联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

ELEC3213/ELEC6222– Coursework 2024/25
Discussed on: 07 February 2025
Due Date: 16 May 2025, 18:00
Submission Format: Electronic Only (including zip file for any additional data you wish to submit) on
Blackboard (I will create a submission link closer to the due date).
This assignment comprises 50% of the assessment for ELEC3213/ELEC6222. You should note that
you may need to acquire new knowledge (in addition to the material presented in the lectures) to
complete the work successfully; many of the lectures include recommendations for further reading.
As a guide, you could expect to spend around 40 hours on the completion of this assignment, not
inclusive of additional reading recommended in the lectures.
Objectives:
The objectives of this assignment are as follows:
1. To determine an appropriate network design for a given scenario, informed by industrial and
regulatory requirements.
2. To complete the sizing of components so that the network is able to operate within limits,
including under outage cases.
3. To design a protection scheme, which ensures that faults within the network can be dealt
with while keeping customer interruptions to a sensible minimum.
4. To evaluate your own design, and identify lessons learned which you could apply to future
similar work.
Report Requirements:
You should submit a report that meets the following requirements:
Addresses all of the Outputs listed in the technical description which follows
Is no longer than 12 pages, inclusive of the reference list. The minimum font size is 11
(Calibri), with standard margins (2.54cm).
Where diagrams are included, they are properly referenced in the main text and are clearly
readable at 100% (printed) size.
Contains a short appendix listing any additional electronic files, drawings or other resources
which you have submitted electronically (all supporting files should be submitted as a .zip
file as per the instructions on the blackboard for this assignment).
The report is an individual assessment; you should clearly acknowledge all sources of help.
You are welcome to discuss your ideas with others in the cohort, but you must ensure that
the work submitted is your own.
Software Selection:
There are a number of software choices available to allow you to conduct load flow and fault
analysis, including one (PowerWorld) which is freely available to install on your personal computers.
However, if you have experience using another tool, you can choose that instead (please discuss
with the module leader first).
Part 1 – Network Design
The first part of your assignment involves the review of network design options. The conceptual
overview of the system that you are considering is shown in Figure 1. You should note that this
diagram is not intended to represent the full electrical layout, but instead gives options for the
connectivity that would be available. Circuit breakers are not shown and should be inserted as
appropriate. You do not need to use all lines; you should seek to provide evidence for the routes
chosen.
Figure 1 – Overview Diagram of Network
Important Points to Consider:
1) What is the required level of redundancy for this type of network
2) How will the network perform under outage cases How might this influence the selection
of the layout
3) Where do you need to locate switching points in order to facilitate the isolation of specific
components (this links to point number 1 above).
4) The indicative diagram represents a whole bus substation with one node; this does not
mean that you are restricted to using a single bus system. Also note that for power world,
you don’t need to represent each bus in a detailed manner, and just a single-bus
representation is sufficient for each bus. But in your report, you are expected to describe the
type/configuration of each bus.
5) The more circuits you add, the higher the redundancy, but the more complex the protection
becomes.
6) You should consult the spreadsheet ELEC3213_ELEC6222_Student_details.xlsx, hosted on
blackboard, to verify the line lengths applicable for your specific case. This document will
also detail the system loadings that you are designing to (note that these differ between
students).
Outputs:
A short discussion of the possible design options, which describes clearly the advantages and
disadvantages of the options available to you.
A clear statement of your recommended design, including a system diagram. This should
show all buses, transformers, switching points, feeder circuits, loads. You do not need to
consider the details of anything below B5, B7, B9, B11.
You should provide clear reasons for your choices.
Part 2 – Component Sizing
Having determined the appropriate layout for the network, you should select appropriate size of
lines and transformers to meet your requirements. Consideration should be given to power flows
under normal conditions, and also the worst-case contingency scenarios that you expect the
network to endure.
To assist you with selecting appropriate components, documents containing suitable asset data are
provided on the course resources page; note that you would have also covered many of the
calculation methods needed to calculate parameters yourself. You should also consult the
spreadsheet ELEC3213_ELEC6222_Student_details.xlsx, hosted on the course resources page, to
verify the line lengths applicable for your specific case.
Outputs:
Discussion of approach taken to determine the size of the components.
Powerflow results to show that your network meets requirements under both normal and
contingency scenarios.
Part 3 – Protection Scheme
Upon completion of Part 1 and Part 2, you should now have a design for your network which has
been checked using your power flow model. The next step in the design is to determine an
appropriate protection scheme. In doing this, you should consider the following factors:
1) How will your protection system be influenced by the redundancy requirements of your
network
2) How many switching operations will you need to undertake to clear a fault
3) What are the appropriate protective devices to use in the different parts of the network
4) Which devices should be coordinated together
5) Will the coordination be affected by an outage on the system
6) How will you ensure that system components can be safely disconnected and isolated for
maintenance
Outputs:
A clear protection strategy for your network, describing the behaviour you would expect to
see for certain types of faults.
