Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. A.2. B. B.1. B.2. B.3. C. C.1. C.2. C.3. Changing Transmission Paradigm ....................................................................................................... 1 Network Element Assumptions........................................................................................................... 1 Q1: Network Plot................................................................................................................................. 2 Q3 (a): Summary Base Network Evaluation ........................................................................................ 3 Q3 (b): Equipment Upgrade Choices................................................................................................... 3 Q4: Network Design Considerations ................................................................................................... 7 Q5: Techno-Commercial Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................... 10 Q6: Load Extension Margins.............................................................................................................. 12 Q2: Simulator Output Files....................................................................................................... i Q3 (a): Detailed Base Network Evaluation..............................................................................iii References...............................................................................................................................vi

Part 1: SIMPLE RADIAL NETWORK .............................................................................................................. 2

Part 2: ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION NETWORK ....................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3

Report Statistics: Word Count [6,471] Main Pages [15] Appendix Pages [6] References [7]

No. of Tables [8] No. of Figures [10] Line spacing [1] Font size [12]

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

This section establishes practical utility of coursework and basic modelling assumptions. The grid was established in the UK in 1926, with the aim of interconnecting centralized generation stations [1]. The basic design philosophy of electric grid has remained unchanged, namely that the flow of power has traditionally been unidirectional, from high to low voltage levels [2]. However, recent years have seen two fundamental changes in electrical energy generation: 1. Renewable energy sources are often non-dispatchable (as in case of wind and solar PV), and also tend to be distributed, not centralized, in small power output clusters all over the grid. 2. Micro-stations (especially CHP1) have given rise to concept of embedded generation, which fundamentally disturbs the concept of unidirectional power flow. Netherlands is a prime example, where 52% of electricity is achieved from cogeneration [3]. The above factors will eventually lead to a paradigm shift in design, planning, protection and operation of traditional grid to transform it into a self-diagnosing smart grid. Also as grid infrastructure starts to outlive its initial design life, the issues of transmission losses will gain increasing focus and may prompt refinements more complex than simple renovation [4]. It is therefore very important to understand the efficiencies and economic trade-offs involved in the design of various transmission topologies, as well as the modelling of faults and voltage correction. For individual elements, the specific rating parameters provided by instructor were used; for remaining parameters, default value-sets supplied by PowerWorld were used in the basic network setup. A summary of important element characteristics for basic radial configuration is given below. 1. Buses: HV levels 11 kV and LV levels 0.415 kV, with no regulation devices attached; intake bus set as system slack 2. Lines: lengths set to assigned values (km); R = 0.543 /km, X = 0.395 /km; current limit of 185 A results in MVA limit of 3.525 at 11 kV (Rabbit type); no line capacitance defined
Line ID Assigned Length (km) L1 1 L2 1.5 L3 2.5 L4 1 L5 1.5 L6 2.5 L7 1

A. INTRODUCTION
A.1.

Changing Transmission Paradigm

A.2.

Network Element Assumptions

3. Transformers: winding configuration kept as Delta-Grounded Wye; line length and resistance values assumed 0, rated at 3 MVA with X = 0.15 pu (JP_B type); no automatic tap control, shunt or line capacitance defined 4. Generator: attached to intake bus; total given load value is 6.9 MW + 2.9 MVAr so generation capacity limit was set at 10 MW + 5 MVAr 5. Loads: attached to all LV buses as constant power type, with provided P + Q values; set as available for auto-generation control (so fixed, excessive generation is avoided) and lumped at end of respective line 6. NGR: neutral-earthing resistor values for generator and transformers set at 0; 7. PU Base: network base rating was set to 10 MVA; SI units were followed (lengths in km)
1

Combined Heat and Power

Page | 1

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

As a first step, a two-trunk radial network was set up using paths L1 to L7 only (see Figure 1). Associated state output files (requested in Question 2 of coursework) are provided in Appendix 1.

B. Part 1: SIMPLE RADIAL NETWORK

B.1. Q1: Network Plot

Figure 1: Basic Radial Configuration

LEGEND OF DISPLAYED VALUES Buses: V value, Vpu, load swing Lines: i flow, S flow, P flow, P losses Transformers: S flow Loads: P value, Q value Pie Charts: display share of actual to rated S capacity

