 243 16
Dow Corning 730 268 274 2
Dow Corning 736 384 346 -10
PDS F-S-T 418 347 -17
Loctite 5900 572 538 -6
Koppl 314 833 71 -92
*Ordered by Baseline Fracture Elongation
The fracture energy per unit volume is defined as the area beneath the stress-strain
curve or ½Φ. Fracture energy is a measurement of the toughness of a material. Table 4-5
lists, in descending order, the baseline fracture energy, the 20 year fracture energy, and
the percentage change in fracture energy for the sealants. Leading all materials is the
polyurethane sealant Devcon Flexane 80 which has a high initial fracture energy and a
high fracture energy after 20 years. The silicone sealant, Loctite 5900 has a high initial
fracture energy and maintains it during aging. Koppl 314 has a high initial fracture
energy but the level decreases significantly with age. The fluorosilicone, Dow Corning
736 has a high initial fracture energy which is maintained over the aging period. PDS F-
S-T and Dow Corning 736 have lower initial fracture energies but the decrease over the
aging period is not great. The Devcon epoxy resins have very low initial fracture
energies due to their low initial fracture elongations but they improve dramatically
with aging. However, even the dramatic improvement still leaves the epoxies with low
fracture energy values by comparison with the other sealants. Fracture energy data is
listed in Appendix B.
4-8
10567971
Table 4-5
Fracture Energy And Change Over 20 Years
Baseline Fracture 20 year life Fracture % Change in

Sealant Material* Energy (MPa) Energy (MPa) Fracture energy
Devcon Fasmetal 0.1 0.5 800

epoxy
Permabond EB32 0.6 0.1 -87
Furmanite TS/2/237 0.6 0.6 15
Dow Corning 736 1.5 1.3 -20
PDS F-S-T 1.6 1.4 -15
Dow Corning 730 2.3 2.5 12
Koppl 314 2.4 0.7 -72
Loctite 5900 2.7 2.5 -7
Devcon Flexane 80 4.0 13.2 200
* Ordered by Baseline Fracture Energy
4.4.2 Adhesion Tests
Adhesion test results are given in units of linear adhesion, Newton per millimeter of
width, the higher numbers representing the stronger adhesive bonding. For the Devcon
system only the Devcon 1 minute epoxy is tested for adhesion because only this
component is designed to contact the oily metal surfaces. The average results for the
adhesion tests of baseline and aged specimens are given in Table 4-6.
The highest value for adhesion is obtained for the polyurethane Furmanite TS/2/237
which maintains its adhesion over the aging period. The polysulfide Koppl 314 and the
Loctite silicone also have high initial values which increase significantly over the aging
period. Both epoxy resins have low adhesion values which increase significantly over
the aging time but not to the level of the other sealants. The complete test data for the
adhesion tests are listed in Appendix C.
4-9
10567971
Table 4-6
Linear Adhesion And Change Over 20 Years
Baseline Linear 20 year Life Linear % Change in

Sealant Material* Adhesion (N/mm) Adhesion (N/mm) Linear Adhesion
Permabond EB32 1.6 2.4 50
Devcon 1 minute Epoxy 2.0 4.0 100
Dow Corning 736 2.3 2.4 5
Dow Corning 730 2.9 2.3 -27
PDS F-S-T 4.0 4.1 2
Loctite 5900 4.1 6.2 50
Koppl 314 4.8 6.7 40
Furmanite TS/2/237 5.4 5.6 5
*Ordered by Baseline Linear Adhesion
4.4.3 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Tests
Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) tests were performed to determine the

viscoelastic properties of the sealants as described in Section 4.2.3. Tests were
performed on small specimens of both aged and unaged sealant over a wide
temperature range, from -40 to 100 C; Table 4-7 presents the results of complex
modulus for each sealant and the percentage change over the temperature range. There
is a wide range of complex modulus in the sealant materials but it appears that thermal
aging for a 20 year equivalent life has little effect on the sealants’ viscoelastic properties.
This is why DMA was not performed on some sealant materials.
The most thermally stable of the sealants is the Dow Corning 736 silicone RTV followed
by the Permabond and Devcon epoxy resins. The Loctite RTV silicone rubber, the
TeamCeda polybutadiene rubber and the Dow Corning 730 fluorosilicone rubber show
more variation with temperature but not as much as the large variations shown by the
Koppl and PDS polysulfide sealants and the Devcon and Furmanite polyurethane
sealants.
4-10
10567971
Table 4-7
Complex Modulus And Change With Temperature
Complex Modulus E* % Change in E*

Sealant Material* (20 °C) (MPa) over 140 °C
Dow Corning 736 aged 1.5 23
Dow Corning 736 baseline 1.6 32
PDS F-S-T baseline 2.8 11000
Loctite 5900 aged 6.1 240
Loctite 5900 baseline 7.0 240
Koppl 314 baseline 8.1 5600
Furmanite TS/2/237 baseline 50.6 6400
TeamCeda DB22 aged 71.1 390
TeamCeda DB22 baseline 74.1 350
Devcon Flexane 80 baseline 85.3 1600
Devcon Flexane 80 aged 135 950
Devcon 1 minute epoxy aged 2190 150
Devcon 1 minute epoxy new 2510 150
Permabond EB32 baseline 2708 110
Permabond EB32 aged 2969 100
Devcon Fasmetal epoxy aged 4837 150
Devcon Fasmetal epoxy baseline 5085 140
*Ordered by Complex Modulus
Table 4-8 shows values of tan δ , the ratio of viscous modulus to elastic modulus for
each sealant and its percentage variation over the temperature range. Once again the
most thermally stable sealant is the Dow Corning 736 RTV silicone rubber. Next,
however, are the Loctite silicone RTV, Furmanite TS/2/237, the TeamCeda DB22, the
Devcon polyurethane, and both polysulfide rubbers. The greatest variation in tan δ
with temperature is shown by the epoxies.
4-11
10567971
Table 4-8
Tan δ And Change with Temperature
% change in tan δ
Sealant Material* tan δ (20 °C) over 140 °C
Permabond EB32 baseline 0.019 1200
Permabond EB32 aged 0.02 1300
Devcon Fasmetal epoxy baseline 0.027 1020
Devcon 1 minute epoxy baseline 0.032 730
Devcon 1 minute epoxy aged 0.04 459
Devcon Fasmetal epoxy aged 0.047 500
Devcon Flexane 80 aged 0.078 241
Devcon Flexane 80 baseline 0.08 263
TeamCeda DB22 baseline 0.093 180
TeamCeda DB22 aged 0.121 143
Loctite 5900 baseline 0.158 61
Loctite 5900 aged 0.178 62
Koppl 314 baseline 0.197 302
PDS F-S-T baseline 0.293 256
Furmanite TS/2/237 baseline 0.564 95
*Ordered by Tan δ
4.5 Assessment of Sealants
A summary of sealant ranking against key performance properties is presented in

Table 4-9. The table presents a ranking of each sealant against each property and
provides an overall performance assessment expressed as H (high), M (medium) or L
(low) performance ranking. The sealants are listed alphabetically within each (H, M, L)
group.
4-12
10567971
Table 4-9
Overall Ranking for Sealants
Stability Of
Stability Of Baseline Properties Over
Baseline Properties Properties Over Time Temperature Range
Elastic
Fractur Linear Fracture Linear Modulus Elasticit Overall
Sealant e Adhesion Energy Adhesion (E*) y (tan δ) Rank
Energy
Dow Corning 736 6 7 5 7 1 1 H
Koppl 314 3 2 7 1 9 7 H
Loctite 5900 2 3 2 2 4 2 H
PDS F-S-T 5 4 4 4 10 6 H
Devcon DFTOLRK 11 8 8 5 4 10 M
Devcon Flexane 80* 1 - 1 - 8 5 M
Dow Corning 730 4 6 3 8 7 8 M
Furmanite TS/2/237 9 1 9 3 11 3 M
TeamCeda DB22 7 5 6 6 6 4 M
Permabond EB22 8 9 11 8 2 11 L
*: for topcoat applications only
4.5.1 Dow Corning 736
This silicone RTV sealant has good baseline properties (rank 6 & 7). Its overall ranking
is an H in Table 4-9.
4.5.2 Koppl 314
The Koppl 314 polysulfide rubber sealant has high baseline properties (rank 3 & 2) with
low fracture energy stability (rank 9) Its overall ranking is an H in Table 4-9.
4.5.3 Loctite 5900 Silicone RTV
This silicone RTV sealant has high baseline properties (rank 2 & 3) and stability of
properties (rank 2, 2, 4 & 2). Its overall ranking is an H in Table 4-9.
4-13
10567971
4.5.4 PDS F-S-T
The PDS F-S-T polysulfide rubber sealant has high baseline properties (rank 5 & 4) with
good aging characteristics and high adhesion. Its overall ranking is an H in Table 4-9.
4.5.5 Devcon Flexane Transformer Oil Leak Repair Kit (DFTOLRK)
The DFTOLRK consists of three sealants, Devcon 1 minute epoxy, Devcon Fasmetal
epoxy and Devcon Flexane 80, which are to be applied consecutively. The first sealant,
Devcon 1 minute epoxy is the sealant designed to be applied directly to the oil coated
metal surface. The adhesion is low (rank 8). The product has a high fracture strength
but low fracture energy (rank 11). Its overall ranking is an M in Table 4-9.
4.5.6 Devcon Flexane 80
Devcon Flexane 80 is not a commercial leak sealant system in its own right. Rather it
was identified as a product with the potential to enhance other sealant systems as an
overcoat. Devcon Flexane 80 shows high tensile characteristics with initial high values
of fracture strength and medium values of fracture elongation which leads to very high
fracture energy (rank 1). The Devcon Flexane 80 is not designed for adhesion to
transformer metal surfaces so no adhesion tests were performed on this product. Its
overall ranking (as a topcoat) is an M in Table 4-9.
Dow Corning 730 fluorosilicone sealant has average baseline properties (rank 4 & 6)
and good stability of properties with temperature (rank 1). Its overall ranking is an M
in Table 4-9.
4.5.8 Furmanite TS/2/237
The Furmanite polyurethane rubber sealant containing fibers showed low fracture
energy (rank 9). The sealant has very good adhesive properties (rank 1) and thermal
stability of the sealant is average. Its overall ranking is an M in Table 4-9.
4.5.9 Team Ceda DB 22 Bonder
TeamCeda DB22 bonder is a polybutadiene rubber based sealant with average baseline
properties (rank 7 & 5) with average stability characteristics (rank 6, 6, 6 & 4). Its overall
ranking is an M in Table 4-9.
4-14
10567971
4.5.10 Permabond EB32
The Permabond epoxy has low baseline properties (rank 8 & 9). The stability
characteristics of this sealant are low (rank 11, 8, 2 & 11). Its overall ranking is an L in
Table 4-9.
4.6 Conclusions From Screening Tests
The following sealants were selected for further testing:
1. Loctite 5900
2. Dow Corning 736
3. Koppl 314
4. PDS F-S-T
5. Devcon Flexane 80
The Devcon Flexane 80 product is part of the Devcon leak sealant kit and is not
intended for adhesion to the dirt and oil coated metal surfaces of the transformer but it
may be used as a protective cover for another sealant.
4.7 Devcon Flexane 80 Compatibility Tests
Prior to any further testing on the sealants it was necessary to determine compatibility
of each sealant with Devcon Flexane 80. Adhesion tests were performed, similar to
those performed on each single sealant. In these tests the sealant was coated with a
layer of Devcon Flexane 80. Results are given in Table 4-10.
There is a significant decrease in adhesion when the Devcon Flexane 80 is used in

conjunction with the two silicone rubber based sealants, Dow Corning 736 and Loctite
5900. However, there is also a significant increase in the adhesion of the polysulfide
rubber based sealants, Koppl 314 and PDS F-S-T. Therefore additional tests of the
sealants will only include tests of Koppl 314 and PDS F-S-T with and without the
Devcon Flexane 80 cover.
4-15
10567971
Table 4-10
Adhesion Tests With Devcon Flexane 80 Cover
Linear Adhesion
Baseline Linear with Devcon
Sealant* Adhesion (N/mm) Flexane 80
(N/mm)
Dow Corning 736 2.3 0.5
PDS F-S-T 4.0 9.6
Loctite 5900 4.1 0.7
Koppl 314 4.8 6.2
*Ordered by Baseline Linear Adhesion
4.8 Oil Compatibility Tests
As sealants may contact transformer oil, tests were performed on the effects of the
sealant on transformer oil properties, namely, power factor at both 25 and 100 C,
breakdown voltage, interfacial tension (IFT), neutralization number and water content
by Karl Fischer test. Samples of each sealant were mixed with transformer oil and the
oil was analyzed. The concentration of sealant to oil (1:10) was several orders of
magnitude greater than that expected by any accidental infiltration (1:10,000). The
results are given in Table 4-11.
The results show that even large concentrations of sealant in transformer oil have no
adverse effect on transformer oil characteristics. Only power factor at 25 C for PDS F-S-
T showed a measurable change.
Table 4-11
Results of Oil Compatibility Tests
Neut. No. Water

