Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Modern transformer manufacturers operate in a very
competitive environment, under a continuous pressure
to optimise their products without compromising quality
and reliability. The mature transformer technology
offers a limited scope for significant improvement. As a
result, the emphasis is placed on the design and
manufacturing processes, in order to generate market
differentiators.
An example of the design optimisation process, capable
of refining the design at the early proposal stage, to the
extent when all detailed verification calculations can be
executed, is briefly presented in the paper. This
algorithm can ensure that the true; optimum, verified
and manufacturable design is found at the proposal
stage. Running the detailed verification calculations
from the early stage in the process increases the
probability of producing a reliable design.
A specific approach to optimisation of the transformer
dielectric design is also shown, utilising an example of
the inter-winding insulation configuration.
The dielectric system optimisation may be accompanied
with the increased risk of generating excessive stresses
within the area of interest. In order to effectively control
this risk, an approach was adopted which requires clear
understanding of dielectric phenomena associated with
particular configurations and overvoltage transient
conditions on one hand and knowledge of the failure
probability and its mechanisms associated with the
same type of insulation structure and applied load on
the other.
Existence of the sophisticated design tools capable of
accurately determining the distribution of electric
stresses in the time domain and at a high level of spatial
resolution is critical in this respect.
Keywords
Design Optimisation Dielectric Design Design
Process Failure Probability Risk Management
1. Introduction
Power transformers are the key assets in power systems.
Failure of transformers in service, which can sometimes
be catastrophic, can have enormous impact on cost,
security and reliability of supply, as well as on other
neighbouring equipment in the substation, the
environment and safety of personnel.
Modern electricity companies require cost effective and
reliable transformers. In order to remain competitive,
modern transformer manufacturers face a very difficult
challenge; they need to optimise their products for the
minimum initial or the total capitalised cost, without
compromising the quality, so that the reliability and the
outage-free service length is unaffected, if not
improved.
The present conventional transformer technology is
known to be mature, with limited scope for significant
improvements. In order to generate market
differentiators, transformer manufacturers have to input
significant effort in improving their core processes such
as design and manufacture.
xi min xi xi max
(1)
(2)
f ( x1 ,..., x n ) = TIC + C CL + PC
(3)
where:
TIC - Transformer Initial Cost
CCL - Capitalised Cost of Losses
PC - Penalty Costs (for not meeting performance
requirements).
There are two different commonly used approaches to
the solution of this general design optimisation problem.
The first method, termed the multiple design method, is
based on generating a large number of alternative
designs, covering combinations of the selected key
design variables.
The design engineer provides input as close as possible
to the perceived optimum point keeping the parameters
within the pre-defined constraints.
The optimisation algorithm [1] is searching for the
minimum of the object function in several steps, each
time refining the pre-set increments of the design
variables and performing thousands of different designs
in accordance with the input data. Constraints for design
variables are also defined and the penalty cost functions
apply for values of design variables outside these
boundaries.
The design generation programs and performance
verification subroutines integrated in this process are
simplified (coarse designs based on winding space
factors) due to the requirement to generate designs for
literally all combinations of the key design variables.
The target is to find the optimum design i.e. to find the
minimum of the object function that meets all
performance requirements and design constraints.
The second approach utilises the non-linear or
geometric programming method, where an object
f ( x1 ,..., x n ) = a0 + a j1 x j + a j 2 x 2j
g ( x1 ,..., x n ) = b0 + b j1 x j + b j 2 x 2j
(5)
j =1
g ( x1 ,..., xn ) Lc
where Lc is the constraint limit and the optimisation
problem can be defined as:
(6)
(7)
Cost
x 106 []
1.765
(8)
1.76
4
1.755
(4)
j =1
3.5
s it
en
td
n
rre
Cu
2]
LV
mm
[A/
4
3.5
HV C
u
3
[A/ m 2rre nt de n
m]
sity
2.5
2.5
(9)
Emax
25
20
15
10
T50
tEmax
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Time [ms]
Axial Stress
Radial Stress
Resultant Stress
50% Emax
Figure 2.
The value of the maximum electric stress, Emax , is
critical for evaluation of dielectric strength. In this
respect, the accuracy of the calculation is very
important. For the insulation configuration under
consideration, of particular interest is the electric stress
on the surface of conductors that face the main radial
clearance between two windings of interest. The
transient analysis combined with the knowledge of the
particular winding design can provide voltage transients
at all nodes/conductors in the area of interest.
With this information the task of calculating the stress
transients and determining the location and incidence of
the maximum stress is relatively simple. For the known
set of the boundary conditions the local maximum stress
can be determined accurately by performing finite
element analysis (FEA). Figure 3 shows an field plot for
such configuration.
ANSYS 5.6
NOV 21 2001
15:13:50
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
EFSUM
(AVG)
RSYS=0
PowerGraphics
EFACET=1
AVRES=Mat
SMN =3.757
SMX =27.004
3.757
6.34
8.923
11.506
14.089
16.672
19.255
21.838
24.421
27.004
Probability
Insulation Barriers
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 5.
The Weibull distribution model is known to provide a
good correlation with the experimental data [4]. Using
this model the breakdown probability can be expressed
as a function of the ratio of the calculated maximum
local stress and a mean breakdown value experimentally
derived for a particular configuration of interest.
p = 1- e
-a (
Emax m
)
EmeanBD
(12)
where:
p probability of dielectric breakdown,
Emax - maximum local stress,
Emean BD mean breakdown voltage experimentally
derived for the particular configuration and applied
waveform,
a,m scale and shape parameters, respectively,
configuration and test voltage waveform specific.
(13)
where;
Eadm(p) admissible value of the stress for admissible
breakdown probability corresponding to volume under
stress,
Cv and z empirical constants, depending on applied
voltage waveform,
V90-100% volume of oil under 90 to 100% of the
maximum calculated local stress value,
padm admissible breakdown probability, e.g. 1 in 1000.
The verification criterion can now be defined as:
(14)
RISK MAP PROBABILITY vs IMPACT GRID
IMPACT
Elimination
High
Medium
Mitigation
Low
Low
Medium
High
PROBABILITY
Figure 6.
5. Conclusions
Modern power transformer manufacturers require
effective design processes capable of achieving the
optimum design without compromising the quality and
reliability of the product.
A design process that can enable execution of the
detailed verification calculations from the beginning of
the proposal design stage provides an effective answer
to this requirement.
7. Bibliography
[1] M.P.Saravolac; Use of Advanced Software
Techniques in Transformer Design; (IEE (P7)
Colloquium on Design technology, an integrated
approach to the design of T&D plant, 17th June 1998,
Grey College, Durham University).
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Messrs. W. Seitlinger,
T. Bickley and J. Fyvie of VA TECH Transformers, for
their useful comments and suggestions.
2002
For further information please contact the author at contact@vatech-td.at
The original document is available at http://www.vatechtd.com
7