Recommendations for architecture optimization

These recommendations are intended to guide the designer towards architecture upgrades which allow him to improve assessment criteria.

On-site work

To be compatible with the “special” or “critical” work-site time, it is recommended to limit uncertainties by applying the following recommendations:

• Use of proven solutions and equipment that has been validated and tested by manufacturers (“functional” switchboard or “manufacturer” switchboard according to the application criticality),
• Prefer the implementation of equipment for which there is a reliable distribution network and for which it is possible to have local support (supplier well established),
• Prefer the use of factory-built equipment (MV/LV substation, busbar trunking), allowing the volume of operations on site to be limited,
• Limit the variety of equipment implemented (e.g. the power of transformers),
• Avoid mixing equipment from different manufacturers.

Environmental impact

The optimization of the environmental assessment of an installation will involve reducing:

• Power losses at full load and no load during installation operation,
• Overall, the mass of materials used to produce the installation.

Taken separately and when looking at only one piece of equipment, these 2 objectives may seem contradictory. However, when applied to whole installation, it is possible to design the architecture to contribute to both objectives. The optimal installation will therefore not be the sum of the optimal equipment taken separately, but the result of an optimization of the overall installation.Figure D26 gives an example of the contribution per equipment category to the weight and energy dissipation for a 3500 kVA installation spread over 10000m².

---

Fig. D26: Example of the spread of losses and the weight of material for each

---

• Installation is operating at 50% load on average, with 0,8 power factor
• Site is operating 6500 hours per years : 3 shifts + week ends with reduced activity at night and week ends and full stop 1 month per year for site maintenance and employees holidays.
• Power consumption is 9,1 GWh
• Reactive power is 6,8 GVARh. This reactive power will be invoiced in addition to power consumption according to local energy contract.
  

These data helps to understand and prioritize energy consumption and costs factors.

• Very first factor of power consumption is... energy usage. This can be optimized with appropriate metering and analysis of loads actual consumption.

Generally speaking, LV cables and trunking as well as the MV/LV transformers are the main contributors to operating losses and the weight of equipment used.

• Second is reactive energy. This lead to additional load on electrical network. and additional energy invoicing. This can be optimized with power factor correction solutions.
• Third is cables. Cable losses can be reduced by appropriate organisation and design of site and use of busbar truncking instead of cables wherever accurate.
• MV to LV transformers are fourth with approx. 1% of losses.
• MV and LV switchboards come last with approximately 0,25% of losses.

Generally speaking, LV cables and trunking as well as the MV/LV transformers are the main contributors to operating losses and the weight of equipment used.
Environmental optimization of the installation by the architecture will therefore involve:

• reducing the length of LV circuits in the installation,
• clustering LV circuits wherever possible to take advantage of the factor of simultaneity ks (see chapter A: General rules of electrical installation design, Chapter – Power loading of an installation, “Estimation of actual maximum kVA demand”)

---

Objectives	Resources
Reducing the length of LV circuits	Placing MV/LV substations as close as possible to the barycenter of all of the LV loads to be supplied
Clustering LV circuits	When the simultaneity factor of a group of loads to be supplied is less than 0.7, the clustering of circuits allows us to limit the volume of conductors supplying power to these loads. In real terms this involves: setting up sub-distribution switchboards as close as possible to the barycenter of the groups of loads if they are localized, setting up busbar trunking systems as close as possible to the barycenter of the groups of loads if they are distributed. The search for an optimal solution may lead to consider several clustering scenarios. In all cases, reducing the distance between the barycenter of a group of loads and the equipment that supplies them power allows to reduce environmental impact.

Fig. D27: Environmental optimization : Objectives and Ressources.

---

As an example figure D28 shows the impact of clustering circuits on reducing the distance between the barycenter of the loads of an installation and that of the sources considered (MLVS whose position is imposed).

---

Solution	Barycenter position
N°1
N°2

Fig. D28: Example of barycenter positioning

---

This example concerns a mineral water bottling plant for which:

• the position of electrical equipment (MLVS) is imposed in the premises outside of the process area for reasons of accessibility and atmosphere constraints,
• the installed power is around 4 MVA.

In solution No.1, the circuits are distributed for each workshop.
In solution No. 2, the circuits are distributed by process functions (production lines).

Without changing the layout of electrical equipment, the second solution allows us to achieve gains of around 15% on the weight of LV cables thanks to the sub-distribution boards locations and a better uniformity of transformer power.
To supplement the optimizations carried out in terms of architecture, the following points also contribute to the optimization: 

• the setting up of LV power factor correction to limit losses in the transformers and LV circuits if this compensation is distributed,
• the use of low loss transformers,
• the use of aluminum LV busbar trunking when possible, since natural resources of this metal are greater.

Preventive maintenance volume

Recommendations for reducing the volume of preventive maintenance:

• Use the same recommendations as for reducing the work site time,
• Focus maintenance work on critical circuits,
• Standardize the choice of equipment,
• Use equipment designed for severe atmospheres (requires less maintenance).
  

Electrical power availability

Recommendations for improving the electrical power availability:

• Reduce the number of feeders per switchboard, in order to limit the effects of a possible failure of a switchboard,
• Distributing circuits according to availability requirements,
• Using equipment that is in line with requirements (see Service Index, 4.2),
• Follow the selection guides proposed for steps 1 & 2 (see Fig. D3).

Recommendations to increase the level of availability:

• Change from a radial single feeder configuration to a two-pole configuration,
• Change from a two-pole configuration to a double-ended configuration,
• Change from a double-ended configuration to a uninterruptible configuration with a UPS unit and a Static Transfer Switch
• Increase the level of maintenance (reducing the MTTR, increasing the MTBF)