2.30.

-
WIDE AREA POWER QUALITY DECISION PROCESSES AND OPTIONS
FOR SENSITIVE USERS
-
G.A. Taylor Reyrolle Projects Ltd. (Rolls-Royce Industrial Power Group), U.K.
-
A.B. Burden Scottish Power plc., U.K.

INTRODUCTION on more than one occasion. Figure 1 shows, the

The electronics revolution has steadily gathered
momentum over the past twenty years. Industries of
all types have benefited from the higher quality and
throughput achievable with automation and
integration of processes. However, a consequence of
this sophistication is that users have become
increasingly sensitive to the fundamental quality of
their electrical supply. Legislation and standards now
exist to define the limits of supply quality and
reliability that a customer can expect to receive but,
in practice for some users, these limits are greater
than those that can be tolerated by some of their
equipment.
Quality of supply is loosely defined but can be
characterised as two principal issues. These are:
Reliability, referring to the continuity of supply (and
rapid restoration of service); and Power Quality,
relating to the fundamental condition of each cycle of
the 50 or 60 Hz sine wave received by the customers
equipment. Although there is a distinct difference to
the electrical utility, this distinction is less clear to
customers who suffer equipment downtime as a result
of either supply interruptions or quality defects.
Utilities generally have options available to improve
reliability, by agreement with the customer at the
design stage on the arrangements of single or multiple
circuits, and the use of network automation.
However on large interconnected networks, suppliers
are vulnerable to system faults (the major cause of
disturbances) and pollution generated by non-linear
customer loads. The dilemma for utilities is how to
ensure that networks maintain high reliability and yet
limit the extent of disturbances when they do occur.
The complexity surrounding solutions to power
quality problems, faced by customers and utilities
alike, is the subject of the paper which explores the
decision process needed to evaluate the optimum
solution to power quality, and examines the options
available.
The Need for Supply Quality
During 1995 a sample survey of 100 UK users with
loads in excess of 1MW was conducted to determine
sensitivity to power quality issues. Of those
surveyed, 69% had suffered a supply related
disruption of their process during the preceding 12
months, and of those 45% experienced such an event
responses received and indicates that the clear
majority of disruptions were due to partial or total
loss of supply . It should also be noted, however, that
in a number of follow-up interviews, some users were
unable to clearly differentiate whether disturbances
were due to “short” outages or to voltage dip. This
was primarily due to low availability of data
regarding such events. The authors suggest from
experience that the impact of voltage dips on
production is much greater than the value of 29%
suggests and that due to outages significantly less.
54%
Unplanned outages eJ Planned outages
Voltage dips Harmonics
Voltage surges (transients)
Figure 1 : Breakdown of cause of process disruptions
attributable to electrical supply disturbances.
All of the supply quality issues highlighted in figure 1
are regulated by global standards, however the scope
and impact of these standards on any one specific
customer is less well defined. EN50160 is a
European Standard which describes the
characteristics of a public electricity supply and sets
limits on supply companies and customers alike [ 11.
While this standard recognises the difficulties faced
by utility networks which are exposed to the types of
event highlighted by figures 2 and 3 and sets practical
limits for utilities, the predominant cause of
disruptions (i.e. outages and voltage dips) are, by
their very nature, stochastic events [ 2 ] . For a
customer trying to operate sensitive equipment within
this environment, the problem may still remain.
For utilities to guarantee a 100% perfect supply

ClRED 97,2-5 June 1997, Conference Publication No. 438,O IEE, 1997
 2.30.2

through network implementation would be

impractical given the drive to provide cost-effective B. Ensure that the original equipment
supplies within the competitive and regulatory manufacturers (OEM’s) of sensitive
framework. This does not however remove the equipment build sufficient immunity to
obligation of utilities to take steps to minimise the system disturbances into their products.
risk of such events happening.
C. Seek some form of “black box” protection to
desensitise critical loads.
Option A can be determined by dialogue with the
local utility who maintain the connection to the
customer. Option B has to be enforced by users of
such equipment, but this does not constitute a
common dialogue between users and manufacturers
where functionality takes greater precedent. This has
become a major issue with the advent of micro-
processor based equipment and greater product
liability. OEM’s seem increasingly reluctant to
declare “sensible” immunity levels and prefer that the
user makes the judgement on compatibility, despite
49% the fact that the user is not normally qualified, or
sufficiently well informed to make a proper
Feeder damage/ interference f3 quantitative decision. This then is the customers
dilemma, what should be expected from a utility
Weather related faults [;3 Protection malfunction compared to what should be expected from the OEM.

