EE 521 PROJECT DESIGN CASE 2

PROF.M.J.BESHIREE521

PROJECT REPORT 2

POWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (CASE_2)

AKSHAY ANAND NERURKAR 8759392138

TABLE OF CONTENT:

1. Introduction and Background……………………………………………………1

2. Purpose and Goal of the Project…………………………………………………1

3. Design Assumptions……………………………………………………………..2

4. Procedure

A.STEP 1, 2(BASE CASE)…………………………………………5, 11

B.STEP 3 (MAIN CASE)………………………………………..….14-31

5. Study Outcome……………………………………………………………….32

6. Recommendations …………………………………………………………….32

7. Appendix…………………………………………………………………….33

1


INTRODUCTION

After more than 70 years of supplying downtown Metropolis with electricity it is time to retire the SANDERS69 power plant. The city’s downtown revitalization plan, coupled with a desire for more green space, make it impossible to build new generation in the downtown area. At the same time, a blooming local economy means that the city- wide electric demand is still as high as ever, so this impending plant retirement is going to have some adverse impact on the electric grid.

PURPOSE AND GOAL OF THE PROJECT

As a planning engineer for the local utility, Metropolis Light and Power (MLP), my job is to make recommendations on the construction of new transmission lines and transformers to ensure that the transmission system in MLP system is adequate for any base case or first contingency loading situation.

It is my job to iteratively determine the least expensive system additions so that the base case and all the contingencies result in secure operation points. The parameters of the new transmission line(s) will be derived using the tower configuration and conductor types available. The total cost of an addition is defined as the construction costs minus the savings associated with any decrease in system losses over the next five years.

I will be using the PowerWorld Simulator to conduct my studies. Any data assumed or referenced will be listed in the Appendix for reference. I will use the PowerWorld Design Case 2 for the purpose of the study. I have been asked to submit a detailed report including the justification of the final recommendation.

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

2


The following assumptions are made for the purpose of simplifying the analysis:

1. I will only consider the base case loading level given in design Case1. In a real design, typically a number of different operating points/loading levels must be considered.

2. I will consider the generator outputs as fixed values; any changes in the losses are always picked up by the system slack.

3. I will not modify the status of the capacitors or the transformer taps.4. The total system losses will be assumed to remain constant over the five-year period. I

will only consider the impact that new design has on the base case losses. The price for losses is fixed at $50/MWh.

DESIGN CASE2: AVAILABLE NEW RIGHT-OF-WAYS

Table 1: Available New Right-of-Ways

Right-of-Ways/Substation Right-of-Way Mileage (km) Right-of-Way Mileage (miles)

BOB to SCOT 13.68 8.5BOB to WOLEN 7.72 4.80FERNA to RAY 9.66 6.002LYNN to SCOT 19.31 11.999LYNN to WOLEN 24.14 14.999SANDER to SCOTT 9.66 6.071SLACK to WOLEN 18.51 11.502JO to SCOT 24.14 14.999

3


SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED DURING THE PROJECT INCLUDE:1. All the bus voltages should be in the range of: 0.95p.u and 1.10p.u.2. All the line flows must be below 100% of their limit values.3. The recommended system design should have zero violations.4. The recommended system design should be the most economical choice.

WORK CONDUCTED ON DESIGN CASE_2

Figure 1: Base case circuit showing the disconnected SANDERS69 power plant

4


STEPS EXECUTED

STEP 1: Determining the initial operating point using the base caseAim: To identify the base case operating point of the system to study the impact of the disconnected power plant at bus SANDERS69.

Procedure:1. Load design case 2 in the PowerWorld simulator2. Initial case has the power plant at SANDERS69 disconnected from the grid3. Perform the initial power flow solution and determine the system operating point4. Check whether all bus and line voltages are within the limit of 0.95 and 1.10 per unit5. Check whether all the line MVA flows are less than 100 % of the limit values

The figure below shows the net system losses to be 13.54 MW, for the base case when the power plant at SANDERS69 is disconnected from the grid.

Figure 2: Figure showing the base case system loss with the disconnected

SANDERS69 power plant (GENERATOR)

5


Table 2: Power system bus voltage data

Number NameArea

Name MonitorLimit

Group PU Volt Volt (kV)

Limit Low PU

Volt

Limit High PU

Volt

Contingency Limit Low PU

Volt

Contingency Limit High

PU Volt28 JO345 1 YES Default 1.03 355.35 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.131 SLACK345 1 YES Default 1.03 355.35 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.129 JO138 1 YES Default 1.02161 141.258 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.135 SLACK138 1 YES Default 1.02151 141.245 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.138 RAY345 1 YES Default 1.02194 352.913 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.11 TIM345 1 YES Default 1.02164 352.81 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.1