Page | 2

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

A loadflow was conducted on the basic radial network, which is asymmetric due to right trunk having longer distribution path and higher load attachment (L4 to L7) . It was noted that line overloading errors are reported by the simulator at normal operational conditions (see Figure 1). A more exhaustive technical analysis of the network loadflow is carried out in Appendix 2. Here only conclusions are presented; the reader is encouraged to refer to Appendix 2 for detailed derivation. 1. Voltage Drops: It can be readily observed that as we traverse down the radial trunks, busbar voltage drops increase in magnitude. It is a matter of simple postulation that as total distance increases between source and load take-off points, the amount of V = iR drop will increase (as R l ), adding on to previous drop. In terms of harmonized European regulations, none of the buses show a voltage value below 90% [5]. 2. Line Loading: Both trunks of the network experience severe line overloading at the originating feeders, as they carry the total load for their respective circuits. The right side feeder (L4 at 123%) again shows a higher overload than left side (L1 at 101%), due to the greater total load being served by it (3.8 MW + 1.5 MVAr vs. 3.1 MW + 1.4 MVAr). The magnitude of line loading decreases as we travel down the radial trunks, since current branches off to intermediate load consumption points. 3. Power Losses: Absolute values of power loss (MW and MVAr) decrease down the trunk; this is explained by decrease of carried current as loads branch off along the way. Higher total loss values are observed on right trunk (L4 to L7); this is congruent with the higher loading explained above. From a system-wide perspective, real losses compare as 3.9% of real power flow whereas reactive losses form 11.4%2 of reactive power flow (see Table 2). This means that any improvement actions on the transmission infrastructure should consider reactive compensation to prevent this value from rising as network grows.

B.2.

Q3 (a): Summary Base Network Evaluation

In light of Section B.2 above, it can be concluded that base case equipment is not sufficient for normal operation of the radial network. It is further proposed that line loading and reactive power losses be decreased3 by replacing lines L1, L4 and L5 with thicker conductors. Lines L1 and L4 are clearly overloaded, whereas L5 shows 81% carriage; the latter is not an immediate issue but can become problematic as resistivity and heat removal properties change in summer months. In order to offset cost hike caused that will be caused by re-conductoring, transformer T7 (at lower loading) could be replaced by cheaper one (JP_A type) having higher inductance. Various equipment changes were tried; the final choices are listed and justified below. 1. Re-Conductoring of L1: Increase of conductor by one size (from Rabbit to Horse) brought line loading down from 101% to 70%. Another possibility could be to use in parallel, 2 Ferret or 2 Rabbit conductors; however, that would be economically more expensive than a single Horse.
2 3

B.3.

Q3 (b): Equipment Upgrade Choices

Computed by dividing total losses to total clean load P and Q values respectively Decreased real losses improve busbar Vpu, which in turn assists in decreasing reactive power losses

Page | 3

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

2. Re-Conductoring of L5: The same reasoning applies, as above for L1. Although in base case, the conductor was not overloaded, it was nevertheless above 80%. By upgrading cable size, loading is brought to a safe value of 56%, in harmony with other lines. 3. Re-Conductoring of L4: By attempting to upgrade to Horse, it was seen that loading was decreased from 122% to 82%; this is still not very encouraging. Other options included an upgrade to Dog, or using 2 parallel conductors. Proposing 2 Ferret conductors in parallel gives a much better value for money. While their cost4 is 8 against 10 of Dog, they cut loading to 70% against 79% of Dog5. This also carries the advantage of feeder L4 becoming identical in loading to its mirror image feeder L1. Extra cost is further avoided by using common circuit breakers at both ends of the two parallel conductors. 4. Degradation of T7: In order to offset cost of re-conductoring above, it was decided to de-rate transformer T7 to type JP_A, as its load flow is 0.71 MVA, which in turn is well below the rated capacity of 1 MVA for type JP_A. Other transformers cannot benefit from this option, as their loads are very close to or greater than 1 MVA.

Line Current Loading (% of Rated): Trunk L4 to L7

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Near End (L4) Centre (L5) Long (L6) Far End (L7) 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88

Radial Bus Voltage Profile (Vpu): Trunk L4 to L7

Source (B1)

Centre (B10) Base Equipment

Long (B13) Upgraded Equipment

Far End (B15)

Base Equipment

Upgraded Equipment

Figure 2: Upgrade Effect on Carriage Profile

Figure 3: Upgrade Effect on Voltage Profile

5. Economic Viewpoint: The impact of equipment upgrade is summarized by comparison against original base case, and presented in Table 1. It can be seen that the upgrade choices discussed above align so that a very minor change in total cost is experienced. This rise in cost from 300 to 303 computes to only 1.0%. 6. Technical Viewpoint: The performance impact of upgrade is summarized by comparison against original base case, and presented in Table 2. It can be clearly seen that total losses, both real and reactive, have decreased. This occurs primarily because reduced line resistances (from re-conductoring) decrease both voltage drop ( iR) and copper losses ( i2R). When VD reduces, busbar Vpu rises and consequently prevents current inrush for power compensation. With reduced current component, reactive circulation in the system is also controlled. In addition, all lines are loaded to a value less than 80%; in fact the maximum
4 5

