Impact of Embedded Generation On Voltage Regulation and Transformer Tap Changer Lifetime and Operation

Impact of Embedded Generation on Voltage Regulation and Transformer Tap Changer Lifetime and Operation
MEng Final Year Report Electrical and Electronic Engineering 2012
2012
Abstract
Recent years have seen an increase in embedded generation (EG) connected to the Northern Ireland (NI) distribution network to meet renewable energy targets. It is expected that by 2020, 40% of the demanded energy in NI will come from renewable resources, 97% of which is likely to come from wind generation [1]. Distribution Network Operators such as Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) are obliged to supply customers with a reliable supply of electricity within statutory voltage and power quality limits [2]. With increasing wind generation uploaded to the network, the voltage profile of the network is less predictable and the traditional passive network is now becoming more active. This report looks at voltage regulation from two methods, namely reactive power flow control and transformer tap changer operation. It discusses the impact that changing voltage trends have on the maintenance periods and lifetime of tap changers. In particular, the tap changers installed on the two 110:33kV transformers at Omagh Main substation are discussed before and after up-rating replacement was carried out. Data from Omagh Main was collected over a one year period, detailing the seasonal and daily trends at that site. The Power Factory DIgSILENT software package (v.14) was then used to model Omagh Main. After preliminary studies were carried out, increased accuracy and further features were required that only the Power System Simulation for Engineers (PSS/E) software could provide. Several case studies were run, changing the power factor at each of the wind farms, to determine the optimum reactive power flow at the site to help reduce the duty on the tap changers. In doing so, it is was found that NIE could relax the maintenance programmes of this type of tap changer to six years instead of three, performing visual inspections every year and still comply with the manufacturers guidance, thus reducing the cost to the company. For this work to become operational practice it is proposed that a Cost Risk Optimization (CRO) study be carried out.
ii | P a g e
2012
Nomenclature
Acronyms
APFC AVC CRO DETI DETC DFIG DGA DIgSILENT DLR DNO EG ER FREQ GB HV ROI LDC LV LVRT MR MVA MW NAN automatic power factor correction automatic voltage control cost risk optimization Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment de-energised tap changer doubly-fed induction generator dissolved gas analysis digital simulation and network load flow software dynamic line ratings distribution network operator embedded generation engineering recommendation frequency Great Britain high voltage Republic of Ireland line drop compensator low voltage low voltage ride-through Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen megavolt amperes megawatts not a number iii | P a g e
2012
NI NIE OLTC OOS PAS 55 PF PSS/E RIDP ROC SONI SVC TAPP TC TSO TX UK
Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Electricity on-load tap changer out of service publically available specification (55) power factor Power System Simulator for Engineers Renewables Integration and Development Plan renewable obligation certificate System Operator for Northern Ireland static var compensator transformer automatic paralleling package tap changer transmission system operator transformer United Kingdom
iv | P a g e
2012
Symbols
V I N P p.u. Q R S V X voltage change current number of transformer turns real power per unit reactive power resistance apparent power voltage reactance
v|Page
2012
Table of Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................ii Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Final Year Project Scope ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Impact of Wind Generation on an Electricity Network ................................................... 5 2.2 Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland ........................................................................... 5 2.3 Reactive Power Flow Management ................................................................................. 6 2.4 Transformer Tap Changers .............................................................................................. 7 3.0 Embedded Generation .......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Driving Force ................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 The Northern Ireland Context .......................................................................................... 8 4.0 Crucial Plant in Voltage Regulation .................................................................................. 11 4.1 Transformers .................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Reactive Power Management ........................................................................................ 13 4.3 Transformer Tap Changers ............................................................................................ 14 4.4 Asset Management ......................................................................................................... 21 5.0 Engineering Heuristics ....................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Data Manipulation ......................................................................................................... 24 5.2 Assumptions in Statistical Analysis ............................................................................... 25 5.3 Assumptions in Power Flow Studies ............................................................................. 26 6.0 Load Flow at Omagh Main ................................................................................................ 28 6.1 Loading of Omagh Main ................................................................................................ 29 6.2 Loading Factor k ......................................................................................................... 30 6.3 Maximum Current .......................................................................................................... 32 7.0 Tap Changer Operation ...................................................................................................... 38 7.1 Depression Ratings ........................................................................................................ 39 7.2 Voltage Thresholds for Tapping .................................................................................... 39 7.3 Seasonal Tap Operations................................................................................................ 40 7.4 Comparison of Tap Operations of Omagh Main Old with a Substation with No Wind Connected ............................................................................................................................ 42 vi | P a g e
2012
7.5 Comparison of Tap Operation of Omagh Main New with a Substation with No Wind Connected ............................................................................................................................ 44 7.6 Comparison of Tap Operations of Old and New Omagh Main ..................................... 46 7.7 Correlation of Wind and Load to Tap Operation ........................................................... 49 7.8 Tap Changer Life Time .................................................................................................. 53 8.0 DIgSILENT Simulations ................................................................................................... 55 9.0 PSS/E Simulations ............................................................................................................. 57 9.1 System Normal............................................................................................................... 57 9.2 Changing the Power Factor ............................................................................................ 58 9.3 Maximum Wind ............................................................................................................. 59 9.4 Max Load ....................................................................................................................... 61 10.0 Economics of Tap Changer Maintenance ........................................................................ 64 11.0 Engineering Guidance Note ............................................................................................. 65 12.0 Conclusions and Reflection on Objectives ...................................................................... 65 13.0 Further Work .................................................................................................................... 69 14.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 70 15.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 72 Appendix A: Types of Transformers and Tap Changers on the NI Transmission System and their Ratings .................................................................................................................. 71 Appendix B: Matlab Code ................................................................................................... 72 Appendix C: Results from Section 7.7 Transformer Tap Changer 2 ................................... 75 Appendix D: Python Script for PSS/E with Adaptations..................................................... 77 Appendix E: Wind Series..................................................................................................... 82
vii | P a g e
2012
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Population density map of NI with transmission network and existing wind farms at the end of 2011 superimposed ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Ideal transformer ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Tap-change sequence ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Tap changer life time curve ...................................................................................... 22 Figure 5: Tap counter ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Ridged contact .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7: Load profile for a traditional substation ................................................................... 28 Figure 8: Load profile of two transformers for a week in Omagh Main ................................. 29 Figure 9: Graph to compare current flowing in Tx1 and Tx2.................................................. 29 Figure 10: Graph to show factor k for Tx1 .............................................................................. 31 Figure 11: Graph to show k factor for Tx2 .............................................................................. 32 Figure 12: Graph to show the day before and after the max current experienced by Tx1 on 24/05/11 at 10:00 ..................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 23/05/11-25/05/11 ............. 34 Figure 14: Ambient temperature for 23/05/11-25/05/11 ......................................................... 35 Figure 15: Graph to show the day before and after the max current experienced by Tx2 on 13/09/11 at 13:00 ..................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 12/09/11-14/09/11 ............. 37 Figure 17: Ambient temperature for 12/09/11-14/09/11 ......................................................... 37 Figure 18: Voltage profile of 33kV side of Tx1 and associated tap position for 22/11/10 ..... 38 Figure 19: Comparison of tap positions for Tx1 and Tx2 for winter 2010/11 ........................ 41 Figure 20: Comparison of tap positions for Tx1 and Tx2 for summer 2011 ........................... 42 Figure 21: Graph to show tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Newtownards .......... 44 Figure 22: Graph to show tap count comparisons for Omagh NEW and Newry .................... 46 Figure 23: Histogram of Tap Operations for OLD Tx1 and OLD Tx2 ................................... 48 Figure 24: Graph to compare the relative tapping for transformers 1 OLD and NEW due to wind.......................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 25: Graph to compare the relative tapping for transformers 1 OLD and NEW due to load........................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 26: DIgSILENT simulation results for transformer 1 during high load and low wind 56 Figure 27: DIgSILENT simulation results for transformer 1 during low load and high wind 56 Figure 28: PSS/E results for max wind 22/12/12..................................................................... 60 Figure 29: PSS/E results for max wind scaled by factor 2 22/12/11 ....................................... 61 Figure 30: PSS/E results for max load 08/04/11 ...................................................................... 62 Figure 31: PSS/E results for max load scaled by factor 2 08/04/11 ........................................ 63 Figure 32: Summary of reactive power management simulations using PSS/E ...................... 63
viii | P a g e
2012
Table of Tables
Table 1: Types of transformers on the NI network .................................................................. 13 Table 2: Types of tap changers on the NI transmission system ............................................... 19 Table 3: Types of transformers and tap changers at Omagh Main (old and new) ................... 20 Table 4: Seasons and dates ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 5: Dates of removal/installation of Txs and TCs ........................................................... 25 Table 6: Depression ratings of Omagh Main 110:33kV transformers ..................................... 39 Table 7: Voltage thresholds for transformer 1 tap up operation .............................................. 40 Table 8: Comparison of Omagh Main OLD tap operations with Newtownards Main ............ 43 Table 9: Tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Newtownards .................................... 43 Table 10: Comparison of Omagh Main new tap operations with Newry Main....................... 45 Table 11: Tap count comparisons for Omagh NEW and Newry ............................................. 45 Table 12: Table to show frequency of individual tap positions for OLD and NEW Tx1 and Tx2 ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 13: Tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Omagh NEW ................................... 48 Table 14: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for NEW tap changer 1 ... 50 Table 15: Correlation between load and tap operation for NEW tap changer 1 ...................... 50 Table 16: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for OLD tap changer 1 .... 51 Table 17: Correlation between load and tap operation for OLD tap changer 1 ....................... 52 Table 18: Tap changer life time for the new transformers ....................................................... 54 Table 19: PSS/E system normal tap frequency ........................................................................ 58 Table 20: Tap count results from changing power factor using PSS/E ................................... 59 Table 21: Average cost of tap changer maintenance ............................................................... 64 Table 22: Number of TC maintenances per year ..................................................................... 64 Table 23: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for NEW tap changer 2 ... 75 Table 24: Correlation between load and tap operation for NEW tap changer 2 ...................... 75 Table 25: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for OLD tap changer 2 .... 76 Table 26: Correlation between load and tap operation for OLD tap changer 2 ....................... 76
ix | P a g e
2012
1.0 Final Year Project Scope

1.1 Objectives of Final Year Report
1) To determine the pattern of loading of system assets and the effect of increased embedded generation on the load profile and agree study assumptions for this work and any other similar academic work in the area 2) To study an agreed range of network and generation conditions and to analyse /report on the resulting amount of work done by tap changers 3) To investigate, analyse and report on the ageing/ resulting loss of operating lifetime or increased routine maintenance requirement of tap-changers when exposed to wind farms 4) Compare the operation of Supertapp tap changer controllers with Supertapp n+ at Omagh Main and suggest whether NIE have made the right decision in changing them 5) To recommend further work in this area 6) To produce a clear and concise report suitable for academic and industrial purposes
1.2 Methodology and Method of Working

1) Establish and agree a detailed brief covering the scope, assumptions and methodology against which the work and results can be compared 2) Review all relevant literature to determine the granularity of data required to understand operation, maintenance and analysis of tap changers 3) Review earlier work in the area studying the similar effect of increased embedded generation on transformers 4) Maintain close contact with industrial representatives 5) Obtain a stochastic wind series and load series with appropriate granularity for a particular site/sites and scale both to reflect growth in generation and demand 1|Page
2012
6) Consider in conjunction with NIE, a range of reactive power management strategies for wind farms and apply these as agreed 7) Identify and describe the available range of control strategies and range of settings available for transformer voltage control 8) Use the above series to generate a net load/generation time series to which transformers and hence tap changers at the site are subjected and use this to determine the expected annual taps performed by the tap-changer and hence the amount of work done 9) Determine tap-changer component ageing and use this to determine the consequences of various asset management plans and thus propose strategies for acceptable operation of wind farms without significant reduction in lifetime of tap-changers or unnecessary replacement of units 10) Use historic and present data from Omagh Main to compare the operation of Supertapp and Supertapp n+ tap changers since the installation of two new transformers at the site
1.3 MEng Extension

1) Studying the current range and use of tap-changers and voltage control strategies on the distribution network and compare this to any models used by other DNOs for tapchanger analysis with wind farms 2) Based on the findings above, specify tap-changer characteristics by type and recommend the type of tap-changer which is best suited for use with high-penetration of wind farms 3) Creating an engineering guidance note that will better inform decisions as to the strategy to be adopted for each type of tap-changer when exposed to a range of load/wind scenarios and reactive power strategies 4) Recommend future work
2|Page
2012
1.4 Learning Outcomes

1) Practical knowledge of transmission and distribution system operation 2) Experience with different software programs to simulate and model power system dynamics 3) Extensive knowledge of transformers and tap-changers, their theory, operation and limitations 4) Development of research, critical analysis and evaluation skills 5) Development of oral and written communication skills
1.5 Outline of Report

