ECONOMICAL AND RELIABILITY IMPACT OF DIFFERENT URBAN SUPPLY CONCEPTS

Jrgen Backes Andr Osterholt ABB Calor Emag Schaltanlagen AG, Mannheim ABB Calor Emag Schaltanlagen AG Electric Systems Consulting Kaefertaler Strasse 250 D-68167 Mannheim Germany e-mail tel fax juergen.backes @de.abb.com andre.osterholt@de.abb.com werner.s.zimmermann @de.abb.com +49-621-386.2807 +49-621-386.2785 Werner Zimmermann

The presented study compares different supply concepts for an urban network with high load density: the HV supply via AIS technology from the outer regions of the city, and the supply via GIS HV stations directly in the load centers. The MV levels used are 10 kV as well as 20 kV. The concept comparison shows that it is necessary to study complete concepts before deciding about the advantages of GIS or AIS. It is decisive for the economic operation of MV networks to locate the HV injections close to the load centers. For urban regions, this is only possible by using GIS components together with HV cables. Although the GIS solution initially appears to be the more costly solution, its flexibility allows the optimal location of the HV transformer stations. The number of injections from the HV system can be optimized, and the transportation function of the MV network can be reduced. This leads to significant savings for investments as well as for operation cost, which over-compensate by far the additional expenses for GIS and HV cables. Another advantage of the GIS/cable combination is the increased reliability in comparison to the AIS/OHL solution. Especially for big customers linked to the HV station via parallel MV cables, this advantage is also experienced in network operation. This is an inherent advantage of the GIS/cable variant offered for free to the network operator. The GIS technology includes also further assets, which are hard to quantify, but which can be decisive for the implementation of a project. One example is the option of completely integrating a GIS station into a building, even when no free ground area is available. Compared to the AIS technology, the GIS concept offers a solution compatible to any future requirements, and which in addition is the more economical solution for the supply in case of high load densities.

Introduction

The reliable supply with electric energy is one of the basic needs of modern society. Like many other largescale technologies it has a big impact on the human environment and therefore is subjected to changes in paradigms. Urban MV networks today are completely designed as cable networks with indoor switching stations, which reduce the optical presence of electric supply. But also for the HV supply, the GIS technology offers a reliable and flexible solution for high-load areas where only minimum ground area is available. GIS technology together with HV cables leads to a safe, reliable and optically unobtrusive supply. The direct comparison of the component investments for identical switchgear configurations results in higher expenses for the GIS variant than for the AIS variant. This however does not consider, that the location of GIS transformer station close to the load centers allows a much more efficient network structure, not only for the HV level but also for the MV distribution network. This leads to reduced investments and operational cost. The quantification and monetarisation of this difference is the task of the following report. It is based on the load situation of a typical German distribution network with a maximum load of about 120 MW and compares the life cycle cost for the different supply concepts.

Methodology of the comparison

The task of network planning consists in adapting the network topology to the changing conditions and at the same time to provide efficient network operation by a clearly structured supply concept.

High demands for the quality of network planning exist for the supply of urban networks with limited or no load growth. In network with high growth rates, additional network equipment is utilized within short time even when it is not optimally planned. Without load growth, the kind and the location of required investments must be carefully planned, under consideration of different scenarios for future developments and supported by risk management strategies. Also the time horizon for changes in the network concept is much longer, e.g. the transition to a higher MV supply voltage. These aspects stress the importance of defining a clear goal and deriving a network development strategy. This paper quantifies the impact of AIS and GIS technology on the HV and the MV level of an urban supply situation, derived from an existing network. For each of the HV variants, GIS and AIS, the optimal MV network is designed. This is done for both 10 kV and 20 kV distribution voltages, resulting in the evaluation of 4 different HV/MV networks. The planning process is similar to a basic design study.