Unit cost 4 x 2 cables x 1 km = 8 Load/Rating = 222/278 = 79%

Page | 4

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

loading that is seen is at L4 (source line), which is only about 70%. In doing a cost-benefit analysis of the upgrade, it could be favourably argued that a mere 1.0% cost increase has led to a loading improvement of 52% (from 122% to 70%). These effects can also be graphically appreciated by comparing voltage loading profile of right-side trunk (L4 to L7) before and after equipment upgrade (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Both the VD and current loading situations show visible improvement. Finally it may be proposed that at this stage (after equipment upgrade), capacitive compensation is not required. The MVAr losses, as seen earlier (ref. Table 2), have fallen compared to base scenario. The power factor seen by generator is 0.91, calculated as cos[tan-1 (QG/PG)] using values from Table 2. Not only is this within acceptable industrial limits, it is also slightly better than base case scenario. Upgraded network plot is shown in Figure 4 for readers reference.
ID L1 L2, L3 L4 L5 L6, L7 T1 - T6 T7 CB Device UoM OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL Xfmr Xfmr CB km km km km km ea ea ea Base Case Equipment Unit Type Qty Cost Rabbit (50 mm2) 5 1 Rabbit (50 mm2) Rabbit (50 mm )
2

Upgraded Equipment Total Unit Type Qty Cost Cost 5 Horse (70 mm2) 7 1 20 Rabbit (50 mm2) 5 Ferret (40 mm )
2

Total Cost 7 20 8 10.5 17.5 150 20 70 303

5 5 5 5

4 1 1.5 3.5

5 4 7 5

4 2 1.5 3.5

Rabbit (50 mm2) Rabbit (50 mm )

2

7.5 Horse (70 mm2) 17.5 Rabbit (50 mm )

2

JP_B (x = 0.15 pu) JP_B (x = 0.15 pu) Circuit Breaker

(CB for T&D only)

25 6 25 1 10 7 Grand Total

150 JP_B (x = 0.15 pu) 25 JP_A (x = 0.20 pu) 70 Circuit Breaker 300 (CB for T&D only)

25 6 20 1 10 7 Grand Total

Table 1: Cost Impact of Equipment Upgrade (NOTE: For CB, only those involved in T&D are accounted for, 1 per line with switch on other end; transformers CB are assumed included in latters cost; load-side and generator CB are ignored)
Component Generator Generator Generator Loads Loads Loads Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Line Quantity Total Generation: Real Total Generation: Reactive Observed Power Factor Total Load: Real Total Load: Reactive Applied Power Factor Total Losses: Real Total Losses: Reactive Waste Fraction: Real Waste Fraction: Reactive Max OHL Loading: L4 Symbol PG QG cos[tan-1QG/PG] PL QL cos[tan-1QL/PL] PLO = PG - PL QLO = QG - QL PLO/PL QLO/QL Sactual/Srated Units MW MVAr MW MVAr MW MVAr % % % Value (base network) 7.17 3.23 0.91 6.9 2.9 0.92 0.27 0.33 3.9% 11.4% 122.6% Value (upgraded) 7.11 3.2 0.91 6.9 2.9 0.92 0.21 0.3 3.0% 10.3% 69.6% Page | 5

Table 2: Summary of Network Losses

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

Figure 4: Upgraded Radial Equipment

Page | 6

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

This section aims to increase the reliability of the basic radial design of previous section. Further changes to equipment will be made in addition to the upgrades already performed in Section B.3. In order to increase reliability, a system design methodology had to be followed to efficiently zoom in on a cost-effective solution from amongst the many possible corridor combinations. Firstly, a conceptual comparison was carried out between the 4 major topologies [6] to decide the general direction that alternative design plan would take. 1. Simple Radial: This is the courseworks provided base case. It was seen in Section B.2 that its equipment was not sufficient for load carriage, and had to be upgraded in Section B.3. Not only is it asymmetric with respect to the two trunks, it does not cater to segmental disruptions. 2. Cross-Linked Radial: This is an improved version that increases reliability by cross-linking trunks; it has the advantage of providing alternate outage paths, or decreasing load of normal paths if the additional feeders are switched on during normal operation as well. 3. Ring: This topology provides a continuous loop back to sources with loads distributed along the path. In the current case, extra OHL would only be required at L8 to complete the loop, hence introducing a very small cost increment. The benefit of offering 100% increase in redundancy (as both trunks now cover each other with alternate routing in case of segmental interruption) conclusively makes this a strong candidate. 4. Grid: This is a meshwork providing a high degree of inter-connection between various distribution buses; however the cost of OHL and allied circuit-breakers increases exponentially (as does reliability) so cost-benefit analysis would be negative unless very sensitive consumers with zero-tolerance were involved. From the foregoing discussion, it seems obvious that options 1 and 4 are inappropriate extremes of the choice spectrum, being unreliable or overdesigned (hence uneconomical) respectively. It would be more likely to investigate further on options 2 and 3, and perhaps model a hybrid network structure from these. As a departure case for network modelling, a symmetric ring topology was completed by adding path L8 with same line specifications as L7 (Rabbit). Further equalization was done by converting L2 to Horse like L5, and by branching L1 into 2 Ferret feeders like L4 from earlier upgrade in Section B.3; running load flow confirms balanced condition on both sides of the ring. The symmetric6 ring was then divided into zones for testing reference (see Figure 5). Turn-wise disruptions were caused by opening breakers on left trunk from Zones 4 to 1, and their overloading effects on right-side OHL noted (Table 3). Since the ring is symmetrical, the same results would be obtained by reversing the faults along left side, so such testing is not required.
6