Power Factor Power Factor Breakdown IFT (mg Content
Sealant* at 25 °C (%) at 100 °C (%) Voltage E (kV) (mN/m) KOH/g) (ppm)
Dow Corning 736 0.02 0.95 Not analyzed 35.7 0.03 29
Loctite 5900 0.02 3.21 24 34.6 < 0.01 21
Koppl 314 0.02 0.45 31 22.6 < 0.01 25
PDS F-S-T 2.7 0.32 14 23 < 0.01 46
*Ordered by Power Factor at 25C
4-16
10567971
4.9 Effect Of Ozone And Ultraviolet Radiation On Sealants
Ozone exposure and ultraviolet exposure tests are well documented in the literature for
the chosen sealants. The two polysulfide rubber sealants, PDS F-S-T and Koppl 314, are
virtually unaffected by ozone and ultraviolet radiation [1]. With regard to the two
silicone rubber based sealants, Dow Corning 736 and Loctite 5900, it has been reported
/2/ that the long term stability of silicone rubber exposed to ultraviolet radiation and
ozone is superior to most other elastomers. It is therefore expected that any
deterioration due to environmental exposure should be due to thermal effects rather
than deterioration due to ozone or ultraviolet radiation exposure.
4.10 Evaluation of Selected Sealants in a Simulated Transformer Loop
In order to establish the sealing capabilities of the sealants, an oil circulation loop was
set up. The method behind the simulated tests was that each sealant, or sealant system,
would be applied to a leak which had developed in a flange. The leaks were all to be
similar, a crack in the flange gasket, which would allow the transformer oil to pass to
the outer surfaces of the flanges. Sealing the leak would require an encapsulation of the
flange using the sealant. Once the leak is sealed the flange is then removed from the oil
loop and the sealant/flange system is subjected to accelerated aging at an elevated
temperature. Following this aging, the flange/sealant system is reinserted into the test
loop, the flow of oil is re-established, and the flange is examined to determine if the
sealant is still effective in sealing the leak. This test is purely qualitative; either the
sealant seals the leak or it doesn’t.
4.10.1 Description of Test Apparatus
The loop consisted of two legs in parallel as shown in the schematic diagram of Figure
4-1. Each leg has four gasketted flange fittings arranged in series. The flanges were two
inch diameter flat-faced brass fittings assembled with six carbon steel bolts with 7 in-lb.
of torque. Because the flanges had a smooth polished surface, it was decided to leave
them unpainted. The smooth unpainted surface would be more demanding on the
sealants’ adhesive qualities and a more rigorous test of the sealant. Both legs of the loop
were arranged in a horizontal configuration as shown in Figure 4-2 to give positive
indication of a leak.
Transformer oil was circulated through the oil loop at a pressure of approximately 7
psig, a pressure equal to the hydrostatic pressure of oil at a height of approximately 17
feet. The pressure oscillated approximately ± 1 psig at an estimated frequency of less
than 5 Hz. This oscillation produced a vibration in the flanges which, upon comparison
with the vibration encountered in a field transformer, was more severe than in the field
situation. No additional vibration source was added to the apparatus to simulate
vibration of transformer components in the field.
4-17
10567971
Figure 4-1
Schematic diagram of on-line oil circulation loop
4-18
10567971
Figure 4-2
Transformer oil loop in horizontal configuration
4.10.2 Simulated Leaks
The leaks were created as a crack in the flange gasket. The cracks were made by
drilling a small radial hole of similar diameter in each gasket. The leaks in the flanges
are shown in Figures 4-3 to 4-10. Because the Voltesso transformer oil is clear it is
difficult to see the leaks unless the oil is contaminated with gasket material as in
Figures 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 for flanges 3 to 5 respectively. In the other figures the leaks
show a discoloration on the lower flange.
4-19
10567971
Figure 4-3
Leak in flange 1 as shown by discoloration on center of lower flange
Figure 4-4
Leak in flange 2
4-20
10567971
Figure 4-5
Leak in flange 3
Figure 4-6
Leak in flange 4
4-21
10567971
Figure 4-7
Leak in flange 5
Figure 4-8
Leak in flange 6
4-22
10567971
Figure 4-9
Leak in flange 7
Figure 4-10
Leak in flange 8
4-23
10567971
4.10.3 Application of Sealants
There were six sealants and sealant systems to be tested for eight flanges; two sealants
were applied to two flanges and the others to one flange. Table 4-12 lists the sealants
and the related figures for the eight flanges tested. The application of the sealant to the
flange was as follows. The application of sealant to flanges 1 to 6 consisted of first
wiping any oil from the leak on the flange surface and then encapsulating the edge of
the flange around the flange circumference up to and past the bolt circle. For flanges 7
and 8, the sealant was applied directly onto the flanges without wiping the surfaces of
oil. For flanges 4 and 6, the sealants Koppl 314 and PDS F-S-T were applied and
allowed a 24 hour cure before the covering Devcon Flexane 80 was applied over them.
4.10.4 Initial Test of Sealants
Following sealant application and curing, the oil circulation was re-established. The oil
pressure was set initially to 20 psig. Flange 6 (PDS/Devcon) leaked instantly. The oil
pressure was reduced to 7 psig and over the following 24 hours leaks were noticed on
flanges 5, 6, 7, and 8. Upon further examination it was noticed that on flanges 5, 6, 7
and 8 the sealant did not completely encase the sides of the flange up to the bolt circle.
Sealant was applied to these flanges until their edges were completely encased up to
the bolt circle. After the sealant had completely cured, the oil circulation was again
started at 7 psig. Flanges 7 and 8 showed no leakage but flange 5 (PDS F-S-T) and
flange 6 (PDS/Devcon) both leaked.
Flanges 5 and 6 were removed from the oil loop and the oil circulation was run
continuously for 48 hours. After this time the oil circulation was halted and the flanges
removed from the loop for accelerated aging.
4.10.5 Accelerated Aging
The accelerated aging of the silicone and polysulfide based sealants was conducted at
different temperatures, in accordance with our methodology (based on the respective
activation energy). The flanges with the silicone sealants, flanges 1, 2, 7, and 8, were
aged at 100 C for 4 days. Using the activation energy for the silicone sealants of 1.33 eV
the equivalent time at a typical operating temperature of 40 C would be 30 years.
Flanges 3 and 4 (Koppl sealant) were aged at 85 C for 20 days. For flange 3, this would
be equivalent to a life of 6 years at an average temperature of 30 C using the activation
energy of 0.8 eV for polysulfide. However, for flange 4 (Koppl 314 and Devcon
Flexane) which was also aged at 85 C for 20 days, this is equivalent to a life of only 10
months at 30 C if the activation energy of 0.45 eV for the Devcon Flexane is used.
4-24
10567971
Flanges with polysulfide sealants can only be aged at a maximum temperature of 85 C

as higher temperatures will cause the sealants to break down. At 85 C the Devcon
Flexane would require at least 258 days of aging for an equivalent 10 years at 30 C. This
aging period was not practical for the time frame of this project. Therefore, it was
decided to limit the aging period to 20 days.
On flanges 5 and 6 (PDS F-S-T), the sealant was reapplied and then the Devcon Flexane
cover was applied on flange 6 over the sealant. As with the other polysulfide sealant on
flanges 3 and 4, flanges 5 and 6 were aged at 85 C. The aging period was 14 days which
is equivalent to 4.25 years for the PDS sealant and to 6.5 months for the Devcon Flexane
at an average temperature of 30 C.
Table 4-12
Flanges And Sealants
Flange Figure Sealant
1 4-11 Loctite 5900
2 4-12 Dow Corning 736
3 4-13 Koppl 314
4 4-14 Koppl 314 covered by Devcon Flexane 80
5 4-15 PDS F-S-T
6 4-16 PDS F-S-T covered by Devcon Flexane 80
7 4-17 Loctite 5900 on oily surface
8 4-18 Dow Corning 736 on oily surface
4-25
10567971
Figure 4-11
Leak in flange 1 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV
Figure 4-12
Leak in flange 2 sealed using Dow Corning 736
4-26
10567971
Figure 4-13
Leak in flange 3 sealed using KOPPL 314
Figure 4-14
Leak in flange 4 (center) sealed using KOPPL 314 and a topcoat of Devcon
Flexane 80
4-27
10567971
Figure 4-15
Leak in flange 5 (center) sealed using PDS F-S-T
Figure 4-16
Leak in flange 6 (center) sealed using PDS F-S-T and a topcoat of Devcon Flexane
80
4-28
10567971
Figure 4-17
Leak in flange 7 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV but without removing any oil on
flange surface
Figure 4-18
Leak in flange 8 sealed with Dow Corning 736 but without removing any oil on
flange surface
4-29
10567971
4.10.6 Tests of Sealants Following Accelerated Aging
Following accelerated aging, the flanges were reinstalled into the oil circulation loop
and the oil circulation re-established. Figures 4-19 to 4-26 show each of the eight flanges
following the accelerated aging. After aging of 7 days for the silicone sealants and 4
days for the polysulfide sealants it was found that the only leak which had not been
completely sealed was in flange 5 (PDS F-S-T). It was estimated that the leak rate was
10 to 20 ml over 48 hours. Figure 4-23 shows the flange with a droplet of oil barely
visible at the bottom.
Figure 4-19
Leak in flange 1 sealed with Loctite 5900 RTV following aging period—leak is still
sealed
4-30
10567971
Figure 4-20
Leak in flange 2 sealed with Dow Corning 736 following aging period—leak is still
sealed
4-31
10567971
Figure 4-21
Leak in flange 3 sealed with KOPPL 314 following aging period—leak is still
sealed
4-32
10567971
Figure 4-22
Flange 4 sealed with KOPPL 314 and a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80 following
aging period—leak is still sealed
4-33
10567971
Figure 4-23
Leak in flange 5 sealed with PDS F-S-T following aging period—leak is present
indicated by drop of oil at bottom
4-34
10567971
Figure 4-24
Leak in flange 6 sealed with PDS F-S-T and a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80 after
aging period—leak is still sealed
4-35
10567971
Figure 4-25
Leak in flange 7 sealed using Loctite 5900 RTV over oily surface following aging
period—leak is still sealed
4-36
10567971
Figure 4-26
Leak in flange 8 sealed using Dow Corning 736 on oily surface following aging
period—leak is still sealed
4.10.7 Assessment of Sealants from Oil Loop Tests
The simulated tests clearly show that the only sealant which failed to seal the flange
leak after having been aged was the PDS F-S-T sealant. The following sealants
performed effectively, in that the leak was sealed initially and remained sealed over the
aging period.
4-37
10567971
• Dow Corning 736
• Loctite 5900
• Koppl 314
• Koppl 314 with a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80
• PDS F-S-T with a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80
Furthermore, the sealants remained relatively flexible after the aging period and all
sealants were relatively easy to cut using a knife or saw so that the flanges could be
disassembled.
4.11 Conclusions and Recommendations
Nine sealants were subjected to screening tests involving tensile and adhesive strength
on oil coated painted surfaces. The screening tests were performed on newly applied
sealants and sealants which had been thermally aged to a lifetime equivalent of 20 to 30
years. The screening tests indicated that four sealants, two silicone and two polysulfide
based sealants, were high in strength, flexibility and adhesion, and were able to
maintain superior properties for a long life. A fifth material, which is not used as the
primary sealant in contact with the oily surface, also displayed superior strength,
flexibility, adhesion and aging properties; this sealant could only be used as a topcoat
for the polysulfide sealants. Oil compatibility tests showed that the four primary
sealants had no adverse effect on transformer oil performance. Temperature limitations,
to a maximum use of 100 C, were noted for the polysulfide sealants.
Testing in a transformer mockup has demonstrated that four of the sealants selected
can seal a flange leak effectively; one did not seal effectively when used alone. If the
Devcon Flexane 80 is used to cover this sealant, then the sealant has proven effective.
Selection of a sealant for leak sealing will depend upon associated criteria such as
sealant cost, ease of application and ease of removal. Specific comments on each sealant
follow:
This sealant is commercially available in small 90 mL tubes at a retail price of about