Section 2: gives an insight in to renewable energy targets in Northern Ireland (NI) and introduces reactive power flow management and tap-changers as two means of voltage regulation. Section 3: presents background material on embedded generation (EG) and in particular the NI context; introduces transformers and the need for voltage regulation, while discussing in some detail how reactive power flow can maintain system voltage and thus stability. It goes on to explain how a tap changer operates and in particular, the types of tap-changers on the NI network. It presents the importance of asset management to a company like NIE and walks through the maintenance procedures in place. Section 4: discusses the crucial plant involved in voltage regulation, namely transformers, transformer tap changers and the control of reactive power flow. It explores the varying types of tap changers available from manufacturers, in particular those installed on the NI network. This section also addresses the life time and maintenance periods of tap changers, with specific detail of Omagh Main. Section 5: combines study assumptions and engineering heuristics employed in the compilation of this research. It also looks at how missing data points were back-calculated to ensure completeness and it addresses any study assumptions made for the subsequent simulations of Sections 8 and 9.
3|Page
2012
Section 6: details results from load flow studies based on historic data, it determines the pattern of loading at Omagh Main, the loading factor of the two transformers before and after replacement, and isolates the time of highest current to compare what was happening on the system in terms of wind generation and reactive power flow etc. Section 7: details the effect of seasons on tap operation showing when a tap changer operates and under what conditions. It compares tap operations at Omagh with Newry Main and Newtownards Main, where there is no wind generation connected, to highlight the effect of increased EG on the load profile and resultant voltage support required. The section concludes with a comparison between the old and new transformers at Omagh Main, determining which is better for high wind penetration. Section 8: contains preliminary DIgSILENT simulation results, detailing the limitations of the software and the reasons for moving towards PSS/E. Section 9: discusses the simulations results obtained from the PSS/E software, depicting the optimum conditions for reducing the duty on the tap changers at Omagh Main and suggesting possible benefits to NIE. Section 10: proposes an engineering guidance note to better help NIE in deciding which type of tap changer to employ in areas of high wind penetration, and suggests how to reduce their duty. Section 11: addresses the economics of tap changer maintenance programmes, looking particularly at the possibility of cost saving to be made in increasing the times between consecutive maintenances. Section 12: concludes the report with some discussion on the results and reflection on objectives met Section 13: proposes future work to be carried out in the area before the recommendations may be used in operational practice.
4|Page
2012
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Impact of Wind Generation on an Electricity Network
Wind is a very promising form of renewable generation in Northern Ireland, which may fulfil much but not all of our energy requirements in the future. However, making electrical connections to the grid are not always straight forward. Because of the nature of the job, many wind turbines are located in remote hill tops with poor or no interconnection with the rest of the network. Building overhead lines to transmit the electricity to the end user takes years in planning and permissions from the likes of land owners, the system operator and the regulator. Wind farms, while presenting a clean and relatively cheap source of energy, present a number of inherent issues, many of which are concerns over the quality and availability of supply to its customers. By nature, wind is variable and intermittent. For an electricity network with large proportion of generation coming from wind there is a difficulty in matching supply and demand; forecasting is possible but not guaranteed. Wind generation is only 35% efficient and does not contribute to spinning reserve, and so it must be supported by other conventional thermal generation. The network operators in the UK are legally required to supply electricity at a voltage + or 6% the statutory voltage limit, but the variable nature of wind conflicts with this. Wind turbines also present a number of quality-of-supply concerns such as frequency control issues, resulting in harmonic distortion and flicker, which can be harmful to any sensitive power electronic equipment the customer may have connected to the network.
2.2 Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland (NI) has a target of 12% of generation coming from renewables (97% of which is likely to come from wind) by 2012. The North and West of the province are abundant in the wind resource and generation is predicted to reach 2500MW (40% of the total energy generated in the province) by 2020 [1]. The stochastic and intermittent nature of wind makes generation difficult to predict for any Distribution Network Operator (DNO) but Northern Ireland Electricitys (NIE) challenge is 5|Page
2012
in maintaining the voltage profile of the network within acceptable limits [2]. There is a need to automate voltage control systems, two ways of doing this is by (a) reactive power flow management, and (b) by employing local tap changers at transmission and distribution transformers. Traditionally the NI network was a passive system, providing electricity from bulk supply transformers in transmission sub-stations, which feed distribution sub-stations, and ultimately, customers on the low voltage (LV) network. Now, with increased wind penetration, the supply points have changed, and load flows are reversed. With generation becoming less centralized, there has been a shift in the voltage profile. There is a need to automatically maintain suitable flow of reactive power on the system for voltage support and to maintain system stability.
2.3 Reactive Power Flow Management

Reactive power production and consumption by generators allows the network operator to control voltages throughout the system. Depending on the loading on a circuit at any given time the voltage level will rise and fall with input from local wind generators. When a generator outputs active power, the voltage at the point of connection will increase, which may lead to an overvoltage. Conversely, when it is off, but the local load is high, the voltage may drop, leading to an under voltage. To avoid all abnormal voltage conditions the following are obeyed: 1. During light load conditions, it is usually required to lower the network voltages to reduce line charging and avoid under-excited operation of generators 2. During high system load conditions, the network voltages are kept at the highest practical level to minimize reactive power requirements and increase the effectiveness of shunt capacitors and line charging [3] The simplest method of controlling reactive power at a wind farm is by fixing the power factor of the wind turbines. Active power factor correction (APFC) equipment at the wind farm substation allows it to operate at a fixed power factor, often equal to one when generating. This value may change seasonally or with maximum or minimum load connected. Optimum power factor operation of wind farms to control voltage levels at Omagh Main will be discussed later in Section 9.0. 6|Page
2012
Alternatively, the wind farm may have to adjust its reactive power consumption or production in order to control the voltage to a set point. Some wind turbine designs can fulfill these functions even when the turbine is not generating, this could prove very useful for network operators, but is not yet a common requirement, so there is no incentive for wind farm owners to contribute reactive power to the network [4]. Low voltage ride-through (LVRT) requirements can be met with reactive power compensation equipment, like shunt capacitor banks. That is, a wind generator may be required to temporarily ride-through the reduced voltage on the grid [5], to prevent wind curtailment and load shedding.
2.4 Transformer Tap Changers

The taps on a transformer provide a means of controlling voltage and reactive power flow throughout the system at all voltage levels. Transformers with on-load tap changers (OLTC) can be used to maintain system conditions on a daily, hourly and minute-by-minute basis, whereas de-energised tap changing (DETC) transformers address long term variations due to system expansion, load growth, or seasonal changes [3]. Problems are introduced in areas of high wind penetration, where wind generation changes the voltage profile and reactive power flow on the system at that point, causing the tap changers to operate excessively, i.e. more than in a traditional passive network. Excessive duty experienced by a tap changer can cause premature ageing ultimately resulting in a fault. It is expected that with careful data analysis combined with reactive power flow changes that the duty on a tap changer may be reduced, thus its maintenance programme could be relaxed and life time could be extended.
7|Page
2012
3.0 Embedded Generation

3.1 Driving Force
Embedded generation (EG) is any generation connected to a regional area of the electricity infrastructure. There are a number of popular renewable EG methods such as wind power (onshore and offshore), tidal, solar, natural biomass but for the purpose of the NI network, this report will discuss in detail onshore wind only. The increased drive for renewables from DETI has pushed the demand for alternative energy resources through to a commercial field while also increasing awareness of the environmental impact of power generation. Feed-in tariffs, such as Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) offer incentives to the public, particularly businesses and farmers, to produce their own electricity and feed the remaining supply on to the network [6]. In the past, large generating plant in the form of coal, oil and gas turbines located at strategic points in the network allowed bulk transmission of energy across long distances, producing losses of up to 7% of the total energy transmitted [7]. This new decentralization of generation is beneficial in reducing losses, by using the energy from the EG locally. Additionally, the cost of construction of large overhead transmission lines is reduced since long distance transmission is reduced. Input from Smart Grids technologies, which go hand in hand with the modernization of power systems, mean supply and demand matching will allow for more efficient network management. EG however produces a number of issues, including but not limited to; power quality issues (harmonics and flicker), increased fault level, protection issues and voltage transients. DNOs are legally obliged to supply electricity to consumers within statutory limits [2] and so reliability is a priority. Furthermore, short-to-medium term insufficient network capacity may result in EG suppliers not being granted firm capacity status and may also be subject to curtailment.
3.2 The Northern Ireland Context

The majority of EG in Northern Ireland comes from the wind resource, expected to contribute to 40% of the overall energy requirements of the province and 97% of the total renewable
8|Page
2012
energy influx to the network by 2020. Figure 1 shows the population density map of NI with the transmission network and existing wind farms at the end of 2011 superimposed.
Figure 1: Population density map of NI with transmission network and existing wind farms at the end of 2011 superimposed
By the end of 2011 there was 404MW of wind energy connected to the NI network, with a further 113MW contracted and 174MW of live applications. There is also 742MW in planning, giving an expected total of 1433MW by 2020. 3.2.1 Network Constraints In order to meet the renewable energy targets in NI, set by DETI for 2020, there are a number of network limitations that need to be overcome. The worst case network constraint requiring attention is if the double circuit Coolkerragh-Marherafelt lines trip while one of the single circuit Omagh-Dungannon lines is out for maintenance, as per Figure 1. As per the authors previous work [8] it is predicted that by summer 2012 the remaining Omagh-Dungannon circuit and the single circuit Kells-Coleraine will become overloaded and exceed the seasonal static ratings of the lines. Future infrastructural facilitation is essential but will not be available in time for when it is required. NIE are currently addressing this situation with investment in Dynamic Line Ratings (DLR) research in combination with re-stringing overhead lines with higher
9|Page
2012
temperature, lower sag conductors capable of carrying higher currents inherent with wind generation [9]. The stochastic nature of wind means there isnt always a constant supply of electricity resulting in a variable voltage profile; this is a major concern for manufacturers and factories using heavy machinery. If there is a sudden sag or swell of voltage it can halt production and cost the company hundreds of thousands of pounds to restore an industrial plant to normal operating output. 3.2.2 Ageing Plant The large influx of wind generation on the NI network has put an increased strain on distribution plant including, but not limited to, transformers, automatic tap changers, bushings, overhead lines, joints, and voltage regulating equipment. The increased current and the change in direction of load flow mean that transformers heat up more, increasing internal losses, degrading the insulating oil and cellulose insulation consequently reducing their lifetime [10]. To date, limited research has been carried out in the area of the resultant ageing of tap changers in areas of high wind generation, however, it is well known that the maximum percentage of transformer failures can be attributed to tap changers. Tap changer failures are either of mechanical nature (faults related to the drive mechanism, shaft, springs etc.) or of electrical nature (contact wear and tear, burning of transition resistors, dielectric failures, etc.)[11]. Failure of a tap changer is life-threatening to a transformer and increases the risk of injury to staff, it is for these reasons that NIE have set an arguably over conservative maintenance programme for them. Each tap changer on the network is maintained every three years, involving a detailed visual inspection, changing contacts, springs and oil. This however, is half the manufacturers recommended six year term. Major strip down maintenances are performed when a tap changer reaches 500,000 taps, which is not likely to be in the life time of the device based on current operating regimes.
10 | P a g e
2012
4.0 Crucial Plant in Voltage Regulation

In the UK, DNOs are legally obliged to provide an electricity supply to their customers within statutory voltage limits. In NI, this is 230V 6% [2]. Voltage control is required since transformers, lines and cables all have an associated capacitance, resistance and inductance, which when a current flows, voltage is dropped across them. This causes a voltage difference from the supply and demand points, but the node voltage must not deviate from 6% of the nominal. Thus, transmission voltages must be regulated, accounting for losses, in order that consumer voltages never sag or swell beyond these limits, preventing voltage complaints, damage to equipment or needless operation of voltage control equipment. Transformers are the primary voltage determining plant on an electric power system, but the two main forms of automatic voltage regulation in NI is by (a) reactive power flow management, and (b) by employing local tap changers at transmission and distribution transformers.
4.1 Transformers
4.1.1 An Ideal Transformer A transformer is a device that steps-up or steps-down voltage at a substation. It can consist of two or three windings on the same core (electrically isolated from each other), that when induced with an alternating current sets up a magnetic field, which induces a changing current in the secondary (Faradays and Lenzs Laws). The number of turns on a transformer is directly proportional to the voltage, therefore if the primary side has more coils than the secondary it is a step-down transformer (for supply to consumer load), conversely if the secondary side has more coils than the primary it is a step-up transformer (for transmission over long distances to reduce losses). The primary end of the transformer, for the purposes of this report, will be taken to be the high voltage (HV) and supply side; the secondary will be considered the low voltage and load side (LV). Any net current will be given with this sign convention.
11 | P a g e
2012
An ideal transformer, as in Figure 2 below, has no losses or eddy currents in the windings.
Figure 2: Ideal transformer
The figure shows two windings, the primary connected to a high voltage source producing an alternating flux in the iron core, which is dependent on the voltage, frequency and number of turns. The magnetic core links the windings of the secondary side and induces a voltage in it depending on the number of turns in the secondary winding. For an ideal transformer the number of turns on the primary (NP) and primary voltage (VP) is related to the number of turns on the secondary (NS) and the voltage on the secondary (VS) by Equation 1.
Equation 1
4.1.2 Transformers on the NI Network The NI power system transforms voltages from 275:110kV and 110:33kV on the transmission network, and 33:11kV, 33:11:6.6kV and 11:6.6kV on the distribution network. For the purpose of this report the transmission network will be looked at in detail. Table 1 shows the number of different transformer makes on the transmission system in NI.
12 | P a g e
2012
Transformer Type
No on NI Transmission System
EBG Ferranti Siemens Bonar Long GEC Fuller Schneider Hawker Siddley Brush Yorkshire
24 20 12 8 5 4 3 3 3 1
Table 1: Types of transformers on the NI network
A complete list of the types of transformers on the transmission network and their ratings is contained in Appendix A. Manufacturers depict that the average life time of a transformer is based on net load flow, thermal ageing, increased loads, and external environmental constraints. Many DNOs are concerned that their assets are reaching the limit of their lifetime in the near future. However, previous work by Queens University in conjunction with NIE [10] looked at the impact of EG on transformer lifetime and maintenance programmes. The main findings were that if a transformer is assessed regularly and thoroughly during its maintenance tests, its ageing process may be controlled and its life extended. Design life of a transformer is approximately 25 years if it is operated at unity loading, however lighter loading (half loading at Omagh Main) could potentially increases life time to 40 years. However, when the transformer faces higher load and increased wind penetration, increased ageing occurs.
4.2 Reactive Power Management

The presence of EG machines on a network, supplying active power to the system, naturally drives the voltage up, while reactive power consumption pulls it down. The voltage change (V), given finite values of real and reactive power (P and Q), on a lightly loaded network is approximated by Equation 2 below. 13 | P a g e
2012
Equation 2
The complex power seen by the line is shown in Equation 3 [12] below.
Equation 3
And the per unit voltage rise is then given by Equation 4 below.
Equation 4
From Equations 3 and 4, it is clear that, if the power flow in a system is predominantly due to EG, and say, synchronous generators are operated at constant power factor, there will inevitably be a voltage excursion from the nominal limit. This is attributed to the fact that the machine will try to export reactive power in the same quantity as active power. Traditionally, transmission lines have very low resistance, R, to reduce losses over long transmission distances. Hence the inductive reactance, X, when compared with R is very large, resulting in a high X/R ratio. In this case, as per Equations 2 and 4, production of reactive power quickly drives the node voltage above the statutory limit. Conversely, in distribution networks the resistance is not negligible and the X/R ratio of the line is low, thus the reactive power flow has less effect on voltage control. Ultimately, this work will aim at better controlling reactive power flow in to Omagh Main to provide a means of better voltage support, thus depending less on other mechanical equipment, such as tap changers, which are subject to rapid ageing if operated more often than normal.
4.3 Transformer Tap Changers

