Reconfiguring A Primary Industrial Network Based On Reliability Studies

Miguel Vega

Hctor G. Sarmiento

Member, IEEE
mvega@iie.org.mx

Senior Member, IEEE

hsu@iie.org.mx
Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas.
Reforma 113, Col. Palmira
Temixco, Morelos, Mxico. 62490
Ph.: 52 777 3183811 ext 7418 y 7414.

Abstract --- Reliability is a topic with increasing relevance in

the field of power system engineering, since it actually combines
the technical and economical aspects of a problem, evaluating
quantitatively the availability of an electrical system and helping
the engineer make the right decision. The technical and
economical studies in this article analyze the reconfiguration of
a primary distribution electrical network from 6.6 kV to 13.8
kV in a refinery in Mexico whose main activity is the production
of refined oils for several applications. The most important
aspects covered are:

* An economical analysis in a 20-year horizon, comparing the

capital cost with the reliability cost.
Index Terms Reliability, industrial distribution electrical
systems, modeling, economical analysis, energy not supplied.

I. INTRODUCTION
The reliability analysis of a system, portion of a system or
component, can help the engineer understand the reason the
system is failing and its economic consequences, according
to the term Energy Not Supplied (ENS). This term has a cost
associated, so as to accomplish an economic comparison
between what would be spent by not to making an
investment, and the benefit obtained upon improving the
reliability of the system.

II. BACKGROUND
The oil refinery under study has an electrical configuration
consisting of different voltage levels for its supply and
distribution. The system has its own generation at 13.8 kV
with a total capacity of 55 MW. At 6.6 kV the installed total
capacity is 15MW. An interconnection with the utility is also
present, with a capacity of 60 MW. There are links as well
between these three supply systems. Peak demand is 60 MW

.
lematias@iie.org.mx

and the spinning reserve in the plant is sufficient to sustain

the outage of one of the largest generation units. The present
study is intended to determine the technical and economical
feasibility to reconfigure the primary distribution network at
6.6. kV. Several cases were studied consisting of two
fundamental changes:

Outline of the different alternatives to modernize the oil

refinery under study.

* Reliability analysis upgrading the network from 6.6 kV to 13.8

kV, determining power and energy not available due to
outages.

Luis E. Matas

1.

Upgrading of the 6.6 kV network to a voltage level

of 4.16 kV, eliminating the generation at 6.6. kV
due to its obsolescence.

2.

Change of voltage level from 6.6 kV to 13.8 kV,

keeping the generation at 6.6 kV.

The advantage of changing 6.6 to 4.16 kV lies in the

reutilization of the equipment.
In this scenario, the
generation at 6.6 kV is eliminated; therefore the contribution
of the interconnection with the utility is increased. If a
greater dependency on the purchase of energy from the utility
is not desired, it is recommended to install additional
generating units at 13.8 kV, with the added advantage of its
proximity to the load.
Concerning the change of voltage from 6.6 kV to that of 13.8
kV, power losses suffer an increase, due mainly to the
necessary transformation to 13.8 kV in the site where 6.6 kV
generation is located. Thus, generation at 6.6 kV is taken out
of service.
The comparative reliability analysis of the electrical network
reported in this paper, was carried out under the assumption
that the 6.6 kV voltage level is upgraded to 13.8 kV. An
annual reliability economic cost is calculated and its present
worth is compared to the investment cost of the major
equipment involved in this reconfiguration. The economic
study is made considering a 20-year horizon.

III. METHODOLOGY APPLIED

The methodology employed, as well as the application of a
reliability computer program based on graphs and minimum
cuts, is briefly described. To analyze the reliability of

0-7803-7420-7/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

1095

transmission and distribution networks, a computer program

called CONTRA [1] is applied. This program is based on
two algorithms: Graphs [2] and minimal cuts [3].
The first of these two algorithms consists of modeling the
electric network and simplifying it to facilitate the
determination of the minimal cuts. This algorithm finds all
fault events of one, two, and up until three components
simultaneously, that cause the outage of one or several load
points from supplies in the network; that is to say, the
minimal cut set. Another way of looking at a minimal cut is
to define it as a set of components that upon failing cause that
load point to remain without supply. These components to
which the method refers are precisely the electrical
components of the network: Substations, loads, breakers,
transformers, switches, etc.
The second algorithm evaluates the reliability indices, based
on the minimal cut sets. Once these are found, along with the
use of reliability formulations for serial and parallel
components [4], reliability indices can be determined both for
the system in general, as well as for each individual
component. These indices, when referenced to interruption
costs, will give an economic significance to reliability.