56 LYNN138 1 YES Default 1.02131 141.079 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.112 TIM69 1 YES Default 1.01191 70.511 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.110 RAY69 1 YES Default 1.01101 70.449 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.144 LAUF69 1 YES Default 1.02 70.38 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.150 DAVIS69 1 YES Default 1.02 70.38 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.117 PAI69 1 YES Default 1.06593 69.892 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.119 GROSS69 1 YES Default 1.07586 69.887 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.133 NICOL69 1 YES Default 1.01255 69.866 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.15 HOMER69 1 YES Default 1.0044 69.728 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.1

39 RAY138 1 YES Default 1.0048 139.393 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.118 HANNAH69 1 YES Default 1.009 69.621 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.114 WEBER69 1 YES Default 1.00883 69.609 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.132 NICOL138 1 YES Default 1.00873 139.204 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.120 SCOT69 1 YES Default 1.00821 69.566 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.137 AMANDA69 1 YES Default 1.00762 69.526 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.130 CAROL138 1 YES Default 1.00586 138.808 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.134 PATTEN69 1 YES Default 1.00472 69.326 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.113 FERNA69 1 YES Default 1.0035 69.242 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.141 LAUF138 1 YES Default 1.0009 138.125 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.1

6


48 BOB69 1 YES Default 1 69 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.140 TIM138 1 YES Default 0.99908 137.873 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.13 MORO138 1 YES Default 0.99867 137.816 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.1

27 HISKY69 1 YES Default 0.99582 68.712 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.155 DEMAR69 1 YES Default 0.99375 68.569 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.116 PETE69 1 YES Default 0.99147 68.411 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.154 SANDERS69 1 YES Default 0.9914 68.407 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.124 HIMAN69 1 YES Default 0.991 68.379 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.115 ZEB69 1 YES Default 0.98946 68.273 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.121 WOLEN69 1 YES Default 0.98743 68.133 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.153 SANDERS138 1 YES Default 0.98418 135.817 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.147 BOB138 1 YES Default 0.98207 135.525 0.95 1.1 0.95 1.1

7


Figure 3: Transmission line power flow MVA utilization

From Number

From Name

To Number To Name

Circuit Status Xfrmr

MW From

Mvar From

MVA From

Lim MVA

% of MVA Limit (Max)

MW Loss Mvar Loss

48 BOB69 47 BOB138 1 Closed YES -111 -66.5129.

4 187 64.7 0.19 7.6

39 RAY138 47 BOB138 1 Closed NO 145.6 36.9150.

2 233 64.5 1.72 10.112 TIM69 27 HISKY69 1 Closed NO 68.5 20.3 71.5 112 64.1 0.72 -3.2644 LAUF69 41 LAUF138 2 Closed YES -64 0.9 64 101 63.6 0.1 3.4110 RAY69 13 FERNA69 1 Closed NO 51.9 1.4 51.9 82 63.3 0.87 1.9244 LAUF69 41 LAUF138 1 Closed YES -61.2 0.7 61.2 101 60.8 0.09 3.14

32NICOL1

38 29 JO138 1 Closed NO-

112.8 -3.3112.

9 191 59.9 1.29 5.421 TIM345 40 TIM138 1 Closed YES 141.8 42.5 148 250 59.2 0.21 13.05

21WOLEN

69 48 BOB69 1 Closed NO -37.2 -13.4 39.6 72 55.3 0.29 -0.06

21WOLEN

69 48 BOB69 2 Closed NO -37.2 -13.4 39.5 72 55.2 0.29 -0.112 TIM69 18 HANNAH69 1 Closed NO 58.1 -1.7 58.1 106 54.8 0.89 2.68

10 RAY69 39 RAY138 1 Closed YES-

100.7 0.6100.

7 186.7 54 0.11 4.36

24HIMAN

69 44 LAUF69 1 Closed NO -40 -12.3 41.8 82 52.4 0.71 1.57


110.5 -19.7112.

2 224 50.9 0.12 7.63


110.3 -19.7 112 224 50.8 0.12 7.59

28 JO345 29 JO138 2 Closed YES 103.6 13.7104.

5 220 47.5 0.09 5.25

8


28 JO345 29 JO138 1 Closed YES 103.6 13.7104.

5 220 47.5 0.09 5.2516 PETE69 27 HISKY69 1 Closed NO -47.7 -21.7 52.4 112 46.8 0.1 -4.1912 TIM69 40 TIM138 2 Closed YES -84.6 -16.1 86.1 187 46.5 0.08 3.4812 TIM69 40 TIM138 1 Closed YES -84.6 -16.1 86.1 187 46.5 0.08 3.4810 RAY69 19 GROSS69 1 Closed NO 32 -4.5 32.3 72 44.9 0.41 0.7420 SCOT69 50 DAVIS69 1 Closed NO -35 4.4 35.3 82 43.6 0.52 0.8429 JO138 41 LAUF138 1 Closed NO 76.9 8.7 77.3 191 40.5 1.07 3.58

