Replacement Transformer – Four Bolts Cost over $12,000.00 each
This MIDWEST blog is about a low voltage, high current transformer used in a hardening process. The transformer was physically located deep in the process equipment. It was very difficult for the owner to access the transformer for maintenance. They just could not maintain it during normal production schedules. The process operators were having more and more trouble controlling the output voltage and current. It got to the point they just could no longer regulated the output current as necessary to perform the metal hardening process. MIDWEST was contracted to remove and replace the transformer or repair it. Whatever could be done. When the transformer was being removed, the problem was found immediately. There were massive copper bus bars on the secondary side of the transformer to carry the high currents. One of the output bus bar bolted connections had failed. It was held by only four bolts and the bolted connection had become loose. The copper at the connection was discolored and distorted from overheating. The connection contact surfaces were all destroyed by being overheated. The damaged copper and damaged connection contact surfaces for this damaged transformer could not be repaired. The copper was damaged all the way into the winding. All the other connections were intact. The repair bill was over $50,000.00. This four bolt connection cost over $12,000.00 per bolt to repair. The transformer replacement was not caused by a transformer failure, but by a simple bolted connection failure. MIDWEST frequently finds dry type transformer failures or replacement transformer projects are caused by the most probable failure mode because the needed preventive maintenance was not performed, because it would have been relatively expensive compared to routine, specified, maintenance. Everyone understands the value of the maintenance dollar. But it does not make sense to continually spend hard to get maintenance dollars on preventing very low probability failure modes and totally ignore the most probably failure mode all together, when the most probable mode would be catastrophic and the low probability failure modes have little consequence. This is a nightmare for maintenance supervisors. It can be tough to sell critical maintenance procedures that are not found in standard maintenance specifications.