figure 2 : Results of UK survey on causes of supply
outage leading to production disruption.
The present UK regulatory standards ensure that all
users receive a common high standard of supply,
related to their connection arrangement, and does not
allow utilities to differentiate between customers.
For sensitive users, particularly in the industrial and
commercial sectors, the following alternatives exist to
protect their production processes from supply
disturbances :
17%
Option C therefore becomes the most probable
solution that the customer must resolve. Clearly the
debate must then centre on what devices are
available, the level of immunity to power quality
disturbances required and the cost of installation and
subsequent operation of such systems. The business
case for investment needs each option to be evaluated
carefully to determine the best solution.
Determining the Cost of Power Quality
In the survey referred to earlier, the authors
discovered that of those users who had suffered a loss
in production, 93% of the respondees were unaware
of the real cost to their companies of production loss
due to supply disruption. In an increasingly
competitive environment where achieving maximum
efficiency is paramount, such a lack of appreciation is
surprising. The true cost to a company consists of two
main components :
Actual cost incurred
a Potential losses

In determining the actual cost of a production outage

several factors need to be accounted for. Such
Switching on nearby systems information should be readily available to most
Adjacent line failure 19 Internal disturbance companies. These are as follows :

figure 3 : Results of UK survey on causes of voltage dips Cost of scrapped materials LS

[material costs, both raw and value
leading to disruption of customer processes. added]
A. Ensure that the utility has taken all
reasonable steps to improve the quality of Cost of clean-up of contaminated plant LC
[labour time and materials, disposal
supply. costs]

