4.5 Article

Influence of Vegetable Oil on the Thermal Aging of Transformer Paper and its Mechanism

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TDEI.2011.5931054

关键词

Power transformer; accelerated thermal aging; electrical insulation; oil-paper; degree of polymerization (DP); X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS); molecular simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50807054]
  2. Chongqing Natural Science Foundation (CSTC) [2008BB6172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the development of new insulation materials, vegetable oil-the best substitute for mineral oil-has gradually been widely used in the liquid insulation of transformers. To investigate the influence of vegetable oil on the thermal aging rate of oil paper, transformer paper impregnated with mineral oil and vegetable oil underwent thermally accelerated aging at three different temperatures. Degree Polymerization (DP) of paper was measured to indicate the aging degree of transformer paper. The aging rate of paper in mineral oil and vegetable oil was compared quantitatively, and results showed that vegetable oil retarded paper's degradation rate and extended its useful lifetime. The reasons contributing to such phenomenon were analyzed using X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and molecular simulation software. Transformer paper in vegetable oil had larger activation energy. Due to the larger interaction force between water and natural ester molecules, water molecule was easily bonded with natural ester, weakening the hydrolysis process of cellulose. Cellulose was chemically modified by natural ester during thermal aging process, and the reactive -OH (hydroxyl) groups on the cellulose became esterified with fatty acid esters. The water molecule was firmly bounded to the ester groups on glucose produced by esterification. The long-chain fatty acid esterified to cellulose was parallel with cellulose chains and acted as a water barrier to further weaken the hydrolysis process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据