Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 4
x Category 1
x Category 2
x Category 3
x Category 4
x Feasibility in expansion
Daniel Nack had presented the minimal cut set method based on the
criteria of continuity or availability of power supply. It considers each failure
state as an exclusive state, so that the probability of occurrence of system
failure is the sum of all the failure event probability. The components
modeled are transformers, bus bars, breakers and outgoing lines from
substation. The incoming lines were assumed to have 100% reliability for
developing substation indices. Daniel Nack (2005) had proposed the
substation component failure rate value as shown in Table 4.1. These are
converted into the corresponding reliability value. The Reliability of the
component is given by the relationship as per equation (2.10).
where
R(t) = Reliability
Ȝ = Failure rate
t = Time period
67
4.6.1 Modeling
The basic difference between FTA and SPM is the direction of the
analysis. A FTA starts with the undesired event and traces backward to the
causes. The fault tree ends with initiating basic events and failures that are
identified as the primary causes. Success path is associated with the degree of
its usefulness. A SPM starts with an initiating cause and traces forward the
resulting consequences. This forward stepping is repeated for different
selected initiating causes. The end consequences can vary depending on the
69
Most failure probabilities are small (less than 0.1), which uses
approximations when combining failure probabilities. Success probabilities
are usually close to 1.0, these approximations cannot be used and the solution
of success models are more accurate than the solution of failure models.
A B
U
Figure 4.1 A OR B (A B)
A B
L1 L2
B1 B2
HV Bus
B3 B4
T1 T2
LV Bus
Figure 4.3 Single bus bar configuration
74
Mode 1
The logic for single bus bar configuration during the operation of
transformer T1, when T2 transformer is not available is shown in Figure 4.4.
75
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND AND
AND AND
Current flow to Breaker (B1) Current flow to Breaker(B2) Breaker (B2) allows Current to flow
B1allows current to flow
Figure 4.4 Logic for single bus bar configuration during T1 operation
76
= [L1* B1 + L2*B2 – L1* B1 *L2* B2] *HV Bus* B3*T1 *LV Bus
= 0.974753298
Mode 2
The logic for single bus bar configuration during the operation of
transformer T2, when transformer T1 is not available is shown in Figure 4.5.
= 0.974753298
77
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND AND
AND AND
Current flow to Breaker (B1) Current flow to Breaker(B2) Breaker (B2) allows Current to flow
B1allows current to flow
AAND AND
AND
Figure 4.5 Logic for single bus bar configuration during T2 operation
78
Mode 3
Mode 1 Mode 2.
= 0.974753298 0.974753298
= 0.999362604
L1 L2
B1 B2
HV Bus HV Bus
B5
B3 B4
T1 T2
LV Bus LV Bus
Mode 1
= 0.974753298
Mode 2
The logic for single bus bar configuration during the operation of
transformer T2, when bus coupler is on and transformer T1 is not available is
shown in Figure 4.5.
= 0.974753298
Mode 3
Mode 1 Mode 2
= Mode 1 Mode 2
= 0.974753298 0.974753298
= 0.999362604
81
Mode 4
AND
OR
AND AND
AND AND
Current flow to
Current flow
to Breaker (B3) (B3 )Breaker allows breaker (B4) Breaker (B4) allows current flow
current flow
AND
AND ANAND
AND
AND
AND AND
AND AND
Figure 4.7 Logic for Sectionalized Single bus bar configuration during
B5 off
82
= 0.993917857
Mode 5
= Mode 3 Mode 4
= 0.999362604 0.993917857
= 0.99999612
L1 L2
HV Bus no 1
B6 B7
B8 B9
B10 B11
HV Bus no 2
T1 T2
LV Bus
Figure 4.8 Breaker and half bus bar configuration
Figure 4.8 shows two main buses, which are normally energized.
There are three circuit breakers and two feeder circuits between the buses.
