ABB Review 1999-02 - 19-26 - en PDF
ABB Review 1999-02 - 19-26 - en PDF
ABB Review 1999-02 - 19-26 - en PDF
Use of ABB gas-insulated switchgear allowed the 132-kV transformer substation Barbaa in the center 1
of Orense, Spain, to be constructed underground and a park built over it which harmonizes with the surroundings.
The sound of the waterfall, which acts as a heat-exchanger, hides the noise made by the fans.
GIS
The GIS variant 2 considered in the study
4.5 km
consists of three HV transformer sub-
33.1 MVA
27.8 MVA
GIS variant of the 110-kV 2
4.1 km network
operation one of the cables in this ring substation) does not load any cable be- required power transmission capability of
remains open to provide simple pro- yond 120 % of its capacity. The maxi- the MV network, allowing an additional
tection. Each HV/MV transformer mum load of 5.2 MVA per cable at 10 saving due to the smaller MV cable cross-
substation has its own back-up trans- kV (10.2 MVA at 20 kV) at the beginning sections required. And thirdly, trans-
former, allowing maintenance to be of the planning period takes into ac- mission losses are avoided. The reduction
carried out on a transformer without count the reduced ampacity for cables in operating costs due to this third advan-
having to operate switches in the MV bundled in the same cable trench close tage is especially evident at low distribu-
network. to the transformer as well as a margin tion voltages.
Maximum of 14 customer substations for load growth during the planning These general effects are also reflected
in a loop. This limits the number of cus- period. in the results obtained with the described
tomers whose power supply would be network solutions. The MV network receiv-
interrupted in the event of an MV net- Planning results ing power from the GIS substations con-
work failure, as only the feeder con- The inherent flexibility of GIS allows sists of radially operated (open) loops, all
nected to the HV/MV station busbar is planners to place the injection points of which are fed from the MV busbars of
equipped with overcurrent protection close to the load centers 5 . The first the HV substations.
and a circuit-breaker. effect of this is on the number of loads The peripheral locations of the trans-
Normal loading of the feeder cables, so considered an optimum for each HV sub- former substations in the AIS variant make
that a worst-case cable failure (feeder station, and thus on its installed trans- additional satellite stations necessary 6 .
failure close to the HV/MV transformer former capacity. Secondly, it reduces the These have remote MV busbars, fed by
the HV transformer substations via several
parallel and selectively protected trans-
Distribution and load rating of MV transformer substations taken 4 mission cables. Their reliability is com-
as a starting point for the GIS/AIS system comparison parable with the reliability of the MV bus-
bar of the HV transformer substations, but
they call for extra capital investment and
6.2 MW 1.9 MW 0.4 MW 0.2 MW
cause additional losses. The AIS variant
with a voltage of 10 kV requires 6 parallel
1.4 MW 2.7 MW 10 MW 11.3 MW 7.4 MW 3.1 MW 0.9 MW cables from the HV injection to the satel-
lite station, the 20-kV variant requiring 4
cables. These satellite busbars, like the
5.5 MW 4.9 MW 11.3 MW 19.7 MW 7.1 MW 6.7 MW 4.5 MW MV busbars of the HV substations, supply
power to the MV substations via open
loops.
1.3 MW 3.6 MW 4.2 MW 7.4 MW 3.9 MW 8.4 MW 1.5 MW
TS1 TS2
TS1
TS2
TS4
TS3
TS3
Topology of the GIS variant with injection points 5 Topology of the AIS variant with peripheral 6
close to the load centers (distribution voltage 20 kV) transformer substations and additional satellite
stations (distribution voltage 20 kV)
TS1, 2, 3 Transformer substations 1, 2, 3
TS1, 2, 3, 4 Transformer substations 1, 2, 3, 4
often been used in the past to evaluate dif- transformers results from the different operation, so that only a single additional
ferent variants, are not realistic in todays number of transformers in the two vari- unit is necessary for back-up. The AIS
rapidly changing market environment. ants. In the case of GIS, two transformers variant requires a dedicated back-up unit
The first cost to be considered in the are required at substation TS1 for normal for the transformer in each HV substation.
comparison is that of the HV switchgear
installations. This is significantly higher for
the GIS than for the AIS solution. However, Comparison of the cost of the GIS and AIS variants (cash value over 7
the difference in system costs is smaller a period of 10 years)
than the difference in component (eg,
CVrel Relative cash value
switchbay) costs. This is because the in-
herent flexibility of the GIS/cable topology 45
Transformers
construction
Interruption
Switchgear
Switchgear
110 kV
110 kV
Cables
repairs
Land /
costs
I&C
MV
MV
50 mated.
When state-of-the-art AIS and GIS
CV rel 40
components are used, the cost of their
30 maintenance and inspection will be a mini-
Conclusions
140
Although the GIS solution appears initially
GIS to be the more costly, its flexibility allows
120
AIS
the HV transformer substations to be sited
100 in optimum locations. The number of injec-
tions from the HV system can be opti-
80
mized and the transmission load of the MV