Determining an Optimal Number of Spares for

Hydro One 230/115 kv Auto-transformers

G. A. Hamoud, SMIEEE P. Zhao, SMIEEE
Hydro One Inc. Hydro One Inc.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada Toronto Ontario, Canada
gomaa.hamoud@HydroOne.com peter.zhao@HydroOne.com

Abstract – A reliability study has been performed recently at based on Markov models for determining the optimal number
Hydro One to evaluate the optimal numbers of spare of spare units for a given population of transformers used in
transformers required for 250 MVA and 125 MVA, 230/115 kv, transmission stations.
3 phase auto-transformers of the Hydro One’s transmission
system. In this study, a probabilistic method based on a Markov
A reliability study was performed in 2003 [10] to determine
model and a bulk power reliability program was developed in
determining the number of spare units for each group of auto- the numbers of spare auto-transformers required for 250
transformers. The purpose of this paper is to describe the MVA and 125 MVA, 230/115 kv, 3 phase auto-transformers
assessment approach used in the study and to present the study of the Hydro One transmission system. The study used a
findings and its recommendations. benefit/cost analysis approach in determining the required
numbers of spares. The following assumptions were made in
Index Terms- Auto-transformer, spare units, Markov model, the study:
reliability assessment of bulk power system, probability of
failure, failure consequences, system availability, benefit/cost - No power flow models were used in the assessment of
analysis.
the failure consequences.
- Approximate load duration curves were used to estimate
I. INTRODUCTION
potential load cuts for multi-unit stations.
- All generators connected to the 115 kV transmission
High voltage auto-transformer stations in bulk transmission
network were not considered.
systems are normally designed to withstand the failure of one
- Power transfers between 115 kv areas through normally
unit or two units without shedding customer’s loads.
open lines were allowed before cutting any loads.
Therefore, the loss of one auto-transformer at any transformer
station may not be a concern to utilities from the reliability
The study findings suggested that two spare auto-
point of view. On the other hand, the loss of one unit at a
transformers are required for each group of the auto-
transformer station may result in generation rescheduling and
transformers.
therefore an increase in the system energy production costs.
In other situations, the loss of two units at the same station
At present, there are 53, 250 MVA auto-transformers and
may result not only in generation rescheduling but also in
31, 125 MVA auto-transformers on the Hydro One’s bulk
load shedding.
transmission system. In terms of spare units, there are 2
spare units for the 250 MVA group and one spare unit for the
The failure of auto-transformers can be of two types: minor
125 MVA group. Since 2003, there have been many changes
(or Class II failures) and major (Class I failures). Class II
to the transmission system network, system generation,
failures are of short duration and are repaired on site and are
system load and the number of auto-transformers on the
covered by system planning criteria. On the other hand,
system. The purpose of this study is to review the adequacy
Class I failures are of long duration and can not be easily
of the current spare policy for the two groups of auto-
repaired on site and failed units may be repaired or replaced
transformers following the various system changes.
depending on unit conditions resulted from the failure. It has
been a practice in the utility industry to carry spare units for a
II. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
group of similar auto-transformers in service to avoid
extended customer interruption or impaired system operating
Two criteria are used in the current study to determine the
conditions. Determining how many spare units are needed
number of spare transformers for each group of auto-
has been a big challenge for transmission companies.
transformers. The 1st criterion assumes that spare units are
added to the population, one at a time, until a pre-determined
More work has been done in the area of the spare
level of group availability is reached or the group availability
transformer requirements for distribution stations [1]-[7]. On
saturates. The 2nd criterion is based on the minimization of
the other hand, some work has been reported in the area of
the total system cost (cost of carrying spares and outage costs
spare transformer requirements for transmission stations.
resulting from transformer failures). The required number of
References [8] and [9] presented some probabilistic methods