C. Part 2: ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION NETWORK

C.1. Q4: Network Design Considerations

With respect to left and right sides of network hexagon

Page | 7

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

Figure 5: Indicative Additional Laying and Zonal Division This testing was repeated for additional cross-linking feeders as standby routes, and the final solution was reached iteratively in the manner described below (refer to Table 3 throughout this discussion). 1. Option A (ring derived from simple radial) demonstrates that overloading is not a problem for transmission if ring is broken by disruption in farther zones (Zone 3, 4); this explained by the fact that the loads drawn by farther end are small compared to bulk of consumption in upper zones. However, above 100% loading is seen for upper zone faults, which is not acceptable even for short periods. Therefore, it appears that improved cross-linkage could be attempted in these zones (Zone 1, 2). 2. Pursuant to above, Option B is constructed by adding crosslinks along paths L10+L11 and L13+L14; for demonstrative purpose, Ferret equipment is used for OHL. The severity of overloading in case of faults drastically decreases due to these additional routes; however undesirable loading above 90% is seen in some instances, which may make this configuration unsuitable for long fault periods. 3. A more diverse cross-linkage is obtained by Option C, which installs feeders along bent corridors. This diagonal cross-linkage is performed in upper zones for two reasons: firstly it is the upper feeders that carry greater load and secondly, path L12 (upper) is shorter than L15 (lower) so that equipment and laying cost would be saved. Severity of overloading falls visibly, and it may be postulated that further strengthening of feeders nearer to the source (such as L1, L4) may get rid of any remaining load capacity issues. Therefore, an optimum combination of cross-linked radial and ring topologies is reached.

Page | 8

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

Further tweaking is done to prevent overloading in case of severe disruption even in Zone 1, as well as to allow double faults in lower zones (Zones 3, 4). This is achieved by using Horse instead of Ferret cables for lines L1 and L4; double feeders are used for each line for reasons earlier discussed in Section 0B.3, and are operated by common breakers in order to cut back unnecessary cost incurred by separate breakers. The final solution is presented in Figure 6, with its allied equipment list in Table 4. It may be noted that whilst path L12 is common to both cross links, a common middle trunk is not made for two technical reasons (i.e. both cross feeders are kept separate along L12): firstly, having a common trunk would introduce a single point of failure for both cross-links as well as requiring thicker conductor to carry joint load; secondly, extra jointing breakers would increase the cost more than using continuous separate double lines.
Option Option A Description Upgraded radial as earlier, but with symmetrical feeders added as follows to give ring topology: L8=L7, L2=L5, L1=L4 Additional corridors upon Option A (Ferret) to link left-right trunks: L10+L11 L13+L14 Additional corridors upon Option A (Ferret) to link left-right trunks: L10+L12+L14 L11+L12+L13 Loading on Right Trunk upon Disruptions in Left Trunk Zone Disconnect Point L4 L5 L6 L7 Zone 4 CB-B6-L8 70% 56% 49% 21% Zone 3 CB-B4-L3 87% 76% 78% 49% Zone 2 CB-B2-L2 111% 106% 121% 91% Zone 1 CB-B1-L1 152% 155% 191% 158% Zone 4 CB-B6-L8 65% 51% 49% 21% Zone 3 CB-B4-L3 70% 60% 78% 49% Zone 2 CB-B2-L2 91% 99% 57% 29% Zone 1 CB-B1-L1 131% 78% 50% 21% Zone 4 CB-B6-L8 66% 42% 49% 21% Zone 3 CB-B4-L3 72% 56% 78% 49% Zone 2 CB-B2-L2 87% 42% 58% 30% Zone 1 CB-B1-L1 130% 84% 57% 28%

Option B

Option C

Table 3: Design Iterations for Network Reliability (>80% yellow, >100% red)
ID L1, L4 L2, L5 L3, L6 L7, L8 L10 + L12 + L14 L11 + L12 + L13 T1 - T6 T7 CB Device UoM OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL Xfmr Xfmr CB km km km km km km ea ea ea Alternative Design Equipment List Type Unit Cost Qty Total Cost Horse (70 mm2) 7 4 28 Horse (70 mm2) Rabbit (50 mm )
2

7 5 5 4 4

3 5 2 3.5 3.5

21 25 10 14 14 150 25 100 387

Rabbit (50 mm2) Ferret (40 mm )