Transformers require automatic tap changers for a number of reasons: To compensate for changes in voltage of bulk supply transformers To compensate for regulation within the transformer and maintain a constant output voltage To assist in the control of reactive power flows in the system on generator and interbus transformers 14 | P a g e
2012
To compensate for factors not accurately known at the time of planning an electrical system To allow for future changes in system conditions
A tap changer achieves these by changing the turns ratio of the transformer, allowing a certain number of turns to be selected on one of the windings (typically the primary end of a 110:33kV transformer). Transmission System Operators (TSO) and Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) have an obligation to supply voltage within statutory limits to their customers. Tap changers offer variable, automatic control to keep voltages within these limits [13]. There are a number of different types of tap changer, as discussed below. 4.3.1 De-energised Tap Changers (DETC) A DETC, employed on the primary winding, is rarely changed since the high voltage (HV) tap will match long term voltage profiles. In a DETC, different tap positions are at different voltages and the switch over between the two must be done during power down of the device. If the connections between the taps were changed over simultaneously, this would short circuit a number of turns in the winding and create a large circulating current. However, in many applications a loss of supply cannot be tolerated. The DETCs are usually set on installation and may be changed later during an outage to take in to account long term changes in the voltage profile of the network [14]. 4.3.2 On-load Tap Changers (OLTC) OLTCs were introduced to transformers in the 1920s as an instrument to change, under load, the turns ratio to control the voltage level, the reactive, and active power in an electrical system. Without OLTC transformers these parameters could only be controlled at the generating plant or by supply interruptions (DETCs) [15]. For cases where supply interruption is not viable on the transmission network, an OLTC, installed on the primary star-side of the transformer, is employed. The OLTC may change tap positions multiple times a day, without interrupting power delivery to the network. They require a mechanism which will meet the following two conditions: The load current must not be interrupted during a tap change No section of the transformer winding may be short-circuited during a tap change 15 | P a g e
2012
For the purpose of this report only OLTCs will be considered, since varying voltage profiles and changing reactive power flows on the network cause their multiple operation resulting in quicker ageing of the plant and the need for more regular maintenance procedures. There are several types of OLTCs such as mechanical, thyristor-assisted and solid state thyristor tap changers. Resistor-Mechanical On-load Tap Changers A mechanical tap changer physically makes the connection on the next tap before releasing the last using several tap selector switches. In the 1980s it was recognised that resistor type tap changers were more reliable than reactor types (discussed later) since they have the advantage of longer contact life, due to the relatively short arcing time associated with unity power factor switching. The introduction of copper-tungsten alloy arcing tip contacts has brought about a substantial improvement in contact life over its earlier models. Long contact life is also associated with short arcing time, and breaking at the first current zero is now commonplace. The short arcing demonstrated by high-speed resistor transition also greatly improves the life of the insulating oil. The oil around the arcing contacts becomes contaminated with the carbon produced during the tap change sequence [16]. After several thousands of tap change sequences, the oil degrades, containing a high carbon content and must be replaced during the maintenance procedure. The switch contacts will also deteriorate and become noticeably ridged on inspection, these too may require replacing during maintenance. The tap change operation is demonstrated in Figure 3 below.
16 | P a g e
2012
Figure 3: Tap-change sequence [14]
The tap change starts at tap position 2. Load is supplied through the right hand side through diverter resistor A, which is short-circuited while B is unused. In moving from tap 2 to 3 i.e. tapping up, the following sequence of events occurs: Tap selector 3 closes while off-load Rotary switch turns breaking connection with resistor A and making connection with resistor B Load supplied from A and B momentarily until load is supplied by diverter B only Diverter B is shorted and load is supplied from the left hand side while A is unused Tap selector 2 opens while off-load
The sequence carries on through successive switches until the desired voltage is obtained, and in reverse to tap down to lower the voltage. Large short-circuit currents are avoided by employing a diverter switch, which temporarily involves a large impedance, either short term rated resistive or fully rated reactive, in series with the short-circuited turns. The tap changer with reactive impedance uses slow moving switching while resistive impedance uses high speed switching, and hence is more popular. Powerful springs tension the diverter switch using a motor and quickly release to perform the tap change. The springs ensure that the tap change is completed even if the charging motor were to fail as the spring mechanism over-toggles. Arcing is inevitable but is reduced by insulation in the form of oil or Sulphur Hexaflouride (SF6) gas [14].
17 | P a g e
2012
Reactor-Mechanical On-load Tap Changers Reactor type tap changers has the advantage of being left in circuit between taps, resulting in twice as many working tap positions where a greater range of voltages is required. Vacuum switches are often employed to help reduce contact wear and improve contact life, but there are safety concerns with the major strip down maintenance of these vacuum tap changers, which have caused several deaths around the world. Whenever vacuum switches are used the problem of protection against loss of vacuum must be considered. Several methods are available for maintaining and checking the vacuum, they all guarantee that if the gap breaks down, a relay ensures the next tap change takes place [16]. Thyristor-assisted OLTCs Thyristor-assisted OLTCs use thyristors instead of diverter resistors to carry the on-load current while the contacts change over between taps. The downside of these OLTCs is they are more complex than mechanical tap changers and require a (small) power supply, making them more expensive [14]. Development of these devices stopped in the late 1990s, however they are reappearing due to EG. Solid State Thyristor OLTCs Solid state thyristor OLTCs are small and light devices which use thyristors to switch the load current and act as a medium for the load current in steady state. The drawback with this type of device is that all the thyristors not connected to tap positions will still dissipate power since they have a small leakage current, which is cumulative and so the extra heat has to be removed from the tap changer, reducing overall transformer efficiency. These types of devices have smaller short circuit tolerance and so are only used in low power transformers [14]. 4.3.4 Tap Changers in NI There are currently nine types of tap changer on the NI transmission system supplied by six different manufacturers as in Table 2 (a comprehensive list is contained in Appendix A). All of which are mechanical OLTCs.
18 | P a g e
2012
Tap Changer Manufacturer
Tap Changer Model
Number on NI Transmission System
Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen
MR-M.111.600Y-72.5/B-10191G MR-M.111.500Y-72.5/C-10191G MR-V.111.350Y-60-10191G
21 8 6 15 9 6 3 13 7 1 1
Ferranti
FC4 FC6 FL120
Hawker Siddley
HS.315.33/300.DNL1 HS.319.66/600.A.380.L3
AFI GEC Alstom Brusk
HF13EFE AMD.319.33/600.G5NCF3 BSD.3.21P.66.400
Table 2: Types of tap changers on the NI transmission system
The most common is the Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen (MR) MR600Y-72.5/B-10191G which is installed at twenty one sites across NI, including Omagh Main. All NIEs tap changers at transmission level are oil filled. Other UK DNOs have employed vacu-taps, but there have been a number of reported failures across the world and deaths related to the removal and strip-down maintenance of these devices. It is for this reason that NIE are reluctant to install any vacuum insulated reactor type tap changers as of yet. Omagh Main Since Omagh Main is integral to the connection of fifteen of NIs wind farms, interconnecting 31% of NIs total wind generation [17], the report will focus on this substation. Recently, the transformers and tap changers at this site have been replaced to cope with increased wind generation, and the subsequent current capacity anticipated in future years, as shown in Table 3 below.
19 | P a g e
2012
Site
Date of installation/ removal
Type of Transformer
Type of Tap Changer
Tap Changer Controller
Omagh Main (OLD) Omagh Main (NEW)
Tx 1-12/08/11 Tx 2-30/06/11 Tx 1-11/07/11 Tx 2-23/05/11
EBG 45/60 MVA
MR-M.111.500Y-72.5/C-10191G
SuperTapp
Siemens 63/90 MVA
MR-M.111.600Y-72.5/B-10191G
SuperTapp n+
Table 3: Types of transformers and tap changers at Omagh Main (old and new)
The plant was replaced from EBG 45/60MVA transformers and MR SuperTapp tap changers to Siemens 63/90 MVA transformers and MR SuperTapp n+ tap changers purely to uprate the network in an otherwise bottle-neck area. 63MVA signifies the nominal MVA rating, while 90MVA is the increased capacity the transformer is capable of when forced cooling, such as fans, are employed. Transformer Automatic Paralleling Package (TAPP) refers to transformers operating in parallel. Several control methods prevent large circulating currents, like transformer paralleling and operating in Master-Follower, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 7.6. Previous work [10] concluded that the transformers at Omagh Main were only loaded to 50% of their maximum capacity. This is due to Omagh Main being a critical point in the network and the requirement of having a contingency plan in the event of the loss of one of the transformers. In the case of a fault or planned maintenance, when one transformer is out of service (OOS) the other transformer must be able to support the entire load of the substation. The extra capacity supplied by the new transformers (an additional 18/30MVA) allows NIE to increase the loading of the substation, while still only part-loading each transformer up to a maximum of 50%. The suppliers of the SuperTapp n+ tap changer controllers (Fundamentals Ltd.) claim that the new control algorithm in the SuperTapp n+ allows better control over local reactive power flow, thus reducing the number of taps per year at sites where they are installed [18]. Section 7.6 compares the old and present tap operations for given net load flow.
20 | P a g e
2012
For a system with large amounts of EG, typically wind in NI, there are two extreme cases: 1. Low generation, high load 2. High generation, low load In both situations the power flow through the transformer is high. The number of tap changes is related to the amount of reactive power flowing in the transformer. In substations such as Omagh Main, where there is a lot of wind generation connected, it is therefore anticipated that the transformer tap changers could be operating more regularly than that which is normal for a transmission transformer elsewhere in the network. These tap changers could be subject to excessive wear of the contacts. The main objective of this paper is to better inform NIE on how to minimize the number of tap operations performed by the transformers at Omagh Main, by better controlling the reactive power flow through them. Hence increasing their period of maintenance and reducing the cost of asset management.
4.4 Asset Management

4.4.1 Tap Changer Lifetime Building on previous research [10], which discussed the life time of transformers, NIE require to know what the impact EG has on the life time of tap changers at Omagh Main. The expected lifetime of a transmission tap changer is one million taps under purely resistive type loadings, which is unsual of the NI network with high EG connections. It is therefore expected that the lifetime of a tap changer is considerably less than one million taps. Figure 4 shows a graph of the expected life time of a typical MR tap changer for given long term maximum current values.
21 | P a g e
2012
Number of Tap Changer Operations x 1000

600 500 Number of Tap Changer Operations x 1000 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Max Primary Current / Amps
Figure 4: Tap changer life time curve [19]
The curve in Figure 4 is based on equal tapping across all tap positions. Resulting in taps
The manufacturer recommends routine maintenance programmes every six years, major strip down maintenance at 500,000 taps, and regular inspections carried out in the interim period. NIE currently perform maintenance checks every three years, which could, arguably be deemed over conservative. NIE would like to know if they could, in fact, relax the maintenance programmes to six years, with visual inspections and oil samples every year, and so save money on maintenance programmes. To become operational practice, a tighter eye on tap changers would be required, and a Cost Risk Optimization (CRO) study is essential. The cost of a tap changer maintenance programme is contained in Section 11.0. 4.4.2 Maintenance Programmes Transformers are one of the most expensive pieces of equipment used in a power system. Their failure can be quite damaging to the rest of the electricity network and hence the economy of a country. Failures across the world have been attributed to faulty internal windings, faulty on-load tap changers, failed winding accessories and bushings. Hence the
22 | P a g e
2012
maintenance and upkeep of both transformers and tap changers is crucial to prevent equipment failure. At present, the only way to determine whether maintenance is required on an OLTC is to perform an oil sample test or take the transformer out of service to allow for the opening of the OLTC to perform an inspection. Since the diverter switches and tap selectors are the internal moving parts of a tap changer, they require regular maintenance. The regularity of maintenance to an OLTC is dependent on the condition of the diverter switch and motor drive unit, which powers the tension springs in the switch. NIE follow maintenance schedules on how often transformer and tap changer maintenance should be carried out to prevent failure, different tests are programmed for every year or up to every three years. It is commonly assumed that transformers in areas with much wind generation connected that the tap change sequence may be more frequent than normal and maintenance may be required before the due date. Yearly oil samples would allow a closer eye to be kept on the condition of the tap changer, perhaps allowing the routine maintenances to be relaxed to six years, instead of three. In general the following should be carried out during tap changer maintenance: Record number of taps on tap changer counter, from Figure 5
Tap Position
Tap Counter
Figure 5: Tap counter
23 | P a g e
2012
Recover and sample old oil Replace contacts if they are ridged from overuse, as shown in Figure 6
Ridged Contact
Figure 6: Ridged contact
Check resistors for continuity Test function of relays, interlocks, limit switches and remote operation switch Inspect drive shafts and gearboxes for radial and axial wear Clean off any carbon deposits and refill with clean, dry oil Check motor operation Clean and inspect motor and control wiring/contacts
5.0 Engineering Heuristics

A number of study assumptions were required in the compilation of this research. These were primarily used in the preparation of data for statistical manipulation, as well as those made when simulating the Omagh Main network on the DIgSILENT software package.
5.1 Data Manipulation

Data from Omagh Main substation between the dates, 20/11/10-20/11/11, was retrieved from NIEs Pi Historian database in thirty minute intervals, for ease of manipulation.
24 | P a g e
2012
For some studies it was necessary to break the data down further in to seasonal components. The seasons, as determined by NIE from the Engineering Recommendation P27 [20] are illustrated in Table 4.
Season Winter Spring Summer Autumn Dates 01/12/10-28/02/11 01/03/11-31/05/11 01/06/11-31/08/11 01/09/11-20/11/11
Table 4: Seasons and dates
Table 3 in Section 4.3.4 showed details of the types of transformers and tap-changers in Omagh Main before and after the replacement took place. Table 5 below shows the dates these transformers were switched out.
Description Tx 1 (old) Tx 1 (new) Tx 2 (old) Tx 2 (new) Date of Removal/Installation 11/06/11 12/08/11 23/05/11 30/06/11
Table 5: Dates of removal/installation of Txs and TCs
For these dates, where the transformers were being replaced with higher capacity versions, there are large portions of data missing. In order to make the data usable, a number of missing data points had to be removed or changed. A short Matlab code, contained in Appendix B.1, was written to fill in the gaps in the data. The code locates all data points labeled as not-a-number (NaN), due to bad data and fills them in with the previous data point. It continues to fill in most bad data, however, for periods of extended missing data, the programme could not fill them all in and so left zeros, as was the case for the dates in Table 5.
5.2 Assumptions in Statistical Analysis

Analysis of historical tap operations showed that there is no set voltage threshold that determines when a tap changer transfers from one tap to the next, instead it is based on the relay settings and has a number of variables including present system voltage, current flow and direction, load and generation connected at that instant. It was therefore sensible to
25 | P a g e
2012
assume a tap up and tap down threshold of 0.2% of the nominal based on the prevalence of these percentages in the studies contained in Section 7.2.
5.3 Assumptions in Power Flow Studies