978-1-5386-2212-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

spare transformers (optimal number) is determined when the
total system cost is minimum.
Depending on the assessment criterion used, the method of
assessment can be simple or complicated. The simple method
involves only the calculation of the probability of Class I
transformer failures while the complicated method involves
the calculations of both the probability of failures and the
failure consequences. The two methods are discussed in brief
as follows:
A. Simple Method (only Failure Probabilities are Required))
This method requires the calculation of probabilities of
Class I transformer failures. These failure probabilities are
obtained using the Markov model of [8].
A transformer station with more than one unit is normally
designed to withstand the loss of one unit at any time without
overloading the remaining units. However, the loss of the
second unit at the same station could result in overloads at the
same station or in nearby stations. Therefore, remedial
actions such as generation rescheduling and/or load shedding
are taken to alleviate overloads.
The probabilities of having one Class I failure (T1) and two
Class I failures (T2) at one station are given by:
T1 = (m/N/) P1 (1)
T2 = (mc2 /Nc2) P2 (2)
Where:
P1= Probability of having N-1 units in service
P2= Probability of having N-2 in service
m =Number of units at the station
N =Number of units at all stations
m
c2 = Number of ways a pair of units can be formed from a
population of m units and is equal to m (m-1)/2.
N
c2 = Number of ways a pair of units can be formed from a
population of N units and is equal to N (N-1)/2.
The probability of the overlap of two Class I failures at
Stations i and j, T2ij, in the same transformer group is given
by:
T2ij = (1 /Nc2) P2 (3)
The probability of the overlap of two Class I failures at
Stations i and j, T2ij, in two different transformer groups is
given by:
T2ij = P1i P1j/Ni Nj (4)
Where:
P1i = Probability of having one Class I failure in Group 1
P1j = Probability of having one Class I failure in Group 2
Ni = Number of units in Group 1
2
978-1-5386-2212-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Nj = Number of units in Group 2.
B. Complicated Method (both Failure Probabilities and
Failure Consequences are Required)
This method requires the calculations of both the
probability of failures and the failure consequences. The
probability of failures is evaluated by the simple method. The
failure consequences are calculated with the help of the
Hydro One’s PROCOSE program [11] (Probabilistic
Composite System Evaluation program). The calculation is
done on a monthly basis and involves the following steps:
1. Establish a system base case using PROCOSE. In this
base case, generation is dispatched economically and all
250 MVA and 125 MVA, 3 phase auto-transformers are
assumed to be in service and all critical transmission
network interfaces including the auto-transformer ratings
are observed.
2. Obtain from the base case results, the system expected
MW cut and the system average hourly production cost.
These system quantities are computed under the
assumptions that the transmission system remains intact
and system generators can fail. In addition, the computed
system quantities can change under different generation
dispatches.
3. Select one transformer station and run PROCOSE cases
with one transformer and two transformers out of service
to compute the system expected MW cut and the system
average hourly production cost.
4. Use the results in Steps 2 and 3 to obtain the changes
(only increases) in the system expected MW cut and in
the system average hourly production cost.
5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 for other transformer stations
6. Repeat the above steps for some overlap outages of two
transformers at different stations in the same local area.
It should be mentioned that in most cases, the loss of one
auto-transformer at any multi-unit station would have no
impacts on customers. On the other hand, the loss of two
auto-transformers at one station or the loss of two at two
stations supplying one 115 kv local area could result in an
overload of the remaining units or in an island. The overload
problems can be solved by rescheduling generation in the 115
kv local area if any exists or by cutting loads. In case of
islanding, the entire 115 kv local area load will be lost if it
can not be transferred to neighbouring areas. On the other
hand, if transmission ties exist between the 115 kv affected
area and its neighbouring areas, the entire area load or portion
of it can be transferred. The amount of load cuts computed by
PROCOSE under a given contingency should be adjusted to
reflect the amount of load transfer.
III. DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL NUMBER OF
SPARES
In this study, both assessment criteria are used in
determining the optimal number of spare units for each group
of auto-transformers. The assessment procedure associated
with each criterion is now described.
A. Using the Group Availability Criterion
The group availability used in this study is defined as the
probability of having all units up and running. The option of
saturating the group availability is selected. The assessment
procedure involves the following steps:
1. Use the Markov model of [8] with no spares to compute
the group availability.
2. Add one spare unit to the group and calculate the group
availability. Check the group availability to see whether
the calculated availability saturates or not. If it saturates
(i.e. the group availability remains almost unchanged as
the number of spare units increases), stop the process
because the addition of more spare units would not help.
The number of optimal spare will be equal to the number
of spares at this particular stage. If it does not saturate,
add more spare units.
