It is difficult to accurately calculate the short-circuit impedance, due to the complexity of axial dual-low-voltage split-winding transformer winding structure. In this paper, firstly, the leakage magnetic field and ...It is difficult to accurately calculate the short-circuit impedance, due to the complexity of axial dual-low-voltage split-winding transformer winding structure. In this paper, firstly, the leakage magnetic field and short-circuit impedance model of axial dual-low-voltage split-winding transformer is established, and then the 2D and 3D leakage magnetic field are analyzed. Secondly, the short-circuit impedance and split parallel branch current distribution in different working conditions are calculated, which is based on field-circuit coupled method. At last, effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed model is verified by comparison between experiment, analysis and simulation. The results showed that the 3D analysis method is a better approach to calculate the short-circuit impedance, since its analytical value is more closer to the experimental value compared with the 2D analysis results, the finite element method calculation error is less than 2%, while the leakage flux method maximum error is 7.2%.展开更多
文摘It is difficult to accurately calculate the short-circuit impedance, due to the complexity of axial dual-low-voltage split-winding transformer winding structure. In this paper, firstly, the leakage magnetic field and short-circuit impedance model of axial dual-low-voltage split-winding transformer is established, and then the 2D and 3D leakage magnetic field are analyzed. Secondly, the short-circuit impedance and split parallel branch current distribution in different working conditions are calculated, which is based on field-circuit coupled method. At last, effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed model is verified by comparison between experiment, analysis and simulation. The results showed that the 3D analysis method is a better approach to calculate the short-circuit impedance, since its analytical value is more closer to the experimental value compared with the 2D analysis results, the finite element method calculation error is less than 2%, while the leakage flux method maximum error is 7.2%.