54SANDER

S69 53 SANDERS138 1 Closed YES -73 17.7 75.1 187 40.1 0.08 2.9

33NICOL6

9 32 NICOL138 1 Closed YES -39.8 7.3 40.5 101 40.1 0.04 1.15

30CAROL1

38 32 NICOL138 1 Closed NO -72.9 -9.2 73.5 191 38.5 0.12 0.31

31SLACK3

45 38 RAY345 1 Closed NO 221.7 47.6226.

8 597 38.2 0.37 -6.97

13FERNA6

9 55 DEMAR69 1 Closed NO 31 3.5 31.2 90 34.7 0.21 0.7117 PAI69 19 GROSS69 1 Closed NO -13.2 10.1 16.6 50 33.5 0.07 -0.1147 BOB138 53 SANDERS138 1 Closed NO 32.6 -47.3 57.5 185 31.1 0.06 -15.3

35SLACK1

38 31 SLACK345 1 Closed YES -64.8 -10.9 65.7 220 30.1 0.04 2.1

5HOMER

69 44 LAUF69 1 Closed NO -28.9 0.8 29 102 28.7 0.28 0.5115 ZEB69 54 SANDERS69 1 Closed NO -21.7 -2.8 21.9 77 28.5 0.04 -2.0415 ZEB69 54 SANDERS69 2 Closed NO -21.5 -2.8 21.7 77 28.2 0.04 -2.0715 ZEB69 54 SANDERS69 3 Closed NO -21.4 -2.8 21.6 77 28 0.04 -2.0848 BOB69 54 SANDERS69 1 Closed NO -3.8 21.7 22.1 105 27.8 0.1 -7.1420 SCOT69 34 PATTEN69 1 Closed NO 19.7 -2.1 19.8 72 27.5 0.09 0.12

30CAROL1

38 41 LAUF138 1 Closed NO 49.5 3 49.6 191 26 0.18 -0.1712 TIM69 17 PAI69 1 Closed NO 19.7 7.1 20.9 82 25.5 0.09 0.09

9


1 TIM345 31 SLACK345 1 Closed NO-

141.8 -42.5 148 597 24.8 0.24 -15.7

35SLACK1

38 39 RAY138 1 Closed NO 66.8 10 67.5 288 23.4 0.45 1.35

33NICOL6

9 50 DAVIS69 1 Closed NO 11.8 -13.3 17.8 82 21.7 0.15 0.05

14WEBER6

9 44 LAUF69 1 Closed NO -15.3 -8 17.3 81 21.3 0.11 -4.65

18HANNA

H69 37 AMANDA69 2 Closed NO 13.5 -1.1 13.6 68 20 0.02 -2.56

18HANNA

H69 37 AMANDA69 1 Closed NO 13.5 -1.1 13.6 68 20 0.02 -2.5639 RAY138 40 TIM138 1 Closed NO 40.7 7.4 41.4 233 17.8 0.2 -0.9

54SANDER

S69 55 DEMAR69 1 Closed NO -8.1 3.4 8.8 50 17.6 0.05 0.0415 ZEB69 16 PETE69 1 Closed NO 10.1 -11.6 15.4 93 16.5 0.02 -1.96

31SLACK3

45 28 JO345 1 Closed NO -92.7 -10.9 93.3 600 16 0.18 -34.5

5HOMER

69 18 HANNAH69 1 Closed NO 14.9 -4 15.5 102 15.2 0.07 0.03

56LYNN13

8 29 JO138 1 Closed NO -16 -0.8 16 133 12 0.02 -1.31

14WEBER6

9 34 PATTEN69 1 Closed NO 3.1 5.1 6 72 8.4 0.01 -0.115 ZEB69 24 HIMAN69 1 Closed NO -3.7 -4.1 5.5 74 7.4 0 -2.16

3MORO1

38 40 TIM138 1 Closed NO -12.7 -0.4 12.7 233 5.5 0.01 -1.76

35SLACK1

38 56 LYNN138 1 Closed NO -2 0.9 2.1 100 3.5 0 -2

3MORO1

38 41 LAUF138 1 Closed NO 0.4 -4.6 4.7 233 2 0 -1.3420 SCOT69 48 BOB69 1 Open NO 0 0 0 82 0 0 0

10


Observation:1. It is observed from the above base case analysis that all the power system transmission

lines and the bus voltages are within the defined voltage limits of 0.95 and 1.10 per unit

2. From Table 1, it is observed that: The least value of voltage obtained by the transmission lines and buses is

0.98207 per unit The maximum value of voltage obtained by the transmission line and buses is

1.03 p.u

3. Also from the base case analysis, it was observed that all the power system line MVA are within the defined MVA limit of 100% as shown in Table 2:

The least % of MVA is utilized by transmission line is 0% The maximum % of MVA is utilized by the transmission line is 71.5%

STEP 2: Perform contingency analysis on the power systemAim: To study the impact of any single transmission line or transformer or outage on the remaining system operation. This procedure is known as (n-1) contingency analysis.