C$10 (US$7) or it can be purchased in 17 L containers for C$510 (US$350). The sealant is
a one part silicone RTV (room temperature vulcanized); application to the flange is
relatively easy. The sealant, before cure, is in a sticky paste form; it can be forced to
flow into narrow crevices and can be sculpted into shapes to conform to the flange
shape and would need no external forms to contain it. The sealant is cured by exposure
4-38
10567971
to moisture in air and cure time depends on the thickness of sealant application; the
minimum cure time is 24 hours. The simulated leak test has demonstrated that the
sealant could be applied to oily surfaces and still perform adequately. No intensive
cleaning of the flange surfaces would be required. Aging tests have demonstrated that
the sealant retains its flexibility even after 20 years of life. It can be cut by knife or saw
so that separation of the flanges at some future date is relatively easy. No on-site
assistance is provided by the manufacturer.
It is recommended that this sealant be considered for transformer flange leak sealing.
4.11.2 Loctite 5900 RTV Silicone
This one part silicone RTV sealant is commercially available in small pressurized cans
and in 50 lb. containers for C$1057 (US$750). The uncured sealant is a sticky paste
which can be made to flow into tight crevices yet is thick enough to maintain its shape
without a mold. This sealant is air cured, exhibiting excellent sealing on oily surfaces,
good flexibility after aging, and the ability to cut it with a knife or saw for future flange
separation.
It is recommended that this sealant be considered for transformer flange leak sealing
applications.
4.11.3 Koppl 314
This sealant is manufactured and applied by Koppl Industrial Systems, Inc., a

specialized electrical transmission services company. Koppl 314 is a 2 component
polysulfide rubber sealant. The two components must be mixed before applying which
would make this sealant slightly more difficult to apply than the two silicone sealants.
The uncured sealant flows easily but should be supported by a removable mold if a
large amount is used externally. Cure time is of the order of 24 hours. Sealants from
Koppl Industrial Systems, Inc. may be purchased separately and applied by utility
personnel or the leak sealing services of Koppl Industrial Systems, Inc. may be
contracted. Each leak site will be analyzed and the appropriate sealing system
employed. For example, rather than choosing an encapsulation of the flange, the flange
may be drilled and tapped and the sealant injected directly into the gasket groove.
Technical support is extensive and could include training of personnel in leak sealant
techniques using Koppl products. Koppl 314 remains supple even after long term aging
so removal and flange separation could easily be accomplished using simple cutting
tools.
It is recommended that this sealant be considered for transformer flange leak sealing,
whether the services of Koppl are employed or not. In addition, for long term
protection of the Koppl 314 sealant a topcoat of Devcon Flexane 80 is recommended.
4-39
10567971
4.11.4 PDS F-S-T
This sealant is manufactured and applied by Power Distribution Services, Inc., a

specialized electrical transmission services company. PDS F-S-T is a 2-component
polysulfide rubber sealant; application is more difficult than with the silicone sealants.
PDS can be contracted to supply leak sealing service in which the leak will be detected,
analyzed as to the best sealant technique, and sealed. For flanges, the drill, tap and
inject method is used along with encapsulation using an external support into which
the PDS F-S-T is injected.
In the encapsulation tests the PDS F-S-T sealant worked best when coated with Devcon
Flexane 80. Removal of this sealing system can be accomplished with simple cutting
tools. Therefore, it is recommended that PDS F-S-T along with Devcon Flexane 80 be
considered as a sealing system for transformer flange leaks.
4.12 References
1. Engineered Materials Handbook – Volume 3 adhesives and Sealants, ASM

International, December 1990.
2. Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, ed. By R.O. Babbitt, R.T. Vanderbilt Co., 1978.
4-40
10567971
5
EVALUATION OF IMPROVED GASKET MATERIALS
5.1 Background
The objective of this portion of the project has been to ensure that, when regasketing of
power transformers is required, durable repairs can be effected. Gaskets are key
components used to create and retain a static seal between two stationary members of
mechanical assemblies confining either liquids or gases. Figure 5-1 shows a typical
gasketing situation in which the performance of the gasket is influenced by:
• the internal pressure of the fluid exerting pressure on the gasket (blow out pressure)
and the flanges holding the gasket in place (hydrostatic end force)
• the flange load which is the force compressing the gasket to create the seal
• the temperature of the gasket causing either thermomechanical effects such as

expansion/contraction or material effects such as thermal degradation and
compression set
• the flange conditions such as type of flange, flange surfaces, bolt material and
spacing, bolt torque
The performance of a gasket is extremely dependent on the type of material used and
its reaction to the above parameters. A high performance gasket material is one which
is able to seal against the fluid pressure initially and able to maintain this sealing
capacity over the lifetime of the mechanical component even though it is exposed to
both the fluid and air and the temperature excursions of the component.
High performance gasket materials for transformer applications can be found. The
procedure which was used in this project to develop improved gasket materials
consisted of:
• A review of current gasket materials and experience
• Identification of suppliers of gasket materials in Canada and the USA
• Identification of promising new materials for gaskets
5-1
10567971
Evaluation of Improved Gasket Materials
• Laboratory evaluation of selected gasket materials
• Evaluation of selected gasket materials in a transformer mock-up
Figure 5-1
Typical gasket sealing arrangement
5.2 Review Of Current Materials And Experience
Currently three groups of materials are most commonly used for gasketing applications
on power transformers,
5-2
10567971
• Nitrile rubber, also referred to as NBR and Buna-N, available in sheet form,
extruded strip, or round O-ring.
• Soft grades of Corprene: Cork/chloroprene(Neoprene) rubber composite available

in both sheet and strip form
• Other rubber and rubber composites such as Viton (a fluorinated hydrocarbon) and
cork/silicone rubber. These materials are mostly available in sheet form.
Nitrile rubber has been the choice material for power transformer gaskets because of its
excellent oil resistance characteristics [1]. However, due to the chemical unsaturation
inherent in its chemical structure it has not performed as well under high temperature
situations [2]. However, recent technological advances have created an opportunity for
the utilization of new gasketing materials which have better long term aging
characteristics. Automotive industry requirements for a better and longer lasting nitrile
rubber have been the driving force in development of new and improved
hydrogenated nitrile rubber (HNBR) that has the same oil resistance as NBR but in
addition has improved thermal and aging resistance characteristics [3]. There have also
been advances in the area of cork/rubber composite materials for gasket use in which
cork particles are blended with various elastomers such as NBR, fluorinated rubber
such as Viton, and ethylene acrylic rubber (Vamac). Elastomers such as EPDM
(Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber may also have better aging
characteristics.
5.3 Identification Of Gasket Material Suppliers
During this project a total of five gasket material manufacturers and suppliers were
identified. These included:
• C.E. Conover & Co., Inc. of Fairfield, NJ who were able to supply us with a wide
variety of gasket materials including a wide variety of cork/rubber composites,
nitrile rubber materials, highly saturated nitrile rubber, silicone rubber and EPDM
materials.
• Argus Industrial Supply, of Winnipeg, MB, Canada who were able to supply us
with cork/neoprene composites, cork/nitrile rubber composite material, and nitrile
rubber materials.
• Parker Seals, JBL Division of Parker-Hannifen Corp. of Spartanburg, SC, through

their agents (Seals Unlimited of Mississauga, ON, Canada) were able to supply us
with hydrogenated NBR gasket materials and silicone rubber.
• Global Technology Systems of Trevor, WI, who, through Argus Industrial Supply
were able to supply us with a cork/ethylene acrylic composite gasket material.
5-3
10567971
• Asea Brown Boveri Inc, of Guelph, ON, Canada, who supplied their testing data on
hydrogenated NBR.
5.4 Identification Of Promising New Materials
From the above suppliers several promising new materials were identified. The
materials from C.E. Conover & Co., Inc, are described by the manufacturer as:
• Con O Seal 04: A butadiene acrylonitrile (Buna-N) material with good strength and
flexibility, temperature range and oil resistance.
• Con O Seal 700: A silicone rubber/ cork composite with good flexibility
• Con O Seal 590: A fluoroelastomer (Viton rubber) /cork composite with good
flexibility, temperature range and oil resistance.
• Con O Seal 550: An ethylene acrylic (Vamac) / cork composite with good flexibility,
temperature range and oil resistance.
• Con O Seal 546: An ethylene acrylic (Vamac) / cork composite
• Con O Seal 536: An ethylene acrylic (Vamac) / cork composite.
• Con O Seal 11: An EPDM rubber material with high strength and flexibility,
compression set and aging resistance.
• Con O Seal 09: A polychloroprene (neoprene rubber) material with good strength
and flexibility, good compression set, and good temperature range.
• Con O Seal HNBR: A hydrogenated nitrile rubber material with good strength and
flexibility and superior aging characteristics.
• Con O Seal 02: A fluorinated elastomer material with good strength and flexibility,
excellent temperature range, excellent oil resistance and aging characteristics
• Swelseal: A proprietary chloroprene (neoprene rubber) compound designed for

transformer repair. It is designed to swell by 25% when in contact with transformer
oil. It has excellent strength and flexibility along with excellent aging characteristics.
• Con O Seal 07: A silicone rubber material with good strength and flexibility,
excellent compression set and temperature range and excellent aging characteristics.
In addition to gasket materials received from C. E. Conover, several gasket were

received from Argus Industrial Supply of Winnipeg, MB, Canada. These were:
5-4
10567971
• IKHHC604: A cork/neoprene rubber composite which, for this study, will be

referred to as HC60.
• IKHHC804: A cork/nitrile rubber composite which will be referred to as HC80.
• GT540 Vamac: A cork/ethylene acrylic rubber composite from Global Technology

Systems.
• IKHCA454: A cork/neoprene rubber composite referred to as NCA45.
• 94-056 IRR40564: A nitrile rubber (NBR) material
• M4094-S5: A nitrile rubber (NBR) material
A nineteenth material, a hydrogenated NBR material from Parker Seals of Spartanburg,