The type of protective device used at each location should be identified. You do not have to
identify specific manufacturers, or commercially available devices, but you should indicate
the required ratings.
Three specific examples of how the protection will respond to a fault.
Part 4 – Evaluation & Lessons Learned
As you progress through this coursework, you will find that you learn from the experience of trying
to achieve certain objectives; perhaps you will decide to take one option, but then subsequently
discover that another choice was better. In the final part of the coursework, you are asked to
evaluate your design.
Outputs:
Discussion of challenges faced in developing the design, and lessons learned as a result.
Evaluation of the design that you have produced, including recommendations for further
work that could be done to improve on it if additional information was available to you.
It is recommended that this section is approximately one page in length.
Appendix 1 – Marking Scheme
An indicative marking scheme is shown below. You are encouraged to read this carefully BEFORE you start to write your report, and at intervals during the
writing of the report. The marking scheme is intended to clearly identify the attributes of a high quality report, and you should reflect on whether you are
achieving the necessary level. It will also help you to identify things which you might have missed!
Part 1 (up to 30 marks)
Part Item Mark Descriptor
1 Network Design 30 Range of initial options considered with advantages and disadvantages summarised effectively. Clear
and concise statement of design, which is well linked to relevant regulations or other known best
practice. Arguments presented are logical, with full consideration of both intact network conditions
and outage scenarios. Positioning of switching devices has been linked to the overall redundancy
requirements. All diagrams are very well presented.
24 Range of initial options considered with discussion of advantages and disadvantages. Clear statement
of design, with some links to relevant regulations or other known best practice. Arguments presented
are logical, with full consideration of both intact network conditions and outage scenarios.
Positioning of switching devices has been linked to the overall redundancy requirements.
18 Structure of the answer is slightly difficult to follow; limited consideration of available options. Design
appears viable, but the basis of it is not clear. Outage cases are considered, but switching positions
are not fully linked to this. Level of redundancy not fully appropriate to the scenario given.
12 Little or no consideration of possible options in developing the design. Although the design that is
recommended is broadly sensible, the structure of the answer is poor. No real links to regulatory
requirements or other best practice, limited consideration of the outage cases.
<8 Incorrect approach, some or all of the required data are missing. Part 2 (up to 20 marks) Part Item Mark Descriptor 2 Component Sizing and loadflow models 20 Model constructed correctly, as evidenced by results. Clear diagrams and concise tables that provide all necessary information. Sufficient results provided to back up all points made. Permissible limits are clearly defined and explained with reference to theory. All sizing calculations are clearly explained and have resulted in a viable design. 16 Model constructed correctly and suitable range of data given, sizing of network components largely appropriate but not fully linked to necessary theory. Diagrams clear and well linked to the explanations in the text. 12 Model constructed correctly and results appear sensible, but explanation of network performance is limited and clarity of presentation could be improved. 8 Modelling assumptions unclear and results presented are not sufficient to show that the model is working as intended. Limited discussion and minimal or no connection to the relevant theory. <8 Modelling assumptions unclear and insufficient results provided to verify that the model is performing correctly. Extremely limited discussion, some or all of which is not technically correct. Part 3 (up to 30 marks) Part Item Mark Descriptor 3 Protection Scheme 30 Very clear initial protection strategy, which has been linked to the functional requirements of the network and the overall redundancy level. There is a clear summary of all of the protection devices used and the reason for choosing the devices. Several relevant examples are given, showing excellent coordination and timely response to faults. Links are made to regulatory performance requirements. No cases of poor coordination can be found, and the level of protection used would be practical for a real application. 24 Good initial protection strategy, which has been linked to the functional requirements of the network and the overall redundancy level. There is a clear summary of all of the protection devices used and the reason for choosing the devices. Several relevant examples are given, showing good coordination and timely response to faults. Links are made to regulatory performance requirements. Some areas of the design could be improved or simplified, or have not been explained as clearly as they could be. 18 The overall protection strategy lacks some focus, although the end result is broadly viable. Limited links made to wider network requirements or regulations. The examples given are broadly technically correct, but not well explained. The design is not fully appropriate for the application. 12 The strategy for the protection is not clear, and has no real links to broader network or regulatory requirements. Some of the examples are not technically correct. The response is confusing in places, and would be difficult to implement in a real world scenario. <8 No real strategy, examples of coordination not technically correct. Part 4 (up to 20 marks) Part Item Mark Descriptor 4 Evaluation of design and lessons learned 20 A comprehensive answer that clearly identifies challenges that have been encountered and potential ways around them. A thorough technical evaluation, which has identified the additional information that would be needed to completely answer the questions. Clear consideration of forward planning or other long term issues that might affect the network. 14 A range of challenges is identified and there is clear evidence of learning from the process of completing the task. The answer could be enhanced with more insight to the additional factors that might affect a real world design. 10 There is an evaluation of the work done for this specific case, but it does not really link to the wider issues that might affect a real world design. The answer may be too short and lacking detail, or overly long and hard to follow. <8 Limited evaluation, no real lessons learned.