Procedure:1. Select tools in the PowerWorld simulator window2. Click on the Contingency Analysis option3. Note that 57 single line or transformer contingencies are defined4. Select start run button at the bottom right corner of the display to see the impact of

removing any single element on the rest of the power system operation

Figure 4: Result of contingency analysis when conducted on the base case

11


Figure 5: Table showing contingency analysis on base case

Label Skip Processed Solved ViolationsMax Branch % Min Volt Max Volt

# of iterations

L_RAY138-BOB138C1 NO YES YES 7 125.2 0.934 2T_BOB69-BOB138C1 NO YES YES 2 114.5 0.949 1L_WOLEN69-BOB69C1 NO YES YES 1 112.7 2T_LAUF69-LAUF138C1 NO YES YES 1 104.3 2T_LAUF69-LAUF138C2 NO YES YES 1 102.7 2L_WOLEN69-BOB69C2 NO YES YES 1 112.7 2L_RAY69-FERNA69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_HOMER69-LAUF69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_MORO138-TIM138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_TIM69-HANNAH69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_TIM69-HISKY69C1 NO YES YES 0 2T_TIM69-TIM138C1 NO YES YES 0 2T_TIM69-TIM138C2 NO YES YES 0 2L_FERNA69-DEMAR69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_TIM69-PAI69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_HOMER69-HANNAH69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_ZEB69-HIMAN69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_ZEB69-PETE69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_ZEB69-SANDER69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_ZEB69-SANDER69C2 NO YES YES 0 1L_ZEB69-SANDER69C3 NO YES YES 0 1L_PETE69-HISKY69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_PAI69-GROSS69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_HANNAH69-AMANDA69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_HANNAH69-AMANDA69C2 NO YES YES 0 1

12


L_SCOT69-PATTEN69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_SCOT69-BOB69C1 NO YES YES 0 0L_SCOT69-DAVIS69C1 NO YES YES 0 1T_RAY69-RAY138C1 NO YES YES 0 2T_JO345-JO138C2 NO YES YES 0 2L_WEBER69-LAUF69C1 NO YES YES 0 2T_JO345-JO138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_HIMAN69-LAUF69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_SLACK345-JO345C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_NICOL138-JO138C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_JO138-LAUF138C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_LYNN138-JO138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_CAROL138-NICOL138C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_CAROL138-LAUF138C1 NO YES YES 0 1T_SLACK138-SLACK345C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_SLACK345-RAY345C1 NO YES YES 0 1T_NICOL69-NICOL138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_NICOL69-DAVIS69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_SLACK138-RAY138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_SLACK138-LYNN138C1 NO YES YES 0 1T_RAY138-RAY345C1 NO YES YES 0 2T_RAY138-RAY345C2 NO YES YES 0 2L_RAY138-TIM138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_WEBER69-PATTEN69C1 NO YES YES 0 1L_RAY69-GROSS69C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_MORO138-LAUF138C1 NO YES YES 0 1T_TIM345-TIM138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_BOB138-SANDER138C1 NO YES YES 0 2L_BOB69-SANDER69C1 NO YES YES 0 1

13


OBSERVATION:

1. After performing the contingency analysis, it is observed from the above table that the power system has 13 contingency violations in the base case when the SANDERS69 power plant is disconnected from the grid.

STEP 3: Finding least cost design to install the new transmission lines and transformers to ensure that the transmission system in MLP is adequate for any base case or first case contingency loading situation with the retirement of the SANDERS69 power plant.

PROCEDURE:1. Determine the parameters (resistance, inductive and capacitive reactance, line

length, GMD, GMR, B and G) of all the transmission lines using the tower configuration and conductor type, which in this case is Cardinal with a symmetrical tower configuration, having a spacing of 4m between the conductor strands for a 69KV transmission line and 5m spacing for 138 KV transmission line.

2. After determining the transmission line parameters, I use the available rights-of-ways data from the table given below to construct the transmission line on the existing Base case, initially keeping all the circuit breakers open.

3. Once, all the transmission lines have been constructed, I now construct a bus of 138 KV, to upgrade the 69 KV buses: WOLEN69, BOB69,FERNA69, SCOT69 and RAY69 to the 138 KV buses in an arrangement with no contingency violations.