SC., NK7796-60 was identified but received late in the test program and was not
included in the material rankings.. The manufacturer’s test data described this material
as having good tensile strength and flexibility with excellent oil resistance and aging
characteristics.
5.5 Laboratory Evaluation Of Gasket Materials
The laboratory evaluation of gasket materials consisted of screening tests to reduce the
number of gasket materials to be tested in a simulated evaluation. The primary
screening test was a test of tensile material properties on both new gasket material and
material which had been artificially aged so as to simulate a 20 to 30 year lifetime of
exposure to both air and transformer oil at an average temperature of 30 to 50 C. The
key purpose of this test was to determine if the material had the required tensile
strength and flexibility (indicated by the materials elongation) to perform as a power
transformer gasket and also to determine if the strength and flexibility are diminished
by aging to a great extent. The gasket material with superior performance will have the
least reduction in elongation and strength after aging.
In addition to tensile tests, Dynamic Mechanical Analysis in the compressive mode was
performed on selected materials, both aged and unaged in which a small sample of the
gasket material is subjected to a oscillating strain over a large temperature range (-50 to
100 C). This test is used to determine the viscoelastic material properties over
temperature, in particular, the elastic modulus, E’. A material with superior
performance will have the least change in elastic modulus value with temperature.
Representative gasket materials were evaluated for compatibility with transformer oil.
This test was used to determine if contamination of the oil by the gasket material would
affect the oil performance.
5-5
10567971
5.5.1 Tensile Testing
Tensile tests were performed according to ASTM D638 on 3 inch long specimens cut
using a die from the as received gasket materials. Three specimens were tested from
each material and the average results are shown in Table 5-1.
ASTM D638 die cut specimens from the as received gasket materials were subjected to
accelerated aging protocols in both air and transformer oil. As gaskets in power
transformer components are exposed to both air and transformer oil it was necessary to
age the materials in both media. The accelerated aging model used was the Arrhenius
model previously described in Section 4.2.3 on the transformer leak sealants. The
activation energies used for the gasket materials were taken from published literature.
The aging time in both air and oil was used to simulated approximately 20 to 30 years
of service at an average temperature of 30 to 50 C. Following the aging period three
specimens of each material were tested. The average results are shown in Table 5-1.
5.5.2 DMA Tests
Extensive dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) tests were performed over a wide
temperature range (-50 to 100 C). The results for the material elastic modulus over the
temperature range for both aged and unaged conditions are shown in Table 5-2. Based
on tensile test results on material in the aged condition, not all the materials listed in
Table 5-2 were tested in their aged condition.
All materials show that in the unaged condition, as temperature increases the elastic
modulus decreases meaning that the material becomes more flexible with temperature.
Some materials show huge increases in elastic modulus as the temperature lowers
while others show very little variation with temperature.
5.5.3 Oil Compatibility Tests
Given contact between gasket materials and transformer oil, tests were performed on
the effects of gasket material on transformer oil properties, namely, power factor at
both 25 and 100 C, dielectric breakdown voltage, interfacial tension (IFT),
neutralization number of oil and water content. Samples of each gasket were immersed
in mineral oil at 120 C and the oil analyzed. This was similar to tests performed on the
transformer leak sealant materials and similarly the concentration of sealant to oil (1:10)
was several orders of magnitude greater than that expected (1:10,000). The results for
the most promising gasket materials which were selected for this evaluation are given
in Table 5.3. The results of the oil compatibility tests show that the gasket materials
have no adverse effect on the transformer oil characteristics even at this greatly
increased concentration.
5-6
10567971
Table 5-1
Results Of Tensile Tests
Tensile Strength (MPa) % Elongation
Aging Time Activation

As Aged in Aged in As Aged in Aged in At 120 C Energy
Material* Description Formulation Received Air Oil Received Air Oil (Days) (eV)
GT540 VAMAC cork/rubber/ blue 1/8” cork/ethylene acrylic 1.3 1.6 0.9 127 116 86 12 0.80
HC60 Cork/rubber 3/16” cork/neoprene 1.6 2.2 1.2 32 12 27 14 0.87
NCA45 1KHCA454 Cork/rubber 1/8” cork/neoprene 1.6 2.9 0.6 37 8 17 14 0.87
Con O Seal 546 Cork/rubber 5/8” cork/ethylene acrylic 1.9 1.6 1.2 62 41 35 14 0.80
Con O Seal 700 cork/silicone cork/polysiloxane 2.6 2.0 1.2 57 47 54 1 1.33
Con O Seal 590 Cork/Viton 1/8” cork/fluoroelastomer 3.2 3.2 1.6 28 23 16 3 1.11
HC80 Cork/rubber/bld 3/16” cork/nitrile(NBR) 3.3 6.5 3.1 47 8 25 12 1.08
Swelseal Rubber/black 1/4” chloroprene (neoprene) 4.8 8.0 0.4 144 80 94 14 0.87
Con O Seal 04 Rubber/black 1/8” Butadiene acrylonitrile (NBR) 5.3 6.4 0.9 280 102 158 12 1.08
Con O Seal 07 Silicone/red 1/8” polysiloxane 5.9 9.5 2.2 296 250 142 1 1.33
Con O Seal 09 Rubber/black 1/16” Polychloroprene (neoprene) 6.9 8.5 6.1 99 52 60 3 0.87
Con O Seal 02 fluorinated hydrocarbon 7.1 7.4 6.6 266 259 265 3 1.11
Con O Seal 11 Rubber/black 1/16” Ethylene propylene (EPDM) 8.1 7.6 1.8 332 24 14 14 0.92
94-056 IRR49564 Rubber/black 1/8” nitrile (NBR) 14.1 15.2 11.2 435 335 287 12 1.08
M4094-S5 Rubber/black 1/8” nitrile (NBR) 16.3 16.0 12.0 460 318 289 14 1.08
Con O Seal HNBR Rubber/black 1/4” hydrogenated NBR 24.7 26.5 22.0 296 266 268 12 1.08
*Ordered by Tensile Strength
5-7
10567971
Table 5-2
Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Test Results
Elastic Modulus As Elastic Modulus Aged Elastic Modulus Aged Aging Time at 120 C
Material* Description Formulation Received (MPa) In Air (MPa) In Oil (MPa) (Days)
-50 C 20 C 100 C -50 C 20 C 100 C -50 C 20 C 100 C
NCA45 1KHCA454 cork/rubber 1/8” cork/neoprene 14.0 7.6 1.3 14
Con O Seal 07 silicone/red 1/8” polysiloxane 3.4 4.0 2.3 1
Con O Seal 11 rubber/black 1/16” ethylene propylene (EPDM) 715.4 5.8 5.2 1.8 0.5 0.5 14
Con O Seal 02 fluorinated hydrocarbon 72.1 7.1 3.0 22.0 10.7 4.4 34.8 24.4 8.9 3
Con O Seal 546 cork/rubber 5/8” cork/ethylene acrylic 30.3 7.9 3.0 14
Con O Seal 536 cork/rubber 1/8” cork/ethylene acrylic 115.6 10.8 3.7 49.8 23.4 5.9 14
Con O Seal 550 cork/rubber 1/8” cork/ethylene acrylic 68.7 12.8 5.1
Swelseal rubber/black 1/4” chloroprene (neoprene) 68.1 14.6 7.1 14
94-056 IRR49564 rubber/black 1/8” nitrile (NBR) 13.8 15.2 4.1 33.4 17.9 3.4 37.4 12.1 4.6 12
M4094-S5 rubber/black 1/8” nitrile (NBR) 10.1 15.5 3.9 38.7 31.7 9.5 33.9 12.1 4.8 14
Con O Seal HNBR rubber/black 1/4” hydrogenated NBR 134.6 19.9 10.3 20.9 30.1 13.7 19.9 17.4 3.9 12
HC60 cork/rubber 3/16” cork/neoprene 81.0 20.4 5.3 14
Con O Seal 590 cork/Viton 1/8” cork/fluoroelastomer 106.0 20.5 5.6 27.0 8.0 1.8 174.0 8.0 1.8 3
Con O Seal 09 rubber/black 1/16” polychloroprene (neoprene) 1945.2 27.4 11.0 3
Con O Seal 700 cork/silicone cork/polysiloxane 25.3 28.6 8.9 7.0 3.4 0.9 1
* Ordered by Elastic Modulus at 20C
5-8
10567971
Table 5-3
Results Of Oil Compatibility Tests
Dielectric Power Power

Breakdow IFT Neut No. Water Factor Factor
Material* Formulation n (kV) (mN/m) (mgKOH/g) (ppm) @ 25 C (%) @ 100 C (%)
Con O Seal HNBR hydrogenated NA 26.8 0.07 23 0.03 0.84

NBR
M4094-S5 nitrile 18 26.8 0.08 87 0.22 22.06
94056 IRR 49564 nitrile 19 24.9 0.07 71 0.12 0.98
Con O Seal 02 fluorinated 25 34.5 <0.01 29 0.24 1.37

hydrocarbon
Con O Seal 700 cork/polysiloxan 34 24.6 <0.01 21 0.03 4

e
*Ordered by Dielectric Breakdown
5.5.4 Conclusions to Laboratory Evaluations
A summary of gasket materials ranking against key performance properties is

presented in Table 5-4. The table presents a ranking of each gasket material against
each property and provides an overall performance assessment expressed as H (high),
M (medium) or L (low) performance ranking. The gasket materials are listed
alphabetically within each (H, M, L) group.
The eighteen materials were evaluated as follows:
• 94-056 IRR49564: This NBR material maintained its high strength and elongation
values during aging. DMA tests also showed maintenance of flexibility after aging
in both air and oil. It has an H ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 02: This fluorinated hydrocarbon material had outstanding air and oil
aging characteristics. It has an H ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal HNBR: This hydrogenated NBR material also showed outstanding air
and oil aging characteristics. It has an H ranking in Table 5-4.
• M4095-S5: This NBR material also maintained high strength and elongation values
during aging. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 04: This NBR material showed large loss of strength after oil aging and a
large loss of elongation after air aging. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
5-9
10567971
Table 5-4
Overall Rank Of Gasket Materials
As Strength Strength As Received Elongation Elongation

Received After Air After Oil Tensile After Air After Oil Overall
Material Strength Aging Aging Elongation Aging Aging Rank
94-056IRR49564 3 3 3 2 1 2 H
Con O Seal 02 5 8 4 7 4 4 H
Con O Seal HNBR 1 1 1 5 3 3 H
M4094-S5 2 2 2 1 2 1 H
Con O Seal 04 8 10 15 6 7 5 M
Con O Seal 07 7 4 8 4 5 6 M
Con O Seal 09 6 5 5 10 9 9 M
Con O Seal 11 4 7 10 3 14 18 M
Con O Seal 536 10 11 7 13 13 12 M
Con O Seal 546 15 17 12 11 11 13 M
Con O Seal 550 11 12 9 13 12 11 M
Con O Seal 700 14 16 12 12 10 10 M
Swelseal 9 6 18 8 8 7 M
Con O Seal 590 13 12 11 18 15 17 L
GT540 VAMAC 18 17 15 9 6 8 L
HC60 16 15 12 17 16 14 L
HC80 12 9 6 15 17 15 L
NCA451KHCA454 16 14 17 16 17 16 L
• Con O Seal 07: This silicone rubber material showed a large loss in strength and
elongation after oil aging. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 09: This polychloroprene (neoprene) rubber material maintained its
strength after oil and air aging but had significant decrease in elongation after air
aging. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 11: This EPDM rubber material showed a large decrease in strength after
oil aging and a large decrease in elongation after both air and oil aging. It has an M
ranking in Table 5-4.
5-10
10567971
• Con O Seal 536: This cork/ethylene acrylic composite showed a loss of tensile
strength after aging in oil and a loss of elongation after aging in air. DMA tests also
showed a significant hardening (increase in elastic modulus) after oil aging. It has
an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 546: This cork/ethylene acrylic composite showed significant decrease
in elongation after air and oil aging. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 550: This cork/ethylene acrylic composite showed a loss of strength after
oil aging and significant loss of elongation after air aging. It has an M ranking in
Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 700: This cork/silicone rubber composite maintained its strength and
elongation values after air aging but lost significant strength after oil aging. In
addition, DMA tests showed an extremely large decrease in elastic modulus after oil
aging. Although this would mean that the material is more flexible after oil aging,
such a large decrease could result in decrease in gasket backforce which would lead
to leakage. It has an M ranking in Table 5-4.
• Swelseal: This chloroprene (neoprene) rubber material had fairly good air aging
characteristics but had a large decrease in strength after aging in oil. It has an M
ranking in Table 5-4.
• Con O Seal 590: This cork/Viton composite had a significant decrease in elongation
after oil aging as well as a drop in strength and flexibility after oil and air aging. It
has an L ranking in Table 5-4.
• GT540 VAMAC: This cork/ethylene acrylic composite had significant decrease in

