ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Potseal 11
Recent Posts
Why cables look like they do
by LongRunner. 04/26/17 09:36 AM
Dimmable LED 2x4 lay in fixtures
by HotLine1. 04/24/17 05:43 PM
Old decora style outlets
by Lostazhell. 04/22/17 07:59 PM
Permit Snafus...AHJs and Contractors Jump in
by gfretwell. 04/22/17 01:11 PM
How do you find a good employee?
by HotLine1. 04/22/17 10:44 AM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
234,788 Are you busy
169,555 Re: Forum
162,821 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 41 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#129918 - 11/21/05 09:01 AM Core Losses  
Dnkldorf  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
nowhere usa
Are these calculatable? (is that a word)

The 3 main differences in dry type transformers, are copper-clad, copper windings, and copper windings energy effiecent.

What I am trying to figure out is whether or not cores losses increase porpotionally with load?
I think they should......

Can some one help me with that formula?




Dnk....


Tools for Electricians:

#129919 - 11/21/05 10:34 AM Re: Core Losses  
JBD  Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
WI, USA
Core losses of a transformer are considered fixed. I have never seen a calcualtion that varied the core loss in realtion to the loading.

Where did you come up with only three differences in type dry type transformers? The construction features most likely to impact core losses that I am familiar with are:
Aluminum or copper conductor
Shell or core core construction
Butt, wound or mitered core
Standard, high, or energy efficient design
150, 115, or 80C temperature rise


#129920 - 11/21/05 10:48 AM Re: Core Losses  
Dnkldorf  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
nowhere usa
Three types= Cutler hammer supplier information

That wrong?


Isn't effiency atribbuted somehow to core losses?

The more losses, the less efficient.

Not so?

Dnk....


#129921 - 11/21/05 12:52 PM Re: Core Losses  
winnie  Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 649
boston, ma
Transformers have many different losses, each caused by different factors. In some cases, the things that you do to reduce one loss will increase others.

The greater the losses, the lower the efficiency.

Under full load, the biggest loss term will be conduction losses; the current moving through the coils causes voltage drop and heat generation. The lower the resistance of the conductors, the smaller this loss term.

But under no load at all there are still losses. Most of these get lumped together as 'core loss', but since I think motor design I tend to separate them out.

You have 'hysteresis losses'. This is the energy lost in continually changing the magnetic flux through the core. This loss depends upon the flux density (how much magnetic 'current' you have), the frequency (how quickly the flux is changing), and the mass of the core. These losses increase slowing with core saturation, since the flux itself isn't increasing once the core is saturated.

You have 'eddy current losses'. These are electric currents in the core, caused by transformer coupling between the coils and the core. You reduce this loss by increasing the electrical resistance of the core, and my laminating the core.

You have magnetization losses. This is the energy lost in primary current flowing to maintain the magnetic field in the core. This loss will increase drastically once the core starts saturating, since magnetizing current starts to go through the roof.

The above three losses are pretty much _constant_ for a fixed primary voltage, and will mean that the transformer uses power even with no load at all connected. In fact, if you increase the load, because of voltage drop on the primary side, these core losses will actually go down slightly.

The load dependant I^2R losses will increase quite rapidly as current increases, and these will make the transformer less efficient at higher loads.

You can decrease your conduction losses by decreasing the resistance of your coils. You can do this by decreasing the resistivity of the coil materials (copper rather than aluminium). You can pack more wire into the same space (square wire rather than round wire, more difficult winding techniques). You can reduce the temperature of the conductor, lowering its resistance. Or you can increase the space for windings. This latter approach means more iron in the core, and thus more iron losses.

You can decrease your saturation losses by increasing the core cross section, thus reducing the flux density. By taking the iron out of saturation you greatly reduce the magnetizing current...but the cost of a larger core is longer conductors, meaning greater conduction losses.

It just keeps being traded; going in circles.

If someone tells you that a copper transformer is more efficient than an aluminium transformer, call bull. _All other things being equal_, meaning same size conductors, same core, same insulation, etc., if you replace the aluminium with copper, then the machine will be more efficient. But all other things won't be equal. The conductors will be made smaller, the core will be made smaller, etc, to balance out the losses; the net result is that the copper transformer _might_ be more efficient.

Also one of the important design criteria is just what loading should be the point of greatest efficiency. Since to some extent you can trade off core losses and conduction losses, if a transformer is expected to operate with low loading, you will want a machine with low core losses; but for high loading you want low conduction losses. I _believe_ but have not confirmed that current practice is to design dry type local transformers to have highest efficiency at about 35% loading.

-Jon


#129922 - 11/21/05 01:02 PM Re: Core Losses  
marcspages  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 48
London, UK
When you see someone answer a question with such dexterity, eloquence, and accuracy, it's like watching a master artist paint the perfect painting.

Nice work Jon!

M.


#129923 - 11/21/05 03:50 PM Re: Core Losses  
Dnkldorf  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
nowhere usa
Jon, you are toooooo cool.

Thanks..........

Dnk...


#129924 - 11/21/05 04:33 PM Re: Core Losses  
winnie  Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 649
boston, ma
I'd take a bow, but cannot because I forgot a few things.

The big thing that I left out is that my description was incomplete. There are loads of other details, and the above is just supposed to whet your appetite for more [Linked Image]

-Jon


#129925 - 11/22/05 01:26 PM Re: Core Losses  
Dnkldorf  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
nowhere usa
Are you bringing the full course later?

Jon, you mentioned awhile ago about doing a paper on harmonics, did you ever complete that?

Dnk.........


#129926 - 11/24/05 12:57 PM Re: Core Losses  
Bjarney  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,527
West-Southern Inner-Northeast ...
Core losses {generally iron losses or no-load losses} are not so much calculated, but measured with a 3ΓΈ power analyzer in terms of watts and vars. They are highly reactive, so are of very low [lagging] power factor.

If part of the specs and purchase order, they are published in a certified test report along with load losses.

Scott35, maybe you can comment on the legal aspects of [drytype] transformer losses in California? ;`\


#129927 - 11/26/05 09:58 PM Re: Core Losses  
JBD  Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
WI, USA
bjarney (Scott, welcome back).

The California requirements for energy effcient transformer design is going national. The recently passed US energy bill is requiring all new transformers (2008?) to be designed with maximum energy effciency at 35% loading.


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Member Spotlight
Bill Addiss
Bill Addiss
NY, USA
Posts: 3,878
Joined: October 2000
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.016s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 0.8207 MB (Peak: 0.9996 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-04-27 09:07:48 UTC