B. Using a Total Cost Optimization Criterion
In this case, the required number of spare units is
determined using a cost optimization method. The cost
involved has two components: the cost of carrying spare units
and the outage cost resulting from transformer outages.
The assessment process involves the following steps:
1. Calculate, for each station in each group, the
consequences of the loss of one transformer and two
transformers.
2. Calculate, for some selected stations, the consequences
of the loss of two transformers at two different stations in
the same local area whether the two transformers belong
to one group or both.
3. Calculate T1, T2 and T2ij using Equations (1), (2), (3)
and (4) assuming no spare units.
4. Calculate the annual risk cost (customer interruption
cost) for each group using the following expression:
N In Equation (5), if unit outages belong to two transformer
ARC = Σ D T1i [MWC1i *CIC + APC1i ] +
i=1
k
Σ D T2i [MWC2i *CIC + APC2i ] +
i the cost of maintaining spare transformers if necessary.
N N
Σ Σ D T2ij [MWC2ij *CIC + APC2ij] (5)
j≠i i=1
Where:
ARC = Annual risk cost in dollars
T1i = Probability of having one failure at Station i
D = Length of study period in hours (8760 hours)
MWC1i = Increase in system expected MW cut with one
failure at Station i
3
978-1-5386-2212-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
APC1i = Increase in system average hourly production
cost with one failure at Station i
T2i = Probability of having two failures at Station i
T2ij = Probability of losing two units one at Station i and
one Station j
MWC2i = Increase in system expected MW cut with two
failures at Station i
APC2i = Increase in system average hourly production
cost with two failures at Station i
APC2ij = Increase in system average hourly production
cost with two failures at Station i and Station j
MWC2ij = Increase in system expected MW cut with two
failures at Station i and Station j
k = Number of transformer stations in the population
N = Number of units in the group
CIC = Customer interruption cost in $/MWh
with i and j in the 3rd term of Equation (5) belonging to
different stations.
5. Estimate the annual cost of carrying spare units for each
group using the following expression:
ACCS = M *C* RCC (6)
Where:
ACCS = Annual cost of carrying spares
M = Number of spare units
C = Cost of one spare unit
RCC = Rate of carrying charge.
6. Calculate the total cost by adding (5) and (6).
7. Repeat Steps 3 to 8 with a different number of spares.
8. Use the above results for each group to obtain the
number of spares that has the minimal total cost.
The 1st term in Equation (5) represents the outage cost due
to the loss of any single unit. The 2nd term represents the
outage cost due to the loss of two units at the same station.
The 3rd term represents the outage cost due to the loss of two
units at two different stations.
groups, the outage cost is split equally between the two
groups.
Equation (6) can be modified to include other costs such as
IV. SYSTEMS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
A. Generation System
The current generation system with no coal-fired plants was
used in the study. Some generating units were modelled
deterministically and others were modeled probabilistically.
B. Transmission System
The present Hydro One’s transmission system with all
elements in service was used in the study as a base case. The
115 kv transmission network was divided into pockets (local
areas) and each pocket is interconnected to the 230 kv
transmission network by one or more auto-transformer
stations. The pockets may be interconnected by lines that are
operated open under normal system conditions. Under some
system outage conditions, the lines can be closed so that
some pocket loads can be transferred between the pockets. In
addition, some pockets may contain local generators which
supply part of the pocket load.
The 250 MVA group has 53 units while the 125 MVA
group has 31 units.
C. System load
A system annual peak load of 25,000 MW with a load
factor around 70 % was assumed. The load is distributed at
various buses in the base case power flow. The hourly load
profile for the city of Toronto was assumed for the entire
system.
V. Study Assumptions and Data Used
The system operating costs are influenced by a number of
factors such as the system load, system generators and their
costs and network conditions. The study has made the
following assumptions:
The criterion of saturating the group availability,
probability of no failures, was used in the assessment. Tables
III and IV show the probabilities of no failures, one failure
and two failures for two transformer groups with 0, 1, 2 and 3
spares. Table III shows that the probability of no failures for
the 250 MVA group saturates at .98 when the number of
spare units is 2. For the 125 MVA group, the group
availability with no failures saturates at .94 as seen from
Table IV when the number of spare unit is two.
It should be mentioned that the impact of transformer
outages at various stations on the system expected MW cut
and the system average hourly production cost can vary
significantly among the various stations under a given
generation dispatch. In this assessment, it was assumed that
only one generation dispatch (most likely one) is used and a
spare unit is used at any one of the stations regardless of the
value of the outage impact. The results of outage
consequences assessment at various stations were not
reported in this paper due the paper limited space.
The results of the benefit/cost analysis approach for the 250
MVA group with 0, 1, 2 and 3 spare units are shown in Table
V. As seen from Table V, the annual increase in system
production costing is much smaller than the annual increase
in customer interruption costs. It is seen from Table V that
the minimum total annual cost occurs when the number of
spare units is two.
TABLE I TRANSFORMER CLASS I FAILURE DATA