4. Now, that I have my circuit ready for analysis, I close the circuit breakers for single transmission lines first, then in the second stage I select a combination of two transmission line pairs in the order given in the table enlisting the Rights-of-Ways data.

5. After closing the circuit breakers for the single transmission line and later of the pair of two transmission lines, I note down the total system losses given by the highlighted yellow box on the top left corner of the one line diagram for each arrangement.

6. Next, I perform the contingency analysis on the circuit considered. A contingency analysis window pops up. I select the Start Run option to perform the contingency analysis.

7. Within a few seconds, the PowerWorld window displays the number of violations encountered by the considered system on the bottom left corner of the contingency analysis window.

8. Once, all the combinations of one transmission lines and two transmission line pairs have been considered, I now calculate the total cost incurred by the construction of the pair of transmission lines using the equation:

Final cost of project after installing transmissionline pair ( for 5 years )=Total construction cost−Savings associated withdecrease∈systemloss∨+Additional cost of installation

From the calculations, I can now select the most cost effective approach to install the new transmission line/lines and transformers to ensure that MLP is adequate for any base case

14


or first case contingency loading situation with the retirement of the SANDERS69 power plant.

DESIGN CASE SPECIFICATIONS:

1. Tower configuration- Symmetrical tower type2. Transmission line conductor type- Cardinal3. Conductor spacing- 4m for 69KV line; 5m for 138 KV line4. Base MVA- 100 MVA5. Current rating- 1110 A6. Fixed cost- $200,000 for 138 KV line; $125,000 for 69 KV line7. Variable cost- $310,000/mile for 138KV line; $260,000/mile for 69 KV line8. Cost of transformer- $950,000 for 101 MVA transformer; $1,200,000 for 187 MVA

transformer9. Transformer configuration- Per Unit resistance- 0.0025 p.u; Per Unit reactance- 0.04

p.u10. Cost of bus upgrading from 69KV to 138KV- $200,00011. Initial Base case system losses= 13.54 MW, which is assumed to be constant

throughout the designing process

CALCULATIONS:

1. Calculating GMR for the Cardinal conductor- Since, radius of the conductor is not specified in the case, therefore, assuming the GMR from the Table A4 as-

GMR= 0.0403’= 0.4836”

2. Calculating GMD for the symmetrical tower configuration using equation-

GMD =3√d∗d∗d , where d= distance between the conductors.

Here, d= 4m for 69 KV line and d= 5m for 138 KV line

Therefore:GMD for 69 KV line =3√4∗4∗4=4m=13.1233'=157.4796”GMD for 138 KV line =3√5∗5∗5=5m=16.40419'=196.8502”

3. Inductance for the conductor is calculated using equation

15


L=0.7411log(GMDGMR )mH /mile / phase

Therefore:

L for 69 KV line: L=0.7411log(157.47960.4836 )mH /mile / phase= 1.8621 mH /mile / phase

L for 138 KV line: L=0.7411log( 196.85020.4836 )mH /mile / phase= 1.93401

mH /mile / phase

4. Calculating Inductive reactance for the transmission lines using equationX L=2∗π∗f∗L Ω

Therefore:X L For 69 KV line:X L=2∗π∗60∗1.8621m = 0.701 Ω /mile / phaseX L For 138 KV line:X L=2∗π∗60∗1.93401m = 0.72910 Ω /mile / phase

5. Capacitance for the conductor is calculated using equation

C=( 0.0388

log(GMDGMR ))µF /mile / phase

Therefore:C for 69 KV line:

C=( 0.0388

log(157.47960.4836 ))=0.015441µF /mile / phase

C for 138 KV line:

C=( 0.0388

log(196.85020.4836 ) )=0.014867 µF /mile / phase

6. Calculate Capacitive reactance for the transmission lines using equation

16


XC=( 12∗π∗f∗C

) Ω

Therefore:XC For 69 KV line:

XC ¿( 12∗π∗60∗0.015441 )=171.7882 KΩ¿mile / phase

XC For 138 KV line:

XC ¿( 12∗π∗60∗0.014867 )=178.4208 KΩ¿mile / phase

7. Calculate Susceptance for the transmission lines using equation

B= jXC

Mhos/mile

Therefore:

B for 69 KV line:

B= j171.7882K = 5.821121 µmhos/mile

B for 138 KV line:

B= j178.4208K = 5.604227 µmhos/mile

8. Resistance of the conductor is take from table as ra=0.1128Ω¿cond /mile

9. Assuming Conductance G=0

10. The total cost for the project after installing the new combination of transmission line and transformer is calculated using equation:

Total cost= [($200,000) + ($125,000) + (310,000*length138KV line) + (260,000*length69KV line)+Additional cost – savings + ($950,000 or $1,200,000) if transformer used+ $200,000 for upgrading the 69 KV to 138 KV]

17


OBSERVATIONS

Single transmission line consideredTransmission Line System Losses Contingency ViolationsBOB69 to SCOT69 13.66 MW 6 violationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69 13.54 MW 8 violationsBOB138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69 13.54 MW 8 violationsBOB69 to WOLEN69 13.33 MW 10 violationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69

13.13 MW 9 violations

BOB138 (187 MVA) to WOLEN69


FERNA69 to RAY69 13.16 MW 12 violationsFERNA69 to RAY138 (101 MVA)


FERNA69 to RAY138 (187 MVA)


LYNN138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69




LYNN138(101 AND 187 MVA) to WOLEN69


SANDER69 to SCOT69 13.67 MW 7 violationsSANDER138(101 AND 187 MVA) to SCOT69


SLACK138(101 MVA) to WOLEN69

11.09 MW 0 violation

SLACK138(187 MVA) to WOLEN69


JO138(101 AND 187 MVA) to SCOT69


2 transmission lines considered

CASE 1: BOB69 to SCOT69 fixedVariable Transmission line System Losses Contingency ViolationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69 13.61 MW 5 violationsBOB138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69 13.61 MW 5 violationsBOB69 to WOLEN69 13.48 MW 3 violationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69


18








FERNA69 to RAY69 13.22 MW 5 violationsLYNN138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69




SLACK138(101 AND 187 MVA) to WOLEN69

11.07MW AND 10.68 MW 0 violation

JO138(101 AND 187 MVA) to SCOT69

12.21 AND 12.06 MW 2 violation

CASE 2: BOB138 to SCOT69 fixed101 MVA transformer:Variable Transmission line System Losses Contingency ViolationsBOB69 to WOLEN69 13.32 MW 4 violationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69










LYNN138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69




SANDER69 to SCOT69 13.65 MW 7 violationsSANDER138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69


SLACK138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69


SLACK138 (187 MVA) to 10.85 MW 0 violations

19


WOLEN69JO138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69 11.24 MW 4 violations

187 MVA transformer:Variable Transmission line System Losses Contingency ViolationsBOB69 to WOLEN69 13.32 MW 4 violationsBOB138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69




















JO138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69 10.99 MW 3 violations

CASE 3: BOB69 to WOLEN69 fixedBOB138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69








20












SANDER138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69






JO138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69 12.67 MW 8 violationsJO138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69 12.67 MW 8 violations

CASE 4: BOB138 to WOLEN69 fixed101 MVA transformer:BOB69 TO SCOT69 13.61 MW 5 violationsBOB69 TO WOLEN69 13.05 MW 9 violationFERNA69 to RAY69 12.57 MW 9 violationsFERNA69 to RAY138 (101 MVA)







12.46MW 8 violations







SLACK138 (101 AND 187 10.71 MW 1 violations

21


MVA) to WOLEN69JO138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69 12.38 MW 8 violationsJO138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69 12.38 MW 8 violations

187 MVA transformer:BOB69 TO SCOT69 13.61 MW 5 violationsBOB69 TO WOLEN69 13.05 MW 9 violationFERNA69 to RAY69 12.57 MW 9 violationsFERNA69 to RAY138 (101 MVA)







12.46MW 8 violations

LYNN138 (101 AND 187 MVA) to WOLEN69






SLACK138 (101 AND 187 MVA) to WOLEN69



CASE 5: FERNA69 to RAY69 fixedBOB69 TO SCOT69 13.61 MW 5 violationsBOB69 TO WOLEN69 13.05 MW 9 violationFERNA69 to RAY138 (101 MVA)








LYNN138 (101 MVA) to 10.83 MW 2 violations

22


WOLEN69LYNN138 (187 MVA) to WOLEN69











CASE 6: FERNA69 to RAY138 fixed101 MVA transformer:LYNN138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69









10.5MW 9 violations


10.5MW 0 violations


187 MVA transformer:LYNN138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69




SANDER69 to SCOT69 13.32 MW 6 violationsSANDER138 (101 MVA) to 13.06 MW 5 violations

23


SCOT69SANDER138 (187 MVA) to SCOT69



10.5MW 9 violations


10.5MW 0 violations


CASE 7: J0E138 TO SCOT69101 AND 187 MVA Transformer

PAIRS SYSTEM LOSSES CONTINGENCY VIOLATIONSLYNN138(101 MVA) to WOLEN69


LYNN138(187 MVA) to WOLEN69


SLACK138(101 AND 187 MVA) to WOLEN69

10.13 MW AND 10.51 MW 0 violations

CASE 8: LYNN138 to SCOT69 fixed101 MVA Transformer-0 cases without contingency violation.

