张力减径机不同传动系统刚度及响应特性对比分析  

Comparative Analysis of Rigidity and Response Characteristics of Different SRM Drive Systems

作　　者：王建辉[1] 董海波[1] 覃宣[1] 

机构地区：[1]中冶赛迪工程技术股份有限公司钢管事业部,重庆401122

出　　处：《钢管》2015年第5期74-78,共5页Steel Pipe

摘　　要：分析了张力减径机内传动和外传动两种形式轧辊机架的强度及轧制范围,集中差速传动、单机架传动和单辊传动3种典型结构传动形式的系统刚度及响应特性,各种传动形式对机架间距的影响及适用的机组范围。对比分析认为:Φ140 mm以上机组适合采用外传动形式的张力减径机;对于同时设置张力减径机和定径机的无缝钢管机组,采用内传动形式的张力减径机为宜;生产Φ140 mm以下钢管时,选用内传动形式为宜。Analyzed are the strengths and product ranges of two different stretch reducing mill （SRM） roll stands, i.e., the internally-driven roll stand and the externally-driven roll stand, and the system rigidities and response characteristics of three typical types of drive systems, i.e., the centralized differential drive system, the individual stand drive system and the individual roll drive system. Also analyzed are the influence on roll stand space by each of them, and the pipe mills they are separately applicable to. As a result, it is identified that the externally- driven SRM is suitable for seamless steel pipe rolling plants with OD sizes above 140 mm, while the internally-driven SRM is suitable for rolling plants to be equipped with both stretch reducing mill and sizing mill. And in case of rolling plants with OD sizes under 140mm, the internally-drive system is preferred.

关 键 词：张力减径机 传动形式 刚度 响应特性 对比 

分 类 号：TG333.8[金属学及工艺—金属压力加工]