Parallelling Substation Transformers
Parallelling Substation Transformers
(OP)
I have heard from a Japanese customer of mine that their utilities would run their distribution substations with two or more step-down transformers in parallell [put it another way, with the bus tie breakers normall closed]. He did not see any reason for concern, and yet could not name any advantage of such practice, other than the fact that if one transformer fails, and taken out by the differential relays, the loads would not see an immediate loss of power.
But, after all, transformers do not fail very often --- why such 'theatrics' for such a low risk ?
It seems to me that the disadvantages are :
[1] Increased short circuit current level, either putting system at risk, or necessitate more expensive and more capable fault interrupters.
[2] The risk of circulating currents running from one transformer to another, due to the slight differences in the secondary windings, even if the primary source is identical.
[3] Difficult and exacting differential protection required --- not only expensive, but one false move, you're dead ...
I hope to hear from utility engineers using this practice to enlighten me --- there must be something I missed in our imperfect info exchange --- one of us not communicating in his mother tongue.
I would like specifically to hear about the circulating current issue --- most utilities would not run closed loops at distribution except from the same transformer --- due to the concern of circulating currents. Wouldn't parallelling substation transformers create the same concern ? when the transformers are not perfectly matched ? Can someone cite IEC or IEEE standards on this issue ?
Thanks
But, after all, transformers do not fail very often --- why such 'theatrics' for such a low risk ?
It seems to me that the disadvantages are :
[1] Increased short circuit current level, either putting system at risk, or necessitate more expensive and more capable fault interrupters.
[2] The risk of circulating currents running from one transformer to another, due to the slight differences in the secondary windings, even if the primary source is identical.
[3] Difficult and exacting differential protection required --- not only expensive, but one false move, you're dead ...
I hope to hear from utility engineers using this practice to enlighten me --- there must be something I missed in our imperfect info exchange --- one of us not communicating in his mother tongue.
I would like specifically to hear about the circulating current issue --- most utilities would not run closed loops at distribution except from the same transformer --- due to the concern of circulating currents. Wouldn't parallelling substation transformers create the same concern ? when the transformers are not perfectly matched ? Can someone cite IEC or IEEE standards on this issue ?
Thanks






RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Utilities often do run a closed bus tie system, though I would think only in the circumstances whereby both transformers are needed to cope with the demand.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
[whereby both transformers are needed to cope with the demand]
How does closing the bus tie help meeting the demand ? I can see if transformers are evenly loaded, it might help somewhat. But wouldn't it be better to try to even the loads and staying separate ?
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Please read up on Spot Networking on any electrical tehchnical handbook or NEC. It is typically employed by utilities in urban downdown areas to feed large low voltge loads. Main advantage is that loss of one of the transformers or a primary side fault (on one of the feeders) will not disrupt the service. The network protector senses fault on the primary side (line side of the breaker) and isolates it from the common bus. Spot Networking is expensive and requires careful engineering and hence not popular in commercial applications.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
What they seemed to be doing is to run 3 40MVA transformers in parallel in a substation.
I guess I was just trying to see what make them go this route and what we are missing by not doing the same ..
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Siddhuca, you actually do this in actual practice. Did you follow any IEEE guideline or look up any standards or literatures about doing so ?
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
You don't give voltages or transformer impedances (we could guess them to be about 12%) so we can't estimate the prospective fault current accurately, although it would probably be in the region of 800 MVA. What is the switchgear rated at?
If the switchgear is rated for the fault level, technically I cannot see any reason not to run them in parallel if the load configuration makes this desirable.
Here in South Africa as an example, on mining 6,6 kV systems we find that 2 x 20 MVAs in parallel would normally cause 31,5kA (symmetrical break)/78kA (asymmetrical make) switchgear to be marginal when motor contribution is added to the prospective fault level.
Motor contribution is often a forgotten factor and we find many clients working on steady state fault levels. In a recent study we had as much as 8 kA (6,6 kV) added to the fault level due to the motor contribution.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
But, why are you running them in parallel ? What do you want to get from it that you do not get running them separately ? The even distribution of loads is not that big a deal and can always been done by adjusting feeders, right ?
The 31.5KA switchgears are a lot more expensive than the 16KA switchgears. Additionally, unless you use current limiting fuses, the increased fault level causes a lot more damage to the circuit [like cables, etc.] not immediately in the vicinity of fault.
Is circulating current an issue with your parallelling the 2 x 20MVA ?
To answer your question, I think that the secondary voltage of the substation is 6.6kv, as someone the Japanese electricity laws designated that all distribution system must use 6.6kv.
The Japanese gentleman is looking for suitable current limiting fuses to limit the let-thru current so that he could use lower rated switchgears. Sort of Rube Goldberg to me ...
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
The short circuit withstand of cables depends on the amount of thermal energy (I^2t) that is produced by the fault and is a function of the duration of the fault. Obviously, the larger the cable the higher it's thermal withstand.
Current limiting fuses are clumsy as you lose all your protection coordination. Much better to reconfigure the loads so that the transformers run independently.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
But running substation transfomers in parallel is very common at utiltiy subs and even at many industrial locations. The trasfomers breaker invariably will have a directional relay on it, no utiltiy co is that foolish to paraller 40 mva units without a reverse power trip. No one wants to backfeed a fault on primary side.
Plus this is no theatrics! Adavange of enhancing availability /continuity of service followed by load sharing capablity and evenly loading the transformers by far outweighs any perceived disadvantages you are mentioning. More so in urban areas (or developed countries)than rural areas.
Increased SCC is only relative and not necessarily bad this level. Firstly the HV equipment and bussing are normally rated for high enough SCC regardless. More SCC also (not that it is the reason) may provide enough fault current for downstream devices to operate to achevie coordination.
Differential protection is a norm , whether or not in parallel. This insallation are run under duly supervised conditons. You are comparing it to a non attended commercial distribution system, and unnecessarily getting wound up. Relax!
In fact at one of our client's commercial facility two 13.8 kV utility service feeders are closed together and they have 51 and 67 devices. This is not for capacity but to enhance availability of service.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Any other UTILITY person(s) wish to comment ? Most of all, I want to know how widespread this practice is ...
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
our stepdown transformers are connected in parallel (Honduras Interconnected System, Central America)and they normally have On Load Tap Changers (OLTC). You can have two kind of controls for the OLTC, one that tries to have the same tap (no more than one tap of difference) on both transformers or one that measures the circulating current and change the taps of both transformers in order to minimize it.
As to why have transformers in parallel, it's easy to answer:
First, it may be demanded by contract or the load grew and instead of buying a bigger transformer and discarding the one installed, you buy another equal to the one installed.
When you do this, you get the advantage that you don't loose all the load when you loose a transformer.
So, think about having one transformer and then as the load grows you install more transformers in parallel which is cheaper and with abigger reliability
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Paralleling transformers reduces the transformer impedance significantly, i.e. the parallel transformers may have very low impedance, which creates the high short circuit currents.
Therefore, some current limiters are needed, e.g. reactors, fuses, high impedance buses, etc.
Nowadays, the harmonics are more present in the power distribution systems due to nonlinear loads. The low transformer impedance reduces the voltage Total Harmonic Distortion (THD). Therefore, there are some potential savings possible on the harmonic filters.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Load management, as again mentioned, I think is better. This means shifting some of the loads to the new circuit that will be serve by the new PXF. The only application I could think of is if the load to be served have grown but could not be split, which I think is very remote case. The increase in security or reliability could be a big factor, but at such a higher cost. This must therefore be weighed. And besides, if one of the PXFs in the parallel connection would bog-down, more or less the other would be affected, especially if the load to be carried is higher than the remaining PXF (which would be the case that's why paralleling was initiated), thus interruption would also occur.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
In Singapore and Hong Kong, where the city utilities use 11kv and 22kv 'closed loops' and pilot wire relays such that a fault on the main cables would not cause any load loss, they always have the closed loop going back to the same transformer, presumably to avoid circulating currents. However, if circulating current loss is really small like some previous posts suggest, one might think they would have desired to have the loop going to another transformer in a distant substation, so that a transmission fault would not kill the closed loop like the present design.
A friend of mine opines that if they order PXFs with matching characteristics, this circulating currents can be alleviated. Any comment on how practical is this opinion ?
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
We have in paralell operation 2X150 MVA, 3X 100 MVA 230/138 KV transformers with high voltage OLTC and we haven't had any troubles, we also have 2X25 MVA, 2X50 MVA 138/13.8 KV with OLTC on the secondary sides and we we haven't had any troubles either...
As for the short circuit current, all our CB's are rated 25 KA no matter the voltage level and we haven't reached this fault current on distribution or transmission substations, so we're OK with any combination of paralell transformers...
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
In Zimbabwe, where posssible, Txers are operated on a split bar arrangement.
As far as paralleling theory is concerned, the following conditions must be satisfied:
THe % impedance must be within 10% of each other.
The MVA rating must be roughly the same(not obligatory).
The ratio must be identical.
The vector group must be the same.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
"Spot Networking is expensive and requires careful engineering and hence not popular in commercial applications."
F Y I ....
I see this done quite often in commercial buildings (offices, hospitals, hotels & resorts, etc.) and in the Water/wastewater industry; i.e., 4 x 2500 kVA, 13.2kv/480v.
jO
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
[1] I assume that no more than 2 transformers are parallelled in the substations you mentioned above.
[2] Are the sources to the 2 transformers 'reasonably independent', meaning not very likely for both to suffer outage simultaneously ? like being fed from different substations, different routes ...
[3] If one transformer fails [internally, taken out by the transformer differential relays], the other takes over the load instantly and automatically, which is the principal advantage --- any statistics of how often this happens ? or if the likelihood of a underground cable fault is X, would you say that the likelihood of transformer internal fault being X/4 or even less likely ?
Thank you in advance for your response.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Transformers are usually purchased as ONAN with over-load ability or dual rated (ONAN/ONAF or ONAN/OFAF) to handle the increased load. My present utility runs all of our 33kV and the associated transformers in parallel (with suitable protection) and we do not have any issues - all transformers are fitted with paralleling controllers based on minimising circulating currents.
PLease note that NZ runs on a "Multiple Earthed (Grounded) Neutral" system - which does add some pros/cons that you might not have.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
I would like to ask a few more questions to see what is the requirement of protection scheme(when paralleled)to have decriminated tripping during actual "down stream fault". The case is two identical transformers with upstream buscoupler closed, LV downstream bus having two incomers and one bus coupler. Follwoing are options.
1. To have one descrimination stage(say 300 msec) between the LV incomer and buscoupler so that incase of fault the buscoupler will trip before the unfaulted side incomer trips. Transformer HV and LV breaker will have same operating time. i.e.no descrimination between them.
2. To have the CTs of LV incomer and buscoupler paralleled(differential kind of wiring) and connect to a inverse relay and use this relay to trip buscoupler and incomer simultanoeusly.
Please suggest which of the above two options is better and why?
Thank you all in advance and hope this will help hmchi also.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
But an advantage is the reduced losses, especially near full load of one transformer. This applies equally to I^2X and I^2R loss - on a 25MVA transformer, times about one hundred substations, it adds up. Halving the current quarters the loss. But the primary advantage is supply availability - it was this that was the primary driver for us doing it.
The major headache for protection is the reduced backup cover of your distribution feeders. Each transformer sees only half of the fault current, so you get reduced sensitivity. A 2000A setting on the transformer secondary (25MVA transformer, 11kV) means that anything less than a 4000A feeder fault is "invisible" and so not backed up by the transformer protection. Our typical feeder overcurrent setting is 400A pickup.
Beware of directional protection on the HV side of Dy transformers - an earth fault back-fed by the transformer will not be seen - the delta is not a zero sequence source, so you get no current flow, and hence no protection operation. But this is easily taken care of by appropriate design and the installation of a HV busbar.
Bung
Life is non-linear...
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
As for lower losses, etc., one could argue that it is a lot less costly to buy one 50MVA transformer than 2- 25MVA transformer and try to operate them in parallel.
I agree that this is a matter of balancing the priorities - so that there may be disagreements no matter what. What I was trying to get at from the beginning was statistical information from the practitioning utilities such as studies regarding the costs/benefits justifications, etc.
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
Bung
Life is non-linear...
RE: Parallelling Substation Transformers
"All transformers see all faults downstream, whether the fault is on a line or underground cable"
Yes, but line faults are supposed to be cleared by the outgoing feeder breakers whereas transformer or bus faults are to be cleared by differential protection, transformer or bus differential.
A line fault should not have caused any of the transformer protection to operate.