3
3.1

Design of the AIS/GIS-network variants

High voltage network

The desired location of the HV injections into the distribution network cannot be seen independent from the selected HV technology (AIS or GIS). Ground areas of sufficient size for AIS switchgear installations are only seldomly available, and if so, at extreme cost. But also for the expansion or substitution of existing sites, the GIS alternative is the most economic alternative. The inner city area that was formerly occupied by an AIS installation can be sold or rented out, so that the returns can finance the new site installations. The compactness of the GIS allows solutions, where the HV transformer substation can be completely integrated into a building. This in-house installation leads to no additional ground-area, but only to additional height (or depth) of the building. Space requirements do not only exist for the transformer substations, but also for the HV connections. Overhead lines (OHL) can be practically excluded for the supply of inner-city areas. Even if traces should be available for historical reasons, they can be utilized alternatively in a much more economic way. Further arguments against overhead lines are the aesthetic nuisance and the electromagnetic field, whose effects presently are under intensive public discussion. At the same time, today's HV cables are a reliable solution with additional technical assets towards OHL connections. The consequence is, that there is no realistic alternative for HV cables for the supply in urban regions. The GIS variant designed in the presented study (see. Fig 3.1a) consists of three HV transformer stations in the city center. The connection to the surrounding 110 kV network is implemented by three cables to the nearest HV station. The three cables end at the main station of the urban HV network. This main station is implemented as a double busbar system, which allows maintenance of one busbar without de-energizing the complete station. The remaining stations in the HV cable ring, also situated in the center of the city, are H-type transformer stations with a bus-tie. They also allow maintenance and repairs within the gas compartment on one half of the busbar during the operation of the other part. In the AIS-variant (see. Fig 3.1b) the supply region is surrounded by an OHL loop, whose right half consists of double lines (for load-flow reasons). Like in the GIS variant, the main HV station consists of a double busbar system, the remaining HV transformer stations are of H-type. The station UW2 has a double T-connection to the double OHL, the station UW3 is looped into the single line on the left side. Because of the ground area required, the transformer stations are located in the less densely populated outer parts of the city. The power transfer to the loads is - as shown later - one of the tasks of the MV network. The connections from the outer ring to the transformer stations have been implemented as double lines, which means two circuits on the same poles. This solution leads to an efficient utilization of the available space. It however reduces the reliability of the HV supply, as both circuits can trip for a single reason (e.g. back flashover from the poles to both circuits when flash strikes the earth wire, or branch contacts). The effect of these "common mode failures" can be seen in the subsequent reliability calculations.

4.5 km 3.7 km UW 1

3 km

UW 1

4.2 km

63.0 MVA

5.6 km

30.3 MVA

1.6 km SS 1

2.0 km

UW 2

1 km

UW 3

2.7 km UW 3 33.1 MVA

1 km

SS 2

33.2 MVA

UW 2

27.8 MVA

28.1 MVA

35.0 MVA 11.6 km UW 4

8.6 km

a) Fig 3.1:

4.1 km

b)

GIS-variant (a) and AIS variant (b) of the 110-kV-network

3.2

Medium voltage network

A comparison of the GIS and the AIS variants only based on the differences in the HV network is not sufficient. The locations of the HV transformer stations are of decisive importance for the structure of the MV network. Initial point for the study is the load situation of a real urban network. This includes the geographical location of the transformer stations as well as their load . The radial operation of a MV network leads to a large number of possible network concepts. These differ in their investments, but have also a big influence on operational aspects. Each utility therefore designs planning rules, which adapt the network scheme to the customers' requirements as well as the geographic characteristics of the MV loads.

3.2.1

Planning rules

Technical constraints for the network variants are the allowed voltage band and the limits for the short circuit power according to the rating of the switchgear equipment. Besides these, also the following design rules have been considered: Application of standard components: XLPE MV cables with a cross section of 150 mm2 Al (distribution cables) and 240 mm2 (transportation cables) 110-kV/MV-transformers with a rated power of 31.5/40 MVA Open loop topology for the distribution network. The distribution cables start from the MV busbar of the HV/MV transformer stations, are guided between customer stations and are looped back to the MV busbar of the same HV transformer station again. One of the cables in this ring is open under normal operation to allow easy protection. Each HV/MV transformer station has its own backup transformer, so that maintenance of a transformer is possible without switching in the MV network. Maximum number of 14 customer stations in a loop. This limits the number of interrupted customers in the case of a MV network failure, as only the feeder connected to the HV/MV station busbar is equipped with overcurrent protection and circuit breaker.

Normal loading of the feeder cables so, that the worst-case cable failure (feeder failure close to the HV/MV transformer station) does not load any cable above 120% of its capacity. The maximal loading of 5.2 MVA per cable at 10 kV (10.2 MVA at 20 kV) at the beginning of the planning period considers the reduced ampacity for cables bundled in the same cable trench close to the transformer as well as a margin for the load growth during the planning period.

3.2.2

Planning results

The flexibility inherent in the GIS technology allows the planner to place the injection close to the load centers (see Fig 3.2 a) This first has an effect on the optimal number of loads per HV station and thus on the transformer capacity installed in the HV station. Second this reduces the power transportation function imposed on the MV network, so that additional savings result from the smaller MV cable cross sections required. Third, the operation cost are reduced, as avoided power transportation does not cause any losses. This advantage applies the more the lower the voltage level in the MV network is (e.g. 10 kV). These general effects can be found in the results for the network solutions in the example. The MV network supplied by GIS stations consists of radially operated (open) loops, which are all fed by the MV busbars of the HV stations.

UW1

UW2

UW2 UW1

UW4 UW3

UW3

a) Fig 3.2:

b) Topology of the GIS variant (a) and the AIS variant (b) for 20 kV distribution network

The peripheral locations of the transformer stations in the AIS variant require additional "satellite"-stations. These are remote MV busbars fed by the HV transformer stations via several parallel and selectively protected transportation cables (see Fig 3.2 b). Their reliability is comparable to the reliability of the MV busbar of the HV transformer stations, but they require additional investments and cause additional losses. The AIS variant with a voltage of 10 kV requires 6 parallel cables from the HV injection to the satellite station, the 20 kV variant requires 4 cables. These satellite busbars, just like the MV busbars of the HV stations, supply the network MV stations via open loops.

Cost comparison for the GIS/AIS-variants

Fig 4.1 compares the cost for the AIS- and the GIS-variant [1]. The prices for the different components and also for external service have been chosen according to the prices of the German market. The assumptions for the calculation of the cash values were an interest rate of 8 % together with an inflation of 3 %. The load growth was set to 1.5 % linearly, and the cash value was calculated for a planning horizon of 10 years. Planning times of 20 or 25 years, as used in the past for the evaluation of different variants, are not realistic under the present rapidly changing conditions. But even when pay-back periods of investments are getting shorter and even in energy engineering come into the range of years, network planning itself must should not be near-sighted and should design flexible plans for the network development, which are compatible and cost-efficient to a broad range of unforeseeable developments. This aspect is addressed e.g. in [2].

The first cost considered in this comparison are the cost for the HV switchgear installations. These are significantly higher for the GIS variant than for the AIS solution. The difference in the system costs however does not represent the difference in component costs, e.g. a switchbay. The reason for that is, that the flexibility inherent in GIS/cable topology allows a more efficient structure of the HV network, leading to a reduced number of HV stations (3 for GIS, 4 for AIS) and also a reduced number of switchbays per HV transformer station. A similar impression is given by the costs for the 110 kV connections. Although the cable length in the GIS variant is much lower than the length of the OH lines for the AIS variant, the investments for equipment and civil works are higher for the GIS variant. The different costs for the 110-kV-/MV-transformers result from the different number of transformers for the variants. In the GIS variant of UW1, two transformers are required for normal operation, so that only a single additional device is necessary as the shared backup device. Another cost factor that is of benefit for the GIS variant are the expenses for MV switchgear installations. The difference is made up by the additional switchgear panels for the satellite stations. The expenses for MV cables are extraordinarily high for both variants (about 40 % of the life-cycle costs/cash value). Their absolute value as well as the difference between AIS/GIS show how important the comparison of complete supply concepts is instead of the comparison of pure HV stations. The lower number of HV switchbays and MV cubicles leads to reduced expenses for secondary equipment (protection/control/ instrumentation) for the GIS variant. Furthermore, the absolute values of the expenses for ground, foundations and buildings obviously are much lower for the GIS variant, even though the substations are located in the city center. The difference in loss costs quantifies the additional transportation functions in the MV network for the AIS variant. Expenses for maintenance and inspection have no impact on the ranking.
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% relative cash values 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
AIS (MV 20kV) AIS (MV 10kV) GIS (MV 20kV) GIS (MV 10kV)

maintenance /repair losses ground /construction instrumentation /control/protection cables MV Switchgear comp. MV transformers 110 kV/MV lines/cables 110 kV Switchgear comp. 110 kV

Fig 4.1:

Life-cycle costs (cash values) for the GIS/AIS comparison (cash value over 10 yrs)

The cost comparison between the 20-kV-implementation of the GIS- and the AIS variant shows reduced differences for losses and also for MV cable investments. But the costs of the AIS variant are still significantly higher ( 4%) than for the GIS variant. The direct comparison between 20 kV and 10 kV for similar HV technologies shows an advantage for the 20 kV solution. This result is plausible and congruent with the experiences from planning practice.

