Está en la página 1de 6

E1.

E1.6

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

The Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the Most Effective Cost
of Installation 500 kV of Java-Sumatra Power Interconnection System
Herry NUGRAHA, Zivion SILALAHI; PLN Indonesia, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia,
herry.nugraha@gmail.com, zivionsilalahi@yahoo.com
Ngapuli SINISUKA; Bandung Institute of Technology, n_sinisuka@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
In order to transfer 3,000 MW capacity of the electricity
from the Mine-Mouth Coal-fired Power Plants in South
Sumatra to the load center in Java, PLN Indonesia
intends to build the Java-Sumatra Power Interconnection
System. The scopes of these works of the Power
Interconnection System are including: HVAC 500 kV
Transmission Line in Java, HVAC 500 kV Transmission
Line in Sumatra, HVDC 500 kV Transmission Line in
Java, HVDC 500 kV Transmission Line in Sumatra, and
HVDC 500 kV Java-Sumatra submarine cables. This
paper will analyze the financial feasibility study to ensure
if the project has economic benefit, and the asset would
be used effectively and efficiently along its benefit period
using Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). In this paper, a
LCCA will be simulated to analyze three alternatives and
to decide which alternative is the most profitable. Cash
Flow and Monte Carlo simulations for a period of 30 years
operation of the Interconnection System are part of the
LCC models to achieve the objectives of this paper.

KEYWORDS
Life Cycle Cost Analysis; LCCA; Java-Sumatra 500kV
DC; Power Transmission Submarine Cables; Monte
Carlo.

1. INTRODUCTION
Electricity in Indonesia is currently experienced a rapid
development along with the high growth in industry as well
as residential demand. The characteristic between one
area to another is significantly different. In Java as most
populated island, 2000 MW of electric power need to be
added to meet the increasing demand. Most of the major
power plants are using coal as the energy source. In order
to supply this energy, most of the coals are transported
from other islands (Sumatera and Kalimantan). These
schemes are considered to have many disadvantages,
such as the high transportation cost, and also the
limitation caused by the fluctuation of weather condition.
Regarding to this issue, the Java-Sumatra HVDC
Interconnection System is now under construction in order
to transfer power from Mine-Mouth Coal-fired Power
Plants at South Sumatra to the load center in Java. The
scopes of these works of the Power interconnection
system are including: HVDC 500 kV transmission line in
Sumatra, and HVDC 500 kV Java-Sumatra submarine
cables, HVAC 500 kV transmission line in Java, HVAC
500 kV transmission line in Sumatra, HVDC 500 kV
transmission line in Java,. Configuration of this system is
provided in figure 1.
In Java-Sumatra transmission (especially in the HVDC
sequence), several configuration can be designed
regarding to the engineering and economic issues.

Fig.1: Configuration of Java-Sumatra HVDC


Interconnection System
In this paper, it will be discussed how to calculate and
chose the most effective cost of Java-Sumatra Power
Interconnection System. The scopes of these works of the
Power Interconnection System during its life cycle (LCC).
The objective of the LCC is to choose some alternatives
of the most cost effective approach to determine the
lowest long term cost of ownership [6].LCC is the total
cost of ownership including the cost of the project or asset
acquisition, operation & maintenance, and disposal. LCC
includes both deterministic costs (such as acquisition
costs, yearly maintenance costs and disposal costs) and
probabilistic costs (such as the cost of failure, repairs
costs, and energy not served (ENS)). Most of the
probabilistic costs associated directly with the reliability
and maintenance characteristics of the system.
Monte Carlo simulation techniques are used to join
probability chance for failure, probability of ENS and
economic data to solve problems of uncertainty. Failure
costs FC are incurred by each year as they fail using a
Monte Carlo simulation of failure or success to cover the
uncertainty.

2. METHODS
2.1 Life Cycle Cost
The method which will be discussed in this paper includes
the scenario of the design decision; parameter of
performance; risk calculation; and computation of all
associated costs of capital, maintenance and failure costs
based on the probability of chance for failure. The method
is proposed to analyze failure data using appropriate cost
profile in order to represent the fact that each scenario of
design and each failure have different prices, in different
time periods at an economic cycle. These steps can be
described briefly as follows:
1. Specify scope,
functions.