strength and elongation after oil aging. It has an L ranking in Table 5-4.
• HC60: This cork/neoprene composite showed a large decrease in elongation after

aging in air. It has an L ranking in Table 5-4.
• HC80: This cork/NBR composite showed a large decrease in elongation after both
air and oil aging. It has an L ranking in Table 5-4.
• NCA45 1KHCA454: This cork/neoprene composite also showed a large decrease in

elongation after air aging and a large decrease in strength and elongation after oil
aging. It has an L ranking in Table 5-4.
5-11
10567971
5.6 Evaluation Of Gasket Materials in an Oil Loop
The materials ranked H in Table 5-4 were tested in a simulated transformer loop. The
gasket materials were installed in eight flange assemblies of the oil test loop described
in Section 4.9. Gaskets were made from the above materials by laser cutting the sheet
materials into the correct size and shape. In order to contrast these materials, and
validate the testing approach, several materials which displayed a lesser aging
performance were also included in the loop tests. These materials were identified as
materials A, B, C and D.
The gaskets were installed into the flange systems of the oil loop and oil run through
the flanges at 103 C for 30 days to evaluate performance. It became clear soon after
these tests began that due to the small surface area of gasket in contact with the oil that
this test would require a long time. In order to accelerate the aging process the gaskets,
still installed in the flanges, were placed in an air circulating oven at 120 C for a
specified time period. It was intended that the air aged gaskets as assembled in the
flanges would then be exposed to further aging in the oil loop. Periodically, the gasket
materials were assessed using Shore A hardness testing. This nondestructive test
allowed for periodic material assessment without damaging the gaskets. No significant
hardening was detected after 51 days at 120 C for the selected gasket materials. By
comparison the reference materials (A through D) showed dramatic increases in
hardness even for much shorter aging periods.
5.7 Conclusions
Eighteen gasket materials were evaluated. Four materials have shown to have superior
performance as defined by high initial properties and retention of these properties over
a long life, as determined by accelerated aging. The materials are:
• 94-056 IRR49564 from Argus Industrial Supply
• Con O Seal 02 from C.E. Conover and Co, Inc.
• Con O Seal HNBR from C.E. Conover and Co., Inc.
• M4094-S5 from Argus Industrial Supply
All four materials are available in sheet form from which gaskets may be cut. The
manufacturers’ or suppliers’ addresses for the above gaskets are given in Appendix D.
5-12
10567971
References
1. Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, ed. By R.O. Babbit, R.T Vanderbilt Company, Inc.,
1978
2. “Influence of Thermal Degradation of Sealing Performance of Compressed Sheet

Gasket Materials with Elastomer Binder, Part I—Experimental Methods, Part II—
Analysis”, L. Marchand, A. Bazergui, M. Derenne, Applied Mechanics Section,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal.
3. “Highly Saturated Nitrile Elastomer”, K. Hashimoto and Y. Todani, in Handbook of

Elastomers, ed.by A.K. Bhomick, and H.L. Stephens, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1988.
5-13
10567971
10567971
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An assessment of in-situ power transformers leak repair technologies was performed,

addressing the severe multi-stress environment of an operating transformer, combining
vibration, extremes of temperature (from -40 C to well over 100 C), UV exposure, and
thermal aging, in addition to poor application conditions on oily surfaces.
Transformer leaks of interest were identified as flanges for radiators and pumps for
units of more than 25 MVA with flanges up to 12” in diameter and utilizing various
gasket materials. Valve stem and packing from various manufacturers associated with
the above units were a second priority.
The range of applicability of welding technologies was established. Welding repairs

completed with an oil backing have no risk of paint carbonization, while repairs
completed without oil backing risk paint carbonization, depending on material
thickness.
When welding with an air backing, 1/2” material and thicker can be welded without
concern; a multi-pass technique should be used for welding 1/4” thick material and
1/8” material should only be welded when all other alternatives have been exhausted.
The recommended process for field weld repairing power transformers is Flux Cored
Arc Welding. Self-shielded wires are preferred if the transformer is exposed to winds
and for welding thinner materials (1/8” through 1/4”), while gas-shielded wires are
recommended for welding thicker materials (1/4” and greater). The FCAW process can
be used either in the semi-automatic mode (hand held welding gun) or in a mechanized
mode (travel carriage). The SMAW process is considered the most portable, adaptable
and readily available process at a cost of inconsistent quality and lower productivity.
SMAW should be considered as a second choice after FCAW, only for materials 1/4”
and thicker. The Pulse variation of GMAW is the preferred choice of the GMAW
process due to its adaptability for varying material thickness but specialized power
sources are required wit no apparent advantages over FCAW or SMAW.
The best welding procedures were inserted into a free standing document ‘Guidelines
for Repair Welding Transformer Components Using the Shielded Metal Arc Welding and Flux
6-1
10567971
Conclusions and Recommendations
Cored Arc Welding Processes’. It is recommended that proper training be provided to the
repair personnel on the recommended welding techniques.
It is also recommended that further welding procedure development be completed in

the vertical position using both SMAW and FCAW. In addition, it is recommended that
repair welding techniques be developed using either mechanized systems or
specialized miniature hand held torches for repair of corrosion leaks on radiators, a
common problem encountered with transformers.
Sealant products were obtained for evaluation from the main manufacturers. Nine
sealants were subjected to screening tests, involving tensile and adhesive strength on
oil coated painted surfaces; tests were performed on both newly applied sealants and
sealants which had been aged to a life equivalent of 20 to 30 years. Four sealants, two
based on silicones and two on polysulfides, were superior in terms of strength,
flexibility and adhesion. A fifth material, which is not used as the primary sealant in
contact with the oily surface, also displayed superior strength, flexibility, adhesion and
aging properties but could only be used as a topcoat for the polysulfide sealants. Oil
compatibility tests showed that the four primary sealants had no adverse effect on the
transformer oil performance.

sealants selected can seal a flange leak effectively. The performance of the sealant
which did not seal effectively, could be enhanced through use of an appropriate cover-
coat. Final selection of a sealant for field use would depend upon other criteria such as
sealant cost, ease of application, and ease of removal. Details on each of the four
sealants are provided in the report.
Eighteen gasket materials provided by five manufacturers were evaluated; four have
shown superior performance in terms of retention of original properties. The best four
materials were able to maintain their original tensile strength and flexibility after aging
in air and oil to the equivalent of a lifetime of 20 to 30 years at an operating
temperature of between 30 and 50 C. All materials are available in sheet form from
which gaskets may be cut. The products tested included cork/rubber composites,
cork/ethylene acrylic rubber composites, nitrile rubbers, hydrogenated and highly
saturated nitrile rubber, silicone rubbers, EPDM materials.
6-2
10567971
A
GUIDELINES FOR REPAIR WELDING TRANSFORMER
COMPONENTS USING THE SHIELDED METAL ARC
WELDING AND FLUX CORED ARC WELDING
PROCESSES
SUMMARY
This document is intended to give guidelines for repair welding leaked components of
power transformers, including main tank covers, current transformer pockets and tap
changer mounting flanges using the ‘boxing’ technique. The main body of this
document does not contain details of the tests used to develop the repair strategies, but
rather the procedures that will be used to complete the repairs. Details of the
development test matrix and results are contained in a separate report.
For repairs involving flanges, prefabricated boxes or channels are used for boxing-in
the leaked components. Welding is used for joining the box to the components. In the
repair of a main tank cover, the box is welded to the cover and the tank body. Weld
repairs are completed with oil backing to dissipate heat and prevent internal
carbonization of paint.
The specific guidelines that are outlined in this document can be categorized into four
sections: safety of personnel and equipment, welding requirements, box designs,
equipment and consumable specifications.
The safety guidelines are general in nature as to make the end user aware of the various
risks that personnel and equipment could be exposed too. Examples are provided to the
end user as a guideline of how specific concerns can be addressed by the repair
personnel.
Welding procedures are provided for the Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) and
Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) processes. The welding procedures are prepared to
detail welding of components from 1/8” thick material to 1” material. The procedures
A-1
10567971
Guidelines for Repair Welding Transformer Components Using the Shielded Metal Arc Welding and Flux Cored
Arc Welding Processes
will give guidelines as to what processes are recommended for certain sets of
circumstances, i.e.: restricted access, portability, productivity, etc… A step by step
sequence is listed to guide repair personnel through a typical transformer repair.
Repair design details are provided as a guideline as to how components can be ‘boxed’
using conventional ‘off the shelf’ material components. The guidelines will detail what
material thicknesses should be used to limit fillet weld size and how the ‘box’ should
be designed to prevent buckling.
Equipment and consumable specification will detail the types of equipment that can be
used in regards to portability, cost, etc… and recommend consumables for each
process. The equipment guidelines will also provide recommendations for restricted
access repairs.
Following the guidelines contained in this document, repairs on transformers can be

completed with confidence that all necessary precautions have been taken to ensure the
safety of both personnel and equipment. The methodology outlined in this document
has proven to be reliable, as well as cost effective.
INTRODUCTION
The following guidelines are intended to provide the trained personnel with all of the
information necessary to assess, repair and inspect leaked transformer components.
WELDING REQUIREMENTS
Scope
The welding requirements outlined are for the Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW)
and Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) process to be used in cooperation with the
Plasma Arc Cutting (PAC) or Oxy-fuel Cutting (OFC) process, as deemed necessary.
A portable Constant Current (CC)/Constant Voltage (CV) generator type power source
is recommended for the SMAW process, while the FCAW process will use the same
power source in conjunction with a ‘suit-case’ type wire feeder, as in Figure A-1.
A-2
10567971
Figure A-1
Portable Generator Power Source and Suit Case Type Wire Feeder
General
It is recommended that weld repairs be completed with oil backing to dissipate the heat
and prevent carbonization of the paint on the internal wall of the transformer. For cases
where a repair needs to be completed above the normal transformer operating oil level,
it is recommended that a temporary auxiliary tank be installed to move the oil level
above the repair area.
Base Metal
The base material for all new components added to the transformer shall be
recommend by the supervising engineer or his designate. The base material shall be the
same as the base material originally specified for the fabrication of the transformer.
Alternatively, if the aforementioned is not available, the base material shall conform to
ASTM A-36 material specification.
Welding Environment
Maximum Wind Velocity.
When using the Gas Shielded FCAW process the work shall not be performed in a draft
or wind unless a shelter protects the weld. Such shelter shall be of material and shape
appropriate to reduce wind velocity in the vicinity of the weld to a maximum of five
miles per hour (eight kilometres per hour).
A-3
10567971
Minimum Ambient Temperature.
Welding shall not be done:
• When the temperature is lower than 60oF (15oC);
• When surfaces are wet or exposed to rain, snow, or high wind velocities;
• When welding personnel are exposed to inclement conditions.
Note: 60oF does not mean the ambient environmental temperature, but the temperature
in the immediate vicinity of the weld. The ambient environmental temperature may be
below 60oF, but a heated structure or shelter around the area being welded could
maintain the temperature adjacent to the weldment at 60oF or higher.
Preparation Of Base Metal
Surface Preparation.
Surfaces on which weld metal is to be deposited shall be smooth, uniform, and free
from fins (burrs), tears, cracks, and other discontinuities, which would adversely affect
the quality or strength of the weld. Surfaces to be welded, and surfaces adjacent to a
weld, shall also be free from loose or thick scale, slag, rust, moisture, grease, oil and
other foreign material that would prevent proper welding or produce objectionable
fumes.
Joint Preparation
Oxy-fuel cutting, plasma arc cutting, sawing or shearing can be used for the
preparation of parts to be fitted for a joint. Gouging, grinding or chipping can be used
for the removal of unacceptable work or metal.
Welding Electrode Requirements
Storage.
Welding electrodes that have been removed from the original package shall be
protected and stored so that the welding properties are not affected.
All electrodes having low hydrogen coverings such as an E7018 (E48018) shall be
purchased in hermetically sealed containers or shall be rebaked prior to use.
A-4
10567971
Immediately after opening the hermetically sealed container, electrodes shall be stored
in ovens held at a temperature of at least 250oF (120oC).
After hermetically sealed containers are opened or after electrodes are removed from
baking or storage ovens, the electrode exposure to the atmosphere shall not exceed four
hours. Electrodes exposed to the atmosphere for periods less than four hours may be
returned to a holding oven maintained at 250oF (120oC) minimum; after a minimum
hold period of four hours at 250oF (120oC) minimum the electrodes may be reissued.
Electrodes shall be rebaked no more than once. Electrodes that have been wet shall not
be used.
Condition.
Welding electrodes shall be dry, free from surface rust, foreign material and in suitable
condition for use.
Shielding Gas
When a gas or gas mixture is used for shielding flux cored arc welding, it shall be of
welding grade having a dew point of –40oF or lower.
Selection of Welding Procedure
Welding procedures were developed for material thickness, welding position, and
welding process. Table A-1 outlines welding procedures based on transformer and box
component thickness. In some set of circumstances, more than one welding process
could be selected.
The Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) process is recommended for repairs that
require only a few hours (i.e.: less than ten hours). SMAW is preferred for this type of
work because of its portability, minimal set up time, and adaptability to all sets of
circumstances.
The Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) process is recommended for repairs that require
more than ten hours. FCAW has productivity advantages over the SMAW process
because the welding is completed using a continuously fed wire, while SMAW requires
frequent changing of the electrode. Continuous fed wire, also enables longer weld
sections to be completed without a start/stop, which reduces the risk of leaking.
A-5
10567971
Table A-1
Recommended Welding Procedures for Transformer Repairs
Transformer Box Fillet Number of