187 MVA Transformer:SANDER69 to SCOT69 11.22 MW 0 violationsSANDER138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69









24


CASE 9: SANDER138 to SCOT69 fixed101 MVA Transformer-0 cases without contingency violation.

187 MVA Transformer:LYNN138 (101 MVA) to WOLEN69


SANDER69 to SCOT69 13.64 MW 6 violationsSLACK138 (187 MVA) to WOLEN69



CASE 10: SLACK138 to WOLEN69101 MVA Transformer-0 cases without contingency violation.

187 MVA Transformer:SANDER69 to SCOT69 10.88 MW 0 violationsSANDER138 (101 MVA) to SCOT69



CASE11: LYNN138 to WOLEN69101 MVA Transformer-0 cases without contingency violation.187 MVA TransformerLYNN138 to WOLEN69 10.71 MW 0 violationsSANDER69 to SCOT69 11.65 MW 7 violationsSANDER138 to SCOT69 11.31 MW 7 violationsSLACK138(187 MVA) to WOLEN69


JO138 to SCOT69 12.74 MW 11 violations

25


COST CALCULATIONS:The observation tables above show that there are several combinations of transmission lines and transformers which result in zero contingency violation. But, the goal of our project is to determine the least expensive combination with zero violations. Below are the steps, which show calculations for cases which most likely can be the least cost combination.

CASE A: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: SLACK138 TO WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA) AND BOB138 TO SCOTT69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines SLACK138 to WOLEN69 and BOB138 and SCOT69= [$200,000 × 2]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 11.5015 + $310,000 ×8.50]Transformer cost (Qty:2)= [$1,200,000× 2]Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000 ×2]Therefore, net construction cost= $9,400,000.00

Base case system loss= 13.54 MWSystem loss for combination considered= 10.13 MWSaving= [13.54–10.13]× 50 ×24 ×365 × 5= $7,467,900

Therefore Net cost of project= [$7,853,503.465 −¿ $7,467,900]= $193,210.

CASE B: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: BOB138 TO WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA) AND SLACK138 TO WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines BOB138 TO WOLEN69 and SLACK138 TO WOLEN69 = [$200,000 × 2]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 4.8 + $310,000 ×11.5]Transformer cost (One 187 MVA, One 101 MVA)= [$1,200,000 + $950,000]Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000 ×2]Therefore, net construction cost= $8,253,000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$12,249,876−¿ $6,679,500]= $1,573,500

26


CASE C: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: BOB69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN138 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$200,000 +125,000]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 11.5]Transformer cost (Qty:2)= [$1,200,000]Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000]Therefore, net construction cost= $5,890,000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$7290000 −¿ $7,270,800] = $644,900.

CASE D: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: LYNN69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 6.0024 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000]Therefore, net construction cost= $6,850,000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$6,851,089−¿ $6,679,500]= $170,500.

CASE E: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: FERNA69 to RAY69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 12 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000]Therefore, net construction cost= $8210000

27



Therefore Net cost of project= [$6,851,089−¿ $6,679,500]= $1,530,500.CASE F: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: FERNA69 to RAY138(TRANSFORMER 101MVA) AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 6.0024 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $950,000+1200000Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $8000000



CASE G: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES FERNA69 to RAY138(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 6.0024 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000¿2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $8250000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$6,851,089−¿ $6,679,500]= $1,570,500.

CASE H: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: JOE138 to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 101MVA)

Fixed cost for lines JOE69 to SCOTT69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 15 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $950,000¿2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]28


Therefore, net construction cost= $6,851,089



CASE I: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: JOE138 to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 6.0024 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000¿2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $8250000



CASE J: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: JOE138 to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 101MVA AND 187 MVA)Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$260,000 × 6.0024 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000+950,000Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $8000000



CASE K: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: LYNN69(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 101MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to SCOTT69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 12 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000+950000

29


Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $10,160,000



CASE L: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: LYNN69(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to SCOTT69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 12 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000*2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $10,410,000



CASE M: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: SANDER138(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) to SCOTT69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to SCOTT69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 6 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $7350000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$6,851,089−¿ $6,679,500]= $670,500CASE N: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: SLACK138(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) to WOLEN69 AND JOE138 to SCOT69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to SCOTT69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]30


Variable cost= [$310,000 × 11.50 + $310,000 ×15]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000*2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $11,30,000


Therefore Net cost of project= [$6,851,089−¿ $6,679,500]= $171,589.CASE O: COMBINATION OF TRANSMISSION LINES: LYNN138(TRANSFORMER 187MVA) to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Fixed cost for lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 and SLACK138 to WOLEN69 = [$125,000 +$200,000 ]Variable cost= [$310,000 × 15 + $310,000 ×11.5015]Transformer cost (Qty: 1)= $1,200,000¿2Bus upgrading cost= [$200,000*2]Therefore, net construction cost= $11,340,000