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

boundaries,

environments

and

1/6

E1.6

2. Determine several alternatives of the costs structure.


3. Use Monte Carlo simulation of probability success or
failure of sub-system to calculate Simulated Chance
for Failure of the system. Both parallel model and
series model chance for failure are explained as
follow:
a.

Parallel Model
The system survives if any one element
U1
survives and fails if both elements fail
simultaneously. In a parallel system each
U2
element must be capable of carrying the full
load or else percentage of load capacity.
Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) is calculated using Monte
Carlo simulation based on the value of Weibull Shape
Factor and Weibull Characteristic Life for each subsystem. Time of failure TF is a function of value criterion of
failure F(t). The equations to calculated TF and MTTF are:
T
MTTF

ln 1 F t
!!" "
#

%
"$

"$

[2]

Series Model

In a series system, failure of any item


causes the system to fail. For system
success, all elements of the system
must be successful simultaneously. To calculate
Simulated Chance for Failure of series equipment using
Monte Carlo simulation can be explained as follow:
U1

U2

1. Describe the value of chance for failure of equipment


U1, U2, , Un.
2. Describe decision equipment En of the success value
as 1 if RAND() > Un else the value of failure as 0.
3. Calculate assembly of two series equipment:
If 100% capacity of E1 = 1 and 100% capacity of E2 =
st
1 than the decision system reliable 100% at 1
simulation S100%,1 = 1.
If c% capacity of E1 = 1 and 100% capacity of E2 = 1
st
than the decision system reliable c% of capacity at 1
simulation Sc%,1 = 1, or if 100% capacity of E1 = 1
and c% capacity of E2 = 1 than the decision system
st
reliable c% of capacity at 1 simulation Sc%,1 = 1.
If E1 = 0 or E2 = 0 than the decision system unreliable
st
at 1 simulation S0%,1 = 1.
Moreover, the reliability and unreliability can be
calculated as follow:
n

Rx =

S
1

discussed in step 3 are jointed to the economic data to


solve problems of uncertainty. Yearly cost breakdown
structure, ENS, Failure Costs (FC), and Net Present
Value (NPV) are incurred by each year as they fail to
cover the uncertainty. The following are the formulas
for calculating costs estimates and NPV:
ENS = SFR x P x ART x LC

[4]

FC = SFR x RCF

[5]

Where:
SFR = Simulated Failure Rate
P = Electric Price ($/kWh)
ART = Average Repair Time (hours)
LC = Load Capacity (MW)
RCF = Repair Cost per Failure ($)
T

NPV = (1+ rt ) t

x,n

[3]

4. Gather cost estimates and cost models, where all the


details are assembled. In this step, the result of
Simulated Chance for Failure of 500 kV AC and
500 kV DC using Monte Carlo simulation techniques

[6]

t =1

[1]

Describe decision of the success value as 1 if RAND() >


TF else the value of failure as 0. During Monte Carlo
simulation calculation, the values of TF and MTTFsystem are
always changing in line with random numbers F(t) =
RAND () generated by computer.
b.

E1.6

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

where:
Ct = cost during the t period
r = discount rate, and
t = number of time periods
5. Present the calculation result to the chart, table or
graphic as tools of decision maker, such as: Breakeven charts, Pareto charts, Effectiveness, and graphic
of sensitivity analysis.
6. Select preferred course of action using LCC to get
right decision.

2.2 Effectiveness
Effectiveness of the system can be numerically analyzed
using Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Capability
(RAMC) parameter of each alternative. All of these
parameters give the critical combination and complex
integration of the systems that regard the consequence
frequent failure, where high risks of the integrity of
installation are encountered.

2.2.1 Reliability
Reliability is the probability that a cable is fulfilling its
purpose adequately for the period of time intended.
Reliability associated with effort to reduce frequency of
failures during the interval of time and measure probability
of failure-free operation during the specified time interval.
Reliability is expressed as [7]:
& ' =(

*
+,,-

=(

)./

[7]

2.2.2 Availability
Availability is that aspect of system reliability that takes
equipment maintainability into account. Availability in this
paper will evaluate the consequences of unsuccessful
operation or performance of the submarine cable and the
critical requirements necessary to restore operation or
performance to design expectations. The latter are
including the time needed to have the system routinely
maintained. To measure the availability in whole system,
the availability factor is being used. Availability factor
(AF)is the ratio between the hours of the transmission to
be operated in a given period [7].

