Distributed Generation
Distributed Generation
(OP)
Distributed Generation: What should be the preferred interface transformer's winding configuration (utility side Delta, Star solid grd, or Star effectively grd. a) preferred by utility; b) preferred by generating facility. However I am interested in utility's preference particularly when utility's distribution is 3 p 4 w.
I understand that this is highly debateable issue and I am familiar with over-voltage and ground fault coordination issues.
I understand that this is highly debateable issue and I am familiar with over-voltage and ground fault coordination issues.






RE: Distributed Generation
A generating facility would almost always prefer an ungrounded delta on their side in order to allow effective protection of the generator stator. This typically requires a single high resistance grounded connection at the generator stator neutral point. Anything which limits the fault level the generator is exposed to in the event of a system fault is beneficial in the eyes of the generating facility, so either a resistance grounded or ungrounded utility side would suit the generator. At distribution voltages the additional cost of uprating the GSU transformer insulation won't be huge, but to multiply that cost across an entire utility network would find little favour with the utility.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
Could you please send us more information.
What size of generator, xfr, voltage level of gen and utilities side.
Better, if possible send us some scheme of primary connection with your protection coordination.
Actually, Scotty are right, Delta is preferred connection on
gen side and it's strongly recommended.
Reason, see attached:
thread238-201719: winding configuration of generator step-up transformer
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
Thanks for the thread reference. However, I could not find any materialistic debate there.
The details of system - as under:
Utility supply: 27.6 kV 3 phase 4 wire, multigrounded
Generating Facility interface transformer: HV delta 27.6 kV; LV star 600 V solid ground
Generator: 8 MW; 600 V; 3 phase; synchronous
Utility feeder: load = 3 MW; traditional o/c and e/f feeder protection. [1/2 cycle relay, 3 cycle tripping relay, 5 cycle breaker at utility; 1 cycle transfer trip time, 1/2 cycle relay, 1/2 cycle tripping unit, 5 cycle breker at generating facility. Hope this explains a bit.
RE: Distributed Generation
I'm not familiar with LV generators.
From my point of view: it's possible and practic used
LV generator with solid grounding neutral.
More from this, I think it's better for you used solid grounding of generator. In case of island mode.( I assume according to your data, you are have load on 600V and works is co-generation mode).
BTW, your generator with rotaded diodes or brushless.
See attached example
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
differntial protection.
In you have block trafo-generator, I preffer used low or medium resistance neutral of generator
RE: Distributed Generation
I'm hope, it's help you.
Good luck.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
Normally the Utility prefers to have the following interfacing transformer connection.
Utility (HV) side - STAR solidly grounded
Generator (LV) side - DELTA
This satisfies the important condition of "Effectively
Grounded" for the Utility side to trip on possible ground faults on their side even with the generator connected.
Generator Star point - To be Low resistance (nearly 400-500 A) grounded.
Your generator is 8 MW at 600 V (FLC = 7698 A!!!). So you have enough current to use for ground fault tripping if you use low resistance grounding.
I also have a question about your 8 MW/ 600 V generator.
What is the current rating of the generator CB?
Who is the manufacturer?
Kiri
RE: Distributed Generation
If the generator is embedded into an existing distribution network serving other loads then it may not be possible to utilise high impedance earthing.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Distributed Generation
As, I saied, I'm not familiar with LV, but from my partners
I heard about standard LV CB with interuption about 6000-6500A and fault interuption up to 200kA.
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
If you must generate at LV then a dedicated GSU transformer with a close-coupled transformer and HV side breaker equipped for synchronising would be a reasonable solution. Use of an LV isolated phase duct would minimise the chances of an interphase fault and keep the magnetic fields around the busbar under control. This is the technique used on big machines where the LV side breakers can become impractically large and external flux levels reach troublesome levels.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Distributed Generation
I think it's clear for all of us, that 8MW 600V generator
is so strange ( but who know?) . I assume, that mean several generators in parallel with sum. of 8MW. We'll wait to PRSharma explain.
PRSharma;please send us your connection scheme.
Regards.
Slava
BTW, for HV generator we have GCB for 10kA.
RE: Distributed Generation
Apologies: I meant: 8 MW to be cummulative generation of DG (4 units of 2 MW each @ 600 V). However, the question remains the same even if we consider 8 MW generator (single unit)@ 13.8 kV for utility feeder voltage at 13.8 kV.
HV gnd for GSU, is traditional and well practised throughout the world for genertaors connected to transmission system. I am talking about distributed generation which is supposed to be connected at distribution voltages (< 50 kV). The typical L-G faults in the distribution system are limited to: 44 kV (19 kA); 27.6 kV (12 kA). Furthermore distribution system has line re-closers, lateral fuses, and branches throughout the network, which makes the ground fault cordination a real challange (usually not a problem in transmission system unless you come across a Tee line).
As the penetration of DG increases at distribution level utilities ground fault protection is screwed if you increase the ground sources such as connecting GSUs with HV gnd. If you opt for GSUs HV ungrounded you have overvoltages on healthy phases on L-G faults. Please refer my first & second thread. I will appreciate your comments.
RE: Distributed Generation
From my point of view, you haven't any problem.
You can use xfr. with Delta connection on the HV side.
But may be better, use Star connection with high speed grounding switch ( as option with resistor).
Yes, your GSU are ungrounded, but your system isn't.
In case of : than only your GSU will feed distribution network, you'll connect this grounding switch.
LV side of xfr. possible several options.
I think good option, Delta connection of GSU, ungrounded generators and one zig-zag xfr. on the generation bus.
Conclusion: you'll use standard Y/D step-up xfr. Y with
grounding switch ( normal mode it's in the open position).
LV side is Delta, in second thinking, w/o any zig-zag xfr.,
generators with solid grounding or low or medium resistive grounding ( according to genset supplier recommendation).
Regards.
Slava.
BTW, next time, send us Q's with full data, you see what happend.
RE: Distributed Generation
We have several such applications ( but generators are HV).
Via SGU are connected to distribution network 22kV or 36kV
( petersen coil grounding). No problem.
Good Luck.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
Ground switch is not an option. When DG is operating in parallel with grid and if utility side breaker opens for line to ground fault at matching loads it is extremely difficult for DG to sense any significant change in parameters to realize that utility breaker has opened.The over voltages due to the neutral shift will be greater than TOV ratings of Surge arrestors rated line to ground.
Yes, impedance grounding is a option. What is the size (ratings)of peterson coils with respect to size of Xmer and size of generator.
RE: Distributed Generation
Oh, it's not simple case, and need serios evaluation.
I'm not understand, were is utilities CB, it's same station or some remote station? If it's same station you can use contacts of utilities CB for build logic.: open CB---- close grounding switch (high-speed).
Please pay attention, I'm wrote: grounding switch with resistor. Choice this resistor for the 400-500A.
Don't think about Petersen coil, it's separeted issue.
Next point, you work in parallel with distribution network.
Your generator are feed your plant only or possible
transmit energy to the grid?
Are you have autorecloser on distribution grid or not?
AR are 3ph or single phase?
For my pinion you need some expert, eng-tips it's only tips.
Here, you need design.
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
I understand that it is not simple. However, I am involved in connection impact assessments of such DG. Distribution feeders have re-closers (1 and 3 phase), regulators (1 or 3 phase), fuses, and switches. There is always a trade off between grounded or ungrounded interface transformer winding connection. Unfortunately, most of the North American utilities do not specify their favoured connection in their technical requirements and IEEE 1547 is also silent on critical issues. (IEEE 1547 revision is under way)
Regards,
PRS
RE: Distributed Generation
On this moment, we work on such application.
2 DG ( sum 16MW) connected to distribution network 22kV (petersen coil system) with 3ph autorecloser. 3ph autorecloser it's big problem ( 300ms recloser time).
We used df/dt function for the decoupling. Additional option Voltage vector protection and PPS protection (popular in several Eroupean countries).
Those DG connected with y/D (22kV side) xfr. I go recommend to customer (plant) add zig-zag with grounding switch. Same problem:grounding fault in the island mode.
We also used directional grounding relay.
Think about 67N, on this way, you can separate internal and external grounding fault.
What is your concept about DG operation? In case of some problem possible off DG w/o problem?
Please send SLD of plant, try think together.
What is a problem with OV? your EQ not for phase to phase voltages?
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
From my point of view, it's only small part of subject.
I still say:
1. Y/d connection it's best solution.
2. In case of island mode : close grounding switch.
May be, it's good for our distribution, I don't know.
Why not Delta on the HV side. In case of island mode, we need send transfer signal to all relays:
change setting to 67N for ungrounded system.
Why not Yn connection: It's influence on the ground current
in the network, and request some approvals from utilities.
And I still say: Very important point in such application it's detect " loss of main situation".
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
Slavag there is no best connection. However I have serious concerns if HV winding is star and the neutral is solidly grounded. This screws up the ground cordination to an extent that fuse saving schemes becomes garbage and possiblity of unattended ground fault increases. If interface transformer is star then neutral should be grounded through reactor (sometimes people also use resistors). Appropiate sizing of these reactors or resistors is the biggest challange because for higher impeadance though the ground faults would be reduced but the over voltages would exceed the thresholds.
Neither rate of change of frequeny (df/dt) or vector shift is good for anti-island protection if the cummulative generating capacity is greater than 50% of the minimum load of the feeder or the section of feeder down stream of interrupting device and up-stream of DG. Both of the above schemes, and infact all passive local detection schemes have non detection zones. Active local detection schemes(generally employed by invertor based interface)are much better, but they also have a narrow non detection zone and some destorted voltage/currents may remain unchecked.
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
Our utilities "kill" me, if I say to them "upgrade your protection". Answer will: "it's your problem".
Rules of our utilities are very simple:
1.Your generator must disconnet first in all cases.
2.Your xfr. don't change any things in our grounding system.
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
If the generator provides a ground source that will cause problems with my ground overcurrent, the generator owner will pay to have my ground overcurrent changed to directional ground overcurrent. No problem, just open your check book. Because we do fast reclose on our distribution feeders (that have reclosing) I will require a VT and voltage relay at the substation on every circuit with synchronous generators connected, no matter how small, and the cost of that becomes a barrier against really small synchronous machines. If somebody wants to spend more on upgrading our substation than on the rest of their project I'd be glad to accept a 50kW synchronous machine, but I doubt I'll see much below 500kW. Nothing outright prohibited, if not behind network protectors, but everything has its price. If your utility won't work with you then it is their loss.
RE: Distributed Generation
Right desition!
May be with time our utilities understand it!
Our biggest problem, that our utilities are gov. company.
PRSharma, I think David closed all of your problems.
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
Sorry for the delayed response. YOU have touched the original question. There won't be any delay in tripping utility breaker. Usually the typical tripping time without DG ( across North America) should more or less look like: 4 ms (relay time) + 50 ms (electromechanical aux relay) + 50 ms (3 cycle utility breaker) = 104 ms (tripping time)
Now, when high speed transfer trip (T/T) is applied, and DG CB is tripped before utility CB, the tripping time would look like: 8 ms (relay time) + 20 ms (T/T signal communication time) + 50 ms (3 cycle DG CB) = 78 ms (tripping time). With new numeric relays (GE Multilin F60 or Schweitzer make feeder relay) the need of 50 ms electromechanical aux relay is eliminated. Utility keeps tirpping time same and DG is asked to have fast tripping time. Thus, there is no delay in tripping time. Since beigning I wanted your comment on above tripping sequences.
Next, IEEE 1547 advocates 33% minimum circuit load criteria for T/T is bit conservative, and there is nothing solid to support it. Infact, on basis of simmulations and field tests we are even going upto 50%. Furthermore, IEEE 1547 anti-islanding criteria of 2 sec, is in real sense, restricted to utilities reclosing time. Now when we deal with reclosing times between 500 ms to 1 sec, how DG can remain in complaince with IEEE 1547. How far you guys go to verify whether DG is in complaince with IEEE. My personal belief is that even DG with invertor based interface are not able to comply with IEEE 1547.1 testing requiremnet (which is theoriticaly correct but in practical field is pretty stringent).
Ground fault coordination: Directioning of relay does not solve the protection desensitizing issues. A DG connected close to the station for feeder end faults definitely desentisizes feeder relay.
Three or single VT at every cicuit with DG at station solves the out of step reclosing but realiability is certainly sacrificed whenever it is called to operate. For DG with dedicated feeder voltage supervision before reclosing is OK.
Thus, I do not think that topic can closed at this point and would like to continue sharing comments and practices from everyone.
RE: Distributed Generation
RE: Distributed Generation
What is a desensitizing problem?
I heard this first time, may be possible use other term.
PRSharma, next point, what do you mean 4ms, 8ms relay time?
David, what is your practic for the trip/AR sequency/coordination?
For example what we use in utilities:
1. First AR time is 300ms.
2. Second is 75sec.
3. if AR ready, operated overcurrent ( 50 and 50N)with 40ms time delay, but only one time. if AR is not success, we'll block those stages and only IDMT function continue operation.
4. if AR not ready, in operation only IDMT functions.
5. for two first second ( after CB closed position) we add SOTF function ( also blocked in case of AR running situation).
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
We are currently facing extremely high level of penetration of DG in sub transmission and distribution system (though majority of them are yet at cost estimate stage but around 250 MW is already connected).
Davidbeach: Yes we also use Freewave radios based on mirrored bits where the line of site permits. However, leased line with NSD570 is pretty suitable for T/T (forget the price, proponent pays it any how). Recently we are also trying to use ethernet based MDS radios in combination with GE Multilin make relays to reduce the price. What are your thoughts or practices regarding implementation of T/T for pure induction machines or invertor based interfaces? Do you apply the same 1/3 criteria? What about Transformer's reverse powerflow capabilities or ULTC compatibility. How do you deal with voltage regulators? I have started believing that these DG are not Plug and Play but are more Plug and Pray type applications.
Slavag:
300 ms is indeed very fast AR, because if you have five or eight cycle breaker then there is hardly any dead time for breaker left after arc quenching. I believe you are dealing with urban/city or industrial areas. We have mix of almost every type of loading pattern and used 400 ms to 800 ms AR in transmission system. For rural sectors this fast AR is not worth and usually the AR is around 1 sec to 2 sec. Second and third shot timings are pretty routine. 4 ms and 8 ms are typical primarly relay operating times. The other word widely used for desensitizing is blinding of
protection. Basically it means that, in-spite of increased total faults currents due to conection of DG, the source contribution reduces to an extent that there is not enough current for utility relays to sense untill the DG trips.
RE: Distributed Generation
Yes, my area is urban/city/industrial, our rural sectors are same.
Thanks, terms "blinding" is clear for me.
Sorry for my previos post " you need some expert", I see you are expert.
4ms and 8ms, total relay operating time I assume is 20-30ms,
4ms is may be function time. But it's not important.
It's very intresting case, we don't have these problems, but only on this time, we are only on begining of IPP on the distribution networks.
What do you think about NPS voltages and current protection?
I think, combination of these functions can solve problem of desensitizing.
Xfr's reverse powerflow, actually it's not electrical problem, in any case possible add reverse power relay or may be underpower relay for Xfr protection. In our co-generation application we use both of them.
Voltage regulator, I think, it's depend on size of generator and distance between generator and utilities source.
Regards.
Slava
RE: Distributed Generation
Thanks for the complement. I am learning DGs and still there is long way to go.
Traditional O/C;E/F protection are proven practices for typical radial distribution system, but are operational only when there is enough current to exceed the settings. I am not aware of Negative Phase Sequence protection being used for protection of distribution or transmission lines, however, it is common feature in generator protection. Though I am working on NPS for local detection based protection for anti-islanding in DGs, but due to lot of associated uncertainities and parameters involved, it is very difficult to differentiate between disturbances or fault conditions.
X'mer reverse power flow is understandable not to be a problem since, X'mer being a static device except ULTC. But just think of this senario, when cummulative generation from DG substantially increases than load, the active power through X'mer reverses but the reactive power is still supplied by X'mer. Which means that through X'mer, active power flows in reverse direction and reactive power folws in forward direction. The x'mer is operated at very low power factors.
Votage regulators have different issue. Think of a regulator located upstream of DGs, due to cummulative generation the voltage at the load side of regulator is high so the regulator taps are either at neutral or lowest position. Suddenly the due to some reason (gusty wind drawing wind turbines to cut speed)DG ceases to generate, then the voltage will drop, now voltage would be regulated by regulator but not before inital 25 to 30 seconds delay and 2 to 3 seconds for each subsequent tap change operation. Thus for this period the other customers may be subjected to voltages below standard limits.
RE: Distributed Generation
Senario with forward direction of active power and reverse direction of reactive power is common practic for big generator. It's mode "absorbe of reactive power". But of course GSU xfr w/o OLTC.
Voltage regulators issue, it's "issue".
Actually, I see this as, utilities issue ( who pay for this it's other thing). It must be central regulation of reactive power flow with option of generators AVR regulation directly from utilities center.
Next way, in this cases, install several capcitor banks in the critical points with auto/manual control.
Regards.
Slava