Substation Reliability and Economic Analysis Tractebel Choctaw Project

H. Rickel; K. Koutlev, Member, IEEE; Robert Reymers, Member, IEEE; L. Tang, Member, IEEE; L. Willis, Fellow Member, IEEE

Abstract

- Recent trends are making the AIS (air insulated

switchgear) vs. GIS (gas insulated switchgear)decision quite a bit more complicated than it was only a couple of years ago. Tractebel Power Company together with ABB Inc. deployed a unique analytical method to arrive at the decision to deploy a 500 kV Gas Insulated Substation near Ackerman, Mississippi, and to optimize its economic life cycle cost. The switchyard is being constructed to interconnect three generators and one transmission line at Tractebel's new 650 MW combined cycle a power plant, The Choctaw G s GenerationProject. l This analysis accounted for a l the key life cycle costs critical to any power producer, and utilized the latest available quantitative information on GIS/AIS reliability, maintenance, land acquisition,site preparation costs and initial purchase costs. This analysis also accounted for "intangibles" such as safety, aesthetics and security that are often overlooked but becoming increasingly important.

Index Terms- power, ranking, reliability,substations

Predict the total project cost including initial construction cost, operation and maintenance cost, and cost of service unavailability. Evaluate substation alternatives using the life cycle cost and intangibles like environmental impact and substation performance. To achieve the objectives we used two analytical software tools, SubRelTM SubRankm developed in ABB Inc., USA. and SubReP is used to model substation alternatives, assess reliability, and calculate life cycle costs. Then, the life cycle costs are combined with environmental and performance attributes for every substation alternative for overall estimation and comparison. This analytical task is performed using SubRankm software. Following the analyses performed with both tools the final decision about the substation configuration is made. The advantage of this approach is that the most suitable substation configuration is picked on the basis of reliability, life cycle costs, failure cost, and investment cost, along with intangibles such as safety, flexibility, ecological impact, security and aesthetics.
0

I. INTRODUCTION

T

HIS paper presents a reliability analysis, economic evaluation and ranking on various substation configuration alternatives for the new 500 kV substation near Ackerman, Mississipi. The substation will be constructed to interconnect two generators with combustion turbines at 350 MVA and 13.8 kV, and one generator with steam turbine at 230MVA and 13.8kV with a 700 MVA, 500 kV transmission line. The objective of this study is to: Find the substation design that achieves an optimal solution of reliability and cost. 0 Establish a process to select a substation to optimize total life cycle cost rather than acquisition cost.
H. Rickel is an Engineering Director for Tractebel Power, Inc. in Houston,
Texas

II. SUBSTATIONS RELIABILITY MODELS
SubRelTM software package was used to build the substation reliability models. The software can: 0 Create and modify substation alternatives 0 Implement the substations models with AIS and GIs components Assess substation reliability 0 Calculate the investment cost, O&M cost, cost of poor reliability as well as the life cycle cost for every substation alternative. SubRelTM uses dynamic state enumeration to compute the reliability of each alternative [ 1,2]. Essentially, SubRelTM models every possible contingency, determines the impact of each contingency to the reliability of each component, determines the frequency of each contingency, and sums up the impact of all contingencies for an overall reliability assessment. The first thing that SubReP does is to determine the amount of time that a substation is in its normal operating state (NS). This is equal to the amount of time during one year minus the time spent in maintenance states (MS):

Dr. K. Koutlev is a principal consulting R&D engineer wt ABB Inc., in ih Raleigh, North Carolina, phone: 919-856-3877; fax: 919-856-241 1; e-mail: krassinlir.koutlev@us.abb.com R. Reymers is a Key Account Manager for ABB, Inc. in Raleigh, North Carolina Dr.L. Tang is a head of ABB Corporate Research in US L. Willis is VP Assets Management Services for ABB,Inc. in Raleigh, North Carolina