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

2/6

E1.6

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

AF= /(+)

E1.6

[8]

Where is mean time to failure (MTTF). Both of MTTR


and MTTF value are obtained by Monte Carlo as will be
explained in the next section.

2.2.3 Maintainability
Maintainability deals with duration of maintenance
outages or how long it takes to achieve (ease and speed)
the maintenance actions compared to a datum. The key
figure of merit for maintainability is often the mean time to
repair (MTTR) and a limit for the maximum repair time (t)
[7].The formula is defined as follows:
M=1-exp(-t/)

[9]

Maximum repair time for the system is usually obtained


from general experiences. For the case of submarine
cable, this value is determined as 87 days [4]. Based on
this formulation, the failure rates and the maintenance
scheme will affect the maintainability value of each
alternative.

2.2.4 Capability
In electrical power system, capability deals with
productive output compared to inherent productive output
which is a measure of how well the production activity is
performed compared to the datum. Often the term is the
synonymous with productivity which is the product of
efficiency multiplied by utilization. Efficiency measures the
productive work output versus the work input. Utilization
is the ratio of time spent on productive efforts to the total
time consumed [6]. In this paper, the capability C is
defined as probability of power interconnection system
which is capable to meet grid requirement. The condition
is based on the success probability of each component
that configure the system, as showed in figure 2.

3. GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
3.1 The Data
A number of reliability surveys have been established by
CIGRE for HVDC converter stations. The data cover
utilization and availability of many HVDC systems around
the world. The data also represents mean time before
failure (MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR) for overall
system and converter station The data cover 7.000 km of
subsea power cable both HVDC and HVAC technologies.
The failure rates are defined by insulation technology,
operating voltage level, and internal/external failures for
both underground and subsea cables. The utilization of
the HVDC systems was 53.4% and 53.3% in 2009 and
2010 respectively. The average availability from CIGRE
study was 95.2% and 91.9% in 2009 and 2010
respectively [2].
Failure to subsea power cables are grouped in two categories:
external failures and internal failures. Most damage is caused
by external violence which can be classified by failures caused
by natural causes and human activities. Internal failures are
due to joint failures or electrical damage. Natural causes of
damage are mainly due to tides and waves and moving
materials on the seabed. That causes corrosion and abrasion,
respectively. Other natural causes are movement of the sea
bottom, tsunami and shark bites. The external violence to
subsea power cables is mainly caused by anchors and fishing
equipment. Ocean dumping of material and other cables can
also be harmful to subsea cables [2].
The total cost for maintenance is estimated at less than
100.000 SEK (or less than 12.000 EUR) per year for each
HVDC link. However, subsea cable repair is very
expensive. The experience from Svenska Kraftnt shows
that a subsea cable repair will cost something between
65-85 MSEK (or 7,5-10 million EUR). Investment cost for
HVDC systems is estimated at 1.0 million EUR per km,
according to Table 4.4. Repair cost for one failure of a 500
km long cable is then almost 20% of the total investment
cost. The average repair time for Swedish cable links is
65 days. Failure rate for large HVDC cable systems are
0,264 failures/year/100 cable kilometers for mechanical
faults and 0.0143 failures/year/100 cable kilometers for
internal faults. The average time to repair damage is
approximately 60 days [2].

3.2 The Alternatives


Fig. 2: Logic diagram of systems capability
Each of these parameters has a probability based on the
operational data as shown in the diagram. Based on the
configuration, all parameters are calculated by using
following formulas [6]:
P(AND) =p1 p2

[10]

P(OR) = 1(q1q2)

[11]

Where p is the probability of each component to be


failure, and q is the complement of p.

Three alternatives that are being analyzed in this paper


are shown in figure 3. The specification of each alternative
is as follow:
1. Alternative 1.
Each of negative and positive paths of the
transmission are using a single cable. These cables
have a delivery capacity of 3,000 MW. One identical
cable are served as a spare in case one of the
operating cables undergoes a failure condition.
2. Alternative 2.
In this configuration, double cable is used to form
positive and negative path of the transmission.
Single cable has a capacity of 1,500 MW, to give the
total capacity equal to 3,000 MW. One spare cable
that has a same capacity (1,500 MW) is provided as
a spare.

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

3/6

E1.6
3.

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

Alternative 3.
The configuration is similar to alternatives 2, except
that no spare cable is provided.

E1.6

Also, both of Java Converters are success, so the


Assembly of Java Converter is success.
Regarding to three conditions above, the HVDC
System is 50% success.
Finally after 51,032 number simulations the total
number of HVDC System of success is 39,708 times,
so the HVDC System Simulated Chance for Failure
calculated by 39,708 divided by 51,032 than the result
is 0.7781. Other alternatives are calculated and
simulated with similar step.

Fig. 3: Three alternatives installation

4. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS


Refer to equations and models discussed in chapter 2;
alternative generated, data and assumptions discussed in
chapter 3; Monte Carlo simulation, LCCA and
effectiveness calculation can be explained as follow:
1. In this case study, the scopes, boundaries,
environments and functions are Java-Sumatra Power
Interconnection System. Figure 1 show the
configuration of the system which is explaining the
specified scope of alternative 1.
2. In this paper, three alternatives discussed in chapter 3
are alternatives scenario of quantity and type of 500
kV DC Cable as a basis of analysis and calculation
and summarized in table 1.
3. Refer to equations and models at step 3 of the
methods discussed in chapter 3 and based on
scenarios, data and assumptions discussed in chapter
3, Monte Carlo simulation technique and calculation
using Microsoft Excel are implemented to get the
results of HVAC 500 kV Transmission Line in Sumatra
systems Simulated Reliability as shown in table 2.
The next step is compile chance for failure of 2
Converter units, HVDC 500 kV Transmission Line in
Sumatra & Java-Sumatra submarine cables and 2
Converter units which has parallel and series
combination of the system. Results of Monte Carlo
simulations are always different for each trial;
however, results from many trials will show an overall
direction and trend. Table 3 show the sample of
results of alternative 1 that tell us probability success
of 100% load, 50% load and failure of the HVDC
System Simulated Chance for Failure calculated from
probability chance for failure of Sumatra Converter,
HVDC 500 kV Cable, and Sumatra Converter for
51,032 number simulation.
Case in alternative 1, when the random number of
Sumatra Converter #1 is 0.026086, it means 0.026086
< 0.06, make the items fail become 0 or failure.
Moreover, the random number of Sumatra Converter
#2 is 0.432784 (> 0.06)
Sumatra Converter #2 is
success
Assembly of Sumatra Converter is 50%
success.
Then, the random number of HVDC 500 kV Cable #1
is 0.961848 (>0.0174)
HVDC 500 kV Cable #1 is
success, also HVDC 500 kV Cable #2 and #3 are
success
Assembly of HVDC 500 kV Cable is
success.

4. Table 4 show sample of result of gathering cost


estimates and cost models where all the details are
assembled including: Land Acquisition, Project Cost,
Yearly Maintenance Cost, ENS, FC, Disposal cost,
and Net Present Value (NPV) alternative 1. In this
step, yearly cost calculated and simulated for 40 years
but the yearly costs from 2nd to 39th are not shown at
table 4 cause of paper space. Other alternatives are
calculated and simulated with similar step.
5. Figure 3 shows Break-even chart which is made by
calculation result of step 5. This chart tell us picture of
cost profile of Java-Sumatra HVDC Interconnection
System of each alternative and clearly explain us that
LCC of all alternative are built parallel curve without
break even.
6. Pareto charts as shown in figure 4 tell us that Project
cost are dominant cost contributor to the JavaSumatra HVDC Interconnection System, and it also
tell us that ENS cost and FC as probabilistic cost have
contribution to explore hidden cost even it is not
significant compare to Project cost.
7. Refer to Break-even Chart and Pareto Chart
discussed above, it is indicated that the value failure
rates of 0.1114 failures/(year/100 circuit kilometers) or
0.0174 unreliability is only small effect to contribute
LCC of cable system of all alternative discussed.
Based on the fact founded, sensitivity calculation of
unreliability estimated by design (1/38 failure per
year), unreliability based on statistic data (0.0174 [2])
and extended to 0.08 versus probability the system to
meet maximum load (3,000 MW) is conducted. The
result is provided in figure 5.
8. Table 5 shows the result of Effectiveness calculations
that measure reliability, availability, maintainability and
capability; and also present LCCs all alternative which
equal with NPVs of each alternative respectively with
condition that it is simulated at assumption the
unreliability of the HVDC 500 kV Cable system is 0.08.
9. Consider to the results as discussed at step 5 to step
8, it is reasonable if we choose alternative 1 or 2 as a
decided installation with considering to moderate LCC
but low risk for long term. Even alternative 3 has
lowest LCC, it is advised as a second priority to
choose because the probability to meet maximum load
will decrease exponentially related to unreliability of
the HVDC 500 kV Cable system.
10. In case of cable installation system, the decision is
made by choosing the highest value of probability to
meet maximum load and effectiveness. Figure 5 and
table 5 tell us that alternative 1 and 2 which has spare
can be considered as the best to be applied rather
than without spare.

