Optimization Design on the Iron Beam Sectional of the Electricity Transformer

Abstract:

In order to optimize design on the iron beam sectional of the electricity transformer, a non-linear mathematical model is built to improve areas of every scale and the optimization scale is 14. Based on the principle of “equal precision designing” and GB/T 4249, the tolerance zone of the iron beam is set as the geometry tolerance of the diameter of the iron beam Ø650_o+^0.51+ and the inner tube Ø652^+0.028with the interval of 1mm.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 383-390)
• Pages: 2168-2172
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.383-390.2168
• Online since: November 2011
• Authors: Chao Dong, Xiao Wei Yue
• Keywords: Iron Beam, Optimization Design, Transformer

References

[1] V. Podlogar, B. Klopcic, G. Stumberger, D. Dolinar, Magnetic Core Model of a Midfrequency Resistance Spot Welding Transformer. Magnetics. vol. 46. pp.602-605. Feb. (2010).

DOI: 10.1109/tmag.2009.2031979

[2] L.W. Pierce and T. Holifield, A thermal model for optimized distribution and small power transformer design. Transmission and Distribution Conference, New Orleans, LA . vol. 2. pp.925-929. 11-16 Apr (1999).

DOI: 10.1109/tdc.1999.756173

[3] P. Tixador, G. Donnier-Valentin, E. Maher, Design and construction of a 41 kVA Bi/Y transformer. Applied Superconductivity. vol. 13, pp.2331-2336. June (2003).

DOI: 10.1109/tasc.2003.813120

[4] Y.X. He, Thoery of Geometry Precision, Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology.

[5] X.Z. Li, the Mathmatics Experiment, Beijing: China Machine Press, (2007).

[6] Occupational Skill Testing Quthority of Machinery, Basic Information of Transformer, Beijing: China Machine Press, (2008).

[7] J. Zhao, The Mathmatics Modeling and Experiment, Beijing: Advanced Education Press, 2008 TABLE I. The Result Of The Optimization When number of scale width thickness area utilization ratio of the iron beam.

[1] 645.

[40] 320290 96．5.

[2] 630.

[40] [3] 615.

[25] [4] 590.

[31] [5] 560.

[29] [6] 520.

[30] [7] 480.

[24] [8] 440.

[20] [9] 395.

[19] [10] 345.

[17] [11] 300.

[13] [12] 250.

[12] [13] 195.

[10] [14] 100.

[11] TABLE II. The Comparison Of The Two Method Efficient area utilization ratio of the iron beam The surplus–capacity method 323480 97. 48% The round-off method 320786. 9 96. 67.