Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
380 kV
132 kV
MT MT
370 MVA 370 MVA
UT 3~ UT UT 3~ UT
16 MVA 16 MVA 16 MVA 16 MVA
ST
GEN GEN
20 MVA
20 kV 20 kV
370 MVA 370 MVA
6 kV 6 kV 6 kV 6 kV 6 kV 6 kV
Fig. 1. Layout of a 4 x 320 MW thermal power station (2 units out of 4 are shown)
R(t)
compute a piecewise-continuous failure density function. A 0,5
0,4
study of this function is then followed by the choice of a
0,3
continuous model which fits the data satisfactorily. 0,2
The hazard rate z(t) is defined as the ratio of the number of 0,1
0
failures occurring in the time interval to the population at the
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
beginning of the time interval, divided by the length of the Time [h]
time interval [1]:
Fig. 3. Reliability function of the unit
z (t ) =
[n(ti ) − n(ti + dti )]/ n(ti ) (3) A constant hazard rate implies an exponential density
dti function and, as shown in Figure 3, an exponential reliability
where: function. Similar results were also obtained for the other
• n(ti) – n(ti + dti) is the number of failures occurring in the components.
time interval;
V. POWER STATION LAYOUTS
• n(ti) is the size of the population at the beginning of the
time interval; The following power station layouts have been considered
• dti is the length of the time interval. for the investigations.
A. Layout of Extra High-Voltage Substation
The hazard rate is a measure of the instantaneous speed of
failure. Figure 2 shows the hazard rate of the unit (turbine and The secure operation of extra high-voltage substations is
generator). greatly influenced by their layout. In order to assure the
continuity of the supply, the links between incoming and
0,0005
outgoing feeders of a substation have to remain intact, even in
spite of a number of connecting elements not being available.
Obviously every effort is made to attain this goal with a
Trend line
0,0004 minimum capital outlay.
The following substation schemes have been investigated:
• single-busbar (Figure 4a);
Hazard rate [1/h]
0,0003
• double busbar with single circuit-breaker (Figure 4b);
• one and half circuit-breaker (Figure 4c);
0,0002
• double busbar with double circuit-breaker (Figure 4d);
• ring (Figure 4e);
0,0001 • crossed-ring (Figure 4f).
The single busbar arrangement (Figure 4a) is suitable for
0 smaller installations. Its costs are low but maintenance is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 difficult to carry out and the availability is lower than that of
Time intervals most other schemes. A circuit-breaker failure leads to the loss
Fig. 2. Hazard rate of the unit
of all feeders connected to the busbar and the busbar
protection may cause the loss of the whole substation.
The reliability of a piece of equipment is the probability For larger installations the double busbar with single
that the item will perform a specified function under specified circuit-breaker arrangement (Figure 4b) is preferred. The
operational and environmental conditions, at and throughout a presence of two busbars makes maintenance possible without
specified time. The reliability function R(t) is given by the interrupting the supply. On the other hand a circuit-breaker
equation [1], [2]: failure again leads to the loss of all feeders connected to that
n(t ) busbar and the busbar protection may cause the loss of the
R (t ) = (4)
substation if all feeders are connected to the same busbar.
N
where:
• n(t) is the size of the population at the time t;
• N is the size of the original population.
1,40% 120%
AIS
1,20% GIS 1
100%
2
1,00% 80% 3
4
0,80%
60%
0,60%
40%
0,40%
20%
0,20%
0%
0,00%
a) b) c) d) e) f) -20%
Layout of EHV substations (refer to Figure 4)
-40%
Fig. 5. Relative availability improvement for a layout with generator circuit- a) b) c) d) e) f)
breaker (compared to the same layout without generator circuit-breaker) Layout of EHV substations (refer to Figure 4)
With respect to the design of the extra high-voltage Fig. 6. Difference in acquisition, civil work and installation costs of selectable
substation, it can be seen that the difference in the throughput equipment (referred to layout of Figure 1)
power between a gas insulated substation and an air insulated # EHV substation Generator circuit-breaker
No. of station
substation is generally very small. transformers
1 AIS no 2
On the other side, in case of a layout with generator circuit- 2 GIS no 2
breaker, the number of station transformers has a negligible 3 AIS yes 1
influence on the power station availability (see Table IV). 4 GIS yes 1
where:
• PV_MF is the Present Value of the Merit Figure of the
800%
700% layout;
600% • I is the Income per year;
ST MT UT • MC are the Maintenance Costs of selectable equipment
Costs of losses
500%
per year;
• LC are the Losses Costs when the unit is shut down per
400%
300% year;
200% • AC are the Acquisition Costs of selectable equipment;
100%
• CWC are the Civil Work Costs of selectable equipment;
• IC are the Installation Costs of selectable equipment;
• PW is the Present Worth factor (based on a discount rate
0%
1168 h
Downtime of 5%).
a) Case L1
The differences in the figure of merit of different power
800%
station layouts are depicted in Figure 8. It can be noticed that
layouts with a generator circuit-breaker generally have a
700%
higher figure of merit than layouts without a generator circuit-
600% breaker.
Additional calculations have shown that layouts with a
Costs of losses
500%
generator circuit-breaker and without a station transformer
400%
may even have somewhat higher figures of merit, especially in
300% cases with low downtimes (e. g. power stations which supply
200%
base load) where the losses during the time when the unit is
shut down do not matter very much.
100%
0% 0,80%
200 h 968 h
0,60%
Downtime
0,40%
b) Case L2
0,20%
0,00%
800%
-0,20%
1
700%
-0,40% 2
600% -0,60% 3
-0,80% 4
Costs of losses
500%
-1,00%
400%
-1,20%
300% a) b) c) d) e) f)
Layout of EHV substations (refer to Figure 4)
200%
Fig. 8. Differences in figure of merit of different power station layouts
100%
(referred to layout of Figure 1)
0% No. of station
# EHV substation Generator circuit-breaker
1168 h transformers
Downtime 1 AIS no 2
c) Case L3 2 GIS no 2
3 AIS yes 1
Fig. 7. Costs of load and no-load losses when the unit is shut down 4 GIS yes 1
(referred to layout of Figure 1)
Moreover, the use of a generator circuit-breaker makes the
These costs have been included in the economic ring scheme (Figure 4e) without station transformer one of the
assessment of the layout. best options; such a conclusion is due to the fact that this
C. Power Delivered to the Grid scheme is very cheap (low number of components) and shows
a similar reliability as the other schemes with a generator
The power delivered to the grid is given by the throughput circuit-breaker. Figure 9 shows the single line diagram of a
power minus the power consumed by the auxiliaries. recent pumped storage power station project where exactly
this scheme will be applied.
IX. CONCLUSIONS generator circuit-breaker is installed. The use of a generator
An analysis of different power station layouts from the circuit-breaker thus frees the choice of the scheme for the
point of view of reliability and economy has been carried out. extra high-voltage and high-voltage substations, leading to a
Failure and repair rates collected from two Italian thermal higher number of options for power station layouts.
power stations have been used for this purpose. The
X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
investigations show that the use of generator circuit-breakers
results in a higher power station availability for every kind of The authors are extremely thankful to prof. Andrea
extra high-voltage substation scheme, but especially in cases Silvestri, who tutored the thesis on which the paper is based
not commonly considered till today. For example the ring and promoted the cooperation between ABB Zurich and
scheme shows the highest availability improvement when a Politecnico di Milano researchers.
XI. REFERENCES [7] CLOCKWORK GROUP, “A User’s Guide to Thermal Power Plant
Workbench Version 1.1”, Austin , 1999-2000.
[1] M. L. SHOOMAN, “Probabilistic Reliability: an Engineering [8] IEEE POWER ENGINEERING SOCIETY, “Survey of Generator Step-Up
Approach”, Krieger, 1990. (GSU) Transformer Failures”, a Special Publication of the IEEE
[2] P. D. T. O’CONNOR, “Practical Reliability Engineering”, John Wiley Power Engineering Society Transformers Committee, 1998.
& Sons Ltd, 1991. [9] CIGRE WORKING GROUP 13.06, “Final Report of the Second
[3] BBC Brown, Boveri & Company, Ltd., “New Concepts for High- International Enquiry on High Voltage Circuit-Breaker Failures and
Voltage Switchyards”, Publication No. CH-A 035780E, Baden, Defects in Service”, Cigre Publication No. 83, 1994.
Switzerland, 1985. [10] M. H. J. BOLLEN, “Literature Search for Reliability Data of
[4] D. BRAUN, L. WIDENHORN AND J. ISCHI, “Impact of the Electrical Components in Electric Distribution Networks”, Eindhoven
Layout on the Availability of a Power Plant”, Conference University of Technology, 1993.
Proceedings of 11th CEPSI, Kuala Lumpur, 1996. [11] CIGRE WORKING GROUP 12.05, “An International Survey on Failures
[5] B. CULVER, K. FROELICH AND L. WIDENHORN, “Prevention of Tank in Large Power Transformers in Service”, Electra, No. 88, pp 21-42,
Rupture of Faulted Power Transformers by Generator Circuit 1983.
Breakers”, ETEP, Vol 6, pp 39-45, January/February 1996. [12] CIGRE WORKING GROUP 23.02, “Report on the Second International
[6] DUBI, “Monte Carlo Applications in Systems Engineering”, John Survey on High Voltage Gas Insulated Substations (GIS) Service
Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. Experience”, Cigre Publication No. 150, 2000.