5.3.1 Usable Data Real-time historical data inputted in the form of .CSV files was for 14/08/11-31/10/11, simply because this was the greatest section of complete data available for both the substations loads and wind farm output. An error with downloading the wind farm data at SONI revealed that data was missing from the 26th day of each month until the end of the month. This was rectified by using Pi current data, available from NIE and converting it to MW values for the missing dates. 5.3.2 Wind Power Wind power was modeled at the wind farms based on current values obtained from SONI and manipulated to give a MW reading based Equation 2 below.
Equation 5
Therefore for each MW of wind power there is 17.5A of current, it follows that by dividing each current value by 17.5 that would give a value for the power at any point in time. Since it is central to the direction of this research and wind farm owners are under no obligation to control reactive power, the reactive power at the wind farms was controlled by altering the power factor of the machines and by adding in shunt capacitors at strategic points in the network. 5.3.3 Data Sheets Transformer information, detail on the length of overhead lines along with their resistance and reactance were taken as per data sheets supplied from NIE and inputted in to DIgSILENT.
26 | P a g e
2012
5.3.4 Omagh Main Model (DIgSILENT) It was necessary in DIgSILENT to model wind farms as one turbine at each site. Also, wind farms 14 and 15 were modeled as one entity since they are in the same location at 20.4km away from Omagh Main. This may not be truly representative of the network at Omagh Main but it was essential in creating an overall picture and to focus on the main issues of voltage regulation. 5.3.5 Omagh Main Model (PSS/E) As in the DIgSILENT model, each wind farm was grouped as one generator, and wind farms 14 and 15 are modeled as one entity due to their location and connection to the same bus bar. NIEs Omagh Main model and python code [21] were adapted and used to pull in real time data of loads and wind farms. The simulations assume that power factor can be controlled at the wind farms, although no cost strategy is in place to incentivize such a scheme. Converse to previous work, load will be taken to vary in real time based on historical data. The transformers at Omagh are set to automatically tap change; simulations will be run in order to reduce the number of tap operations. The tap threshold will be approximated as 0.2p.u. which is worked out from the Equations 5 and 6 below.
Equation 6 Equation 7
This assumes that the nominal tap position lies half way between 1 and 19 i.e. tap 9, when in fact it lies at tap position 7. Adjustments will be made in the results files to accommodate for this. A separate Matlab code will be utilized to work out the tap count for each change simulation, as per Appendix B.4.
27 | P a g e
2012
6.0 Load Flow at Omagh Main

Omagh Main is atypical of most other substations on the NI network due to its large percentage of wind generation connections and its critical position in the interconnection of the West to the East. Traditional distribution substations typically receive large amounts of conventional generation to feed in to bulk supply transformers for distribution across the system, with limited or no reverse power flows, as shown in Figure 8 below. Due to this relatively stable load profile, the transformer tap changer operates minimally, limiting the duty on the mechanical switches and hence reducing the wear on the contacts.
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
Figure 7: Load profile for a traditional substation
However, the load profile of Omagh Main is constantly changing. Regardless of the direction of net current flow, whether it is from conventional generation supplying the 110kV primary winding of the transformer, or whether it is from wind farms feeding in to the 33kV secondary winding, the transformer tap changer adjust the voltage level of the transformer to match demand and account for wind generation. Due to the variable nature of wind, this often results in multiple tap operations of the transformers at Omagh Main. Figure 9 below shows the load profile for Omagh Main.
28 | P a g e
2012
1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 0
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
Figure 8: Load profile of two transformers for a week in Omagh Main
6.1 Loading of Omagh Main

Historical current values were obtained for the 33kV sides of both transformers before and after replacement. Previously only 33kV currents and voltages were monitored by NIE, but since the replacements have been carried out, both 110kV and 33kV sides are monitored. For the purpose of this report, the most complete set of data is the currents that were taken from the 33kV secondary winding. Figure 10 shows the current flow through transformer 1 and 2.
Figure 9: Graph to compare current flowing in Tx1 and Tx2
29 | P a g e
2012
The zero readings for both transformers for a period roughly a month each from June to August, where caused by the code being unable to fill in any more data points from previous values. The net current on the 33kV side of transformer 2 was typically higher than transformer 1 until both transformers were changed, where the opposite was then true. This may have been due to a change in the supply points of some customers and the reconfiguration of the network. It has been proposed by NIE that one of the two transformers at Omagh Main be used solely for wind farm connections, the benefit of which is yet to be seen.
6.2 Loading Factor k

The factor k is a ratio of the load current to rated current of the system at a given time, and is given by Equation 5 below.
Equation 8
The transformers at Omagh Main are only loaded to half of their maximum capacity, due to the critical positioning of the substation in the overall network, and the provision for contingencies such as plant failure or planned maintenance on one of the circuits, whereby one transformer may be required to take the entire load of the substation, causing the worst case highest current points. It is proposed by the Renewables Integration and Development Plan (RIDP), forwarded by NIE to meet 2020 targets, that a third transformer will be introduced to the site to help cope with increasing wind penetration. 6.2.1 Transformer 1 Transformer 1 was removed on 11th June 2011 and its replacement was back in service on 12th August 2011, resulting in a large gap in the data not able to be filled in by recursive methods in July and August. Figure 11 below shows the graph of the factor k over the period of a year. Prior to the gap in the data on the graph, where the old transformer was fitted, the rated current of the
30 | P a g e
2012
transformer was 700A, and after the gap, when the new transformer was employed the new transformers allowed an up-rating to 1100A. The factor k reflects this change in rated current.
Figure 10: Graph to show factor k for Tx1
This graph confirms that, for the majority of the time, the transformer was loaded to half of its maximum current rating. However, the period before the gap where transformer 2 was changed, resulted in a month where the factor k was approximately 1, meaning it was carrying the full load of the substation. The highest currents all year, denoted by a factor k equal to 1.3, were experienced during this time. Section 6.3.1 will discuss this event in more detail. 6.2.2 Transformer 2 Figure 12 below shows the graph of the factor k over the period of a year. Transformer 2 was removed on 23rd May 2011 and its replacement was back in service on 30th June 2011. Prior to the gap in the data on the graph, the rated current of the transformer was 700A and after the gap the new transformers allowed an up-rating to 1100A.
31 | P a g e
2012
Figure 11: Graph to show k factor for Tx2
This graph doesnt exactly confirm that transformer 2 was loaded to half of its maximum capacity for the majority of the time before replacement. It was noted earlier that transformer 2 had more load connected than transformer 1, which may explain why this is the case. In the case of a contingency to avoid load shed NIE would arrange some network reconfiguration to prevent the remaining transformer carrying more than its rated capacity. However, the period before the gap where transformer 1 was changed, resulted in a month where the factor k was approximately 1, meaning it was fully loaded. The highest currents all year, denoted by a factor k equal to 1.45, were experienced during this time. Section 6.3.2 will discuss this event in more detail.
6.3 Maximum Current

6.3.1 Transformer 1 A maximum current of 917A, for the year concerned, on transformer 1 occurred on 24th May 2011 at 10:00. Replacement was carried out to remove the 110kV bus bars between the 110kV mesh and the old transformer 2 causing it to be off loaded for this time, as part of the overall renovation of the site. Figure 13 below shows a graph of the day before and after the highest current on transformer 1 and the relative real power imported and exported, along with the reactive power imported at that time.
32 | P a g e
2012
Day before and after highest current on Tx1 (24th May 2011 10:00)
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
23-May-11 13:00:00 23-May-11 14:30:00 23-May-11 16:00:00 23-May-11 17:30:00 23-May-11 19:00:00 23-May-11 20:30:00 23-May-11 22:00:00 23-May-11 23:30:00 24-May-11 01:00:00 24-May-11 02:30:00 24-May-11 04:00:00 24-May-11 05:30:00 24-May-11 07:00:00 24-May-11 08:30:00 24-May-11 10:00:00 24-May-11 11:30:00 24-May-11 13:00:00 24-May-11 14:30:00 24-May-11 16:00:00 24-May-11 17:30:00 24-May-11 19:00:00 24-May-11 20:30:00 24-May-11 22:00:00 24-May-11 23:30:00 25-May-11 01:00:00 25-May-11 02:30:00 25-May-11 04:00:00 25-May-11 05:30:00 25-May-11 07:00:00 25-May-11 08:30:00 25-May-11 10:00:00
tx1 mw imported tx1 mw exported tx1 mvar imported
Figure 12: Graph to show the day before and after the max current experienced by Tx1 on 24/05/11 at 10:00
The graph shows that during maximum current, at 10:00 on 24th May, the real power exported reached a maximum soon after, to feed the demand on the circuit at this time, while the real power imported was at a minimum. The reactive power imported followed a similar trend to the real power exported, which is to be expected since reactive voltage support is required to prop up the voltage at the sending end of a circuit, when the load on the system is particularly high. For this day, Figure 14 below shows the total wind generation in MW connected to Omagh Main.
33 | P a g e
2012
Total Wind Generation/MW through Omagh Main 23/05/11-25/05/11 at time of Max Current on Tx1
70 Total Wind Generation/MW 60 50 40 30 20 10
22:30:00
14:30:00 16:30:00 18:30:00 20:30:00 22:30:00 00:30:00 02:30:00 04:30:00 06:30:00 08:30:00 10:30:00 12:30:00 14:30:00 16:30:00 18:30:00 20:30:00 00:30:00 02:30:00 04:30:00 06:30:00 08:30:00 10:30:00
Time
Figure 13: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 23/05/11-25/05/11
Figure 14 shows that at 11:00 on 23/05/11 the wind generation was typically average, suggesting that this was not to blame for the high currents on the system. The weather for this day was collected from the Davis weather station at Omagh Main as part of the Dynamic Line Ratings (DLR) project to determine if the ambient temperature might have had an effect on the high currents, since cool temperatures encourage customers to turn on heating etc. Figure 15 below shows the ambient temperature for this time. Ambient Temperature for 23/05/11-25/05/11 (time of max current on Tx1)
14 Ambient Temperature /deg C 12 10 8 6 4 2
13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00
Time
34 | P a g e
2012
Figure 14: Ambient temperature for 23/05/11-25/05/11
As per Table 4 previously, the Engineering Recommendation (ER) P27 [20], which is used to statically rate overhead lines based on weather conditions uses a spring operating temperature of approximately 9C. Comparing this standard for typical seasonal ambient temperatures it can be concluded that the ambient temperature during the highest current experienced by transformer 1 was fairly typical of the season at 12C. Therefore the excess customer load attributed to an increased demand in heating is not likely. It can therefore be concluded, with the wind generation and ambient conditions being typical of the seasonal variations, that the main cause of Omagh Main transformer 1 experiencing such a high current is because of transformer 2 being switched OOS for replacement. 6.3.2 Transformer 2 The maximum current on transformer 2 occurred on 13th September 2011 at 13:00. During this time transformer 1 was off loaded to allow the replacement of the winding temperature indicators, which had faulted after the new transformer was installed. Figure 16 below shows a graph of the day before and after the highest current on transformer 2 and the relative real power imported and exported, along with the reactive power imported at that time.
35 | P a g e
2012
Day before and after highest current on Tx2 (13th Sept 2011 13:00)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
12-Sep-11 13:00:00 12-Sep-11 14:30:00 12-Sep-11 16:00:00 12-Sep-11 17:30:00 12-Sep-11 19:00:00 12-Sep-11 20:30:00 12-Sep-11 22:00:00 12-Sep-11 23:30:00 13-Sep-11 01:00:00 13-Sep-11 02:30:00 13-Sep-11 04:00:00 13-Sep-11 05:30:00 13-Sep-11 07:00:00 13-Sep-11 08:30:00 13-Sep-11 10:00:00 13-Sep-11 11:30:00 13-Sep-11 13:00:00 13-Sep-11 14:30:00 13-Sep-11 16:00:00 13-Sep-11 17:30:00 13-Sep-11 19:00:00 13-Sep-11 20:30:00 13-Sep-11 22:00:00 13-Sep-11 23:30:00 14-Sep-11 01:00:00 14-Sep-11 02:30:00 14-Sep-11 04:00:00 14-Sep-11 05:30:00 14-Sep-11 07:00:00 14-Sep-11 08:30:00 14-Sep-11 10:00:00 14-Sep-11 11:30:00 14-Sep-11 13:00:00
tx2 mw imported tx2 mw exp tx2 mvar imported
Figure 15: Graph to show the day before and after the max current experienced by Tx2 on 13/09/11 at 13:00
The graph shows that during maximum current, at 13:00 on 13th September, the real power exported reached a maximum at the same time, to meet the demand on the circuit, while the real power imported was at a minimum. Again, the reactive power imported followed a similar trend to the real power exported. For this day, Figure 17 below shows the total wind generation in MW connected to Omagh Main.
36 | P a g e
2012
Total Wind Generation/MW through Omagh Main 12/09/11-14/09/11 at time of Max Current on Tx2
Total Wind Generation/MW 120 100 80 60 40 20
03:00
05:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
21:00
23:00
01:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
21:00
23:00
01:00
03:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
Time
Figure 16: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 12/09/11-14/09/11
Figure 17 shows that at 13:00 on 13/09/11 the wind generation connected through Omagh Main was fairly high, suggesting that it may have contributed to the high currents on transformer 2, while transformer 1 was OOS. The weather for this day at Omagh Main was also collected; the results are shown in Figure 18 below. Ambient Temperature for 12/09/11-14/09/11 (Time of Max Current for Tx2)
16 Ambient Temperature /deg C 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 13:00 14:40 16:20 18:00 19:40 21:20 23:00 00:40 02:20 04:00 05:40 07:20 09:00 10:40 12:20 14:00 15:40 17:20 19:00 20:40 22:20 00:00 01:40 03:20 05:00 06:40 08:20 10:00 11:40 Time
Figure 17: Ambient temperature for 12/09/11-14/09/11
37 | P a g e
13:00
2012
ER P27 [20] recommends an autumn operating temperature of approximately 9C. Comparing this typical temperature to Figure 18 it can be concluded that the ambient temperature during the highest current experienced by transformer 2 was fairly typical of the season at 12C. It can therefore be concluded that the main causes of the high currents on transformer 2 on this day can be attributed to the typically higher than normal levels of wind generation and Omagh Main transformer 1 being OOS for maintenance.
7.0 Tap Changer Operation

A main objective of the work was to understand how and when the tap changers at Omagh Main operated. The graph in Figure 19 below demonstrates how a rise in tap position at 06:00, when the voltage decreased as the load increased, helped to prop the voltage up at the substation to meet demand. Similarly, the tap changer tapped down when the upper voltage threshold was met in order to help maintain system voltage at the nominal value. Voltage Profile for 33kV Side of Tx1 with Associated Tap Position for 22nd November 2010
34.6
Voltage on 33kV side of Tx1in kV
9 8 7 6 5 Tap Position
34.4 34.2 34 33.8 33.6 33.4 33.2 33
Voltage Tap Position
Time
Figure 18: Voltage profile of 33kV side of Tx1 and associated tap position for 22/11/10
38 | P a g e
2012
7.1 Depression Ratings