Component Component Weld Welding
Thickness Thickness Size Passes Recommended Welding Process
SMAW FCAW-GS FCAW-SS
1/8” 1/8” 1/8” 1 No No Yes
1/8” 1/4” 1/8” 1 No No Yes
1/4”” 1/8” 1/8” 1 No No Yes
1/4” 1/4” 3/16” 2 Yes Yes Yes
1/2” 1/4” 3/16” 2 Yes Yes Yes
1/2” 1/2” 3/16” 1 Yes Yes Yes
FCAW can be used with two major variations to the process. Flux Cored Arc Welding-
Gas Shielded (FCAW-GS) requires an external shielding gas to protect the wire from
atmospheric contaminants. Flux Cored Arc Welding-Self Shielded (FCAW-SS) does not
require an external shielding gas for the wire, because the atmospheric protection is
gained from elements within the wire.
The FCAW-GS variation can not be used in environments where drafts may blow the
external shielding gas from around the molten weld metal. This process is also not
recommended for small repairs which require the equipment to be moved frequently,
as a gas cylinder is part of the equipment set up. This process does offer superior weld
finish and operator appeal compared to the FCAW-SS variation.
The FCAW-SS process is recommended for similar applications to the SMAW process,
but has slightly less portability. This process can also be used in environments where
drafts may occur.
Fillet Welds
Recommended Fillet Weld Sizes
The thinner of the two components being joined determines sizing of fillet welds. An
example would be if the transformer component is 3/4” thick and it was deemed that
only a 1/4” thick box was necessary, then the 1/4” box would govern the fillet weld
size. The required fillet weld size for 1/4” thick material is only 3/16”, which could be
applied, in a single pass.
A-6
10567971
Weld Profiles
All welds shall be free from cracks, and the unacceptable profile discontinuities seen in
Figure A-3 (c) & (e).
The faces of fillet welds may be slightly convex, flat, or slightly concave as shown in
Figure A-3 (a) & (b). The convexity ‘C’ of a weld or individual surface bead shall not
exceed 1/16”.
Groove welds shall be made with minimum face reinforcement. In the case of butt
joints, face reinforcement shall not exceed 1/8” in height. All welds shall have a
gradual transition to the plane of the base metal surfaces with transition areas free from
undercut except as permitted in Figure A-3 (d).
Welding Technique
The preferred welding technique to minimize the risk of paint carbonization is stitch or
intermittent welding. A typical intermittent weld sequence is shown in Figure A-2.
Tack welds should be approximately one inch long, placed at seven inch intervals
along the joint. It is recommended that the welds be staggered on top and bottom of the
box.
Figure A-2
Intermittent or stitch welding technique and sequence
Weld Cleaning
Before welding over previously deposited metal, all slag shall be removed and the
weld and adjacent base metal shall be brushed clean. This requirement shall apply not
A-7
10567971
only to successive layers but also to successive beads and to the crater area when
welding is resumed after any interruption.
Slag shall be removed from all completed welds, and brushing or other suitable means
shall clean the weld and adjacent base metal. Tightly adherent spatter remaining after
the cleaning operation is acceptable. Welded joints shall not be painted until after
welding has been completed and all welds are inspected and leak tested.
A-8
10567971
Figure A-3
Acceptable and Unacceptable Weld Profiles
A-9
10567971
SAFETY GUIDELINES
General
Weld repairs have been completed on transformers for many years within the utility
industry, but care must always be taken to ensure the safety of the trades personnel as
well as the integrity of the equipment being repaired. The most common repair
technique involves the encapsulation of the gasket flange and bolts using a fabricated
steel box.
Proper preparation of the transformer to be repaired, and of the surrounding area, is

crucial to the success of this repair process. At the same time, care must be taken to
ensure no contaminants and/or moisture enters the main insulating system of the
transformer during the repair process.
Welder Safety
An inspection of the work area must be made before initiating repairs to ensure no
flammable materials or containers will be exposed to cutting dross or welding spatter.
The work area should also be well ventilated to remove fume build up, if necessary
exhaust systems should be provided. No solids, liquids or gases that can become toxic
when combined with the heat or gases generated during welding operations are
permitted within the work area.
Welding helmets should be provided to all personnel within the work area.
Appropriate fire prevention (fire blankets, fire watch, etc…) and fire fighting
equipment (fire extinguishers, etc…) should be readily available.
The welder must have clothing made of dark non-flammable material that will not
melt, and which protects all parts of the body not covered by the helmet, gloves and
boots.
The helmet will be non-flammable, non-conductive material with rear flap to protect
the welder from arc radiation and spatter.
Welding lenses should be as large as possible, with the shade density being a minimum
10.
Safety boots should be worn at all times.
A-10
10567971
Transformer Safety
THIS PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT NO WELDING SHALL BE PERFORMED ON

THE TRANSFORMER OR TAP CHANGER UNLESS THE INTERNAL
COMPONENTS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED WITH TRANSFORMER OIL AT OR
ABOVE THE ZONE OF THE WELD. THIS WILL GREATLY MINIMIZE THE RISK OF
CARBONIZATION OF THE INTERNAL PAINTED SURFACE AND REDUCE THE
POSSIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE CAUSED BY LOOSE CONTAMINANTS IN
THE OIL.
1. Analyze the exterior painted surfaces for lead content;
2. If the lead content of the paint is above the levels specified by local authorities then
precautions must be followed, as required by local laws, for the removal and
disposal of this material.
3. Temporally remove or clear obstructions that are located near the repair area (i.e.,
wire conduit, copper tubing for the dry nitrogen system, etc…);
4. Sandblast and or grind to bare metal to prepare the surfaces to be welded;
5. It is important to remove all of the loose debris from the surfaces that will become
the interior of the sealing box, as this box will become part of the internal oil system
of the transformer;
6. Fill the transformer and the tap changer compartments with oil. The oil level should
be at or above the anticipated welding zone. Vacuum filling is not required at this
time, although filling with degassifed oil is recommended to ensure the oil is free
of water;
7. For some parts of the transformer, such as the selector switch, it may be necessary to
provide a temporary expansion tank to provide an oil bath at the level of the
welding zone;
8. If after filling, the rate of oil leakage at the flanges to be welded is unacceptable, it
may be necessary to create a slight negative pressure in the main transformer tank
to minimize oil contamination of the welding zone, which may be a potential fire
hazard. This can be accomplished by draining a few gallons of oil from the main
transformer drain valve while the main tank is otherwise sealed;
9. A top mounted compound gauge (+/- 5 PSI) can be used to monitor the pressure in
the tank. It is advisable that this gauge be visible to trades personnel from the
ground level, as this gauge must be monitored in order to ensure that a slight
negative pressure is maintained throughout the repair operation;
A-11
10567971
NOTE:
Before proceeding to the next step ensure that all the local fire and safety regulations
with regards to welding & cutting operations are followed (fire blankets, extinguishers,
fire watch and or supervision, etc.).
10. Layout and custom fabricate steel boxing materials. The boss fittings for the drain
and vent lines should also be installed and welded to each box at this time, one on
each corner of the box (top and bottom);
11. Prior to the installation of the prefabricated boxes, adequate scaffolding must be in
place to ensure the safety of the workers;
12. Fit and tack weld box components in place on the transformer;
13. Proceed with the welding operation on the box installation using the recommended
fillet weld size as per Table A-2. Welding must be performed with the minimum
heat input to the unit’s shell to protect the interior surfaces from internal paint
carbonization. This can be achieved by using the following techniques:
— Use the lower end of the current range for the welding rod type and size
selected;
— Use short weld runs (6-8” max.), one electrode length;
Table A-2
Recommended Fillet Weld Size vs. Material Thickness
Base Metal Recommended Size

