The term buckling describes the phenomenon of structural failure of

preferentially slender arrangements under the influence of an external force

effect. When the so-called buckling load is reached, the structure suddenly
collapses. The reason for the failure is a loss of stability of the geometry that
can occur independently of a material failure due to excessive mechanical
stresses.

In the case of a transformer winding, the conductor can be regarded as slim

with respect to the winding dimensions. Under the influence of a radial load,
buckling may occur by bending the conductor inwards between two strips,
while it bulges outwards in the adjacent segment (FIG. 3B). In a first
approximation, the strips can be regarded as rigid supports for the
conductor since they rest on the massive core core of the transformer.

The linear buckling theory is based on a linear-elastic material behavior. As a

result, on the one hand, the so-called critical buckling load can be
calculated, which leads to the failure of the geometry. On the other hand,
the shape of the different buckling modes is also determined. The size of the
deflections or deformations, on the other hand, are not defined. In addition,
non-linear material behavior (e.g., plasticity) is not taken into account,
which may result in statements about the mechanical stress in the material
possibly not realistic.

The determination of deformations and stress states is only possible with

the non-linear buckling analysis, in which non-linear material properties can
be considered. This type of analysis can, however, only be performed using
numerical simulation programs. The linear buckling analysis, on the other
hand, can also be carried out on simple geometries by means of analytical
descriptions, e.g. The bending of a rod.
CTC replacement model
In order to simplify the geometry of a CTC for the simulations, [1]
investigated the influence of the twist or transposition of the single
conductors. For this purpose, a curved guide segment was modeled based
on a detailed CTC model. This was compared with an analytical substitute
model for a plurality of radii of curvature, opening angle and single cell
count in a linear buckling analysis. The replacement model consists of a
single-conductor with a radius of curvature which corresponds to the mean
radius of curvature of the CTC (FIG. 3). The comparison showed that the
critical kinking load of the CTC can be described in detail with the analytical
single-cell model. The maximum error by which the buckling load of the
simplified model is reduced is less than 20% for usual sub-conductor
numbers and strip divisions or opening angles. Since the models considered
in [1] do not contain bars, the first step is to investigate the extent to which
the replacement model can be used with a single conductor. Buckling
analyzes are then carried out on larger winding arrangements.
Model construction
basis

The basic design and dimensions of the simulation models presented below
are based on an 80 MVA power transformer, the most important data of
which are listed in Table 1. Of interest is the radial buckling behavior of the
US winding. The critical buckling loads are to be compared with different
winding models in order to be able to evaluate the necessity of a detailed
simulation in comparison to a simple analytical calculation. All models are
limited to the following parts and materials: the copper conductor and the
strips and spacers of the pressboard. A consideration of the transformer
core, the discharge area and axial clamping devices such as pressure rings
for the winding was dispensed with. Their influence can be replaced in a first
approximation by corresponding boundary conditions, whereby
discretization and contact elements can be saved.

Geometry of symmetry models

The aim of the symmetry models is to consider only a section of a winding.
In this case, the conductor length extends over three strips in order that the
sinusoidal buckling shape to be expected can form (FIG. 3B). The equivalent
conductor symmetry model (FIG. 8) only takes into account a CTC single-
conductor, which, however, lies on the mean radius of curvature of the CTC.
The layer winding symmetry model (FIG. 9) takes into account the complete
number of single-line conductors in the radial direction and exactly
corresponds to a section of three strips from the layer-winding model. The
disk winding symmetry model (FIG. 10) takes into account the three
windings wound over one another in the disk winding with the pressboard
spacings between them.

Linear buckling analysis

Materials, storage conditions, contacts and forces
Both the pressboard for the strips and spacers as well as the copper for the
winding are taken into account with their linear elasticity module. For
pressboard, this EPb is 1.2 GPa and for soft annealed electrocopper ECu =
110 GPa. The insides of the strips are rigidly fixed and thus correspond to
the rigid support on the solid core of the transformer. The end faces of the
conductor ends are rigidly fixed in the winding models. With the symmetry
models, rotation of the cutting edges around the z axis is possible, all other
directions of movement and rotations are fixed. All contact surfaces are
defined as friction-free, since the insulating oil in the transformer ensures
negligibly small friction factors. The radial component of the
electromagnetic force density which acts on the entire copper volume is
converted into a pressure on the individual conductors. In the calculation of
short-circuit forces, the line load qCTC, which acts on the entire conductor, is
often indicated. In the case of a CTC, this can be converted into an
equivalent pressure pEL, which acts on each single conductor, according to
formula (1). Here, "hEL" corresponds to the single-conductor height and NEL
is the number of single-bit conductors per CTC.

Results of symmetry models

In the first step, only the results of the symmetry models according to FIGS.
8 and 9, which represent the layer winding, are to be evaluated. Table 2
shows the critical loads of the models, as well as the analytical buckling
load, which leads to the formation of the 1st buckling mode. It can be seen
that the simulation models in their critical kink load are above the analytical
value. The reason for this is the pressboard strips, which are not taken into
account in the analytical model. The size of the bearing surface and the
associated reduction in the effective unsupported conductor length increase
the resistance to the pressure load, resulting in a higher kink load. The
equivalent ladder symmetry model (Figure 8) has a significantly higher kink
load than the CTC symmetry model (Figure 9). The reason for this is the
deformation of the strips. With the CTC model, they are subjected to a
greater pressure load through the many individual louvers which favor the
buckling. This can be demonstrated by reducing the stiffness of the strips
via their modulus of elasticity in the equivalent conductor symmetry model
(Fig. 8). If the modulus of elasticity is reduced by a factor corresponding to
the number of individual conductors in the radial direction, the bending load
is identical to the CTC model (FIG. 9). As a result, it remains to be noted that
the stiffness of the strips has a decisive influence on the critical buckling
load. The shape of the buckling mode from the simulations corresponds to
the sinusoidal shape, which is also predicted by the linear analytical
buckling theory [2]. This can be seen clearly in FIG. 12, while the sinusoidal
shape in FIG. 11 is interrupted by the strip stiffness at the bearing surfaces.
The coloration of both graphics corresponds to the displacement in the
radial direction: red means a displacement> 0 mm, ie radially outwards,
while the blue regions represent displacements <0 mm which are directed
towards the core. This type of coloring is also used in all the following
illustrations.