The transformer tap changer, located on the primary side of the transformer, sits at a nominal voltage of 110kV in Omagh Main at tap position seven. The off-load depression ratings are contained in Table 6 below. These values signify the primary voltage required to prop up the secondary voltage to 33kV, for example if the primary voltage was depressed to 88kV, it would require the tap changer at tap position 19 to pull the secondary voltage back up to 33kV, conversely, if the primary voltage swelled to 121kV, then tap position 1 would be required to pull the secondary back down to 33kV to meet statutory voltage regulation limits for the customers connected to the circuit. Each step above or below tap seven is 1.67% of the nominal voltage, equating to a transformer with a variable voltage in the range of 88121kV, which is +10% and -20% of the nominal.
Tap Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Primary Voltage, V 121,000 119,167 117,333 115,500 113,667 111,833 110,000 108,167 106,333 104,500 102,667 100,833 99,000 97,166 95,333 93,500 91,666 89,833 88,000
Table 6: Depression ratings of Omagh Main 110:33kV transformers
7.2 Voltage Thresholds for Tapping

The voltage thresholds that cause a tap operation under load are known to be controlled by a signal to tap up or tap down, which is sent from the voltage control relay in the protection room at the substation. This relay takes into account the rating and impedance of the
39 | P a g e
2012
transformer, plus the length of any circuits connected to the substation, to ensure that the transformer output voltage is always within statutory limits. To better understand the conditions under which a tap changer taps, a section of code contained in Appendix B.2 was written to interrogate the historical data of Omagh Main, and determine what happened the current and voltage before and after the tap operation. In particular, for every tap operation, up and down, from each tap position, 1 to 19; values were correlated to determine if there was a pattern. Rather surprisingly, there was no given percentage drop or rise in voltage that causes a tap operation. Table 7 below shows the results from this study for the tap up operations of transformer 2.
Tap Operation Average Voltage Before Tap Change/ kV 56 67 78 89 33.46288 33.51618 33.54106 33.5184 Average Voltage After Tap Change/ kV 33.555 33.516 33.59008 33.59008 0.092125 -0.00018 0.049021 0.071675 0.275 -0.0005 0.0146 0.2138 Threshold/ kV Threshold/ %
Table 7: Voltage thresholds for transformer 1 tap up operation
It was agreed to assume a rule of thumb threshold of 0.2% of the nominal voltage for tap operations in the models of Omagh Main, further validated by Equations 5 and 6 previously discussed in Section 5.3.5.
7.3 Seasonal Tap Operations

The year-long data was split up to determine the difference between each season. It is well known that each season will experience different loading on the circuits due to ambient conditions, such as temperature, and seasonal wind generation variations, thus voltage fluctuations and hence tap operation will vary throughout the year. It is important to consider the two worst case seasons that is winter and summer. Winter months may experience the worst case high load, low wind generation scenario, and summer is most likely to experience low load and high wind generation.
40 | P a g e
2012
Winter 01/12/10-28/02/11 For winter 2010/11, the old transformers and tap changers were in operation. Figure 20 shows the tap positions for transformers 1 and 2 from 1st December 2010 to 28th February 2011.
Figure 19: Comparison of tap positions for Tx1 and Tx2 for winter 2010/11
It is noticeable that transformer 2 had an average tap position of one above that of transformer 1, suggesting the voltage was higher on transformer 2 and therefore its loading was higher. It is obvious too, that the greatest number of taps occurred in the winter months, where there are typically higher demands on the network and stormy conditions, hence stronger winds, are more prevalent than any other time of the year. Summer 01/06/11-31/08/11 For summer 2011, the old transformers and tap changers were still in operation. Figure 21 shows the tap positions for transformers 1 and 2 from 1st March to 31st August 2011.
41 | P a g e
2012
Figure 20: Comparison of tap positions for Tx1 and Tx2 for summer 2011
Summer 2011 seen transformer 2 coming back in to service on 30th June, any bad data before this point may be ignored. Transformer 1 was switched OOS on 11th July, which accounts for the missing data for one month. The extreme values are characteristic of the routine testing that is undertaken on any new plant on the system.
7.4 Comparison of Tap Operations of Omagh Main Old with a Substation with No Wind Connected
Due to the large amount of wind generation connected at Omagh Main, the frequency of tap operations could be deemed excessive compared with other substations. The code in Appendix B.3 was written to count the number of times each transformer sat at a particular tap position. Six months of data were compared from the old transformers from Omagh Main with those at Newtownards Main for the same period between 20/11/10-24/05/11. The objective was to highlight the difference in frequency of tapping between a site with a lot of wind generation connected and a site with little or no generation connected. Newtownards Main is located between two large housing estates in an area notorious for antisocial behaviour, for this reason NIE redesigned the site to contain busbars indoors. Previously a number of transient faults were experienced from foreign objects entering the substation and shorting out the busbars, causing tripping of circuits and the consequent excessive tapping of the remaining transformers at the site and further down the line. It is for 42 | P a g e
2012
this reason that data was collected after the replacement. The site consists of four transformers, and during the replacement four MR-M.111.500Y-72.5/C-10191G type tap changers, identical to the old transformer tap changers at Omagh Main, were deployed. Comparison between the tap profile for Omagh Main Old and Newtownards Main highlights the effect of wind generation on tap changer duty. Table 8 below shows results from statistical analysis of the tap operations at these two sites. The nominal tap position of the tap changers is tap seven at 110kV, since the tap changer is on the primary side of the transformer.
Tap Position Omagh Old Tx1 Omagh Old Tx2 Newtownards Tx1 Newtownards Tx2 Newtownards Tx3 Newtownards Tx4
4 5 6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 13
Total
0 0 665 2842 2673 2214 426 73 1 1 8895
0 0 7 244 2137 2557 2486 1464 0 0 8895
0 624 3480 2568 244 13 0 0 0 0 6929
0 733 4093 1921 198 0 0 0 0 0 6945
18 6908 1187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8113
26 6779 1242 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8053
Table 8: Comparison of Omagh Main OLD tap operations with Newtownards Main
Appendix B.4 shows the Matlab code that was used to count the number of tap changer operations for each of the transformer tap changers mentioned in Table 8 above. Table 9 and Figure 22 illustrates the results from this study.
Number of Tap Operations Tap up Tap down Total
Omagh OLD Tx 1 447 473 920
Omagh OLD Tx 2 450 463 913
Newtownards Newtownards Newtownards Newtownards Tx 1 Tx 2 Tx 3 Tx 4
1454 1564 3015
1473 1552 3025
527 514 1041
590 544 1134
Table 9: Tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Newtownards
43 | P a g e
2012
Number of Tap Operations

3500 Number of Tap Operations 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Omagh OLD Tx Omagh OLD Tx Newtownards Newtownards Newtownards Newtownards 1 2 Tx 1 Tx 2 Tx 3 Tx 4
Figure 21: Graph to show tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Newtownards
Converse to what was previously anticipated; the data concludes that the old transformer tap changers at Omagh Main operated 70% less frequently than transformers 1 and 2 at Newtownards, and 19% less than transformers 3 and 4, for the six month period. Since the six transformers in question are all of the same type, the main reason for tapping differently can be attributed to the loading and generation at the different sites. The percentage difference of Omagh Main with transformers 3 and 4 is somewhat less than that for transformers 1 and 2 possibly due to the larger load connected to transformers 1 and 2. In conclusion, the tap changers at Omagh Main tapped less frequently than all four tap changers at Newtownards. It is hypothesized that wind generation may offer good reactive voltage support and in fact help regulate the voltage at Omagh Main. Further investigation is required in to the effect of varying load on tap changer operation, this will be addressed later in Section 7.6.
7.5 Comparison of Tap Operation of Omagh Main New with a Substation with No Wind Connected
Three months of data were compared from the new transformers at Omagh Main with that at Newry Main for the period between 12/08/11-20/11/11. The objective was to highlight the
44 | P a g e
2012
difference in frequency of tapping between a site with a lot of wind generation connected and a site with little or no generation connected. Newry Main is located on the outskirts of the city in the south east of the province, with no large scale wind generation connected. The site consists of two transformers, MRM.111.600Y-72.5/C-10191G type tap changers, identical to the new transformer tap changers at Omagh Main. Comparison between the tap profile for Omagh Main New and Newry Main highlighted the effect of wind generation on tap changer duty for even the newest type of tap changer. Table 10 below shows results from statistical analysis of the tap operations at these two sites.
Tap Position Omagh New Tx1 Omagh New Tx2 Newry Main Tx1 Newry Main Tx2
6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Total
51 442 1484 1495 777 483 55 0 0 4787
211 1059 1788 962 611 129 0 13 14 4787
137 1971 1638 445 116 2 0 0 0 4309
748 2279 769 188 16 0 0 0 0 4000
Table 10: Comparison of Omagh Main new tap operations with Newry Main
A version of the code in Appendix B.4 was used to count the number of tap changer operations for each of the transformer tap changers mentioned in Table 10 above. Table 11 and Figure 23 below illustrate the results from this study.
Number of Tap Operations Omagh NEW Tx 1 Tap up Tap down Total 247 243 490 Omagh NEW Tx 2 234 238 472 440 453 893 698 660 1358 Newry Tx 1 Newry Tx 2
Table 11: Tap count comparisons for Omagh NEW and Newry
45 | P a g e
2012
Comparison of Tap Operations in Area of High WG with Area of No WG Connected (similar load)
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Omagh NEW Tx 1
Omagh NEW Tx 2
Newry Tx 1
Newry Tx 2
Figure 22: Graph to show tap count comparisons for Omagh NEW and Newry
The data in Table 11 and Figure 23 concludes that the new transformer tap changers at Omagh Main operated 45% less frequently than transformer 1 and 64% less than transformer 2 at Newry. The results further conclude that Omagh Main, with copious amounts of large scale wind generation connected, will tap less frequently than a substation with no wind generation connected. This is regardless of the type of tap changer, since comparing Omagh Main Old with Newtownards Main yielded the same results. This agrees with the new hypothesis presented by Section 7.4.
7.6 Comparison of Tap Operations of Old and New Omagh Main

The results shown in Section 7.4 and 7.5 were necessary to determine the impact of wind generation on the frequency of tap operations, which turned out converse to what was previously expected. Wind generation in fact has a positive effect on the duty experienced by a tap changer. However, NIE would like to know whether the new type of tap changer employed at Omagh Main is more suited to areas with high wind penetration by determining if it taps less than the old type. Previously, data for a one year period was only available, but this resulted in comparing tap operations for the old and new tap changers over different seasons and for different lengths of 46 | P a g e
2012
time, since the old transformers and associated tap changers were installed for twice as long as the new ones. Further data was downloaded from Pi Historian to give a larger sample size for comparison. Tap operations for 20/11/10-19/02/11, during the time that the old tap changer was installed, was compared with tap operations for 20/11/11-19/02/12, a time when the new tap changers were installed and running for both transformers. The tap profiles are shown in Table 12 below.
Tap Position Freq of tap positions for OLD Tx 1 194 1327 1325 1233 299 32 0 4416 Freq of tap positions for OLD Tx 2 0 14 793 1080 1520 1009 0 4416 Freq of tap positions for NEW Tx 1 21 310 786 1408 745 409 99 3778 Freq of tap positions for NEW Tx 2 146 620 1215 1057 519 210 0 3767
6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Table 12: Table to show frequency of individual tap positions for OLD and NEW Tx1 and Tx2
Table 12 shows that the old transformers operated in parallel, as a Master-Follower pair, meaning each time transformer 1 tapped then transformer 2 had to follow suit. This type of system is often employed to prevent transformers tapping apart in opposite directions, which creates large circulating currents between the two transformers. The new transformers are also in parallel but NIE have suggested that the settings may have changed at the substation to allow some leverage in the difference in tapping, hence the 11 tap operations discrepancy between the two new transformer tap changers. The tap positions never strayed outside positions 6-12. The old transformer 1 previously sat at taps 7-9 for the majority of the time; while, after replacement, it sat at tap 9 mostly. The old transformer 2 previously sat around taps 9-11, but now sits slightly lower around taps 8-9. Figure 24 below shows a histogram of frequency of tap positions for both old and new transformers before replacement.
47 | P a g e
2012
Histogram of Tap Operations for Tx 1 OLD and NEW and Tx 2 OLD and NEW
1600 1400 1200 Frequency 1000 800 600 400 200 0 6 7 (nominal) 8 9 Tap Position 10 11 12 Tx 1 OLD Tx 1 NEW Tx 2 OLD Tx 2 NEW
Figure 23: Histogram of Tap Operations for OLD Tx1 and OLD Tx2
The graph shows a rough Poisson distribution, bell curve trend. Old transformer 2 typically sat at a higher tap position than transformer 1, simply due to the network configuration and loading. After replacement, transformer 2 no longer sits at a higher tap position than transformer 1, presumably due to network reconfiguration after the transformer replacements took place. Table 13 below shows the difference between the tap counts for the old and new transformer tap changers at Omagh Main.
Number of Tap Operations Omagh OLD Tx 1 Tap up Tap down Total 253 266 519 Omagh OLD Tx 2 250 255 505 Omagh NEW Tx 1 311 313 624 Omagh NEW Tx 2 317 321 638
Table 13: Tap count comparisons for Omagh OLD and Omagh NEW
It is indicated from Table 13 that transformers 1 and 2 witnessed an approximate increase in tap changer duty by 17% after replacement. It could be argued that winter of 2010/11 was
48 | P a g e
2012
much colder than 2011/12, resulting in a heavier load connected to the transformers, but this would suggest that the old tap changers would have sat at a higher tap position to compensate for this, but not necessarily tap more frequently. It can be assumed that the old transformers tapped differently to the new ones due to some other variable, namely the different control system employed in the Super Tapp Relay of the tap changer, compared with the new Super Tapp n+ Relay. The manufacturer claims to have incorporated a feature in to the Super Tapp n+ relay of tapping less than its predecessor which would be very desirable, but for the data analysed the converse is true. Further work was required to determine what actually caused the new tap changers to tap more than the old ones, since it is important to reduce tap operations by whatever means necessary to boost the operating life time of the plant. For this reason, Section 7.7 looks at the relative tapping of each transformer (old and new) to determine the correlation with increase in generation and increase in demand.
7.7 Correlation of Wind and Load to Tap Operation

