Evaluating Centralized and Distributed-Based … · •Approached by Survalent to be a beta tester of centralized FLISR in 2011, over next three years implemented FLISR and ran in

1© 2017 Survalent Technology & PowerStream

Evaluating Centralized and Distributed-Based

Approaches to FLISR


Speakers

Daniel NechayProduct Manager

Survalent Technology

Richard BrownControl Room Supervisor

PowerStream


About PowerStream Inc• Energy company that provides power and related services

• Provides service to more then 380,000 customers primarily in communities located immediately north of Toronto and in Central Ontario

• Jointly owned by the municipalities of Barrie, Markham and Vaughan

• More then 560 employees

• Over $1.3 billion in assets

• Service area of 854 square kilometers encompasses a population of approximately 1,000,000

• Second largest municipally-owned distribution company in Ontario

4

Survalent Overview

Systems

Visualization

Improve & Optimize

IndustriesElectrical Utilities

WaterMining

Transports

53 Years

© 2017 Survalent Technology & PowerStream

5

Advanced Distribution

Management System

ONE Solution for SCADA, OMS and DMS

Better Decision Making

© 2017 Survalent Technology & PowerStream


FLISR/FDIR/LOV Introduction

Goal: Identify the fault/loss of supply in the network and attempt to restore as many customers as fast as possible

Utility benefits:

• Improves reliability indices:

• Reduces SAIFI/SAIDI/CMI

• Increases revenue

• Compliance to regulatory/customer metrics

• Reduces operating expenses


Impact of FLISR on Customers

Travel Time Find the faultManual switching for partial

restorationRepair Time

Fault Occurs Fault LocatedFeeder is Returned

to Normal

30 – 45 mins 15 – 30 mins 15 – 20 mins 1 – 4 hrs

Travel Time Find the fault Repair Time

Fault Occurs Fault LocatedFeeder is Returned

to Normal

30 – 45 mins 10 – 15 mins 1 – 4 hrs

Partial Restoration 60 – 95 mins after

the fault

Partial Restoration < 1 min

On the healthy sections of the feeders, FLISR can turn long sustained outages into a momentary outage

W/O FLISR

With FLISR


FLISR Types

• Centralized (ADMS-based)

• Substation-based (semi-centralized)

• Decentralized (or peer-to-peer)


FLISR Types - Centralized

• All decisions are made from the ADMS system

• Solutions reacts to network topology

• No normal configuration required

• Detects faults based on fault targets or fault current

• Vendor-agnostic


Case Study – Central Georgia

• Goal: SAIDI & SAIFI improvement, C&I customer service

• Deployment: Implement FLISR on existing SCADA for entire distribution network

• Results: Deployed since Oct ’14; 100% successful FLISR operation to date; 40 FLISR events so far

• Impact: Went from a 5 yr SAIDI benchmark of 130 minutes to 69 minutes in the first year of FLISR (target was 84 minutes)

53,000 Customers

5,400 miles of lines

20 substations73 Feeders

Peak Load360 MW

1st US Coop Utility To Successfully Deploy FLISR On Entire Distribution Network


FLISR Types – Substation-based

• Mix of centralized and decentralized

• Intelligent device is installed in the substation to coordinate the FLISR events

• Programming all possible scenarios is required

• Less communication resources to the control room is required

• Switching is pre-determined


FLISR Types - Decentralized

• Peer-to-peer communication to determine the best course of action

• Fastest to restore approach; loads can be restored in a sub-second

– Ideal for areas where there are critical loads (e.g. hospital)

• For smaller deployments, option to be ‘plug and play’ and can be configured by the vendor

– Complexity increases as the number of devices increases


Factors to consider in a FLISR solution

• Devices used in the field

• Can multiple vendors be used?

• How will the faults be detected?

• Is there redundancy in the network?

• How quickly do customers need to be restored?

• Does FLISR need to be interfaced to other systems?


Design Considerations

• Can the solution handle miscoordinations?

• How do I change the protection settings after an event?

• Does the network need to be sectionalized?

• If so, where do I place the reclosers?

• Does GIS need to be imported?

• Integration of DERs


Three Points to Consider When Selecting a FLISR Solution

• Scenarios

• Architecture

–Best of all worlds approach

• Coordination


Powerstream’s FLISR solutions

• PowerStream investing in Distribution System Automation to improve reliability (SAIDI, CAIDI, SAIFI, etc.) and minimize Customer Minutes of Interruption (CMI’s)

• Approached by Survalent to be a beta tester of centralized FLISR in 2011, over next three years implemented FLISR and ran in semi-automatic mode before going fully automatic. Currently fully automatic on 9 feeders.

• SEL Automatic Feeder Restoration (AFR) scheme using RTAC, SEL651 and Viper Reclosers started in 2013. Currently automatic on four feeders with two schemes in operation. Third scheme planned for 2017.

• S&C Intelliteam scheme using Scadamate switches and 6801 RTU’s in 2014. Currently automatic on 5 feeders with 5 Teams in operation.


Survalent FLISR – ADMS Centralized Solution

Currently 9 feeders in Automatic mode & 12 in Semi-Auto mode.

Plan to continue switching feeders over to Auto over the next 5 years.


Survalent FLISR – ADMS Centralized Solution


Observations - Survalent

• Features:

– Price

– Vendor Agnostic

– No ‘normal’ state required – can run from any network configuration

– Configurable by SCADA System Administrator

– Ability to run in semi-automatic to confirm correct operation before going live

– Adapts to communications issues


Observations - Survalent

• Operational constraints:

– SCADA System Administration mandatory

– Feeder topology must be maintained and updated frequently


AFR – Substation-based Solution using SEL RTAC

One scheme active in Vaughan service area (2 feeders and 5 G&W Viper Reclosers) and one in Markham service area (2 feeders and 4 G&W Viper Reclosers). Third scheme planned for

Richmond Hill in 2017.


Observations - SEL

• Features:

– Minimal ongoing maintenance

– High speed operation

• Operational Constraints:

– Current logic does not adjust for changes in topology, works with one topology only. Additional logic required to work with topology changes

– Feeder loading consideration not in scheme logic. Logic implemented on SCADA to address feeder loading.

– Must have 100% communication for scheme to be active

– Vendor specific hardware


S&C Intelliteam – peer to peer based scheme

Currently in automatic with 5 Teams on 5 feeders with 9 Scadamate switches & 6801 RTUs


Observations - Intelliteam

• Features:

– Minimal ongoing maintenance

– Tolerates limited communications issues

– Customer support in field configuration and implementation

• Operational Constraints:

– Vendor specific hardware

– Works with limited changes to the topology


Distribution Automation Technical Committee• Multi-Departmental group formed in 2015 to ensure all viewpoints

considered and best possible schemes selected. Lines, Protection and Control, Control Room, System Planning, Distribution Design, IT and Smart Grid departments all participated on committee.

• Broke it down into three main categories:

– Design

– Performance

– Cost


DA Evaluation - Design

• Platform

– Decentralized vs Centralized

• Compatibility

– Device agnostic vs device specific



• Implementation

– Effort required in installation, testing and commissioning

• Scalability

– Scheme can be easily expanded overtime

– Scheme can be easily incorporated with existing infrastructure

– New SHS can be introduced near by with minimal impact to the performance of the existing schemes.



• Safety

– Work Protection - Scheme can handle the application of work protection.

– User Controlled - Controllers have full ability to turn system on/off easily.

• Communication

– Communication is reliable

– Does not interfere with the system


DA Evaluation - Performance

• Reliability

– Can the scheme prevent a momentary outage?

• Resiliency

– Adaptability to system changes

• Autonomy

– Does it require a pre-set network state to run?

– Capable of running in storm mode?


DA Evaluation - Cost

• Cost to implement system-wide


Lessons learned so far

• Distribution automation is rapidly evolving and can significantly improve Reliability Indexes and Customer Minutes of Interruption.

• Different types of schemes can be selected for different purposes to best suit utility and customer needs.

• Initial and ongoing testing/evaluation is essential to ensure correct operation.• Involve multiple departments to get their viewpoints and “buy in” to ensure all

concerns are addressed and scheme meets customer and utility needs.• Strong vendor support is essential in implementation. All three schemes at

PowerStream have been well supported by respective vendors.• Depending on scope of implementation, dedicated and/or specialized human resources

will be required.• A high speed and robust communications network must be in place• Control Room training and involvement is essential for any Automatic Restoration

Scheme.


Next steps

• Distribution Automation Technical Committee to submit report on evaluation of existing schemes

• PowerStream (alectra) to expand existing and implement additional Automatic Restoration schemes in ongoing goal to be an industry leader in reliability and to minimize customer outages and minutes of interruption.


Thank You

Daniel NechayProduct Manager

[email protected]

Richard BrownControl Room Supervisor

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Evaluating Centralized and Distributed-Based … · •Approached by Survalent to be a beta tester of centralized FLISR in 2011, over next three years implemented FLISR and ran in