Cost of restoring production
[engineering time to reset/ start-up
process, waste material]
Cost of recovering lost production
[additional shifts, overtime bonuses,
additional plant operating cost (heating,
electricity etc.)]
Hence the total actual cost of a single production
stoppage, Lactual, is
Lactual = Ls + LC +LR + LA
The potential losses can also be determined by
looking at two factors :
Cost of replacing damaged equipment
[initial and subsequent costs]
Damaged equipment costs are more complex than
they appear. The obvious costs are those items which
must be replaced at the time, the less obvious being
those components which have been weakened by the
disturbance and fail some time later (e.g. drive
thyristors). Another consideration is the possible
damage to equipment due to an uncontrolled
shutdown of the plant.
Cost of lost sales PS
[Direct and indirect impact]
Direct cost factors include: lost sales in full shift, high
production organisations with lean manufacture
systems; or impact to companies operating within a
Just in Time (JIT) chain. Indirect costs include loss
of sales through loss of end customer confidence.
c
KJ
0
0
Losses True Cost Risk Costs
figure 4 : Illustration of actual and potential costs of
supply related disruptions.
Hence the total potential cost of a production
stoppage, Pactual, is
2.30.3
LR The user must calculate these two costs and attribute
a risk weighting to both PE and P s . The user can
then use both totals, Lactual and Pactual to calculate
the cost of downtime from experience of the annual
LA supply disturbances. These numbers provide an
encompassing model that will properly justify the
level of investment that can be made to provide a
solution. Figure 4 shows an example of how the two
components can contribute to the annual cost of
downtime, when the probability of the potential
losses is just once in every 4 years.
SOLUTION OPTIONS
There are number of options open to customers with
sensitive equipment, in particular those who are
primarily vulnerable to voltage dips. Further some
PE products may impact upon the distribution system,
particularly for large users. For such users the utility
should be involved in the decision process.
The following is a brief, but not exhaustive summary
of the principal options available to sensitive
customers. In all cases the key to the decision
process is that users understand and differentiate the
real cost of downtime compared to lost production
time, and the associated risks to the company.
Non or Partial Plant Operation
Where there is an understanding of the pattern of
disturbances, the utility can forewarn sensitive users
of periods when disturbances may occur (e.g. severe
weather warnings). Plant operators can then choose
to close plant down for all or part of the disturbance
period, or detune processes to allow continued
operation but at lower throughput. Both equate to a
loss of production and require advanced planning, but
does have the advantage of not requiring further
investment. Clearly though this does not provide
peace of mind to the customer or provide any
guarantee of quality, neither is it likely to eliminate
the risk of lost production over the course of a year.
Uninterruptible Power Supplies
The growth of the U P S market has corresponded with
the growth of the micro-processor. The term UPS,
covers a number of alternatives, but in general refers
to an inverter device coupled with a battery energy
source. Such systems vary in size from 1kW to
1MW. As devices grow larger, the predominant
market is for off-line UPS which are more efficient,
but do have the disadvantage of needing isolating the
protected load from the system when activated. The
majority of the UPS market is focused on the
protection of computer based systems to allow data to
be saved or permit continuing monitoring in the event
of power loss,
 2.30.4
SMES/ Flywheel systems
New energy storage technologies are now coming to
maturity, which offer a more compact form of energy
storage than is achievable with batteries. Such
systems are suitable for providing large amounts of
power for brief periods (1-5 seconds), which is
sufficient to protect large loads from short duration
outages.
Co-generation
In terms of supply quality, co-generation does not
guarantee an improved quality of supply. While there
may be some benefit to the mitigation of voltage dips,
equipment will still be exposed to system
disturbances and with a reduced fault level, be more
exposed to internal disturbances and distortion. In
general the decision to install co-generation is based
on the operating cycle of the facility, where the use of
secondary energy (e.g. steam) is required.
Solid-state Transfer Switch
A new generation of solid state transfer switches are
becoming available, that operate at 15 kV (and higher
voltages of up to 36kV). The principle of the solid
state transfer switch is that two switches are
employed, which are connected to independent
distribution supplies. In the event of an outage or
voltage dip the supply is switched within half a cycle
to the alternate supply. Clearly the success of this
system is dependent upon the availability of two
sufficiently independent feeders that common mode
system disturbances at sub-transmission or
transmission levels will not affect both supplies
simultaneously.
Dynamic Voltage Restorer
The DVR is one of a family of devices collectively
known as Custom Power systems [3] which are
designed for connection to the distribution system
(6.6 - 36 kV). The DVR differs from other devices in
that it is permanently in the system, but does not
directly interact with the load unless required.
Having no inertia, the DVR can react within a
fraction of a cycle enabling it to inject a continuously
variable voltage that supplements the remaining
voltage allowing restoration to the tolerance level.
Because it uses its own energy storage system, the
voltage injected is not affected by the remaining
voltage. Thus for a system with a DVR rated to
provide 50% support, a dip leaving only a 20%
retained voltage would be restored to 70% by the
DVR. Because the DVR uses a high speed inverter
configuration it can provide a complex power quality
function (e.g. harmonic cancellation, phase
balancing) that is more suited to complex loads.
Distribution Statcom
The D-Statcom is a complementary device to the
DVR, but connects into the system via a shunt
transformer. To mitigate voltage dips the D-Statcom
would need to be isolated from the system and fully
supply the load, however for applications where load
pollution is the predominant problem, this device
provides an ideal wide area solution.
Other Proposed Solutions
The use of thyristors as high speed tap changers has
been discussed for several years. Such systems
potentially offer a coarse form of voltage protection
with a 2 cycle response but would be limited to being
able to restore voltage dips with greater than 50%
retained voltage. The fact that such systems have not
been implemented highlights the problems still
encountered with the use of power electronics to
switch highly inductive loads. Other solutions such
as active filters provide specific functions and not
general power quality.
THE DECISION PROCESS
The potential solutions discussed can be considered
as falling into two categories :
e local power quality solutions
(e.g. U P S , SMES)
e wide area power quality solutions
(e.g. DVR, SSTS, CO-generation, D-Statcom)
Table 2 presents further data from the survey that
highlights that sensitivity basically divides into two
camps, those who are partially affected and those
who are wholly affected.
Percentage of Operations
Disrupted
Less than 10%
10 - 30%
31 - 60%
61 - 99%
100% I
Table 2 :Results of UK survey, % of operations
8
44
disrupted due to a power supply disturbance.
Those users who suffer minor disruption and whose
critical processes are easily isolated are best protected
by discrete equipment. For those with large loads
(> 1MW total) whose production is wholly affected
the decision process is not as straightforward. Plants
may have complex supplies, both at utilisation and
distribution voltages. In these cases the isolation of
all critical loads onto a common feeder is difficult to
achieve. The option may be to place discreet power
quality devices about the site, an option normally