It was important to determine the correlation of wind generation and varying load alike, with the frequency of tap operation. The Matlab code contained in Appendix B.5 was used to extract information contained in Tables 14 and 15 below for the new transformer tap changer 1. The tables show the total wind connected to Omagh Main in MW, and the total load connected in MW consecutively. Appendix C shows the full set of results for transformer 2.
49 | P a g e
2012
Wind Generation/MW
Number of hour Samples in This Range of Wind Generation
Percentage Tapping
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90
129 83 60 43 35 13 10 7 3
1376 901 485 352 229 161 147 88 53
9.4% 9.2% 12.4% 12.2% 15.3% 8.1% 6.8% 7.9% 5.7%
Table 14: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for NEW tap changer 1
Load/ MVA
Number of hour Samples in This Range of Load
Percentage Tapping
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160
0 3 46 69 129 76 55 5
0 37 706 805 1330 583 308 23
0% 8.1% 6.5% 8.6% 9.7% 13.0% 17.9% 21.7%
Table 15: Correlation between load and tap operation for NEW tap changer 1
It can be observed from comparing Tables 14 and 15 that increasing load correlates closer to frequency of tapping. Table 14 shows a percentage rise in tap changer operation up to a value of total wind generation of 50MW in to Omagh Main, it then decreases above this point. This may suggest that the wind farms are supporting the voltage by the regulation of reactive power flow.
50 | P a g e
2012
Table 15 presents an interesting find, that at Omagh Main, the varying load in fact increases the wear on the tap changer more than the wind generation connected. As load increases the percentage tapping value rose significantly. This may mean that the specific type of new tap changer at Omagh Main may be better equipped to control reactive power flow than the old ones, which is in line with what the manufacturer claims is true. To test this theory the same study was performed on the old tap changers to compare the percentage tapping between the old and the new ones. The results are contained in Tables 16 and 17 and Figures 25 and 26.
Wind Generation/MW Number of Tap Operations Number of hour Samples in This Range of Wind Generation 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 166 75 42 39 18 19 16 30 16 1515 630 392 315 181 166 166 208 126 11.0% 11.9% 10.7% 12.4% 9.9% 11.4% 9.6% 14.4% 12.7% Percentage Tapping
Table 16: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for OLD tap changer 1
In summary then, Figure 25 below shows the relative tapping for the old and new transformers due to wind.
51 | P a g e
2012
Percentage Tapping Due to Wind Tx1 OLD and NEW

18.00% 16.00% Percentage Tapping / % 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0 to 10 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Total Wind Generation at Omagh Main / MW 80 to 90 % Tapping Due to Wind NEW Tx % Tapping Due to Wind OLD Tx
Figure 24: Graph to compare the relative tapping for transformers 1 OLD and NEW due to wind
Load/ MVA
Percentage Tapping
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160
11 239 171 10 0 0 0 0
357 1957 1416 60 2 0 0 0
3.1% 12.2% 12.1% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 17: Correlation between load and tap operation for OLD tap changer 1
In summary then, Figure 26 below shows the relative tapping for the old and new transformers due to load.
52 | P a g e
2012
Percentage Tapping Due to Load Tx1 OLD and NEW

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160 Total Load at Omagh Main / MVA
Percentage Tapping / %
% Tapping Due to Load NEW Tx % Tapping due to Load OLD Tx
Figure 25: Graph to compare the relative tapping for transformers 1 OLD and NEW due to load
The results show that when compared with the old tap changers, the percentage tapping of the new tap changers (Tables 14 and 15) is much lower for high wind cases. The tables show that for 80-90MW of wind generation connected, the new tap changers relative tapping was 5.7%, which is in stark contrast to the old tap changers at 12.7%. This may suggest that the new tap changers are more suited to areas of high wind penetration such as Omagh, thus reaffirming the choice NIE have made in this case. This conclusion will be embodied in the Engineering Guidance Note in Section 10.0. However, for the time period analysed for transformer 2, the load never exceed 100MVA so it is not possible to determine the difference in tapping of the two transformers due to increasing load.
7.8 Tap Changer Life Time

Based on the tap changer life time curve in Figure 4 shown previously, it is possible to approximate the life time of the tap changers at Omagh Main. Since the tap changer is positioned on the primary winding of the transformer, the currents from the 110kV-side were derived from the currents monitored on the 33kV-side. Table 18 collates the information required from 14/08/11-20/11/11 to estimate the expected life time of the two new tap changers recently fitted at Omagh Main substation.
53 | P a g e
2012
Transformer
Max Current/ Amps
Average Current/ Amps 116.4904 98.5335
Number of Taps
1 NEW 2 NEW
242.312 228.600
3778 3767
Table 18: Tap changer life time for the new transformers
The table shows data from after both new transformers were brought back in to service after replacement since this demonstrates the most realistic operation of the substation for the autumn period. The maximum current on the HV side of transformer 1 was 242A, while transformer 2 was 229A. From Figure 4 it is possible to determine that the life time of both transformer tap changers. Based on the average currents, both tap changers should last up to 500,000 tap operations before replacement. However the life time curve in Figure 4 is based on maximum current, reducing the life time of tap changer 1 to 220,000 operations, and tap changer 2 to 250,000 operations. By scaling up the recorded tap operations for the three month period discussed it is possible to estimate the yearly tap operations for each tap changer at approximately 15,000. Based on the average currents experienced at the site the tap changer can be expected to last for 33 years, however based on the maximum currents recorded the tap changer associated with transformer 1 can only be expected to last 15 years, and tap changer 2; 17 years. However, carbonization of the oil would still occur, thus requiring maintenance before 15 years expired. However, NIE are concerned with the operational life time of tap changers between maintenance periods. The following two sections will look at ways to reduce the duty on tap changers and hence increase the time between consecutive maintenances. Other UK DNOs use acoustic monitoring of tap changers to assess their operation, often preventing the need for invasive maintenance programmes. It is proposed that NIE comply with this same recommendation, also taking yearly oil samples and performing visual checks on the integrity of the tap changer.
54 | P a g e
2012
8.0 DIgSILENT Simulations

A model of Omagh Main in DIgSILENT was inherited from a previous student [12] and adapted for voltage regulation studies. The aim was to determine the optimal power factor operation of wind farms so as to reduce the participation of the two tap changers at Omagh Main in the flow of reactive power, and thus reduce tap changer operation and subsequent wearing. Initially there were problems with load flow convergence of the model, which have been attributed to the limitations of the software package. DIgSILENT Programming Language (DPL) scripts were attempting to run for approximately three months (14/08/11-31/10/11), but it was later realised that they are limited to only 24 hour periods. The time period of one day is not long enough to determine the optimum flow of reactive power of the system; however three months of iterations of this kind would be needlessly tedious. Despite this, preliminary simulations were run for system normal cases for the first and last days of the three month period discussed and some results were obtained. It was observed during comparison of the model under system normal conditions with what actually happened on a given day, it was obvious that the model was not suitably accurate, despite all lengths being taken to ensure accuracy. At times when the author knew that voltage limits were not exceeded at any part in the network, the DIgSILENT model contradicted this. However, for the purpose of the investigation it was necessary to approach the worst case system configurations, namely: 1. High Load, Low Wind 2. Low Load, High Wind Results from the high load, low wind case for transformer one for 27/10/11 19:30 28/10/11 19:30 are shown in Figure 27 below.
55 | P a g e
2012
Tx1 Voltage and Tap Profile High Load, Low Wind Case
1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0 3 6 9 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Voltage/ p.u.
Tap Position
Voltage pu Tap Position
15
12
18
21
1.5
4.5
7.5
10.5
13.5
16.5
19.5
Hour
Figure 26: DIgSILENT simulation results for transformer 1 during high load and low wind
Results from transformer two was identical to that for transformer one. Figure 27 shows that the tap changer operated fourteen times, when in actual fact it only operated four times in the same 24 hour period according to Pi-Historian data. It was expected that during the converse case, that is, low load and high wind that the tap changer would operate more regularly than in the case described in Figure 27 above to help control reactive power and regulate voltage. However, several iterations of this scenario were run successfully, as per Figure 28 below.
Tx1 Voltage and Tap Profile Low Load, High Wind

1.01 Voltage/ p.u. 1.005 1 0.995 0.99 0.985 8 Tap Position 6 4 2 0
22.5
24
Voltage/ p.u. Tap Position
12
15
18
21
1.5
4.5
7.5
19.5
10.5
13.5
16.5
Hour
Figure 27: DIgSILENT simulation results for transformer 1 during low load and high wind
22.5
24
56 | P a g e
2012
Somehow the software determined that the tap position remained steady at the nominal, which contradicted the real case from which the data was taken, which for the same time period (13/09/11 11:00-14/09/11 11:00) the tap changers at Omagh Main tapped twenty one times. It was quickly evident that DIgSILENT would be unable to perform the depth of detail required in determining the optimum power flow control in and around Omagh Main to an appropriate level of accuracy. Firstly, the time period of one day is not long enough to determine the optimum flow of reactive power and secondly, the model is not suitably accurate, despite all lengths being taken to ensure accuracy. For these reasons the author was obliged to perform simulations on a more realistic model in Power System Simulations for Engineers (PSS/E) software.
9.0 PSS/E Simulations

Power System Simulator for Engineers (PSS/E) was employed as a more reliable and accurate load flow software package. It was used to obtain the optimal reactive power management scheme that wind farms connected to Omagh Main should abide by in order to reduce the duty on the two tap changers at the distribution substation. A number of basic simulations were run on a model of Omagh Main provided by NIE, along with an adapted python script contained in Appendix D, to better understand the room for improvement in this area for the dates 14/08/11-31/10/11. The power factor was changed across each of the wind farms to determine how the best case for reducing the operation of the tap changers at Omagh Main.
9.1 System Normal

An initial system normal study was performed to allow comparison between the present reactive power management schemes employed, with other cases of varying power factor at the wind farms and determine how close NIE are to operating at optimal conditions. Table 19 below shows the tap profile outputted by PSS/E for the system normal case. The outputted tap position from PSS/E corresponds to two positions higher than the real life case, and the tap operations for both transformers are equal due to the ideal nature of the model. In 57 | P a g e
2012
reality there would be a time delay between transformers tapping in parallel, but PSS/E doesnt consider this.
PSS/E Tap Position 8 9 (nominal) 10 11 12 13 14 Corresponding Real Life Tap Position 6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 Total Freq of tap positions for Tx 1 1 516 2151 933 134 41 17 3793 Freq of tap positions for Tx 2 1 516 2151 933 134 41 17 3793
Table 19: PSS/E system normal tap frequency
To validate the model the total tap count for both transformers were compared with the real life case. An adapted version of the code in Appendix B.4 determined the transformers in the PSS/E model tapped 359 times, compared with 247 in real life. While this does not seem like a reasonable accuracy of the model to the actual system, it will still allow the comparison of system normal with changing power factor simulations. NIE would like to know if changing the power factor at the wind farms would likely reduce the number of tap operations at Omagh Main. Further studies were performed as below, keeping in mind that the D-code [2] permits wind farms to operate at -0.95 (lagging/absorbing) to 0.98 (leading/supplying) power factors.
9.2 Changing the Power Factor

The power factor was kept the same at each wind farm for the purpose of the simulations, which were run for the same time period as in Section 9.1. The results are shown in Table 20 below.
58 | P a g e
2012
Power Factor System Normal -0.95 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00
Tap Up Count 181
Tap Down Count 178
Total 359
188 226 186 160 151
187 225 188 161 151
375 451 374 321 302
Table 20: Tap count results from changing power factor using PSS/E
From an academic view point the table shows that the easiest way to reduce the duty on the tap changers is to increase the power factor of the wind farms towards 1, which may reduce the tap operation by up to 16%. If the ideal case of a power factor close to one was introduced, then this would require relaxation of the D-code requirements. However, from an operational validity point of view, bearing in mind the constraints put in place by the D-code, the wind farms in fact probably operate with close to optimal reactive power flow already, without being incentivized to do so. In summary, tap changer operation at Omagh Main may be reduced by changing the power factor at each of the seven wind farms to be closer to one. However, this is not technically nor financially feasible as of yet. With comparisons between the system normal tap count and the optimum power factor tap count, the results validate that it is reasonable to assume that the current system employed is fairly close to ideal.
9.3 Maximum Wind

The twenty four hour period of maximum wind generation experienced was extracted using the Matlab code contained in Appendix B.6. This, along with the corresponding load for the Omagh network was inputted to PSS/E to determine the frequency of tapping. Figure 29 shows the results from the simulation.
59 | P a g e
2012
Voltage p.u. for Max Wind 22/12/11

1.03 1.025 Tap Position Voltage p.u. 1.02 1.015 1.01 1.005 1 8 9 10 11
Voltage p.u. Tap Position
Time
Figure 28: PSS/E results for max wind 22/12/12
The model resulted in the tap changer tapping only twice, when in fact it actually tapped nine times in this twenty four hour period. This could be attributed to the idealistic time constants of the PSS/E model, it doesnt consider the real-time time constraints on network and response times of equipment; for example there will be a delay between the two tap changers changing position. However, the model does indicate that as the voltage rose beyond the threshold, the tap changer tapped down to suppress the voltage, as expected. 9.3.1 Maximum Wind Scaled by Factor Two To account for growth in generation expected by 2015, the twenty four hour period of maximum wind was scaled up by a factor of two, but the model did not reflect any obvious change in results from the standard case, as per Figure 30 below. The tap changer operated twice, the same result as Figure 30.
60 | P a g e
2012
Voltage p.u. for Max Wind Scaled by Factor of 2 for 22/12/11

1.035 1.03 Tap Position Voltage p.u. 1.025 1.02 1.015 1.01 1.005 1 8 9 10 11
Voltage p.u. Tap Position
01:30
00:00
03:00
04:30
06:00
07:30
09:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
Time
Figure 29: PSS/E results for max wind scaled by factor 2 22/12/11
This too, can only be explained by the idealist nature of the model, and of course the wind generation is continuously high for this period; it does not change much. Further work may highlight a difference in a highly varying wind profile, but currently it does not seem like the given profile, whose natural stochasticity is not varying enough to warrant a large amount of tap operations.
9.4 Max Load

The twenty four hour period of maximum load experienced was extracted using an adapted version of the Matlab code contained in Appendix B.6. This, along with the corresponding wind for the Omagh network was inputted to PSS/E to determine the frequency of tapping. Figure 31 shows the results from the simulation.
22:30
61 | P a g e
2012
Voltage p.u. for Max Load for 08/04/11

