Adding new roll-up generator to existing MV Distribution

Status
Not open for further replies.

philly

Senior Member
I'm looking at a project where the customer wants to add a new LV 2000kW 480V roll-up generator provision to feed onto their existing 13.8kV system during emergency conditions.

The attached sketch in black represents the existing 13.8kV system which includes the M-T-M 13.8kV switchgear at the bottom of the drawing in their main electrical room. The 27kV switch at top of sketch and the 13.8kV breakers in middle of sketch are located in utility entrance area. I'm not 100% clear at the moment where the line of demarcation is with the utility in this area.

In order to provide the provision for the new roll-up generator I'm looking at two options depicted with RED and BLUE on the sketch and was curious to hear from others what the best option here was.

The option depicted in RED shows the new roll-up generator provision going through a step up transformer and tied into the existing 13.8kV line that is running between the substation yard and the main electrical room. This would involve the addition of a 13.8kV rated switch to switch between utility and generator as shown. The one potential issue I see here is that with the gen feeding into the same main breaker in the downstream switchgear as the utility the existing 1200:5 CT's may be too large for the 100A generator current that will feed into this breaker. Are there any considerations here depending on where the utility SE point is (If these are considered SE feeders or not?)

The other option depicted in Blue includes adding a new breaker structure to the existing switchgear lineup and feeding it from the new roll-up generator transformer. The downside here is that there would be a pretty decent cable run (500') to get from the step up transformer to the new breaker structure. In addition it adds the complexity of how to add new structure to existing lineup (cable vs bus connection). This new structure could have CT's sized for generator load.

Is option 2 considered the preferred option here?
 

Attachments

  • Sketch.pdf
    346.1 KB · Views: 27
I'm looking at a project where the customer wants to add a new LV 2000kW 480V roll-up generator provision to feed onto their existing 13.8kV system during emergency conditions.

The attached sketch in black represents the existing 13.8kV system which includes the M-T-M 13.8kV switchgear at the bottom of the drawing in their main electrical room. The 27kV switch at top of sketch and the 13.8kV breakers in middle of sketch are located in utility entrance area. I'm not 100% clear at the moment where the line of demarcation is with the utility in this area.

In order to provide the provision for the new roll-up generator I'm looking at two options depicted with RED and BLUE on the sketch and was curious to hear from others what the best option here was.

The option depicted in RED shows the new roll-up generator provision going through a step up transformer and tied into the existing 13.8kV line that is running between the substation yard and the main electrical room. This would involve the addition of a 13.8kV rated switch to switch between utility and generator as shown. The one potential issue I see here is that with the gen feeding into the same main breaker in the downstream switchgear as the utility the existing 1200:5 CT's may be too large for the 100A generator current that will feed into this breaker. Are there any considerations here depending on where the utility SE point is (If these are considered SE feeders or not?)

The other option depicted in Blue includes adding a new breaker structure to the existing switchgear lineup and feeding it from the new roll-up generator transformer. The downside here is that there would be a pretty decent cable run (500') to get from the step up transformer to the new breaker structure. In addition it adds the complexity of how to add new structure to existing lineup (cable vs bus connection). This new structure could have CT's sized for generator load.

Is option 2 considered the preferred option here?

What are you getting with option 2? Increased cost for adequate CT ratios? Not worth it in my opinion when you can either use the generator CT’s or add some to the secondary of the transformer.

While option 2 would probably be the best configuration if the installation was designed this way from the get go, the added costs with adding a new section and retrofitting existing equipment doesn’t seem worth it. Consider the interlocking you would need to do with existing and new gear as well as possible UL violation with modifying existing gear by adding a bus tap.

Option 1 is the least invasive option in my opinion as you could utilize existing cable and add a KK interlock scheme with the switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Methinks you ought to make a cost comparison on whether you will choose for an MV selectivity or an LV setup. You'll do away with buying the needed step-up transformer/ switchgear in option 2! If money is not a question (it helps your bottom line if costs are higher), then choose option 1.
 
What are you getting with option 2? Increased cost for adequate CT ratios? Not worth it in my opinion when you can either use the generator CT’s or add some to the secondary of the transformer.

While option 2 would probably be the best configuration if the installation was designed this way from the get go, the added costs with adding a new section and retrofitting existing equipment doesn’t seem worth it. Consider the interlocking you would need to do with existing and new gear as well as possible UL violation with modifying existing gear by adding a bus tap.

Option 1 is the least invasive option in my opinion as you could utilize existing cable and add a KK interlock scheme with the switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears that the engineer of record wants to go with option #2 in providing the 480v gen connection with step-up transformer with cable feed to new breaker structure in existing MV lineup.

Is there any reason why a MV switch can’t be added to the existing lineup for the new feed as opposed to a breaker? The new switch could be Kirk keyed to interlock with mains. The existing lineup that the new structure would connect to is an MV switch lineup.

Is there any requirement to have an MV switch located at the secondary of the step-up transformer with a cable run of several hundred feet into existing switchgear? Would the requirements of 240.21(C) be applicable here or with MV cable would this fall under 240.100 & 240.101?
 
Is there any reason why a MV switch can’t be added to the existing lineup for the new feed as opposed to a breaker? The new switch could be Kirk keyed to interlock with mains.
No reason if this is optional standby. Also, you only need to KK the switches not the breakers.

Is there any requirement to have an MV switch located at the secondary of the step-up transformer with a cable run of several hundred feet into existing switchgear? Would the requirements of 240.21(C) be applicable here or with MV cable would this fall under 240.100 & 240.101?

240.21(C), 240.100 and 2420.102 all apply. As mentioned, the generator breaker can be set to trip for CT’s installed on the secondary of the transformer.
 
No reason if this is optional standby. Also, you only need to KK the switches not the breakers.



240.21(C), 240.100 and 2420.102 all apply. As mentioned, the generator breaker can be set to trip for CT’s installed on the secondary of the transformer.

Sorry, typo. Last section was supposed to be 240.101.
 
No reason if this is optional standby. Also, you only need to KK the switches not the breakers.



240.21(C), 240.100 and 2420.102 all apply. As mentioned, the generator breaker can be set to trip for CT’s installed on the secondary of the transformer.

Attached is updated one-line showing MV switch approach at existing 13.8kV Switchgear lineup. This is based on approach that EOR wanted with cabling into a new structure on this existing switchgear lineup. Proposing a MV switch here instead of a breaker. MV switch would be kirk keyed with two mains as shown (would probably need to include tie as well).

Any issues with having a MV switch here instead of a breaker. I'm thinking there should be PT's on line side of that switch to indicate voltage on bus when fed from emergency gen (main PT's are on line side of breakers)

In regards to the step up transformer secondary 13.8kV cable would 240.21(C) apply? I thought that was for less than 600V applications with 250.100 & 250.101 for MV applications?

Furthermore I noticed that the step-up transformer was specified to be delta-delta. This doesn't make sense to me and i'm trying to find out why its not wye grounded on the 13.8kV side like I believe it should be. However with the delta-delta configuration according to 240.21(C)(1) the primary overcurrent device (480V breaker in this case) can provide the required protection to the 13.8kV cables on the secondary. Am I looking at this right? With normal delta-delta step down that seems a bit more straight forward but with this being step-up not sure how that would change (although i'm thinking it doesn't)
 

Attachments

  • Sketch 3.pdf
    379.5 KB · Views: 10
Looks like your system arrangement got changed from the last diagram. Sounds like you don't trust the EOR...

MV switch would be kirk keyed with two mains as shown (would probably need to include tie as well).
Sure (if the customer expects to be in the split bus configuration - bus 1 fed by normal, bus 2 fed by generator)

Any issues with having a MV switch here instead of a breaker. I'm thinking there should be PT's on line side of that switch to indicate voltage on bus when fed from emergency gen (main PT's are on line side of breakers)
No issue. PT's and voltmeter would be nice but not required.

In regards to the step up transformer secondary 13.8kV cable would 240.21(C) apply? I thought that was for less than 600V applications with 250.100 & 250.101 for MV applications?
You are correct. Note that section 241.21 and 240.100 are basically the same thing. With MV, you are allowed to use an alternate OCPD location if it is designed under engineering supervision. If you only use a primary OCPD with the correct transformer type, then you are on the low-voltage side and 240.21(C)(1) would apply.

Furthermore I noticed that the step-up transformer was specified to be delta-delta. This doesn't make sense to me and i'm trying to find out why its not wye grounded on the 13.8kV side like I believe it should be.
Whats wrong with Delta-Delta? It might be a bit different than you are used to but it is allowed (has its pros/cons).
The issue you will now run into however is ground fault detection requirements, which will require PT's to implement.

However with the delta-delta configuration according to 240.21(C)(1) the primary overcurrent device (480V breaker in this case) can provide the required protection to the 13.8kV cables on the secondary. Am I looking at this right? With normal delta-delta step down that seems a bit more straight forward but with this being step-up not sure how that would change (although i'm thinking it doesn't)
Yes you are looking at it correctly. Step-up vs step-down doesn't make a difference.
 
Last edited:
Xptpcrewx

Thanks for the discussion and feedback here its been helpful

You are correct. Note that section 241.21 and 240.100 are basically the same thing. With MV, you are allowed to use an alternate OCPD location if it is designed under engineering supervision. If you only use a primary OCPD with the correct transformer type, then you are on the low-voltage side and 240.21(C)(1) would apply.

Given that this would fall under MV supervision would you think its ok to have no OCPD at the transformer secondary (MV side) seeing that it would be protected by the primary device with delta-delta transformer? Would you opinion change if this were a delta-wye transformer?

Whats wrong with Delta-Delta? It might be a bit different than you are used to but it is allowed (has its pros/cons).
The issue you will now run into however is ground fault detection requirements, which will require PT's to implement.

My concern here was with the GF detection as you pointed out. The existing 13.2kV system is a grounded wye system and uses 50/51N relay functions for GF detection on existing 13.2kV system mains. All of the other 13.2kV feeders are fuses so obviously no GF protection there on the feeders.

To me with the existing system being grounded wye I don't see why you'd want to introduce an ungrounded delta into the system when running off of an emergency generator. Like you said you'd have to put open detla PT's on new emergency feeder to detect GF. To me either there is some other reason here that I am missing or someone has mis-applied this secondary winding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top