Bus 6.6kV

Link to
13.8kV

To use the reliability program it is necessary to:

1. Model the electrical system.
2. Correlate the electrical and reliability parameters of each
physical component to each component in the model.
The lower network is at 6.6. kV. These two voltage levels
are interconnected.
The way to model the system is simple: Each generator or
supply source corresponds to a node and is represented with a
star symbol. Each bus corresponds to a node and the symbol
used is that of a circle, and each line corresponds to an edge
in the model. In the case of transformers, these are also
modeled as nodes.
The model created in this way is shown in Figure 2, although
only the 6.6 kV network is presented, with its two
interconnections with the rest of the electric system.
3. Data input and program execution.
A. System Modeling.
The system model is presented in the Figure 1. The first
(upper) part of the network has a voltage level of 13.8 kV;
the lower network is at 6.6. kV. These two voltage levels are
interconnected.
The way to model the system is simple: Each generator or
supply source corresponds to a node and is represented with a

Figure 1. Electrical network of the Refinery at 13.8 and 6.6kV.

Star symbol. Each bus corresponds to a node and the symbol

used is that of a circle, and each line corresponds to an edge

1096

in the model. In the case of transformers, these are also

modeled as nodes.

Component

23 kV Bus
13.8 kV Bus
6.6 kV Bus

The model created in this way is shown in Figure 2, although

only the 6.6 kV network is presented, with its two
interconnections with the rest of the electric system.
B.Correlation between Electrical and Reliability Parameters.
The connection between electrical and reliability parameters
is direct, once the model has been created. Each electrical
and reliability parameter from each bus and transformer, is
correlated to its corresponding node in the model; and each
cable or distribution line is associated with the corresponding
edge that interconnects buses.
Finally, the supply sources, both from and utility internal
generation are taken as sources thoroughly reliable, although
the program can handle the parameters of their respective
equipment. Table I shows the reliability parameters used for
each one of the components of the network under study. This
information was taken from technical literature: IEEE [5]
and CEA [6].

Reliability data
ri
1
Outages/year

Hrs.

0.0016
0.0008
0.0004

38.0
42.0
60.0

= Outage Frequency
ri = Repair Time

As observed from the previous table, outage rates in

underground cables of 13.8 and 6.6 kV do not vary
significantly, but their repair times do. This is emphasized in
the case of transformers, where repair times for 6.6 kV are
double that for 13.8 kV. Noted as well that repair times for
6.6 kV buses, are significantly greater than for 23 and 13.8
kV buses. One of the main reasons for this long repair times
is the fact that 6.6 kV is no longer a standard rated voltage,
and consequently spare components are hard to get.
C. Data input and program execution
At present, the program requires the creation of a file that
includes system configuration, reliability and electrical data,
and is run from a PC.

IV. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS.

With the application of the methodology described
previously, the objective is to obtain the reliability indices for
the distribution network at 6.6 kV and at 13.8 kV
(eliminating the circuits at 6.6 kV). The indices to be
obtained are the following:
= Outage frequency for a load point or for the system [No.
of outages/year]
= Out of service average time (load point or system) [hours
/year]
PNS = Power Not Supplied [kW per year]
Figure 2. Graph model of the Electrical System of figure 1.
TABLE I
RELIABILITY PARAMETERS FOR DIFFERENT COMPONENTS
Reliability data
Component
ri
1
Underground cable 23 kV
[Km-circuit]
Underground cable 13.8 kV
[Km-circuit]
Underground cable 6.6 kV
[Km-circuit]
3 Transformer, 85 kV
3 Transformer, 23 kV
3 Transformer, 13.8 kV
3 Transformer, 6.6 kV

Outages/year

Hrs.

0.043

30.0

0.040

30.0

0.037

60.0

0.04
0.03
0.015
0.012

62.0
173.0
200.0
400.0

ENS = Energy Not Supplied [kwh per year].

The reliability analysis program "CONTRA" was used for the
study. A total of 547 minimal cuts for 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree
were analyzed. That is to say, a simultaneous outage of one,
two and three components was assessed.
A. Results
Table II shows results for the reliability indices previously
described.

1097

TABLE II
RELIABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Reliability Indices
6.6 kV System
[Outages/year]
[Hrs./year]
PNS [kW
per year]
ENS [kWh
per year]

2.0355
20.88
7 304

13.8 kV
System
0.7630
12.17
3 278

160 147

42 653

TABLE IV
ESTIMATED INVESTMENT COST
Concept
Estimated investment
[Thousands of US Dlls.]
Cables
$2 852.5
Transformers
$1 386.0
Busways, load centers
$2 480.0
Basic Engineering
$1 200.0
TOTAL
$7 918.5

From the results above, it can be observed that for the system
at 13.8kV (compared with the 6.6 kV system):

The system outage rate has been reduced in 62.5%.