1. A summary of unit reliability indices used in the study is 250 MVA 125 MVA
provided in Table I (Based on Hydro One’s experience Group Group
No. of units 53 31
over the last 14 years).
Class I annual unit failure rate .00292 .005044
2. Single and double outages of auto-transformers are Unit repair or lead time in years 1.5 1.5
considered in the assessment. Spare unit installation time in days 35 130
3. Spare transformer units are used at any one of the
stations considered in the study even if there are no TABLE II OTHER RELEAVANT DATA
outage consequences. The outage consequences at a
Cost of one 250 MVA spare unit $ 2.5 million
particular station are unknown until the consequences Cost of one 125 MVA spare unit $ 1.8 million
assessment is done. If transformer outages at a station are Annual discount rate in % 5
known in advance to have no impact on the computed Average customer interruption cost 10 $/KWh
quantities, then the station should be excluded in the No. of repair teams More than 1
spare assessment. No. of installation teams 1
4. Study period of one year is considered in the assessment.
TABLE III PROBABILITY OF SYSTEM FAILURES FOR 250
5. In case of islanding, 50 % of the area or pocket load will MVA GROUP
be transferred to neghbouring pockets if normally open
lines exist between them. Case Probability Probability of Probability of
of no One Failure Two Failures
Failures (P1) (P2)
Table II provides information about other relevant data 0 spare .783077917 .193404584 .023517499
used in the assessment. 1 spare .962728836 .035173341 .002097823
2 spares .983495686 .016178589 .000325725
VI. STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3 spares .98507467 .014707156 .000218174

The results for the two criteria used in the assessment are
now discussed. Table VI provides a summary of the benefit/cost analysis
for the 125 MVA group with 0, 1, 2 and 3 spare units. It is

978-1-5386-2212-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

seen from Table VI that the minimum total annual cost occurs The study uses a probabilistic method based on a Markov
when the number of spare units is one. model for computing the probability of transformer failures
and utilizes the Hydro One’s PROCOSE program for
evaluating the failure consequences.
TABLE IV PROBABILITY OF SYSTEM FAILURES FOR 125 MVA
GROUP
Based on the study assumptions and data used in the
Case Probability of Probability of Probability of assessment, the following conclusions and recommendations
no Failures One Failure Two Failures can be drawn from the study findings:
(P1) (P2)
0 spare .750470061 .217814395 .031715544
1 spare .924054752 .070681696 .005263553 1. It is justified, based on the availability criterion
2 spares .943208812 .053381755 .0029736 (availability saturates) to carry two spares for the 250
3 spares .944499382 .0526598 .00284079 MVA group and two spares for the 125 MVA group.
2. It is justifiled, based on the minimum cost criterion to
carry two spares for the 250 MVA group and one for the
TABLE V SUMMARY OF COST RESULTS FOR 250 MVA GROUP 125 MVA group.
Number Annual Annual Annual Increase Total
3. The sensitivity analysis results show that the number of
of Carrying Increase in in Customer Annual spare units could be two for each group for most of the
Spares Cost in $k Production Interruption cost in cases studied.
Cost in $k Cost in $k $k 4. Due to uncertainties in the system parameters used and
0 0 5.37 2351.26 2356.63
1 125 .32 329.83 455.15
the amounts of power that can be transferred between the
2 250 .11 123.97 374.08 stations, it is recommended to carry two spare units for
3 375 .10 109.42 484.42 each group of the auto-transformers.