2

Ferret (40 mm2) JP_B (x = 0.15 pu) JP_B (x = 0.15 pu) Circuit Breaker

25 6 25 1 10 10 Grand Total

Table 4: Bill of Materials for Alternative Design

Page | 9

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

Figure 6: Alternative Reliable Network Design with Worst-Case Disruption (NOTE: Whereas red squares in diagram indicate circuit breakers, in actual proposed design, each network OHL has 1 circuit breaker at load-side and 1 normally-closed throw switch near source-side)

Comparison of improved radial network (Section B.3) and alternative design (Section C.1) shall now be done to establish which option is better from a technical and commercial point of view. Economic Comparison: The final costs of improved radial and alternative designs are 303 and 387 units respectively. This represents a 27.7% increase, which is roughly speaking, a third of original. An
Page | 10

C.2.

Q5: Techno-Commercial Comparison of Alternatives

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

informed cost-benefit analysis would now consider if the technical benefits accrued represent an improvement by more or less than a third. Technical Comparison: A survey by CIGRE7 concludes that equipment at higher voltage is more prone to failure, as is that handling larger current flows (circuit breakers, cables etc.) [7] It is seen from load flows presented earlier in this work, that busbar voltage falls as we traverse the transmission network away from the source. In addition, current carriage in feeders nearer the source is greater compared to far end lines, because load branching occurs along the way. This means the probability of failure by electrical fatigue is greater in upper zones (see Figure 5). Even is probability of failure in any given line is considered equal to all others, the upgraded radial network (Question 3) does not provide alternate routing in case of disrupting faults anywhere in the network. It with therefore necessitate downstream outage until the fault is repaired (e.g. breaker failure, OHL damage or grounding). The higher upstream a fault occurs, the more number of consumers are affected downstream. In addition, although the coursework scenario does not mention so, there may be some highly sensitive consumers in the network who can tolerate either no outage or a very brief one. Examples could be dairy processing or polyester extrusion industrial units. The alternative design (Question 4) offers 4 major advantages: 1. Routing redundancy is provided in case of disruption faults against outage; this situation can be automated so that the standby path breakers are interlocked to operate immediately in case of rise in busbar voltages or fall in feeder current so that only a momentary loss is experience by consumers. The ring topology increases path provision by 100%, whereas standby cross-linkages strengthen the network against overload. 2. Network overloading is prevented in upper zone disruptions; even in worst case, where loss of entire first feeder is experienced on one side (see Figure 6) of the ring, the maximum loading occurs around 84%; since it is a low-probability scenario, it is acceptable for brief periods of time (as that required for repair) and does not necessitate expensive upgrades. 3. Load symmetry is maintained on both sides during normal operation; this allows equal wear and tear of equipment. 4. Standby cross-links can also be operated during normal running, even when there is no fault. This will serve to reduce loading in all upper zone lines, and can be useful as a temporary relief measure if hot weather increases copper losses or if unexpected load surge occurs. The above benefits qualitatively make a strong business case for proceeding with the alternative design proposed in Section C.1; in addition, since 100% redundancy is provided, it may be quantitatively argued that the benefits far outweigh the cost increment of around 28%.

International Conference for Large Electrical Systems

Page | 11

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

This section firstly examines the available load increase cushion for PQ1, PQ 5 and PQ 7. It then takes a look at overall future growth. A review of network layout shows that PQ7 resides furthest from source; any increase in it will therefore affect all the lines. The iterations followed to check load limits are listed below. 1. PQ7 is increased first to allow loading higher zones; this is then supplemented by increasing PQ5 and PQ1. 2. Loads are scaled up by % proportion, not by absolute value. 3. When increasing load, both P and Q components (MW and MVAr respectively) are raised by same ratio; this maintains the aspect ratio of the power triangle, and hence does not change the power factor. Therefore, the central assumption in testing load growth is that we maintain the original power factor of each load point. 4. The smaller transformer T7 is upgraded back to original JP_B type to allow 3 MVA power rating, otherwise PQ7 will reach its limit fairly quickly. This change will cost an extra 5 units. 5. Iterative increases in load points is done, and loading is measured on selected lines (upstream of expanding load points) on both ring trunks. The iterations and final values reached are listed in Table 5. It can be readily observed that each of the load points had a margin of increase of more than double (>200%). The real load growth limitation in network model turned out to be due to the transformers (see Steps 4 and 6 of Table 5), not the OHL equipment. The maximum line loading is at L5 at 96%, and it is demonstrated that by opening the standby cross-links, relief is obtained by lowering it to 75% (see Step 7 of Table 5). The network is capable of handling outages even in upper zones to some extent, despite the increased load values of PQ1, PQ 5 and PQ 7. An example of power flow with increased loads and outage in upper zone (and standby links turned on), is shown in Figure 7. Although lines are not overloaded above 100%, they are highly loaded (above 80%). This is acceptable for short durations, as that required for fault repair. Network can be additionally made resilient to more or longer disruptions by re-conductoring the cross-link paths (from Ferret to Horse for instance). Finally, if a forecast is made that annual load growth will be 1.5% for 40 years, then the total load at end of that period would have grown by a factor of: = (1 + 0.015) = 1.81

C.3.