0-7803-81 10-6/03/$17.00 02003 IEEE

181

SubRel" follows the following sequence of events: 0 The component experiences a fault. Each of these faults will impact the reliability of various substation components in various ways. After simulating faults in the normal operating state. . SubReP keeps track of the contribution of each fault to the outage frequency and outage duration of each component. When a component is maintained. it will simulate faults during this state for all energized components. After SubRelTM determines the substation's maintenance state for a particular component.. This fault simulation is identical to the method used during the normal state except that the system starts off in a different configuration.. AIS Ring Bus . 8 Figure 1. . AIS Collector Bus Figure 2. GIS Ring Bus 182 . It may also cause an outage on nearby components. the Canadian Electricity Association and others [3-71..Time in MS loo % 8760 The program then simulates all faults that occur on components (while the system is in its normal operating state). These values are then weighted based on the failure rate of the faulted component and the probability of the system being in the normal operating state. 0 The nearest protection devices on all energized paths to the faulted component are tripped (the protection system is assumed to be perfect). SubRel" automatically isolates the component using sectionalizing devices and reconfigures the system to restore power to as many loads as possible. For each faulted component.Figure 2 0 GIs Ring Bus . cause the component being maintained to experience an outage. This maintenance state will. the fault is isolated and the system is reconfigured to restore power to as many loads as possible.Time i NS= n 8760 . the fault is repaired and the system reverts to its normal operating state. S u b R e P software is capable of simulating substation reliability calculations with integrated type modules [81. . 0 After a delay (determined by the mean time to switch (MTTS) of sectionalizing points).Figure 3 The reliability data used in the models are based upon longterm historic data available from published industry sources such as IEEE. I . -. After the faulted component's mean time to repair (MTTR) is elapsed. The squares around the equipment in GIs Ring Bus configuration indicate the components located in one gas chamber. of course.. . SubRel" simulates all maintenance states and all faults that occur during maintenance states. . -. Figure 3. Three feasible substation alternatives for the TractebeVChoctaw project were modeled using SubReP and the reliability model described above: AIS Collector (Straight) Bus -Figure 1 0 AIS Ring Bus . CIGRE.

Usually these costs are expressed as summary of the cost of interrupted energy [$/kWh] and cost of interrupted power [$/kWj. IV.4h/yr. TABLE 1. once per 56. The color coded layouts provide an opportunity to analyze the entire substation and visualize the weaker spots in the layout. The reliability results for the transmission line connection are shown in Table 1.25 years.e.~ HI. There are two major reasons for the transmission line outages: equipment failure and equipment maintenance. To determine the impact of all substation components on reliability of serving the transmission line. The outages are split in this way following the assumption that outages of the transmission line due to planned maintenance will have a lower cost of interruption. The O&M costs included in the study are based on factory recommended maintenance programs obtained from AIS and GIs substation maintenance specialists.. and economic impact can be drawn.93 h/yr vs. variable cost substation planned life time Interestrate The investment costs for each of the investigated substation alternatives were developed by ABB and/or obtained as bounding values from Tractebel. with the outage frequency. Outages due to transmission line faults and maintenance are not included in the results below because they affect each configuration equally. etc. i.7 years for AIS collector bus. Additional pictures with shaded drawings for all alternatives by outage frequency impact.e. the GIs ring bus configuration has much better performance than the other two configurations.9 years versus 1 per 1. The present value of the life cycle costs is then determined from each of the variables mentioned above [9]: r The following major conclusions can be made regarding the reliability results in Table 1: GIs ring bus configuration has lower stochastic (due to equipment failure) outage frequency. The total outage frequency for GIs ring bus is once per 11. outage duration. 3. This difference is even LCC = IC + [FC + vc] * where: L (1+p)" -1 P * (1+ P)" 1 7 LCC = IC = FC = VC = n = p = Life Cycle Cost Investmentcost O&M Cost. In order to fully analyze the impact on different interest rates and cost of interruption on the investigated substation alternatives. They allow an easy comparison between different substation designs or between the same designs with AIS and GIs configurations. i. Equipment failure outages are also called stochastic outages and they depend of the failure rate of the substation components.9 years for AIS ring bus and more than once per year for AIS collector bus. After this assessment. 0.15 Wyr The overall conclusion is that from reliability point of view. SubRelTM also can perform an impact area study. the following bounding data were provided by Tractebel's financial organization for the analysis. once per 15 years compare with 1 per 2.e.5 and 7. This is due to the low maintenance rate for GIs equipment. The life cycle cost for the three substation alternatives was calculated assuming that the substation life will be 30 years. 3. The calculated results include total outage frequency (OF) and total outage duration (OD) for the transmission line. as they depend on the equipment maintenance schedule. GIs ring bus has also the lower determined (due to maintenance) outage frequency.5 years for AIS ring bus and once per 4.04 h/yr vs. the reliability of each segment of each substation layouts can be color coded to reflect outage frequency.5 years and 1 per 1. fixed annual cost Interruption Cost. i. TRANSMISSION RELIABILm LINE stronger when we consider only the interruption frequency. The total outage duration for GIs alternative is 1.. Discount / interest Rates in [%] Cost of Energy Interruption in [$/kWh] 183 . ECONOMIC EVALUATION The following key variables and assumptions were considered for an economic evaluation of the proposed substation alternatives: Investment cost Operation and maintenance cost (O&M cost) 0 Reliabilityhnterruption cost The interruption costs are calculated on the basis of the cost of interruption for the transmission line. REL.8 years versus once per 8. Regarding the determined outage duration GIs ring bus again has the best performance. outage duration impact. The first item is related with the outage duration and the second.IABILITY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The reliability assessment for all alternatives was performed using the SubReP program. GIs ring bus has lower stochastic outage duration compare with the other two alternatives although the differences are not so high like for the outage frequency.2 and 6.. Equipment maintenance outages are also called determined outages. The assessment of the impact of substation configuration on reliability of the transmission line is the main purpose of this analysis.