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

4/6

E1.6

E1.6

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

Table 1: Project cost estimation


No

Alternative
1
2
70.00
100.00

Cost Description

Land Acquisition

Project Cost

Life Cycle Cost of


500 kV DC of Java-Sumatra Power Interconnection System
Break-even Chart

3
90.00

2,200

500.00

490.00

480.00

500.00

490.00

480.00

c.

Point & Subm arine Cable Switching Station


(Jawa)
500 kV DC Subm arine Cable (40 km)

400.00

410.00

390.00

d.

500 kV DC Overhead T/L Sumatra (354 km)

220.00

230.00

215.00

75.00

90.00

80.00

200.00

200.00

200.00

50.00

70.00

60.00

12%

12%

12%

e. 500 kV DC Overhead T/L Jawa (110 km)


f. 500 kV AC Transmission Line
3

Disposal

Discont Rate

Cost (Millions)

2,100

a. AC/DC Converter Station (Sumatra Side)


b. Converter Station, Electrode Station, Landing

2,000
1,900
Alt. 1
1,800

Alt. 2

1,700

Alt. 3

1,600
1,500
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Year

Fig.3: Break-even Chart of Java-Sumatra HVDC


Interconnection System

Table 2: Simulation result of system effectiveness

Disposal

Alt. 3
Alt. 2
Alt. 1

Failure

Alt. 3
Alt. 2

Item
Chance
For
Failure

Component

1 Sumatra Converter #1
2 Sumatra Converter #2

Random #

0.06 0.026086
0.06 0.432784

51032

HVDC
System

Sumatra Submarin
Java
HVDC
Simulated
HVDC
Item Fails
Converter e Cable Converter System
Chance
System
For
Failure
0=Failure
Failure
Failure
Failure
Failure Failure
Failure
1=Success
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Succes
Success Success Success
Success Success
s

0
1

1 HVDC 500 kV Cable #1 0.0174 0.961848


2 HVDC 500 kV Cable #2 0.0174 0.182256
3 HVDC 500 kV Cable #3 0.0174 0.360583

1
1
1

1 Java Converter #1
2 Java Converter #2

1
1

0.06 0.541774
0.06 0.397868

0
1
0

0
0
1

0
1
0

385
10939
39708

0.0075
0.2144
0.7781

0
0
1

Land Acquisition

No

Simulations # (n):

Yearly
Maintenance

HVDC System 3 Cables

Project Cost

Table 3: Sample of results of probability success


alternative 1

Energy not served

Alt. 1

Table 4: Sample LCC calculation result

Alt. 3
Alt. 2
Alt. 1
Alt. 3
Alt. 2
Alt. 1
Alt. 3
Alt. 2
Alt. 1
Alt. 3
Alt. 2
Alt. 1

Alternative 1
No

Cost Description

CFPP
Average Repair Cost
Electric
/Failure
Repair
Simulated
Price
Chance
Time
($Millions/
($/kWh)
For Failure
(hours)
Failure)

Land Acquisition

1
2

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

Fig.4: Pareto Chart of Java-Sumatra HVDC


Interconnection System

40

70.00

Project Cost

a. Converter Station, Electrode Station,


b.

500.00

Landing Point & Submarine Cable


Switching Station (Sumatra)
Converter Station, Electrode Station,
Landing Point & Submarine Cable
Switching Station (Jawa)
500 kV DC Submarine Cable (40 km)

c.
d. 500 kV DC Overhead T/L Sumatra (354 km)
e. 500 kV DC Overhead T/L Jawa (110 km)
f. 500 kV AC Trans mission Line
3 Yearly Maintenance
4 Energy not served
5 Failure
6

Annual Cost (Millions)

500.00
400.00
220.00
75.00
200.00
0.029390
0.071152

0.06

1,368
10

0.015
7.24
0.712

0.015
7.24
1

7.96

58.0

0.12

12%

Disposal

50

Total

1,965.00

Discount Rate = i

Future Value = FV

1,965.00
n

Discount Factor = (1+i)