1.024 1.022 1.02 1.018 1.016 1.014 1.012 1.01 1.008 1.006 1.004 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0 4 2 6 Voltage p.u. Tap Position 10 8 12
Figure 30: PSS/E results for max load 08/04/11
The model resulted in the voltage did not stray enough (+/- 0.2 p.u.) to warrant a tap changer operation, however it actually tapped three times in this twenty four hour period according to historical data. Again, this may be attributed to the idealistic nature of the PSS/E model. 9.4.1 Maximum Load Scaled by Factor 2 To account for a growth in demand, the twenty four hour period of maximum load was scaled up by a factor of two, as per Figure 32 below. The tap changer operated three times, indicating that with increasing load, the duty on a tap changer increases.
62 | P a g e
2012
Voltage p.u. for Max Load Scaled by Factor of 2 for 08/04/11

1.035 1.03 1.025 1.02 1.015 1.01 1.005 1 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Voltage p.u. Tap Position
Figure 31: PSS/E results for max load scaled by factor 2 08/04/11
It could be expected that under similar conditions in real life the tap changer may operate more than three times. Further work may look at interchanging periods of scaled high load followed by a period of low load to determine the impact a more varying load profile has on the network. It does not seem like the current variation of load has a big impact on the tap changers, even when scaled up by a factor of two. The results from the PSS/E simulations are summarized in Figure 33 below.
Reactive Power Management Using PSS/E

500 400 300 200 100 0

System Normal -0.95 0.95 0.98 0.99 1
Power Factor/ p.u.
Figure 32: Summary of reactive power management simulations using PSS/E
63 | P a g e
2012
10.0 Economics of Tap Changer Maintenance

NIE are interested in relaxing the period between maintenances of tap changers to cut costs and risk involved in the procedure. It is important to note that maintenance of these devices has resulted in plant failure attributed to maintenance error across the world. It is reasonable to assume that if the operational life time of tap changers at Omagh Main could be extended between maintenances then, with some adaptations, this could be applied to the other nineteen tap changers of this type on the NI transmission system. So far it has been proven that the large amount of wind generation connected to Omagh Main did not affect the tap changer operation as much as varying load did. Table 21 below shows the average cost of a single tap changer maintenance job based on staff hours, the cost of a dissolved gas analysis (DGA) of an oil sample from TJH2B, and the cost of six replacement barrels of oil. This does not include any replacement parts; it simply describes thorough inspection and cleaning of the inside of the tap changer.
Cost of Staff Hours (3 staff for 2 days) 2,200 Oil Sample 100 Six barrels of oil 750 Total Cost of TC Maintenance 3,050
Table 21: Average cost of tap changer maintenance
Each tap changer on the transmission network undergoes routine maintenance every three years. The number of tap changer maintenances carried out for the last four financial years is contained in Table 22 below. Only 21 of these tap changers are of the new type at Omagh Main, MR-M.111.600Y-72.5/B-10191G.
Financial Year Number of TC Maintenances carried out Apr 07 to Mar 08 Apr 08 to Mar 09 Apr 09 to Mar 10 Apr 10 to Mar 11 23 24 18 19
Table 22: Number of TC maintenances per year
An estimated total cost saving of 42% is expected per tap changer if the maintenance period of this type of tap changer is relaxed from three years to six years. This is based on the cost of 64 | P a g e
2012
five DGA oil samples (for each of the five years before the maintenance is carried out) totaling 500, plus one routine maintenance at 3,050 in the sixth year, equating to 3,550, compared with the current system of two routine maintenances for the same six year period at 3,050 each, totaling 6,100. It is proposed that future work should include a Cost Risk Optimization (CRO) study to determine the overall financial risk associated with not performing tap changer maintenances as regularly as in the past.
11.0 Engineering Guidance Note

Pending an appropriate Cost Risk Optimization study, it is proposed that NIE perform yearly DGA oil samples and visual integrity checks to monitor the condition of every tap changer on the network, pending satisfactory results, the routine maintenances carried out at three year intervals may be relaxed to six years. If unsatisfactory results are obtained from the oil sample then the tap changer may be acoustically monitored, an online filter pack may be fitted, or the tap changer may be opened to perform routine maintenance and an oil change.
12.0 Conclusions and Reflection on Objectives

In recent years, NI has seen a sudden increase in the demand for renewable energy generation, contributed largely by the targets set by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment. DETIs main goal is for greener, cleaner fuel sources equating to 40% of the provinces electricity supply from renewable resources by 2020, 97% of this generation will be from wind. For the purpose of this report, Omagh Main, which is considered a critical bottle-neck point in the NI network, was assessed. The 110:33kV substation currently interconnects 31% of the provinces wind generation from the rural West to the densely populated East making it NIs largest wind-connected substation. Due to the large portion of current flowing through the two transformers at Omagh Main, which may be attributed to wind generation, the voltage is
65 | P a g e
2012
varying and unpredictable. Therefore, automated voltage regulation at the site is crucial in maintaining quality of supply and system stability. The main aim of this research was to better understand the processes of voltage regulation, in particular at Omagh Main. Two main methods were discussed, that is; reactive power control and transformer tap changing. It was initially proposed that wind generation has a negative effect on the operational life time of a transformer tap changer. Due to the constantly varying voltage profile outputted from wind farms, it was expected that main distribution substations would suffer in compensating for this to maintain a constant voltage within statutory limits for its customers. Site specific analysis of data obtained from Northern Irelands highest wind connected substation, Omagh Main disproved this globally accepted theory. This work proposes that substations with large amounts of wind generation connected, in fact support the voltage regulation further down the line. The benefit this presents is that with better voltage regulation, there will be less tap operations, so the tap changer is subjected to reduced contamination of the insulating oil and reduced wear of the arcing tips resulting in less routine maintenances. Statistical analysis of historical data from Omagh Main compared the old and new transformers at the site, and determined an increase of 17% in the overall tapping for a comparable time period. Further work was required to determine extenuating circumstances that allowed this to happen, since the manufacture claims that the new tap changers should operate less. Correlation of the relative tapping with wind determined that as wind increased to 80-90MW, the percentage tapping of the new tap changers was 5.7% compared to 12.7% from the old tap changers. Furthermore, it was observed that increasing load had a greater impact on tap changer duty than increasing wind; with a rise to 21% tapping for load compared to 5% for wind. The theory that optimally controlled reactive power flow management helps reduce the duty on the tap changer, and so may increase its operational life time between maintenances, still holds true, however the approach is somewhat different.
66 | P a g e
2012
To enhance this recommendation, it was required to simulate Omagh Main in the software package DIgSILENT to produce optimal reactive power control. Upon close inspection it was deduced that DIgSILENT would not offer the detail of results to the level of accuracy required. It was then decided to move forward with PSS/E modelling. Simulation results from PSS/E showed that the voltage levels were easier maintained close to nominal operating points. Better control of reactive power flow proved to yield a virtually unattainable reduction in tap operations. However, by comparing data from Omagh with Newry and Newtownards it was concluded that the tap changers at Omagh Main, contrary to previous expectations, tap less than in areas of low wind. The tap changer manufacturer claims that the life time of a tap changer is five hundred thousand taps displaced equally across all taps, which of course is not simply the case. Access to the tap changer duty curves from the manufacturer allowed the life time of the tap changer to be predicted. It is expected that a MR-M.111.600Y-72.5/B-10191G type tap changer will live on the network at Omagh Main for approximately 15 years before requiring maintenance, based on the assumption that 100% of tap changers not maintained would fail after 220,000 tap operations. Major strip down maintenance would then be required at 500,000 tap operations, but this is not likely to be reached in the life time of the device. This work proves quantifying the reduction in tap changer duty is no menial task. It proposes a methodology by which NIE could perform minor maintenance procedures at regular intervals, in the form of a Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) oil sample and a visual inspection made on the integrity of the tap changer every year. This would reduce the requirement for a routine maintenance every three years, instead making it every six years but requiring a tighter eye to be kept on asset management and operation in NIE. The total cost saving should be weighed up against the financial risk of maintenance error should anything go wrong during the maintenance procedure. A detailed CRO study is essential in the continuation of this work. Following this, a site trial of the new maintenance regime at Omagh Main may be rolled out before system-wide changes take place. The outcomes of the work, based on the objectives, in summary are: 1) A concise loading profile of Omagh Main, including wind generation, was discussed. 67 | P a g e
2012
2) A range of network generation and loading conditions were reported on, and PSS/E simulations allowed scaling by a factor of two to represent future network conditions. The work largely focuses on the duty of the tap changers at Omagh Main, discussing in detail the conditions under which a tap changer operates and how frequent this is. Study assumptions and engineering heuristics were required for system modeling 3) Prediction of the life time of a tap changer at Omagh Main with a given amount of wind generation connected based on manufacturer life-time curves. Comparisons of the old and new types of tap changer at Omagh Main were carried out to determine the tap changer better suited to large amounts of wind connected 4) The impact of increased embedded generation at Omagh Main was studied. The old and new transformer tap changers were compared with two sites employing similar tap changers but had no wind generation connected 5) Future work was proposed as per Section 13.0 6) A clear and concise report was submitted in draft form and was validated by NIE The MEng extensions of the work were fulfilled by: 1) The current range and use of tap-changers and other voltage control strategies on the distribution network was studied. Other UK DNO models for voltage control were only briefly mentioned in the form of maintenance procedures; such as acoustic monitoring of tap changers still in service 2) The types of 110:33kV transformer tap changers on the network have been discussed in detail. The work summarises that NIE have made the correct decision in installing the new type of transformer tap changer at Omagh Main, however this work is site specific and similar work would be required at other substations before their maintenance programmes could be challenged 3) Engineering Guidance Note for relaxing maintenance programmes of tap changers in NIE Some additional work was achieved that had not been required from the original specification: 1) DIgSILENT and PSS/E model validation and reactive power flow management simulations to determine alternative means of reducing tap changer duty 68 | P a g e
2012
2) Production of a Matlab code to compare actual historical Pi-Historian data of tapping, along with wind data from SONI, with a revised tapping sequence based on better reactive power control derived from the PSS/E model 3) Costing of a tap changer maintenance procedure and predicted cost saving of relaxing the period between maintenances
13.0 Further Work

There is still some further work to be carried out in the continuation of this research. If NIE would like to pursue reducing tap operation by better controlling reactive power at Omagh Main in the form of changing the power factor at the seven wind farms feeding in to the distribution substation, then it is proposed that several simulations should be run changing the power factor at each wind farm in turn, as work undertaken in this area assumed the power factor change was the same across the board. It is concluded from this work that a varying load profile has a more negative impact on the life time of a tap changer than a high penetration of wind generation. Some further work is required to determine what, other than maximum loading conditions, worsen the voltage regulation and the subsequent tap profile. In the remit of the academic paper it was not possible to determine why the new tap changers at Omagh Main tapped more often than the old ones. As the data base fills, the longer the new tap changers are installed, it will be possible to compare larger sections of data to challenge this result. To make any guidance presented in this piece of work operational, it is essential that a detailed DETI-endorsed CRO study using APT Integrated Toolkit v.3.3 be performed. The study will back up any recommendations to change the maintenance periods of tap changers based on engineering judgment. Publically Available Specification (PAS) 55 [22] states that maintenances generally lower failure rate so the cost benefit must outweigh the risk of failure of the transformer, failure of the tap changer and any clean up involved, attributed to the tap changer not being maintained.
69 | P a g e
2012
It is important to note that the results contained in this piece of work are site specific to Omagh Main. With similar work for other types of tap changers it is anticipated that it will be possible to specify a tap changer best suited for use with high penetration of wind farms and thus a guidance note could be created to better inform engineers on the choice of tap changer for a given site.
14.0 References
[1] Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (NI) & Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (RoI), The All Island Grid Study, 2008 [2] Northern Ireland Electricity plc. Distribution Code, Consultation Version 2009 [online] Available at: www.nie.co.uk/suppliers/distribution.htm [Accessed 31 October 2011] [3] Radhakrishna, C., (2010) Reactive Power Management, [online] Available at: http://www.sarienergy.org/PageFiles/What_We_Do/activities/CEB_Power_Systems_Simulation_Training,_ Colombo,_Sri_Lanka/Course_ppts/lecture_41.pdf [Accessed on 12 August 2011] [4] Wind Energy, The Facts, Reactive Power Control [online] Available at: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-2-grid-integration/chapter-5-grid-connectionrequirements/grid-codes-and-essential-requirements-for-wind-power-plants/reactive-powercontrol.html [Accessed 21 March 2012] [5] Low Voltage Ride-Through, Wiki, 2011 [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_voltage_ride_through [Accessed 21 March 2012] [6] Renewable Obligation Certificates for Northern Ireland [online] Available at: http://www.detini.gov.uk/deti-energy-index/deti-energysustainable/northern_ireland_renewables_obligation_.htm [Accessed 31 October 2011] [7] Embedded Generation, (2011) Built Environment, [online] Available at:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/97-8/trans_of_ren/embed.htm [Accessed 31 October 2011]
70 | P a g e
2012
[8] Black, J. et al, Equipment and Methodology for the Planning and Implementation of Dynamic Line Ratings on Overhead Transmission Circuits , International Modern Electric Power Systems Conference, 2010 [9] Black, J. et al, Planning Network Reinforcements with Dynamic Line Ratings for Overhead Transmission Lines, International [10] Malone, C., Impact of Embedded Generation on Asset Lifetime Transformers, MEng Final Year Project NIE, 2011 [11] Kulkarni, S.A., and Khaparde, S.A., Indian Institute of Technology, Transformer Engineering Design and Practice, 2005, [online] Available at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27073343/Transformer-Engineering [Accessed 19 March 2012] [12] Malloy, D., Voltage and Reactive Power Control on Distributed Generated Networks in Northern Ireland, MEng Final Year Project NIE, 2011 [13] Electrical Science, (2011) Transformer Tap Changer, [online] Available at: http://electrical-science.blogspot.com/2010/04/transformer-tap-changer.html October 2011] [14] Wikipedia, (2011) Transformer Tap Changers, [online] Available at: [Accessed 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_(transformer) [Accessed on 29 September 2011] [15] Breuer, W. and Stenzel, K., On-load Tap Changers for Power and Industrial Transformers a Vital Apparatus on Todays Transformers, International Conference on Transformers, 1982 [16] Heathcote, M.J., J and P Transformer Book Thirteenth Edition, 2007 [17] NIE Renewables Workshop, November 2010, [online] Available at:
www.nie.co.uk/.../pdf/NIE_Renewables_Workshop_09_Nov_10.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2011]
[18] Fundamentals Limited, SuperTapp n+ Voltage Control Relay User Manual FR1014-u6-1.0, 2011 [19] IEC 60214 On-load Tap Changer Standard: Contact Life Curve, 1989/1998 71 | P a g e
2012
[20] Energy Network Association, Engineering Recommendation P27: Current Rating Guide for High Voltage Overhead Lines Operating in the UK Distribution System, 1986 [21] Black, J., A Study to Develop an Automated Model of the Voltage Response of the Northern Ireland Transmission System, Both Normally and Following the Loss of Key Components Under Fault Conditions, MEng Final Year Project NIE, 2011 [22] PAS 55 Asset Management, 2012 [online] Available at: http://pas55.net/ [Accessed 31 March 2012]
15.0 Bibliography
Weedy, B.M., Cory, B.J., Electrical Power Systems Fourth Edition Grigsby, L.L., The Electric Power Engineering Handbook Crossley, P., et al., Embedded Generation Harlow, J.H., Electric Power Transformer Engineering Heathcote, M.J., J and P Transformer Book Thirteenth Edition
72 | P a g e
2012
Appendix A: Types of Transformers and Tap Changers on the NI Transmission System and their Ratings
71 | P a g e
2012
Appendix B: Matlab Code