LCC = f(Interest Rate) By investigating all substation alternatives following the procedure from Fig.000 A 2. The difference in the footprints significantly impacts the site preparation costs for TractebeVChoctaw project and favors the GIs configuration.0 I 8. LCC for Different Substation Alternatives In reality the LCC for every substation alternative varies with variations of the interest rate and cost of interruption.000. 0 0 0 6 6. Figure 5 shows the life cycle cost as function of the interest rate for two substation configurations. Figure 4 shows the differences in the life cycle cost for three substation configurations A.MM 10. A and B. A separate analysis of the substation intangibles using 184 . In Figure 6 is presented a snapshot of the tool. The GIs ring bus footprint for this project was considerably smaller than for the AIS ring bus. 14. when the final decision regarding the substation configuration is to be made.0 I 2. and C. the Life Cycle Cost and many additional objectives related to substation performance and its environmental impact should be considered.0 I 4. For TractebeYChoctaw project the investment cost was adjusted with bounding values for land acquisition and site preparation costs. and the idea for the application of multi-criteria analysis for substation design [ll]. safety and environmental impact.000 oJ 0.000. On the right hand side are the attributes evaluation given for every substation alternative.000 4. RANKING SUFSTA~ON ALTERNATIVES Usually. 4 and 5 we can find which substation configuration has lower LCC for the particular boundary conditions.WO D 10. It is clear also that the Life Cycle Cost cannot be the only consideration to make the final decision regarding the substation configuration.0 I 10. In reality.000 A B C Figure 4. Figure 6. it is On the left hand side of the screenshot are entered all of the weights for the objectives and their attributes.000. Inmstment Cost 15. In order to solve this problem we developed a tool called SubRankTM.By way of illustration.OW E 12.w0.MO.0 I 6.W0.MI0 - :8 . Interest rate[%] Figure 5. SubRankTM tool generates a graphical presentation of the ranking results shown in Figure 7. For example.0 very difficult to combine attributes that can be expressed in currency and subjective attributes like flexibility. ~ . The tool considers the following objectives and their attributes for substation ranking process: Life Cycle Cost o Investment Cost o Site Preparation Cost o O&MCost o InterruptiodFailure cost 0 Substation Performance o Flexibility o Safety o Automation Level o Security 0 Environmental Factors o Ecological Impact o Air Pollution Tolerance o AppearanceIAesthetics o Audible Noise Generated o EMF Generated o Radio/Television Interference Generated o Disposal Concerns The values for the objectives and their attributes above are provided from Tractebel.000.000 5. tool is based on the The multi-objective decision analysis using value hierarchy [ 101.MO. As result. SubRank Input Screen V. Ufe Cycle Cost Failure LCC mOBMLCC . B.000. The only requirement for the assigned weights is their sum to be equal to 1. The Tractebel analysis based on the SubRel results confirmed that the GIs option had the lowest life cycle cost.