Present Value = FV/(1+i)


n

NPV = (FV/(1+i) )

1,965.00

7.96

57.96

1.12

93.05

7.11

0.62

2,031.19

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

5/6

E1.6

9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables

REFERENCES

Sensitifity Chart for Probability 500 kV DC


to Meet Maximum Load (3000 MW)
90.0%
80.0%

Probability

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Alt. 1

40.0%

Alt. 2

30.0%

Alt. 3

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0041 0.0117 0.0174 0.0312 0.0625 0.0800

Unreliability of 500 kv DC Cable

Fig.5: Sensitivity Chart


Table 5: Simulation result of system effectiveness
Parameter

Symbol

Formula

Alternative
2

Reliability

Simulated

98.88%

98.80%

98.82%

Availability

Simulated

93.32%

93.32%

93.34%

Maintainability

Simulated

99.10%

98.99%

99.04%

Capability

Simulated

75.02%

72.36%

54.33%

68.60%

66.04%

49.63%

Effectiveness

Eff.

RxAxMxC

LCC

LCC

= NPV

E1.6

$ 2,031.19 $ 2,075.53 $ 2,000.11

5. CONCLUSION
Based on the data, formulas, scenarios, calculation,
simulation of Installation 500 kV of Java-Sumatra Power
Interconnection System using combination technique of
LCCA, effectiveness and Monte Carlo, it has
demonstrated strong correlation among project cost,
failure, maintenance and risk of ENS with financial benefit
and also the risk. It is shown that HVDC installation
especially submarine cable need high cost for project
capital (1.0 million EUR per km) but has very low
probability failure during operation (0.1114 failures/
(year/100 circuit kilometers)). LCC profile of Java-Sumatra
HVDC Interconnection System of each alternative and
clearly explain us that LCC of all alternative are built
parallel curve without break even, it can be concluded that
focus on high quality installation during construction is
more importance than focus on maintenance.

[1] H. Nugraha; N. I. Sinisuka, 2013, The Application of


RAMS to analyze Life Cycle Cost on the Operation of
Power Generation. Safety, Reliability and Risk
Analysis: Beyond the Horizon Steenbergen et al.
(Eds) 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN
978-1-138-00123-7
[2] S.H. Karlsdttir, 2013, Experience in Transporting
Energy through Subsea Power Cables: The case of
Iceland, University of Iceland, Reykjavic, Iceland
[3] N. Sinisuka; I. Felani; N.Erdiansyah, 2012, The Use
of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the Most
Effective Cost of Installation High Voltage Undersea
Cable Bali Strait, Journal of Energy and Power
Engineering 6,IJEPE,2082-2089
[4] R.F. Stapelberg,2009. Handbook of Reliability,
Availability, Maintainability and Safety in Engineering
Design. Springer-Verlag, London, England
[5] D. Sudarmadi, G. C. Paap, L. v.d. Sluis, 2007,
Review of steady state analysis of HVDC
Interconnection of Java-Sumatera, Proceedings of
the
International
Conference
on
Electrical
Engineering and Informatics Institut Teknologi
Bandung, Indonesia.
[6] Barringer, H. P. 2003. A Life Cycle Cost Summary,
International Conference of Maintenance Societies
(ICOMS-2003), Maintenance Engineering Society of
Australia, A Technical of the Institution of Engineers,
Australia
[7] P.
Barringer,
1997,
Availability,
Reliability,
Maintainability,
and
Capability,
Barringer
&
Associates, Inc., Texas, USA
[8] M. Nakamura; N. Nanayakkara; H. Hatazaki; K. Tsuji,
1992, "Reliability Analysis of Submarine Power
Cables and Determination of External Mechanical
Protection", Transactions on Power Delivery, IEEE,
vol.7, 895-902

Sensitivity chart for Probability 500 kV DC to Meet


Maximum Load (3,000 MW) tell us the correlation
between failure rate, reliability and the design of quantity
of cable (with or without spare) and it can be concluded
that cable installation with spare is more low risk.
The application of Monte Carlo simulation gives a great
advantage in handling dependancy of many parameters
and sub-system, but in case of submarine cable it is
needed more and more data statistics collected for more
accurate of the evaluation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is part of a research study funded by PLN
Indonesia.

Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015

6/6