Appendix B.1: Matlab Code Used to Fill in Gaps in Data
nan_count=0; omagh_nan=isnan(omaghmain); for j=1:1:20 for i=1:1:17520 if omagh_nan(i,j)==1 omaghmain(i,j)=omaghmain(i-1,j); nan_count=nan_count+1; end end end
Appendix B.2: Matlab Code Used to Determine When the Tap Changer at Omagh Tapped
%Column 15 is tx1 taps %Column 17 is tx1 33kv amps %Column 18 is tx1 33kv volts tx1_amps_volts=[] j=1; for i=2:1:17520 omaghmain(i,15); if omaghmain(i,15)~=omaghmain(i-1,15) tx1_amps_volts(j,1)=omaghmain(i-1,17); tx1_amps_volts(j,2)=omaghmain(i,17); tx1_amps_volts(j,3)=omaghmain(i-1,18); tx1_amps_volts(j,4)=omaghmain(i,18); j=j+1; end end %amps before %amps after %volts before %volts after
72 | P a g e
2012
Appendix B.3: Matlab Code Used to Determine Number of Times Each Transformer (1 and 2, Old and New) Operated at a Given Tap Position
tap_freq_tx1_old=[] for a=1:1:19 freq=0; for b=1:1:11199 %samples 1 to 11199 depict data from tx1 OLD if omaghmain(b,15)==a %taps for tx1 is column 15 freq=freq+1; end tap_freq_tx1_old(a,2)=freq; tap_freq_tx1_old(a,1)=a; end end tap_freq_tx1_new=[] for a=1:1:19 freq=0; for b=12734:1:17520 %samples 12734 to 17520 depict data from tx1 OLD if omaghmain(b,15)==a %taps for tx1 is column 15 freq=freq+1; end tap_freq_tx1_new(a,2)=freq; tap_freq_tx1_new(a,1)=a; end end if omaghmain(b,15)==a %taps for tx1 is column 15 freq=freq+1; end tap_freq_tx1_new(a,2)=freq; tap_freq_tx1_new(a,1)=a; end end
Appendix B.4: Matlab Code Used to Determine the Tap Count of a Given Transformer Tap Changer
tap_up_count_omagh_old=0; % change for psse data tap_down_count_omagh_old=0; % change for psse data for x=2:1:4416 if omagh_old(x,1)>omagh_old(x-1,1) % tap_up_count_omagh_old=tap_up_count_omagh_old+1; else if omagh_old(x,1)<omagh_old(x-1,1) % tap_down_count_omagh_old=tap_down_count_omagh_old+1; else end end end
73 | P a g e
2012
Appendix B.5: Matlab Code Used to Determine the Correlation Between Wind/Load with Tap Operations
%determining the boxes for total load to determine the impact of load on %tapping sample_num=[]; y=1; z=0;
for x=1:1:3793 if total_load(x,2)>140 && total_load(x,2)<=160 %column 2 is total load sample_num(y,1)=total_load(x,1); % column 1 is sample number if taps(sample_num(y,1))==1 else
if taps(sample_num(y,1)-1,2)~=taps(sample_num(y,1),2) %column 2 is tx1 tap position tap_count=z+1; y=y+1; z=z+1; else y=y+1; end end else end end
Appendix B.6: Matlab Code Used to Determine the 24 Hour Period with Maximum Wind Connected to Omagh Main
total_wind=[]; x=1; for a=1:1:5711 total_wind(x,1)=omaghwind(a,7)+omaghwind(a+1,7); for b=a+2:1:a+47 total_wind(x,1)=total_wind(x,1)+omaghwind(b,7); end x=x+1; end
74 | P a g e
2012
Appendix C: Results from Section 7.7 Transformer Tap Changer 2

Wind Generation/MW Number of Tap Operations Number of hour Samples in This Range of Wind Generation 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 130 82 47 43 27 16 19 3 5 1376 901 485 352 229 161 147 88 53 9.4% 9.1% 9.6% 12.2% 11.8% 9.9% 12.9% 3.4% 9.4% Percentage Tapping
Table 23: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for NEW tap changer 2
Load/ MW
Percentage Tapping
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160
0 1 47 70 128 78 45 3
0 37 706 805 1330 583 308 23
0 2.7% 6.7% 8.7% 9.6% 13.4% 14.6% 13.0%
Table 24: Correlation between load and tap operation for NEW tap changer 2
75 | P a g e
2012
Wind Generation/MW
Number of hour Samples in This Range of Wind Generation
Percentage Tapping
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90
164 74 37 38 26 17 17 21 18
1515 630 392 315 181 166 166 208 126
10.8% 11.7% 9.4% 12.1% 14.4% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 14.3%
Table 25: Correlation between wind generation and tap operation for OLD tap changer 2
Load/ MW
Percentage Tapping
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160
21 239 152 9 0 0 0 0
357 1957 1416 60 2 0 0 0
5.9% 12.2% 10.7% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 26: Correlation between load and tap operation for OLD tap changer 2
76 | P a g e
2012
Appendix D: Python Script for PSS/E with Adaptations

import csv import os import sys import psspy import math
def program(): _i=psspy._i _f=psspy._f ierr = psspy.case(r"""filename*.sav""")
if ierr==0: print "Successfully opened file" else: print ("Could not open file - Error: %i") %ierr
csv.field_size_limit(1000000000) f=open("Wind_jb_1.csv","rb")
results = [["Time", "Voltage", "Tap position 1", "Tap position 2"]] psspy.recn(87596) psspy.recn(87593) psspy.recn(87591) psspy.recn(87595) psspy.recn(87594) psspy.recn(87592) 77 | P a g e
2012
ierr=psspy.fnsl([1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0]) ierr=psspy.solved() print ("ierr = %i")%ierr
n=0
psspy.prompt("Enter the power factor:") PF=raw_input(" ")
csvReader = csv.reader(f) for Data in csvReader:
if Data[0]=="Time": continue
Time=Data[0]
Angle = math.acos(float(PF))
React_1= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[1]) React_2= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[3]) React_3= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[5]) React_4= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[7]) React_5= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[9]) React_6= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[11])
78 | P a g e
2012
React_7= 0-math.tan(Angle)*float(Data[13])
psspy.machine_data_2(87596,"SC",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[1]),React_1,React_1,React_1, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87593,"B1",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[3]),React_2,React_2,React_2, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87591,"T1",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[5]),React_3,React_3,React_3, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87591,"T2",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ 0,0,0,0,0, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87595,"SD",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[7]),React_4,React_4,React_4, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87594,"LB",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[9]),React_5,React_5,React_5, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87592,"HH",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[11]),React_6,React_6,React_6, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f]) psspy.machine_data_2(87593,"B2",[1,_i,_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[13]),React_7,React_7,React_7, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f,_f, _f, _f, _f, _f, _f])
ierr=psspy.fnsl([1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0]) ierr=psspy.solved() print ("ierr = %i")%ierr
psspy.load_data(87530,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[15]), float(Data[16]),_f,_f,_f,_f]) psspy.load_data(87535,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[17]), float(Data[18]),_f,_f,_f,_f]) psspy.load_data(87534,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[19]), float(Data[20]),_f,_f,_f,_f]) psspy.load_data(87533,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[21]), float(Data[22]),_f,_f,_f,_f]) psspy.load_data(87532,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[23]), float(Data[24]),_f,_f,_f,_f]) psspy.load_data(87531,"1",[_i,_i,_i,_i],[ float(Data[25]), float(Data[26]),_f,_f,_f,_f])
ierr=psspy.fnsl([1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0]) 79 | P a g e
2012
ierr=psspy.solved() print ("ierr = %i")%ierr
if n==0:
if ierr!=0:
# Load flow options [nTapAdj,nAreaIntch,nPhaseShift,nDCTap,nSwShunt,nFlatStart,nVARLimit,nNonDiv]
ierr=psspy.fdns([1,0,0,1,1,1,-1,0]) #As suggested by Wayne: TAPon, FLAT, Caps On, Ignore if ierr==0: ierr=psspy.fdns([1,0,0,1,1,1,-1,0]) #As suggested by Wayne: TAPon, FLAT, Caps On, Ignore if ierr==0: ierr=psspy.fdns([1,0,0,1,1,1,99,0]) #As suggested by Wayne: TAPon, FLAT, Caps On, Auto if ierr==0: ierr=psspy.fdns([1,0,0,1,1,0,99,0]) #As suggested by Wayne: nonFLAT, Caps On, Auto if ierr==0: ierr=psspy.fnsl([1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0]) #As suggested by Wayne: TAPoff, nonFLAT, Caps On, Auto if ierr==0: ierr=psspy.solved() TAPoff,
n+=1
ierr,voltage=psspy.busdat( 87530, "PU") 80 | P a g e
2012
print "voltage" print voltage ierr,turns_ratio_1=psspy.xfrdat(87510 ,87530 , "1","RATIO") ierr,turns_ratio_2=psspy.xfrdat(87510 ,87530 , "2","RATIO")
tap_1= (turns_ratio_1 - 0.8) / 0.0166666666666666 tap_2= (turns_ratio_2 - 0.8) / 0.0166666666666666
results.append([Time, voltage, tap_1,tap_2])
f=open("Results_write_2.csv","wb") csvWriter=csv.writer(f) for row in results: print "\n" print row
csvWriter.writerow(row) f.close() return(0)
bok=program() print bok
81 | P a g e
2012
Appendix E: Wind Series
Wind Series for Wind Farms 14 &15

30 25 20 Real Power/MW 15 10 5 0
01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 Date -15 Reactive Power/MVAr
WF 14&15 P WF 14&15 Q
01/07/2011 00:00
-5 -10 -15
Wind Series for Wind Farm 16

25 20 15 Real Power/MW 10 -3 5 -5 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
5 3 Reactive Power/MVAr 1 -1
WF 16 P WF 16 Q
-7 -9
-5 -10
Date
-11
82 | P a g e
2012

6 5 4 Real Power/MW 3 2 1 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
6 5 Reactive Power/MVAr 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Date -2
WF 17 P WF 17 Q
-1 -2

30 25 Real Power/MW 20 15 2 10 5 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
10 8 6 4 Reactive Power/MVAr
WF 18 P WF 18 Q
0 -2 -4 Date
83 | P a g e
2012

25 20 15 10 5 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
5 4 Reactive Power/MVAr 3
Real Power/MW
2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
WF 19 P WF 19 Q
-5
Date

30 25 20 Real Power/MW 15 10 10 5 5 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
25 20 Reactive Power/MVAr 15
WF 20 P WF 20 Q
0 -5 -10
-5 -10 Date
84 | P a g e
2012

25 20 Real Power/MW 15 5 10 0 5 0
01/07/2011 00:00 01/08/2011 00:00 01/09/2011 00:00 01/10/2011 00:00
15
10 Reactive Power/MVAr
WF 26 P WF 26 Q
-5
-5
Date
-10
85 | P a g e

Impact of Embedded Generation On Voltage Regulation and Transformer Tap Changer Lifetime and Operation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Embedded Generation On Voltage Regulation and Transformer Tap Changer Lifetime and Operation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Embedded Generation on Voltage Regulation and Transformer Tap Changer Lifetime and Operation

MEng Final Year Report Electrical and Electronic Engineering 2012

1.0 Final Year Project Scope

1.2 Methodology and Method of Working

1.3 MEng Extension

1.4 Learning Outcomes

1.5 Outline of Report

2.2 Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland

2.3 Reactive Power Flow Management

2.4 Transformer Tap Changers

3.0 Embedded Generation

3.2 The Northern Ireland Context

4.0 Crucial Plant in Voltage Regulation

Figure 2: Ideal transformer

Table 1: Types of transformers on the NI network

4.2 Reactive Power Management

4.3 Transformer Tap Changers

Figure 3: Tap-change sequence [14]

Tap Changer Manufacturer

Tap Changer Model

Number on NI Transmission System

MR-M.111.600Y-72.5/B-10191G MR-M.111.500Y-72.5/C-10191G MR-V.111.350Y-60-10191G

FC4 FC6 FL120

AFI GEC Alstom Brusk

HF13EFE AMD.319.33/600.G5NCF3 BSD.3.21P.66.400

Table 2: Types of tap changers on the NI transmission system

Date of installation/ removal

Type of Tap Changer

Tap Changer Controller

Omagh Main (OLD) Omagh Main (NEW)

Tx 1-12/08/11 Tx 2-30/06/11 Tx 1-11/07/11 Tx 2-23/05/11

EBG 45/60 MVA

Siemens 63/90 MVA

4.4 Asset Management

Number of Tap Changer Operations x 1000

Figure 4: Tap changer life time curve [19]

Figure 5: Tap counter

Figure 6: Ridged contact

5.0 Engineering Heuristics

5.1 Data Manipulation

Table 4: Seasons and dates

Table 5: Dates of removal/installation of Txs and TCs

5.2 Assumptions in Statistical Analysis

5.3 Assumptions in Power Flow Studies

6.0 Load Flow at Omagh Main

Figure 7: Load profile for a traditional substation

Figure 8: Load profile of two transformers for a week in Omagh Main

6.1 Loading of Omagh Main

Figure 9: Graph to compare current flowing in Tx1 and Tx2

6.2 Loading Factor k

Figure 10: Graph to show factor k for Tx1

Figure 11: Graph to show k factor for Tx2

6.3 Maximum Current

tx1 mw imported tx1 mw exported tx1 mvar imported

Figure 13: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 23/05/11-25/05/11

Figure 14: Ambient temperature for 23/05/11-25/05/11

tx2 mw imported tx2 mw exp tx2 mvar imported

Figure 16: Total wind generation connected to Omagh Main on 12/09/11-14/09/11

7.0 Tap Changer Operation

34.4 34.2 34 33.8 33.6 33.4 33.2 33

Voltage Tap Position

7.1 Depression Ratings

Tap Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (nominal) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19