Duration (sec)
figure 5a : Recorded voltage dip profile over a two year
period at UK site.
taken with UPS solution routes.
To highlight the problem of taking a distributed
solution path, the authors experience indicates that
industries investing in devices to protect process
control systems loads tend to progressively invest in
several units, as subsequent power quality events
reveal the next weak link in the chain. This
programme means that downtime occurs each time a
disturbance occurs incurring the type of losses
discussed earlier. A further net result of such an
approach is that maintenance, reliability and the
pollution that such distributed devices can create,
adds to the complexity of the facility management.
Taking a wide area approach such as Custom Power
means that large or whole sections of a users load can
be protected at the distribution voltage with a single
device. The decision has then to be whether to
completely protect the system from both outages and
voltage dips, or whether to trade off the likelihood of
one event being more disruptive to production than
the other. The evidence of the survey presented here
suggests that voltage dips are more likely to cause
production downtime than any other electrical cause.
By determining the voltage dip profile such as the
one illustrated in figure 5a, the user will be better
placed make an economic decision as to the level of [11
immunity to voltage dips required. For instance by
installing a DVR capable of injecting an additional
50% rated voltage for a short duration, the voltage dip
profile is reduced to that shown in figure 5b [4]. [21
Clearly, having systems that are not fully rated to the
load requirements, and can provide simultaneous
power quality functions are worth considering, as a
more economically viable option compared to the
alternative of complete system-wide back-up to [31
protect critical plant.
CONCLUSIONS
Modern production equipment increasingly needs
some form of external protection to prevent damage
2.30.5
Duration (sec)
figure 5b :Effect of a 50% rated DVR, with 200ms
energy storage capability to protect supply.
or shut-down during supply disturbances. The results
and discussion of the power quality survey presented
here suggests voltage dips are the prime cause of
supply related downtime. Defining compatibility
levels between supply and equipment is a difficult
process which is usually left to the user who
frequently lacks the information necessary to reach a
satisfactory decision. The utility does have a role to
play in this determination by aiding customer
understanding and supporting the decision process.
However the decision ultimately must be made by the
customer who must fully understand the true costs of
downtime..
For large users, wide area protection of supplies, that,
in particular, decrease sensitivity to voltage dips may
provide the simplest solution to large scale users,
while providing minimum impact on surrounding
distribution networks.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr Neil Woodley of
Westinghouse Electric Corporation for additional
information and support.
References
“Voltage Characteristics of Electricity
Supplied by Public Distribution Systems”,
BS EN 50160,1995
“Proposed Chapter 9 for Predicting Voltage
Sags (Dips) in Revision to IEEE Std 493,
the Gold Book”, L Conrad et al, Proc. E E E
Transmission & Distribution Conf., 1994
N H Woodley, M Sarkozi, G A Taylor, A
Sundaram “Custom Power : The Utility
Solution”, CIRED 1995
[41 “Voltage Sag Relief : Guidelines to
Estimate DVR Equipment Ratings”, R J
Nelson et al, Proc. American Power Conf.,
Chicago, 1996