Reliability of the AIS/GIS variants

In the case of urban networks with high load densities and sensitive customers, the reliability of supply is of high importance. And it is just in this field that the GIS- and the AIS solution show a contrary behavior. Faults on 110-kV-cables are seldom, and in most cases, the reasons are damages during construction works. Especially in densely populated regions, the available traces are filled with tubes and energy/information cables, so that the

laying and the mechanical protection of the cable is a major aspect. 110-kV-cables are buried deeper than MV cables, so that they are "protected" by the MV circuits laid above them. If the HV cable itself is not sufficiently robust, e.g. by a surrounding steel tube in the case of external gas pressure cables, concrete ducts can be an appropriate means of shielding. This leads to a minimal fault rate even in supply regions with high construction activities. Besides their costs, the main drawback of HV cables are the long duration for cable repairs, as splices for HV cables can be done only by the manufacturer's staff. The behavior of OHL's is complementary to the behavior of cables (see Table 5.1). They show high outage frequencies together with low repair times. In order to keep OHL systems compact, parallel circuits are arranged on the same pylons. As mentioned earlier, a single event thus can lead to the tripping of several circuits (common mode failure). This is an important aspect that has to be considered for reliability comparisons. Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 show the main reliability data that have been used for the reliability calculation. Table 5.1 describes the failure rate and repair duration for HV lines, HV and MV cables. Table 5.2 contains the failure rates and repair duration for switchgear equipment and transformers as well as maintenance data for the switchgear. Additional data for the circuit breakers are the protection failure rate, which summarizes non-interruption of the short circuit current due to malfunction of the protection relay and unsuccessful operation of the circuit breaker itself. Another parameter is the overfunction rate, which describes for a distance relay the non-selective early tripping after an overcurrent. The reliability calculations have been carried out with Calpos, a network planning tool including a powerful reliability engine. Table 5.1:Reliability data of cables and OHL
Parameter Unit HV OHL (1 circuit) HV OHL Common Mode HV cables MV cables short long short long Outage frequency
1 yr 100 km

Repair duration h 1.0 20.5 2.7 3.4 298.0 13.4

0.162 0.038 0.08 0.35 0.35 4.8

Table 5.2:Reliability data of switchgear [3][4][5] and transformers

Parameter Unit HV GIS busbar (per bay) HV GIS circuit breaker HV GIS disconnector HV AIS busbar (per bay) HV AIS circuit breaker HV AIS disconnector HV/MV transf. short long Outage frequency #/yr 0.00036 0.00259 0.00075 0.0082 0.00814 0.0047 0.0127 0.0063 0.0001 0.0002 Repair duration h 72 72 72 12 48 8 3.0 118 3.2 3.2 Maintenance frequency #/yr 0 0.1 0.1 0.1667 0.1667 0.5 0.33 0 0.1 Maintenance duration h 0 60 48 4 10 4 12 0 8 Maintenance interruption h 0 24 24 2 3 2 5 0 3 Protection failure % 0.9 0.9 7.0

MV busbar (per panel) MV circuit breaker

The applied reliability data for high voltage (HV) equipment have been taken from international surveys [3][4][5], the MV reliability data are plausible average values. The reliability calculation has been carried out first only considering first order contingencies, then also considering those of second order. The results for the MV busbars of the transformer substations UW1, UW2, UW3 and UW4 and for the respective satellite substations in the AIS variant are shown in Fig 5.1. It is obvious, that the interruption frequencies and the interruption probabilities at the substation MV busbars are much lower for the GIS variant than for the AIS system. UW2

experiences a factor of 6 higher number of disturbances in the AIS variant than for GIS supply. For the interruption probability, this difference is even more striking. The comparison between the calculation for single (only 1st order) and for double contingencies (1st/2nd order) shows, that the interruptions are mainly caused by single faults. The explanation lies in the network connection of UW2. It is tapped into a double line of the OHL ring surrounding the city. The combined routing of the two circuits and the installation of the same system of pylons makes it possible that a single fault can affect both circuits, leaving UW2 with no more supply. This failure mode, the tripping of two circuits caused by a single event, is called a common-mode failure, as mentioned before. As the affected substation UW2 cannot be re-supplied by switching within the substation but must wait until the reason of the fault is removed (assumed to be 2.7 hrs), the common-mode failure leads to a big contribution to the interruption probability. HV cable connections, even if routed close to each other, statistically do not show a relevant number of those common modes. The cable systems may be routed in cable ducts, may be protected by steel tubes or simply shielded by the MV cables buried above the HV cables. Another result of Fig 5.1 is, that the satellite substations SS1 and SS2 show exactly the same reliability of supply as the MV busbars of the transformer substations themselves. The parallel cables connecting the satellites with the transformer S/S are protected selectively, so that the failure of one cable leaves the others in operation. The same consideration applies to special customers supplied by multiple parallel cables directly from the transformer S/S busbar.
0.3 AIS 1st order AIS 2nd order GIS 1st order GIS 2nd order 2.5 AIS 1st order AIS 2nd order GIS 1st order GIS 2nd order

0.25 interruption frequencies (in #/yr)

0.2

Interruption probability (in min/yr) . UW4

1.5

0.15

0.1

0.05

0.5

0 UW1 SS1 UW2 SS2 UW3

0 UW1 SS1 UW2 SS2 UW3 UW4

a) Fig 5.1:
0.35

S/S busbars

b)

S/S busbars

Interruption frequencies (a) and probabilities (b) at the HV station MV busbars

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 AIS 1st order AIS 2nd order GIS 1st order GIS 2nd order

System interruption frequency (in #/yr)

0.25

AIS 1st order AIS 2nd order GIS 1st order GIS 2nd order

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 Busbar coupler Busbar section Common Mode HV HV Branch HV Line HV Switchbay HV Transformer (2W) HV

System interruption prob. (in min/yr) .

0.3

Busbar coupler Busbar section Common HV HV Mode Branch HV

Line HV

Switchbay HV

Transformer (2W) HV

a) Fig 5.2:

b) Component group contributions to the interruption frequencies (a) and probabilities (b) at the HV substations

Fig 5.2 differentiates the different component groups in their impact on the system non-reliability. For the system frequency of supply interruptions, AIS HV switchgear and transformers are the main impact. As the transformer capacity and the switchgear layout of each substation is redundant, the interruption can be ended by switching over to the respective reserve units. This is confirmed by the illustration of the contribution of component groups to the system interruption probability. Transformers and switchgear show a similar impact. De-

spite of its small contribution to the interruption frequency, the influence of common-mode failures in the AIS variant becomes - as expected - significant and even exceeds the influence of transformer outages. The evaluations up to now focused on the reliability of supply provided at the MV busbars of the system. Connected to these busbars are typically cable loops supplying the MV customers or the MV/LV transformer service stations. One disconnector in the loop is normally open, so that the supply is radial. Fig 5.3 shows the reliability of these (around 500) nodes in the form of a histogram. Each column shows the percentage of customers with values for interruption frequency (a) or probability (b) in the respective interval.
25 20 18 20 Share of nodes (in %) . GIS AIS 15 Share of customer nodes (in %) . GIS 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0

AIS

10

0
0 4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 8 8.8 9.6 10.4 11.2 12.8 13.6 14.4 15.2 16.8 17.6 18.4 19.2 12 16

a) Fig 5.3:

Interval for interruption frequency (in #/yr)

b)

Interval for interruption probability (in min/yr) .

Histograms for the interruption frequencies and probabilities of the MV customer nodes

The main result is that the big differences in supply reliability observed close to the S/S MV busbars are eased by the failures arising from the MV network. The reason lies in the radial operation of the MV loops. Each failure leads to the tripping of the attached substation feeder and interrupts all customers in the same half-loop. This service interruption is usually ended by (manual or remote operated) switching. The big number of events in the MV network dominate the events in the HV network, so that the differences in the HV supply are eased.. However the GIS/cable variant still offers a significantly higher reliability performance, for both the interruption frequency and the interruption probability. As opposed to the situation for normal customers in the radially fed distribution network, important customers with parallel cable connections to the transformer substations and no radial supply can take full benefit from the reduced non-reliability of the GIS variant.

6
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References
Zimmermann W.; Osterholt A.; Backes J.: Comparison of GIS and AIS Systems for Urban Supply Networks, ABB Review 2/99, pages 19-26 Bambao P. P; Simpao L. P.; Zimmermann W. S.; Brown R. : Basic Planning for a new fast growing area in Manila with a total electrical load of 650 MVA, 12th Conference on the Electric Power Supply Industry (CEPSI) 1998, Pattaya, Paper 33-21 CIGR WG 23.02: Report on the second international survey on high voltage GIS service experience (1999), CIGR (International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems), Paris, 1999 CIGR WG 06: Final report of the second international enquiry on high voltage circuit-breaker failures and defects in service experience (1994), CIGR, Paris, 1999 Forced outage performance of transmission equipment, Canadian Electricity Association (01/93 12/97)

20