Q6: Load Extension Margins

The load nearly doubles (or grows by 181%). The original base case values of 6.9 MW + 2.9 MVAr will therefore become 12.5 MW + 5.2 MVAr, assuming power factor remains same. It has earlier been demonstrated that the network can withstand load increases of over 200% for PQ 1, 5 and 7. The original base case values of these 3 loads is 3 MW + 1 MVAr, which represents
Page | 12

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014

a share of 43% and 34% of total networks real and reactive loads respectively. Therefore, when all remaining loads will start to grow along with PQ 1, 5 and 7, the overall network cushion will fall below 200%. Taking real power as limiting factor 8, an increase in all loads simultaneously would make the expansion margin fall to less than 86% (i.e. 0.43 x 200% = 86%). Since the total load growth is 181%, following network upgrade steps would have to be taken to cope with future demand: 1. Upgrade of transformers, as they reach power limits earlier than OHL under the present configuration. Either load distribution across a pair of 3 MVA transformers, or a larger 6 MVA step-down device would be required for each load take-off point. 2. Uniform load distribution, as a factor that should be kept in mind when planning for growth load connections; while it is not always controllable 9, zonal planning can be done to some extent so that main trunks and branching laterals carry uniform load density. This has the advantage of decreasing effective line length to half for purpose of voltage drop calculations. 3. Upgrade of conductor thickness for main lines in lower zones of the network, and for busbar cross-connections in upper zone of the network. 4. Utilization of capacitive correction to control reactive power, so that power flow is freed up for real load consumption. The original load Q/P ratio gives a power factor of 0.92 (see Table 2), which can be improved to perhaps 0.98 by injective capacitor banks at major busbars, and shunt capacitance on longer transmission lines. 5. Advanced redundancy scheme at generator busbar (such as breaker-and-a-half) to prevent source disruption. On the whole, comparing the figures of 181% with 86% is telling in that nearly a final capacity double-up of all load carrying equipment would be required (transformers, lines, breakers). The above improvements can be planned incrementally, in perhaps 10 or 15 year blocks; or they can be implemented presently after further reviewing and confirming the forecast study. The former approach carries the advantage of amortizing the financial burden over time, whereas the latter approach capitalizes on lower present value of money rather than waiting for inflationary effects of future.

By introducing capacitive injection to control real power, we can eliminate its limitation For example, an area may be declared an industrial zone and so will carry a lop-sided load consumption compared to neighboring residential areas
8 9

Page | 13

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework #1: OHL Design Step No. Load Increment Steps Original Load Values Original Power Factor PQ7 increased by PQ1 & PQ5 increased by PQ7 increased by PQ1 & PQ5 increased by Standby Links cos[tan-1(Q/P)] 50% Off 50% Off 40% Off 40% Off PQ1 MW MVAr 1.3 0.5 0.93 1.3 0.5 1.95 0.75 1.95 0.75 2.73 1.05

Module: T&D ELEC6116 Date: 04-Mar-2014 PQ5 MW MVAr 1 0.4 0.93 1 0.4 1.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 2.1 0.84 PQ7 MW MVAr 0.7 0.1 0.99 1.05 0.15 1.05 0.15 1.47 0.21 1.47 0.21 L1 L5 L3 Loading L8 Observation

1 2 3 4

40% 47% 50% 59%

52% 62% 66% 79%

43% 45% 52% 54%

16% 18% 24% 27% T1 reaches 99% so PQ1 reaches limit at transformer, OHL still has capacity 34% 37% T5 reaches 100% so PQ5 reaches limit at transformer, L5 also near limit 35% Relief on L5 observed, as loading falls to 75%

5 PQ7 increased by 6 PQ5 increased by

30% 30%

Off Off

2.73 2.73

1.05 1.05

2.1 2.73

0.84 1.09

1.91 1.91

0.27 0.27

62% 63%

84% 96%

61% 65%

7 Final Load Values Increase from Original Final % Increase Original Power Factor

On

2.73

1.05

2.73

1.09

1.91

0.27

65%

75%

63%

cos[tan-1(Q/P)]