REFERENCES
TABLE VI SUMMARY OF COST RESULTS FOR125 MVA GROUP
[1] W. Li, E. Vaahedi and Y. Mansour, “Determining number and timing
Number Annual Annual Annual Total
of substation spare transformers using a probabilistic cost analysis
of Carrying Increase in Increase in Annual
approach,” IEEE Transactions on power delivery, Vol. 14, No. 3, July
Spares Cost in Production Customer cost in
1999.
$k Cost in $k Interruption $k
[2] J. M. Nahman and M. R. Tanaskovic, “Probability models for optimal
Cost in $k
sparing of distribution network transformers,” IEEE Transactions on
0 0 5.33 1049.47 1054.80
Power Delivery, Vol. 24, Issue 2, April 2009, pp. 758-763.
1 90 .32 170.80 261.12 [3] A. A. Chowdhury and D. O. Koval, “Development of probabilistic
2 180 .11 96.10 276.21 models for computing optimal distribution substation spare
3 270 .10 91.76 361.86 transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 41,
Issue 6, November 2005, pp. 1493-1498.
Additional studies were performed to evaluate the impact of [4] A. M. Leite da Silva, J. G. de Carvalho and A. A. Chowdhury,
“Probabilistic methodologies for determining the optimal number of
varying some of the system paramters on the number of substation spare transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
spares. In these studies, the unit failure rate was doubled, the Vol. 25, Issue 1, February 2010, pp. 68-77.
unit repair time was increased to 2 years and the customer [5] G. A. Hamoud, “Assessment of spare transformer requirements for
interruption cost was increased to $20 /KWh. distribution stations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 26,
Number 1, February 2011, pp. 174 - 180.
[6] G. A. Hamoud, “Use of Markov models in assessing spare transformer
The results using the two assessment criteria show that the requirements for distribution stations,” IEEE Transactions on Power
number of spare units for the 250 MVA is two for all the Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, May 2012 , pp. 1098 - 1105.
cases except one. [7] G. A. Hamoud and C. Yiu, “One Markov model for spare analysis of
distribution power transformers, ” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 31, No. 2, March 2016 , pp. 1643 - 1648.
The results also show that the number of spare units for the [8] G. Hamoud,” Assessment of spare transformer requirements for high
125 MVA using both criteria is two for most of the cases voltage load stations,” PES General Meeting, 2012.
studied. [9] G. Hamoud, F. Qureshy, A. Elen and L. Lee, “Assessment of high
voltage auto-transformer spare requirements in bulk transmission
systems,” Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004, IEEE,
In summary, the two criteria should be used to complement June 6 – 10, pages 434 – 439.
one another when assessing the number of spares. [10] B. Parker, “Optimum Number of Spare Auto-transformers 250 MVA
and 125 MVA, 230/115 kv Categories,” Hydro One Internal Report,
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS November, 2003
[11] B. Porretta and D. Kiguel, “Bulk power system reliability evaluation,
part I: PROCOSE – a Computer Program for Probabilistic Composite
The paper describes the reliability study that has been System Evaluation”, 14th Inter-RAM Conference for the Electric
performed at Hydro One to review the adequacy of the Power Industry, Toronto, May 26-29, 1987.
current spare numbers for the 230/115 kv, 3 phase auto-
transformers of the Hydro One’s bulk transmission system.

978-1-5386-2212-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE