FinalProjectReport_MarcusDavis
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Central Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4216
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by AgentPorcupine2959
Marcus Davis
Final Project Report – Power System Analysis and Design
1. Transmission system design
• Design process, steps to design the best alternatives.
Design: Base Case
Seen here in the base case provided, the total system losses are 9.79 MW with six violations occurring all
due to exceeding the maximum allowed percentage of power flow through a branch.
Marcus Davis
1
st
Iteration
My initial design took advantage of how very little power was delivered into the WOLEN69 bus with the idea that if I added two transmission lines to distribute and double the delivered power it
would evenly distribute into the bus BOB. I didn’t account for the contingency analysis to over drive the delivered power through even while using the most expensive transmission lines with the lowest impedance. When I realized there was no easy way to keep this core concept with the given constraints I was forced to return to the drawing board. In my second design change I decided to redirect the bulk of the power into the JO138 BUS as it appeared to have sufficient remaining capacity. What I didn’t look far enough into the future to predict was the overload at the LAUF busses. So once again I attempted to spread more by delivering power also to WOLEN by branching into SHIMKO and then to BOB. This turned out to be
successful initially, however upon the contingency analysis there was again an excess further down the flow in the BLT busses. In my next several attempts I discovered more success when power was more evenly distributed with a means for backup in the case of a fault or overload. Several more attempts leading to lengthy failed contingency reports brought me back to the drawing board as I realize that part of my problem was focusing on delivering too much power using the high current carrying conductor.
Marcus Davis
In my final iteration I discovered it was not necessary to deliver the bulk of the 200kW of wind energy to the central region but instead to spread amongst all sides. For this reason I kept the branches feeding SHIMKO, JO, and LYNN but then I also reduced my line feeding WOLEN down to a single line which then balanced the entire system. Upon performing the final contingency analysis the branch percentages and voltages were more balanced through all reaches of the CCW wind farm. At this time I reviewed the conductors chosen for each line and found that some of them could be reduced to a cheaper transmission conductor while some still needed the extra capacity provided by Condor.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Marcus Davis
• One line diagram and load flow simulation results (voltages, active and reactive power
generated by each generator, power flow on each line and reactive power support from
the shunt devices) for the best alternatives.
One Line Diagram:
Marcus Davis
• N-1 contingency report
• Number and length of transmission lines used for the best alternatives.
Best Alternatives: For this project after many iterations over the course of several days, I was able to achieve no violations or aborted contingencies by using a total of 4 - 138kV transmission lines and 2 – 138/69kV transformers one of which is rated for 187 MVA and the other rated for 106 MVA. All of the 138kV transmission lines utilize the Rook conductor with a 770 A rating. I started out using the Cardinal conductor as I expected a better performance but when compared to how it was needed to be used the requirements fell below the threshold of the Rook conductor.
Marcus Davis
2. Optimum operation:
• Discuss your design with reference to transmission line cost, transformer cost and other
fixed as well as variable costs.
Seen in the table below, the installation costs accumulated to $13.205 million dollars. The difference in losses between the Base case and my final chosen most efficient alternative shows an increase in system losses of +0.44 MW. Over the course of 5 years this will account for an additional 19,272 MW Hours. Using the $55.00 / MW provided this would cost approximately $1.059 Million dollars additionally. Or $212k per year. When this cost is passed onto the customer for a more secure and reliable supply the decision to move forward is clear that it must be done as
soon as possible. This cost is also responsible for reducing the load on SLACK 345 as well as several
other smaller distribution areas such as increasing the available capacity on BOB and BLT. Because of this addition many customers on this grid are now able to expand their own service or even install new homes nearby these areas. • Discuss the most efficient alternative that you recommend during the analysis of the
system.
In conclusion of this project, the addition of the CCW windfarm has improved the reliability and capacity of the majority of the grid. For this reason I suggest this final addition connecting WOLEN, LYNN, SHIMKO, BOB, and JO to the CCW windfarm will be beneficial for all.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help