Thickness (T) of Fillet Weld
in. mm in. mm
T < 3/16” T<6 1/8” 3
3/16” < T < 1/2” 6 < T < 12 3/16” 5
1/2” < T < 3/4” 12 < T < 19 1/4” 6
3/4” < T 19 < T 5/16” 8
— Use intermittent welds (stagger the weld location) to cool spots of the seal weld
in order to prevent excessive heating in one area (i.e., do not use long continuous
weld runs);
A-12
10567971
— Use stringer beads with little or no weaving;
— Deposit a maximum fillet weld size of 3/16” in a single pass;
— If a larger fillet is required use a 3 pass technique;
— When possible, minimize the weld’s heat on the transformer side of the fillet
weld;
1. To prevent cracking on thick (>3/4”) bolted flange plates the application of some
preheat will be required in cold weather (the plate temperature must be at least 60 o
F). Low hydrogen practice (E7018 electrodes, baked and stored as per the
manufacturer’s recommendations) should be followed for the attachments to these
plates;
2. When the welding of the sealing boxes is completed, install a pressure gauge on
each box, seal the remaining fittings and fill each box with nitrogen (1 PSI positive
pressure maximum) and check all seal welds with a soap solution for possible leaks.
If repairs are required, identify these locations using soapstone or appropriate
marker, peen over the area, release the nitrogen pressure and proceed with welding
repairs;
3. Repeat items #13, #14 & #15 until the box is leak free;
4. Equalize the main transformer tank pressure to atmosphere;
5. Drain all of the oil from the selector switch;
6. Proceed with oil piping installation (i.e., socket welded 3/4” steel piping to connect
the front and back sealing boxes to the drain valve of the selector switch);
7. Upon completion, perform a nitrogen leak test, and repairs as required, on the
newly installed oil piping (refer to #13 , #14 & #15). Note that the selector
compartment, the sealed boxes, and the oil piping will all be under 1 PSI maximum
positive pressure;
8. Release pressure;
9. Install dry nitrogen piping to the high side of each sealed box and connect these
lines to the gas relay piping system. The lower side of the sealed box is fitted with a
drain valve and plug;
10. Coat all bare metal components on the new installation with primer;
A-13
10567971
11. Reinstall permanent support bracketry to the tap changer and remove the
temporary support frame;
12. Remove all oil from main unit and tap changer. Removal of oil must be followed
with an approved dry air. Dry air should be at – 60oC dew point or better;
13. Upon completion of oil removal, seal main unit and tap changer then pressurize
main tank. (Equalize pressure in the transfer and selector compartments with the
main tank) to 3 PSI pressure and leave for minimum of 24 hours (saturation point);
14. Test dry air in the main tank for dew point. Record the reading and ambient
temperature. This reading is required to determine the dryness of the transformer
insulation;
15. Release pressure in the main unit (including tap changer compartments) to 0 PSI,
remove access cover and test air content for oxygen and combustible content with an
approved test instrument as per local procedures for confined space. NOTE: All
applicable company and local regulations as related to confined space entry must
be followed fully before proceeding with the next step;
16. Complete internal inspection of the entire unit, especially the areas of the main tank
adjacent to where the welding took place. Inspect for paint blistering, remove loose
paint if required;
17. Remove all materials and tools upon completion of the internal inspection and seal
the main unit. (New gasket should be installed on the access cover used for
inspection, to prevent possible future leaks);
18. Prepare unit for vacuum. The length of exposure and the condition (dryness) of the
insulation should determine the length of vacuum. It is advisable to perform vacuum
leak test on the complete unit at this time. If the vacuum leak test is acceptable,
continue with vacuum local company procedures for large power transformers.
NOTE:
This procedure was prepared as a guideline only and it is based on Ontario Hydro’s
approved work procedures. Utility personnel should ensure that all local safety
procedures and regulations are followed in their work environment.
A-14
10567971
BOX DESIGNS
General
The ‘boxing’ technique is commonly used for the repair of leaked main tank covers,
current transformer pockets and tap changer mounting flanges. In this type of repair,
prefabricated boxes, square or rectangular tubing are used for boxing in the leaked
components. Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) or Flux Cored Arc Welding
(FCAW) is used to join the box component to the transformer section.
The box should be designed as to allow for the existing structure, bolts and flange to
provide support to prevent buckling. The box can be made from square or rectangular
tubing with one side removed to slip over the flange and bolts; alternatively a U-
shaped box can be bent to meet the needs of the flange design. The least preferred
choice is an all welded U-shaped box. The all welded box will be made from three
pieces of material cut to the required dimensions and welded together to encapsulate
the flange and bolts, this technique is not preferred, as there is a built-in risk of leaking
with the additional welding required.
Design Recommendations
When selecting material box thickness, it is recommended that the thinnest material
possible be selected that avoids buckling. The thinner material will decrease required
weld size, minimize heat input into the transformer (reduce the risk of paint
carbonization), decrease welding time required to seal the box and reduce fatigue of the
trades personnel handling the material.
Figure A-4 shows various box design geometries that have been used for repairing
transformers in the past. Tables A-3 and A-4 contain common ‘off the shelf’ steel shapes
with thickness, width, height and weight key factors for selection of material.
A-15
10567971
Table A-3
Commonly Available Square Hollow Structural Steel Sections
Square Tubing
Width Height Thickness Weight

(inches) (inches) (inches) (lbs./ft)
3 3 0.1875 6.86
0.2500 8.80
3.5 3.5 0.1875 8.14
0.2500 10.50
4 4 0.1875 9.31
0.2500 12.21
5 5 0.1875 11.99
0.2500 15.60
6 6 0.1875 14.55
0.2500 19.00
7 7 0.1875 17.11
0.2500 22.4
8 8 0.1875 19.4
0.2500 25.8
10 10 0.2500 32.6
12 12 0.2500 39.4
A-16
10567971
Table A-4
Commonly Available Rectangular Hollow Structural Steel Sections
Rectangular Tubing
Width Height Thickness Weight

(inches) (inches) (inches) (lbs./ft)
3 2 0.1875 5.59
0.2500 7.10
4 2 0.1875 6.86
0.2500 8.80
4 3 0.1875 8.14
0.2500 10.50
5 3 0.1875 9.31
0.2500 12.02
5 4 0.1875 10.58
0.2500 13.72
6 3 0.1875 10.58
0.2500 13.72
6 4 0.1875 12.00
0.2500 15.60
6 5 0.1875 13.13
0.2500 17.12
7 3 0.1875 11.86
0.2500 15.42
7 4 0.1875 13.13
0.2500 17.12
7 5 0.1875 14.41
0.2500 18.82
8 4 0.1875 14.41
0.2500 18.82
8 6 0.1875 17.11
0.2500 22.40
A-17
10567971
3.0"
3 0"
1.0"
Top &
4.625"
3 0"
Left & Right
3.0"
(NOTE: Not to Scale

for illustrative purposes
l )
Figure A-4
Enclosed Flanges Illustrating Various Box Designs
A-18
10567971
EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLE SPECIFICATIONS
Recommended Equipment
• Dry nitrogen supply trailer (or nitrogen cylinders);
• Oil processing equipment (all necessary test equipment, dry air supply, heat
exchangers, filter press, degassifier, clean oil storage tanks, and other items as
required by company oil filling procedures);
• Fire extinguishers and fire blankets;
• Sand blasting and grinding equipment;
• Portable welding rig (D.C. generator, oxy-fuel cutting or plasma arc cutting, wire
feeder, etc…);
• Ultrasonic thickness probe;
Recommended Materials
• Cold rolled steel square tubing (minimum 3/16” wall thickness), or equivalent;
• Cold rolled steel flat stock;
• 3/4”NPT mild steel boss fittings (female thread);
• 3/4” schedule 40 seamless steel pipe;
• 3/4” valves;
• 1-1/2 X1-1/2 x 3/4 NPT tee fittings;
• Assortment of socket weld type 3/4” steel pipe fittings (as required);
• Metal primer;
• Welding electrodes (E7018—3/32, 1/8, 5/32” diameters);
• Gas shielded fluxed cored arc welding wire (E71T-1 – 0.045” diameter);
• Self shielded fluxed cored arc welding wire (
• Shielding gas (75% Argon, 25% CO2).
A-19
10567971
A-20
10567971
A-21
10567971
A-22
10567971
A-23
10567971
REFERENCES
1. American National Standards Institute/American Welding Society Standard D1.1-

96, Structural Welding Code-Steel.
2. Canadian Standards Association W59-M1989, Welded Steel Construction (Metal Arc

Welding).
3. M. Kotowicz and J. Galloway, Technical Proposal—Power Transformer Leak