31


Observation:The above observation tables show all the combinations of single and two transmission line pairs, of which we find the least system cost to be 10.13 MW for the case with transmission lines: SLACK138 to WOLEN69(with transformer of 187MVA) and JO138 to SCOT69(with transformer of 187MVA)PG.24. But from the cost calculations shown above, it can be seen that the most economical combination of transmission lines and transformers is achieved for the combination of transmission lines: LYNN69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

Project recommendations:After studying the impact of all the possible combinations of transmission line pairs, we arrived at the study outcome table shown above, which represents all the cases which result in one or more zero violation scenarios.

By further calculating the total cost of the project for the combinations with zero violations, it is found that the project case with the least cost is obtained by installing the transmission lines LYNN69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)With Transformer of rating 187 MVA. This transmission line combination incurs a total cost of $170,500.

This combination LYNN69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA) satisfies the two main requirements of our study: (1) To result in zero contingency violations with the power plant at SANDERS69 disconnected from the grid; (2) To be the least expensive approach.

Therefore, the least expensive system additions that can be implemented so that base case and all contingencies result in reliable operation with the SANDERS69 power plant disconnected is achieved by using the LYNN69 to WOLEN69 AND SLACK138 to WOLEN69 (TRANSFORMER 187MVA)

32


APPENDIX

TABLE A.3Electrical characteristics of bare aluminium conductors steel-reinforced (ACSR)*

Resistan

ce

Code word

Aluminum area, cmil

Strandin

g

Layers of a

O Dc, 20°C,Ω

20°C, Ω/mi

50°C, Ω/mi

GMR Ds ft

Inductive Xa, Ω/miWaxwing 266.800 18/1 2 0,6090,064

60,3488

0,3831

0,0198 0,476Partridge

266.800 26/7 2 0,6420,0640

0,3452

0,3792

0,0217 0,465Ostrich 300.000 26/7 2 0,6800,056

90,3070

0,3372

0,0229 0,458Merlin 336.400 18/1 2 0,6840,051

20,2767

0,3037

0,0222 0,462Linnet 336.400 26/7 2 0,7210,050

70,2737

0,3006

0,0243 0,451Oriole 336.400 30/7 2 0,7410,050

40,2719

0,2987

0,0255 0,445Chickadee

397.500 18/1 2 0,7430,0433

0,2342

0,2572

0,0241 0,452Ibis 397.500 26/7 2 0,7830,043

00,2323

0,2551

0,0264 0,441Pelican 477.000 18/1 2 0,8140,036

10,1957

0,2148

0,0264 0,441Flicker 477.000 24/7 2 0,8460,035

90,1943

0,2134

0,0284 0,432Hawk 477.000 26/7 2 0,8580,035

70,1931

0,2120

0,0289 0,430Hen 477.000 30/7 2 0,8830,035

50,1919

0,2107

0,0304 0,424Osprey 556.500 18/1 2 0,8790,030

90,1679

0,1843

0,0284 0,432Parakeet 556.500 24/7 2 0,9140,030

80,1669

0,1832

0,0306 0,423Dove 556.500 26/7 2 0,9270,030

70,1663

0,1826

0,0314 0,420Rook 636.000 24/7 2 0,9770,026

90,1461

0,1603

0,0327 0,415Grosbeak

636.000 26/7 2 0,9900,0268

0,1454

0,1596

0,0335 0,412Drake 795.000 26/7 2 1,1080,021

50,1172

0,1284

0,0373 0,399Tern 795.000 45/7 3 1,0630,021

70,1188

0,1302

0,0352 0,406Rail 954.000 45/7 3 1,1650,018

10,0997

0,1092

0,0386 0,395Cardinal 954.000 54/7 3 1,1960,018

00,0988

0,1128

0,0402 0,390Ortolan 1.033.500 45/7 3 1,2130,016

70,0924

0,1011

0,0402 0,390Bluejay 1.113.000 45/7 3 1,2590,015

50,0861

0,0941

0,0415 0,386Finch 1.113.000 54/19 3 1,2930,015

50,0856

0,0937

0,0436 0,380Bittern 1.272.000 45/7 3 1,3450,013

60,0762

0,0832

0,0444 0,378Pheasant 1.272.000 54/19 3 1,3820,013

50,0751

0,0821

0,0466 0,372Bobolink 1.431.000 45/7 3 1,4270,012 0,068 0,074 0,047 0,371

33

Documents

EE 521 PROJECT DESIGN CASE 2