1.43 0.55 210% 210% 0.93

1.73 0.69 273% 273% 0.93

1.21 0.17 273% 273% 0.99

Table 5: Testing to Increase PQ1, 5, 7

Page | 14

Figure 7: Increased Loads PQ1, 5, 7 and Outage on L2

Page | 15

APPENDIX 1

Reference data tables are provided here. To fit A4 size, unnecessary columns have been removed (Note: all buses are in Area 1, all lines in Circuit 1; all breakers kept closed during loadflow solution).
Name B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Nom kV 11 11 0.41 11 0.41 11 0.4 11 0.41 11 0.41 11 0.4 11 0.4 PU Volt 1 0.98067 0.97275 0.96326 0.95686 0.94944 0.94139 0.97664 0.96869 0.95325 0.94678 0.92968 0.92145 0.92593 0.92424 Volt (kV) 11 10.787 0.404 10.596 0.397 10.444 0.377 10.743 0.402 10.486 0.393 10.226 0.369 10.185 0.37 Angle (Deg) Load MW Load MVAr Gen MW 7.17 Gen MVAr 3.23

Q2: Simulator Output Files

0 -0.21 -1.38 -0.36 -1.29 -0.41 -1.18 -0.31 -1.49 -0.63 -1.59 -0.97 -1.78 -1.09 -1.8

1.3 1 0.8 1.3 1 0.8 0.7

0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1

Table 6: Bus State Records

From Name B1 B1 B2 B2 B4 B4 B6 B8 B8 B10 B10 B12 B12 B14 To Name B2 B8 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Branch Device Type Line Line Transformer Line Transformer Line Transformer Transformer Line Transformer Line Transformer Line Transformer Xfrmr NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES MW From 3.2 4 1.3 1.8 1 0.8 0.8 1.3 2.6 1 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 MVAr From 1.5 1.7 0.5 1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 MVA From 3.5 4.3 1.4 2.1 1.1 1 1 1.4 2.8 1.1 1.7 1 0.7 0.7 MVA Limit 3.5 3.5 3 3.5 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3 3.5 3 3.5 3 % of MVA Limit 100.5 122.6 46.8 58.8 36.1 27.3 31.7 46.8 79.9 36.1 47.2 31.7 20.1 23.6 MW Loss 0.06 0.08 0 0.03 0 0.01 0 0 0.06 0 0.03 0 0 0 MVAr Loss 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0.01

Table 7: Line State Records

Page | i

Name Bus 1 B1 29.14 j21.20 B2 -14.57 + j10.60 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 -14.57 + j10.60

Bus 2 -14.57 + j10.60 24.29 j24.33 -0.00 + j6.67 -9.71 + j7.07

Bus 3 -0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67

Bus 4 -9.71 + j7.07 15.54 j17.97 -0.00 + j6.67 -5.83 + j4.24

Bus 5

Bus 6

Bus 7

Bus 8 -14.57 + j10.60

Bus 9

Bus 10

Bus 11

Bus 12

Bus 13

Bus 14

Bus 25

-0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67

-5.83 + j4.24 5.83 j10.91 -0.00 + j6.67 -0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67

24.29 j24.33 -0.00 + j6.67 -9.71 + j7.07

-0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67

-9.71 + j7.07 15.54 j17.97 -0.00 + j6.67 -5.83 + j4.24 -0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67 -5.83 + j4.24 20.40 j21.51 -0.00 + j6.67 -14.57 + j10.60 -0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67 -14.57 + j10.60 14.57 j17.27 -0.00 + j6.67 -0.00 + j6.67 0.00 j6.67

Table 8: Bus Admittance Matrix (Y-Bus)

Page | ii

APPENDIX 2

Pursuant to the summary conclusions on base network listed in Section B.2, a more exhaustive analysis is presented here. The reader should refer to Figure 1 during this discussion. 1. Voltage Drops: It can be readily observed that as we traverse down the radial trunks, busbar voltage drops increase in magnitude. This is further represented graphically by profiling the VD per-unit along two trunks (see Error! Reference source not found.). It is a matter of simple postulation that as total distance increases between source and load take-off points, the amount of V = iR drop will increase (as R l ), adding on to previous drop (even though current loading decreases after each load take-off). Similarly, each PQ load along the way contributes to reactive loss10, causing the subsequent busbars to see greater volt drops (as transmission systems supply handling capacity decreases with loading space taken up by non-performing reactive current). In real-life networks, reactive power mismanagement can cause runaway effect on VD due to compensatory current inrush, leading to transmission collapse. This situation would not be experienced in the current network model because the loads are set to draw constant (not variable) PQ power. Referring to Error! Reference source not found.8, it can be seen that the VD effect along radial length is more pronounced in righthand side trunk (L4 to L7) than left-hand side one. This is again due to the factors explained above, namely higher current flow in right trunk due to greater number of attached reactive loads. In terms of harmonized European regulations, none of the buses show a voltage value

Q3 (a): Detailed Base Network Evaluation

Radial Busbar Voltage Profile (Vpu)

1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88 140 120 100 80 60 40 Source (B1) Centre (B4, B10) Trunk L1 to L3 Long (B7, B13) Trunk L4 to L7 Far End (B15) 20 0

Line Current Loading (% of Rated)

Near End (L1, L4) Centre (L2, L5) Trunk L1 to L3

Long (L3, L6)

Far End (L7)