Repair, April 1, 1996.
4. The Lincoln Electric Company, The Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding, June
1973.
5. Raymond Steel Ltd., Steel Reference Book, January 1993.
A-24
10567971
B
RESULTS OF TENSILE TESTS
TENSILE TEST RESULTS
Final
Gauge Gauge Fracture
Length Thickness Width 2 Width Area Load Length Stress Elongation Fracture
Sealant (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (N) (mm) (MPa) % Energy
Dow Corning 730 10.00 0.45 3.20 1.44 5.30 36.60 3.68 266.00 4.90
Unaged
Sheet 10.00 0.45 3.20 1.44 5.40 36.70 3.75 267.00 5.01
10.00 0.45 3.20 1.44 4.80 37.20 3.33 272.00 4.53
AVE 3.59 268.33 4.81
Dow Corning 730 10.00 0.43 3.20 1.38 4.50 35.90 3.27 259.00 4.24
Aged 3 Days at
100 C
Sheet 10.00 0.44 3.20 1.41 5.40 37.50 3.84 275.00 5.27
10.00 0.39 3.20 1.25 5.00 38.90 4.01 289.00 5.79
AVE 3.70 274.33 5.08
Dow Corning 730 25.00 2.26 6.04 13.65 13.40 49.20 0.98 96.80 0.48
Unaged
Cast 25.00 2.25 6.04 13.59 18.50 57.00 1.36 128.00 0.87
25.00 2.22 6.04 13.41 22.00 56.90 1.64 127.60 1.05
AVE 1.33 117.47 0.78
Dow Corning 730 25.00 2.38 6.04 14.38 20.70 56.80 1.44 127.20 0.92
Aged 3 Days at
100C
Cast 25.00 2.22 6.04 13.41 26.00 59.90 1.94 139.60 1.35
25.00 2.20 6.04 13.29 27.20 62.10 2.05 148.40 1.52
AVE 1.81 138.40 1.25
Loctite Right Stuff 10.00 0.66 3.20 2.11 3.90 67.70 1.85 577.00 5.33
Unaged
Sheet 10.00 0.63 3.20 2.02 3.90 64.60 1.93 546.00 5.28
10.00 0.64 3.20 2.05 3.90 69.30 1.90 593.00 5.65
AVE 1.90 572.00 5.42
B-1
10567971
Results of Tensile Tests
Final
2
Sealant (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (N) (mm) (MPa) % Energy
Loctite Right Stuff 10.00 0.68 3.20 2.18 4.30 67.60 1.98 576.00 5.69
2 Days 100C
Sheet 10.00 0.67 3.20 2.14 3.90 62.60 1.82 526.00 4.78
10.00 0.68 3.20 2.18 4.00 61.30 1.84 513.00 4.72
AVE 1.88 538.33 5.05
Loctite Right Stuff 25.00 5.10 20.43 29.40 100.00 1.44 300.00 2.16
Unaged
Bead 25.00 4.60 16.62 25.30 98.00 1.52 292.00 2.22
25.00 4.90 18.86 26.30 108.00 1.39 332.00 2.32
AVE 1.45 308.00 2.24
Loctite Right Stuff 25.00 4.65 16.98 38.20 125.80 2.25 403.20 4.53
Aged 2 Days 100C
Bead 25.00 4.69 17.28 39.40 128.60 2.28 414.40 4.73
25.00 4.28 14.39 39.30 130.60 2.73 422.40 5.77
AVE 2.42 413.33 5.00
Dow Corning 736 10.00 0.82 3.20 2.62 3.80 47.50 1.45 375.00 2.72
Unaged
Sheet 10.00 0.82 3.20 2.62 5.00 51.85 1.91 418.50 3.99
10.00 0.82 3.20 2.62 3.50 45.70 1.33 357.00 2.38
AVE 1.56 383.50 3.00
Dow Corning 736 10.00 0.99 3.20 3.17 4.50 43.40 1.42 334.00 2.37
2 Days 100C
Sheet 10.00 0.95 3.20 3.04 3.50 40.40 1.15 304.00 1.75
10.00 0.94 3.20 3.01 5.30 49.90 1.76 399.00 3.52
AVE 1.44 345.67 2.50
Permabond E32 10.00 1.19 3.34 3.97 89.60 10.10 22.54 1.00 0.11
Unaged
Cast 10.00 1.21 3.25 3.93 91.50 11.80 23.27 18.00 2.09
10.00 1.17 3.20 3.74 93.40 10.98 24.95 9.80 1.22
AVE 23.59 9.60 1.13
Permabond E32 7 10.00 1.17 3.34 3.91 162.20 10.12 41.51 1.20 0.25
Days 100C
Cast 10.00 1.20 3.15 3.78 163.40 10.07 43.23 0.70 0.15
B-2
10567971
Final
2
10.00 1.20 3.28 3.94 150.00 10.03 38.11 0.30 0.06
AVE 40.95 0.73 0.15
Teamceda DB22 10.00 1.15 3.31 3.81 22.70 16.00 5.96 60.00 1.79
unaged
Sheet 10.00 1.28 3.31 4.24 14.50 13.20 3.42 32.00 0.55
10.00 1.18 3.32 3.92 20.20 16.70 5.16 67.00 1.73
AVE 4.85 53.00 1.28
Teamceda DB22 10.00 1.24 3.28 4.07 29.00 20.50 7.13 105.00 3.74
20 Days 100C
Sheet 10.00 1.14 3.26 3.72 23.80 18.14 6.40 81.40 2.61
10.00 1.65 3.24 5.36 39.80 19.59 7.43 95.90 3.56
AVE 6.99 94.10 3.29
Teamceda DB22 25.00 5.21 6.00 31.26 138.00 35.60 4.41 42.40 0.94
Unaged
Cast 25.00 4.80 6.00 28.80 123.20 34.10 4.28 36.40 0.78
AVE 4.35 39.40 0.86
Teamceda DB22 25.00 4.04 5.90 23.84 169.20 43.15 7.10 72.60 2.58
20 Days 100C
Cast 25.00 4.02 5.90 23.72 150.00 41.48 6.32 65.92 2.08
25.00 4.50 5.90 26.55 193.20 46.09 7.28 84.36 3.07
PDS Unaged 10.00 2.60 2.88 7.49 10.40 51.00 1.39 410.00 2.85
10.00 2.53 2.90 7.34 11.70 53.00 1.59 430.00 3.43
10.00 2.56 2.93 7.50 11.40 51.00 1.52 410.00 3.12
10.00 2.53 2.80 7.08 11.20 52.00 1.58 420.00 3.32
PDS AVE 1.52 417.50 3.18
63 Days @ 85C 10.00 2.51 2.95 7.40 12.80 49.94 1.73 399.40 3.45
10.00 2.53 2.99 7.56 10.30 39.85 1.36 298.50 2.03
10.00 2.51 2.91 7.30 11.90 45.30 1.63 353.00 2.88
10.00 2.47 3.03 7.48 11.20 43.80 1.50 338.00 2.53
AVE 1.55 347.22 2.70
Furmanite Unaged 10.00 2.75 3.20 2.60 7.98 41.50 14.60 5.20 46.00 1.20
10.00 2.75 3.20 2.50 7.84 44.50 14.60 5.68 46.00 1.31
B-3
10567971
Final
2
10.00 2.77 3.20 2.50 7.89 38.80 14.20 4.91 42.00 1.03
10.00 2.88 3.30 2.70 8.64 40.50 14.10 4.69 41.00 0.96
5.12 43.75 1.12
Furmanite Aged 10.00 2.48 3.12 2.52 6.99 121.90 11.15 17.43 11.50 1.00
10.00 2.64 3.19 2.58 7.62 128.40 11.75 16.86 17.50 1.48
10.00 2.74 3.12 2.63 7.88 120.20 11.80 15.26 18.00 1.37
Devcon Flexane 10.00 1.02 3.32 3.39 29.00 35.42 8.56 254.20 10.88
80 Putty
10.00 1.10 3.38 3.72 29.10 31.47 7.83 214.70 8.40
10.00 1.01 3.34 3.37 23.40 28.56 6.94 185.60 6.44
10.00 0.87 3.36 2.92 21.30 28.40 7.29 184.00 6.70
AVE 7.65 209.62 8.02
Devcon Flexane 10.00 0.71 3.31 2.35 54.10 33.00 23.02 230.00 26.47
80 Putty
10 Days @ 100C 10.00 0.79 3.11 2.46 56.50 35.60 23.00 256.00 29.44
10.00 0.99 3.09 3.06 58.10 34.35 18.99 243.50 23.12
0.00 21.67 243.17 26.35
0.00
Devcon Fasmetal 10.00 2.76 3.35 9.25 241.00 10.01 26.07 0.10 0.01
10.00 2.63 3.12 8.21 231.00 10.07 28.15 0.70 0.10
10.00 2.80 2.98 8.34 234.00 10.06 28.04 0.60 0.08
10.00 2.80 3.19 8.93 264.00 10.18 29.56 1.80 0.27
AVE 27.95 0.80 0.11
Devcon Fasmetal 10.00 2.78 3.06 8.51 253.00 10.43 29.74 4.30 0.64
10 Days @ 100C 10.00 2.75 2.95 8.11 276.00 10.75 34.02 7.50 1.28
10.00 2.78 2.93 8.15 258.00 10.75 31.67 7.50 1.19
AVE 31.81 6.43 1.02
Devcon 1’ Epoxy 10.00 2.31 3.02 6.98 251.00 10.18 35.98 1.80 0.32
10.00 2.38 3.23 7.69 230.00 10.00 29.92 0.01 0.00
10.00 2.36 3.31 7.81 214.00 10.09 27.40 0.90 0.12
10.00 2.26 3.38 7.64 154.00 10.01 20.16 0.10 0.01
B-4
10567971
Final
2
0.00 AVE 28.36 0.70 0.10
Devcon 1’ Epoxy 0.00
10 Days @ 100C 10.00 2.24 3.35 7.50 213.00 10.90 28.38 9.00 1.28
10.00 2.25 3.29 7.40 289.00 11.20 39.04 12.00 2.34
10.00 2.20 3.07 6.75 232.00 10.20 34.35 2.00 0.34
0.00 AVE 33.93 7.67 1.30
Koppl 10.00 2.36 3.18 7.50 9.20 100.00 1.23 900.00 5.52
10.00 2.41 3.29 7.93 9.00 90.00 1.14 800.00 4.54
10.00 2.18 3.20 6.98 7.90 90.00 1.13 800.00 4.53
AVE 1.16 833.33 4.85
Koppl 10.00 1.76 2.31 4.07 15.00 16.94 3.69 69.40 1.28
60 Days @ 85 C 10.00 1.74 2.32 4.04 16.70 17.96 4.14 79.60 1.65
10.00 1.73 2.24 3.88 14.40 16.39 3.72 63.90 1.19
AVE 3.85 70.97 1.37
B-5
10567971
10567971
C
ADHESION TESTS
ADHESIVE STRENGTH TESTS

Sealant Break Load(N) Break Stress (MPa) Linear Break Load (N/mm)
Permabond EB32 18.9 0.014 1.000
32.3 0.024 1.709
37.7 0.029 1.995
AVE 0.022 1.568
Koppl 92.4 0.070 4.889
92.4 0.070 4.889
84.4 0.064 4.466
AVE 0.068 4.748
Team Ceda 71.6 0.054 3.788
65.7 0.050 3.476
66.3 0.050 3.508
AVE 0.051 3.591
Devcon 1 Minute 44.1 0.033 2.333
48 0.036 2.540
19.4 0.015 1.026
AVE 0.028 1.966
Loctite Right Stuff 72.7 0.055 3.847
65.2 0.049 3.450
96.5 0.073 5.106
AVE 0.059 4.134
Dow Corning 730 62.8 0.047 3.323
51.7 0.039 2.735
50.5 0.038 2.672
AVE 0.042 2.910
C-1
10567971
Adhesion Tests
ADHESIVE STRENGTH TESTS

Sealant Break Load(N) Break Stress (MPa) Linear Break Load (N/mm)
Dow Corning 736 57.3 0.043 3.032
40.5 0.031 2.143
31.9 0.024 1.688
AVE 0.033 2.287
Furmanite 98.5 0.074 5.212
105.1 0.079 5.561
AVE 0.077 5.386
PDS 65.2 0.049 3.450
85.9 0.065 4.545
0.057 3.997
LEAK SEALANT ADHESION TESTS AFTER APPROX 20 YEARS AGING
Permabond EB22 40.7 0.031 2.153
7 days @ 100C 49.4 0.037 2.614
AVE 0.034 2.384
Koppl 314 114.9 0.087 6.079
60 Days @ 85C 131.5 0.099 6.958
129.8 0.098 6.868
AVE 0.095 6.635
Dow Corning 730 28.3 0.021 1.497
3 Days @ 100C 60.3 0.046 3.190
32 0.024 1.693
AVE 0.030 2.127
Dow Corning 736 41.8 0.032 2.212
2 Days @ 100C 30.3 0.023 1.603
64 0.048 3.386
AVE 0.051 2.400
Loctite Right Stuff 108 0.082 5.714
2 Days @ 100C 127 0.096 6.720
114 0.086 6.032
AVE 0.088 6.155
C-2
10567971
D
MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIERS’ ADDRESSES
FOR GASKETS
ARGUS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY

154 Park Lane Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R2R 0K2
Ph: (204) 633-5530
Fax: (204) 694-5498
For Eastern Canadian Sales Rep: Barry Stokes

Ph: (905) 436-1571
Fax: (905) 436-2437
C.E. CONOVER & CO., INC.

333 Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, NJ, USA
07004
Ph: (201) 227-6900
Fax: (201) 227-8742
Attention: Mr. Chuck Parkin, Marketing Manager/ Utilities Division
SEALS UNLIMITED
58 Oakwood Ave. North
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
L5G 3L8
Ph: (905) 278-1326 or 1-800-268-5228
Fax: (905) 278-2548
Attention: Mr. Peter Sloski
D-1
10567971
10567971

Transformer Oil Leak Mitigation-123 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transformer Oil Leak Mitigation-123 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Power Transformer Oil Leak

Final Report, December 1998

EPRI Project Manager

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS PACKAGE

Copyright © 1998 EPRI, Inc. All rights reserved.

This report was prepared by

Ontario Hydro Technologies

An assessment of in-situ power transformers leak repair technologies was performed,

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1

2 LEAKS AND REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................ 2-1

3 BOX WELDING TECHNOLOGIES FOR LEAK REPAIR .................................................... 3-1

4 EVALUATION OF SEALANT MATERIALS FOR LEAK REPAIR....................................... 4-1

5 EVALUATION OF IMPROVED GASKET MATERIALS ...................................................... 5-1

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 6-1

A GUIDELINES FOR REPAIR WELDING TRANSFORMER COMPONENTS USING

B RESULTS OF TENSILE TESTS .........................................................................................B-1

D MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIERS’ ADDRESSES FOR GASKETS ................................D-1

Table 3-1 Paint Conditions and Interpretation ........................................................................ 3-5

The range of applicability of welding technologies was established. Welding repairs

It is recommended that further welding procedure development be completed in the

Simulated testing, in a transformer “mockup”, has demonstrated that three of the

• gas relay piping

• main tank cover

Given the considerable cost of transformer regasketting, it is essential to develop

In addition to the unavailability of permanent retrofit leak repair technologies, utilities

• oil compatibility: oil resistance and freedom from contamination

• adhesion to oil contaminated metal surfaces

• environmental resistance and aging: UV, heat, ozone

• low amplitude vibration

• ease of removal for future dismantling

3.1 Continuous Wire Welding Process Description

3.2 Experimental Tests

3.2.1 Test Configuration

• Pittsburgh/54-200 Gloss Deeptone Tint Base

• Glyptal/G2215 ASA61 Grey Gloss Enamel

• ICI/Speed Enamel Quick Dry White MSDSY4300

3.2.2 Shield-Metal-Arc Welding Investigations

A Tarnished; Air/Oil Acceptable; tarnished and intact.

B Tarnished; Oil Acceptable; part of the paint is partially

C Tarnished; Oil Acceptable; part the paint is partially

D Burnt; Air Acceptable; burnt, but still adhering tightly

E Burnt; Air Unacceptable; burnt into carbonized

3.2.2.1 Air Backing

• Case A: Transformer wall thickness: 1/8 inch

— Box thickness: 1/8 inch

— Fillet size: 1/8 inch

— (Weld Test 1,2,3,4,13,16)

Weld test #4 parameters produced an acceptable paint surface (i.e., Category D as

Transformer Fillet Number

Tests were completed using Direct Electrode Positive.

Transformer Fillet Number

— Gas-metal-arc welding will be examined for welding of thin material at higher

• Case B: Transformer wall thickness: 1/4 inch

— Box thickness: 1/8 inch

— Fillet size: 1/8 inch

— (Weld Test #5 and #17)

• Case C: Transformer wall thickness: 1/4 inch

— Box thickness: 1/4 inch

— Fillet size: 3/16 inch

— (Weld test #6, #7,#8, #9, #14, #18)

Acceptable burnt/adherent paint condition (Category D as shown in Table 3-1 and

• Case D: Transformer wall thickness: 1/2 inch

— Box thickness: 1/2 inch