No. CA. Krassimir G. by factoring in all project related and industry available information and by analyzing the results of the study. He is currently a Key Account Manager for ABB. Brown. in Electric e Engineering from Wan Jiaotong University in 1982 and obtained his M. CONCLUSIONS Tractebel’s conclusions following this assessment was that the AIS vs. M. Koutlev. Ed. Inc. Only by using available analytical tools. etc. [lo] D. CIGRE. USA and Europe.. Vol. ABB Electric Utility Conference. Raleigh. 1997.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. Final Report of the Second International Enquiry on High Voltage Circuit Breakers Failures and Defects in Service. Texas. Working Group 06. K. Professional Publications Inc. 1172-1178. Willis. Taylor. Currently. 1997. Figure 7. Electrical Engineering Reference Manual. Report of the Second Intemational Survey on High Voltage GAS Insulated Substations (GIS) Service Experience. Robert Reymers received his Bachelor of Science and Masters of Science lcrcl Degrees in E e t i a Engineering from Brown University in Providence. Duxbury Press. 349-354. Marcel Dekker.” IEEE Transactions on Power Sysrems. SN 09/916. pp.700 0-600 0-500 ocl. was a thorough assessment made and an optimal selection accomplished.S. (1972) degrees in electrical engineering from Rice University. 1. E.. T. Strategic Decision Muking. Prior to joining ABB. With more than 25 years of experience helping utilities and governments worldwide improve their electric systems he is the author and coauthor of over 200 technical and scientific papers on electric power systems and four books. Tang.E. D. in Raleigh. energy efficiency. North Carolina.D. W. North Carolina. “Substation Reliability Assessment and Analysis”. in Electric Power System Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985 and 1988 respectively. in elecmcal engineering f o the Technical University of Sofia (Bulgaria).300 0. power quality. He specializes in electric power distribution systems. Lee Willis is VP Assets Management Services. 2000 Forced Outage Performance of Transmission Equipment for period 1/1/1994 to 12/31/1998. Howard Rickel received his Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. Study Committee 13. IEEE Std . in Raleigh. Texas. . Koutlev. L.E. pp. electric utility planning and assets managefnent. Atanackovic..S. R. DG. Le earned his B. Inc. Feb. where he was responsible for a wide range of studies and seminars in power quality field. . reactive power compensation and power quality improvements in power distribution systems in Detroit.D. in Houston. 5th Rev. McGillis. GIs choice was not as simple has had been previously believed. He has been an IEEE member since 1967. ANN Inc. Patent Application Filed July 27.G.. Belmont. Le was a Senior Consulting Engineer at Electrotek Concept Inc. 1997. Kirkwood. . Koutlev received his M. “Modeling the Impact of Substations on Distribution Reliability. No. A Fellow of the IEEE. He is currently an Engineering Director for Tractebel Power. REFERENCES R. SubRank Ranking Screen VI.811. 2000 H. Belmont. The results of these analyses led Tractebel to the decision to procure the GIs ring bus substation configuration. He is involved in various types of research and development activities in power transmission and distribution areas. F. IEEE Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and CommercialPower Systems. K. June 1994 CIGRE WG 23. he is a principal consulting R&D engineer at ABB Inc. He has been an IEEE member since 1997.S. NC and specializes in areas of reliability.S. (1971) and M.800 0. 14. Rhode Island. He joined ABB-US in March rm 1998. 1999. He has extensive experience in power systems analysis and control and protection system design. [I I] C. He has extensive experience in power generation and transmission. Texas. Nebraska and his Masters of Business Administration Degree from Houston Baptist University in Houston. System and Method for Reliability Assessment of a Power System Having Integrated Modules. Inc. Canadian Electricity Association. Power Distribution Planning Reference Book. CA. “The Application of MultiCriteria Analysis to Substation Design.. and Ph. R.Brown.00 0.200 0-100 O~OOU - SubRankTM. August 1998.2001 Yarbrough.Mr. L Tang (M’95) joined ABB in August 1995. 13.Ranking ofAlternative Substations DLF&Y&C&BP~EIIWJW~~I I -0aa 0-800 0. Le is currently managing ABB‘s Group R&D operation in the United States. Vol. CIGRE Brochure. design optimization and system solution business. reconfirmed that the GIs also had the best score among the selected options..D. 185 .1997. Brown. L. Galiana.02. R.B.. Prior to joint ABB he has 13 years experience in design. Williams received the B. March 1999. 3. Houston. optimization. T. and Ph.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful