Supplying network load

[mbrooke]

Is it always absolutely necessary to parallel MV buses when supplying spot and secondary network feeders? No phase angle differences on the 138kv bus.


Certain scenarios will require a bus section to be taken out of service (network stays on through N-2) breaking the normally closed topology. I'd like to eliminate running bus or cable to tie the two ends together forming a ring.

 

[Tony S]

A parallel bus is designed for redundancy the same as parallel feeders.

Our 132kV site supply had interconnects for the 132kV, 33kV and 11kV busbars. A belt and braces expensive approach but secure. Furnaces full of solid iron due to a power failure are even more expensive.

 

[Sahib]

Unlike radial distribution, power supply could remain unaffected in one section for a fault in another section in a ring distribution.

 

[mbrooke]

A parallel bus is designed for redundancy the same as parallel feeders.

Our 132kV site supply had interconnects for the 132kV, 33kV and 11kV busbars. A belt and braces expensive approach but secure. Furnaces full of solid iron due to a power failure are even more expensive.

Would you say two parallel busbars would be better over 6 busbars interconnected with tie breakers?

Unlike radial distribution, power supply could remain unaffected in one section for a fault in another section in a ring distribution.

I know- but being a network in theory it should survive with one section of busbar taken out. Issue is the phase angles resulting. Here is what I am dealing with:

 

[Sahib]

I know- but being a network in theory it should survive with one section of busbar taken out. Issue is the phase angles resulting. Here is what I am dealing with:

What is the consequence of phase angles resulting? Can't you put back the section of busbar taken out or what else?