This arrangement allows for breaker maintenance without interruption of
service. A fault on either bus may cause no feeder interruption. This
configuration has high reliability, operational flexibility, capability of isolating
any circuit breaker either of the main bus for maintenance without service
interruption. However it has higher cost and protection and control schemes
are more complex
Mode 1
Successful operation logic for breaker and a half bus bar configuration
during transformer T1 and HV bus bar no 1 in operation, when HV bus No 2
and transformer T2 are not available is shown in Figure 4.9
84
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
OR
AND
AND
AND AND
Current flow to Line (L1) Current flow to (L2) Line allows current to flow
(L1) Line allows current to flow Line (L2)
Figure.4.9 Logic for breaker and half bus bar configuration during T1
and HV bus bar no1 in operation
= 0.999000499
85
Mode 2
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
OR
AND
AND
AND AND
Figure 4.10 Logic for breaker and half bus bar configuration during T2
and HV bus bar no1 in operation
86
= 0.999000499
Mode 3
Mode 1 Mode 2
= Mode 1 Mode 2
= 0.999000499 0.999000499
= 0.999999001
Mode 4
Current Output
AND
AND
OR
AND
Current flow to Transformer (T 1)
AND
AND
AND
AND
Current flow to Line (L1) (L1) Line allows current to flow (L2) Line allows current to flow
Current flow to Line L2
Figure 4.11 Logic for breaker and half bus bar configuration during T1
and HV bus bar no2 operation
= 0.980989071
Mode 5
AND
AND
OR
AND
Current flow to Breaker (B11)
(B11) Breaker allows
Current flow to Transformer (T 2)
current to flow
AND
AND
AND AND
Current flow to 9
Current flow to Breaker (B8) (B8) allows current to flow
Breaker (B9) (B9) Breaker allows
current to flow
AND AND
Figure 4.12 Logic for breaker and half bus bar configuration during T2
and HV bus bar no2 in operation
89
= 0.980989071
Mode 6
Mode 4 Mode 5
= Mode 4 Mode 5
= 0.980989071 0.980989071
= 0.999638585
Mode 7
Mode 3 Mode 6
= Mode 3 Mode 6
= 0.999999001 0.999638585
= 1.0
L1 L2
HV Bus no 1
HV Bus no 2
T1 T2
LV Bus
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND AND
Mode 1
Successful operation logic for double bus bar and double breaker
configuration during transformer T1 and HV Bus bar no 1 in operation when
HV bus bar 2 and transformer T2 are not available is shown in figure 4.14. A
reliability value is estimated in mode 1 by substituting the substation component
reliability indices from Table 4.1
= 0.974753298.
Mode 2
Successful operational logic for double bus bar and double breaker
configuration during transformer T2 in operation and HV Bus bar no 1 when,
HV bus bar no 2 and transformer T1 are not available is shown in figure 4.15.
= 0.974753298.
93
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND AND
Figure 4.15 Logic for Double bus bar double breaker configuration
during T2 and HV bus no 1 in operation
94
Mode 3
Mode 1 Mode 2
= Mode 1 Mode 2
= 0.974753298 0.974753298
= 0.999362605
Mode 4
Successful operation logic for double bus bar and double breaker
configuration during transformer T1 and HV Bus bar no 2 in operation, when
bus bar no 1and transformer T2 are not available is shown in Figure 4.16.
= 0.974753298
95
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
AND
Figure 4.16 Logic for double bus bar double breaker configuration
during T1 and HV bus no2 in operation
Mode 5
Successful operation logic for double bus bar and double breaker
configuration during transformer T2 and HV Bus bar no 2 in operation when
HV bus bar no. 1 and transformer T1 are not available is shown in
Figure 4.17.
96
Current Output
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND AND
Figure 4.17 Logic for double bus bar double breaker configuration
during T2 and HV bus no2 in operation
97
= 0.974753298
Mode 6
= Mode4 Mode 5
= 0.974753298 974753298
= 0.999362605
Mode 7
= Mode 3 Mode 6
98
= 0.999362605 0.999362605
= 0.999999594.
Table 4.3 shows the comparison between the proposed SPM and
Daniel Nack method for reliability assessment of various substation
configurations.
Table 4.3 Proposed and Daniel Nack method for reliability values of
various substation configurations
Estimated
Estimating reliability
reliability value as per
Configuration value as per pro-
existing method
posed method
for double bus bar double breaker configuration, whereas Daniel Nack
method estimates a value of 0.994296328. The proposed method estimates
reliability value of 0.99999612 for sectionalized single bus bar configuration,
whereas Daniel Nack method estimates a value of 0.95513747. The proposed
method estimates reliability value of 0.999362604 for single bus bar
configuration, where as Daniel Nack method estimates a value of 0.94657901.
4.8 CONCLUSION