Trunk L4 to L7

below 90% [5], so in that respect, the network is within limits. Figure 9: Network Line Loading Profile

Figure 8: Network Busbar Voltage Profile

10

Q values are inductive for the loads

Page | iii

If however, action needs to be taken to raise the busbar voltages, several options could be deployed: a. Re-conductoring to increase thickness or utilize a better conductive material; this would have the effect of decreasing resistance, and hence lowering value of V = iR b. Reactive compensation by adding shunt capacitance at requisite bus points, to effectively supply voltage (or capacitance in series with load to cancel inductive element) c. Increase of generation voltage to perhaps 5% above its present value 2. Line Loading: Both trunks of the network experience severe line overloading at the originating feeders, as they carry the total load for their respective circuits. The right side feeder (L4 at 123%) again shows a higher overload than left side (L1 at 101%), due to the greater total load being served by it (3.8 MW + 1.5 MVAr vs. 3.1 MW + 1.4 MVAr). The magnitude of line loading decreases as we travel down the radial trunks, since current branches off to intermediate load consumption points (see Error! Reference source not found.) whereas the current ratings are kept same for all lines at 185 A. It is therefore clear the conductors for L1 and L4 would have to be refactored to a thicker size and/or better conductive material to allow loading carriage to come down. Similarly line L5, although not overloaded, shows 82% carriage. This could become a problem in hot weather conditions so depending on the geographical location of the network, it may also require re-conductoring. 3. Power Losses: Both real and reactive power losses are seen from the Branches State table in the simulators Network Explorer function. The pattern observed while traversing down the radial trunks is as follows: a. Absolute values of power loss (MW and MVAr) decrease down the trunk; this is explained by decrease of carried current as loads branch off along the way. Therefore, the copper and reactive losses decrease with current ( i2Z). b. The comparative ratio of power loss to power flow also decreases (i.e. MW loss to MW flow, and MVAr loss to MVAr flow) down the trunk; this means that the loss values fall more rapidly than power flow. Again it is simple to see why; loss depends on factor of i2 (quadratic) while power depends on i (linear). c. Higher total loss values are observed on right trunk (L4 to L7); this is congruent with the higher loading explained above. d. From a system-wide perspective, real losses compare as 3.9% of real power flow whereas reactive losses form 11.4%11 of reactive power flow (see Table 2). This means that any improvement actions on the transmission infrastructure should consider reactive compensation to prevent this value from rising as network grows. It should be explained that the reactive loss is caused by a combination of load Q as well as line and transformer X values (inductance); a similar comment can be made for real loss (load P and line R). These losses are compensated by increased generation; for example, while

11

Computed by dividing total losses to total clean load P and Q values respectively

Page | iv

attached loads total up to 6.9 MW + 2.9 MVAr, the Generators table shows a supply of 7.17 MW + 3.23 MVAr. 4. Bus Voltage Angles: As we compare values down the radial trunks, some interesting observations can be made about the load angle at busbars: a. Load angles are higher for LV buses (415 V) in general compared to HV (11 kV); this is explained by the inverse relation between i and V for supplying requisite power. A lower voltage would require higher current, which in turn would increase IZ swing12 in a phasor diagram (see Error! Reference source not found.). b. Load angles tend to increase as we proceed down a radial trunk; this is occurs because busbar voltage drops, and therefore a higher current is required to serve requisite power to consumer load. c. Right side trunk (L4 to L7) shows more load angle swing compared to left side (L1 to L3) for comparable points along the path; this is congruent with the fact that a higher current loading with cause greater phasor shift.

Figure 10: Load Angle Development (VSo VLo)

12

Z = R + jX

Page | v

APPENDIX 3

References

[1] B. M. Weedy, B. J. Cory, N. Jenkins, J. B. Ekanayake and G. Strbac, Electric Power Systems, Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. [2] M. Bello and C. Carter-Brown, Impact of Embedded Generation on Distribution Networks, Energize, pp. 32-34, Jul 2010. [3] COGEN Europe, European Cogeneration Review - The Netherlands, www.cogeneurope.eu, Brussels, 2013. [4] J. Cooper, Our Outdated Electrical Grid: An Intolerable Situation, The Energy Collective, 03 Jul 2012. [Online]. Available: http://theenergycollective.com/john-cooper/90021/intolerable-situation-outdatedparadigm. [Accessed 22 Feb 2014]. [5] European Parliament, Directive 2006/95/EC on Electrical Harmonisation, Council of Dec-2006, Strasbourg, 2006. [6] T. Gonen, Design of Subtransmission Lines and Distribution Substations, in Electric Power Distribution System Engineering, CRC Press, 2008, pp. 170-172. [7] C. E. Solver, Cigre Surveys on Reliability of HV Equipment, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.mtec2000.com/cigre_a3_06/Rio/past.pdf. [Accessed 27 Feb 2014].

Page | vi