The system average time out of service during a

year has been reduced in 41.7%.

The power not supplied in a year was reduced

55.1% and,

The energy not supplied in a year has been reduced

drastically in 73.4%.

The benefits of reconfiguring to a voltage level of 13.8 kV

are clear from these results.
B. Economic Study.
Within the reliability studies one of the most important
parameters is the cost in incurred by energy not supplied to a
user. The interruption cost per kWh was taken from [6]:
User Type
Oil Refinery

V. BENEFITS BY THE INCREASE IN RELIABILITY.

According to the results obtained in the reliability study, the
annual cost of the 6.6 kV system for energy not supplied
resulted in $1 079 393.00 US. The present worth of this
annual cost in a 20-year-old horizon with a discount rate of
the 10% is $9 189 485.00.
On the other hand, as previously determined, the investment
estimated for upgrading to 13.8 kV is $7 918 500.00 US.
That is, there is a difference of $1 270 985.00 US between
the present worth of the reliability cost and the cost of the
required investment (16% more with respect to the cost of the
project).
That is to say, in the horizon considered, the present worth of
the reliability cost of the 6.6 kV network is greater than the
investment required in the project to reconfigure the electric
system to a 13.8 kV voltage level.
In a nutshell, from the point of view of the reliability cost, the
investment required to upgrade to 13.8 kV is justified since it
is 16% lower than the cost of keeping de 6.6 kV network.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

USDlls/kWh
6.74
(For a 4 hr outage)

Using the above figure, Table III illustrates the total annual
cost for energy not supplied for both systems.

1) Of the alternatives revised to modernize the oil refinery

under study, electrical performance was satisfactory for all
scenarios, and thus the decision to upgrade came down to
aspects of reliability and obsolescence.
2) This paper analyzes the upgrading from 6.6 kV to 13.8
kV; eliminating generation at 6.6 kV, since transformation of
6.6 kV/13.8 kV introduces additional losses. The complete
disappearance of the 6.6 kV voltage level goes in accordance
with the criteria that obsolescence in a voltage level should
be the necessary condition to upgrade to a new voltage level
[7,8].

TABLE III
ANNUAL COST FOR ENERGY NOT SUPPLIED
6.6 kV System
13.8 kV System
$1 079 391.00
$287 481.00
Total Cost [US
Dlls]
$791 910.00
Difference in
cost [*]
275%
Difference in
percentage
[*] This is the annual cost for not reconfiguring from 6.6. kV to 13.8 kV.

3. Capital Investment Study

Table IV presents the total estimated investment cost of
upgrading the 6.6 kV network to 13.8 kV.

3) According to the reliability analysis performed, there is

an annual savings of $791 900.00 from the point of view of
energy not supplied when having a primary network at 13.8
kV, instead of the existing 6.6 kV voltage. For the economic
evaluation of the reliability, an interruption cost of $6.74
U.S. per kWh was used.

1098

4) In the 20-year horizon studied, the present worth of the

reliability cost is 16% greater than the cost of upgrading to
13.8 kV, which justifies carrying out such project.

REFERENCES
[1]. Vega, M., "Evaluacin de confiabilidad de sistemas de
transmisin de energa elctrica" M of Sc. Thesis,
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1989.
[2]. Vega, M., Anlisis de confiabilidad de sistemas de
distribucin de energa elctrica, B. of Sc. Thesis,
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1983.
[3]. Allan, R.N., R.Billington, "A Reliability Test System for
Educational Purposes Basic Distribution System Data
and Results", IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., Vol. 6, No.2,
May 1991, pp. 813-820.
[4]. Koval, D.O., Transmission Equipment Reliability Data
from Canadian Electric Association, IEEE Trans. on
Industry Applications, Vol 32, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1996, pp.
1439-1449.
[5]. A.G. Massud, M Th. Shilling, J.P. Hernndez,
Electricity restriction costs, IEE Generation,
Transmission. Distribution, Vol 141, No.4, July 1994,
pp.299-304.
[6]. Yabroff, Irvin, The Short-Term Cost of Electricity
Supply Interruptions", Report DOE/EP-005 from The
National Electric Reliability Study, United States Dept.
of Energy, April 1981, p.337.
[7]. Hung, O. K., "Justifying Upgrade Projects in Existing
Mills", IEEE Publication 0-7803-2418-8-6 / 95, 1995,
p.165.
[8]. Hernandez, F. J.,"Modernization and Expansion of an
Existing Electric Power Plant", IEEE Publication 07803-2642-3 / 95, 1995, p.48.

1099