You are on page 1of 8


1, MARCH 2007


Aspects of Relevance in Offshore Wind Farm Reliability Assessment

Nicola Barberis Negra, Ole Holmstrm, Member, IEEE, Birgitte Bak-Jensen, Member, IEEE, and Poul Sorensen, Member, IEEE

AbstractThe worldwide increase of installed wind power capacity demands the inclusion of wind farm (WF) models into power system reliability assessment. This paper looks at this issue from available literature, and presents a list of factors that highly inuence offshore WF generation. An example of sequential Monte Carlo simulation applied to an offshore WF is described using a new synthetic wind-speed generator. The simulation includes some of the reliability factors highlighted in the paper and their inuence on reliability assessment. Index TermsMonte Carlo methods, offshore wind farm, power system reliability, wind speed time series.


LECTRICITY has become increasingly important since its use in the beginning of the 20th century. Now, it dominates most human activities in industrialized countries. This relevance has increased the interest in ensuring a safe and secure electrical supply at a reasonable cost. Reliability issues gained growing attention at the beginning of the 1950s, and now represent one of the main considerations when a power system is both planned and operated. Denition of reliability depends on the purpose of the analysis. As a general denition, the term can be used to indicate the overall ability of the system to perform its function adequately for the period of time considered under the operating conditions intended [1]. Reliability evaluation can be considered for a wide range of situations. Some typical studies are [2]: 1) reliability assessment of large systems; 2) transfer capability studies, where adequacy of selected transmission solutions is investigated; 3) studies of interconnected systems, where the adequacy is assessed for economic exchange and emergency assistance; 4) reliability studies of area supply systems, where reliability of smaller systems such as local supply networks and stations is evaluated;

5) identication of system weakness for future reinforcement; 6) economic studies, where costs or marginal costs due to changes in network conguration and loading for various scenarios are calculated, and then used to forecast production and establish the costs of external constraints. Apart from these standard studies, consideration must be given to power systems past 15-year evolution toward a structure different from its previous conguration. Renewable sources and distributed generator installation have created new factors. These two aspects have introduced some elements, e.g., variability, availability, fuel randomness, and private operator control of generation, etc. From a reliability point of view these are new involved challenges that power system owners must assess to avoid problems during normal system operation [3]. This paper focuses on relevant aspects, highlighted in available literature, that must be considered when evaluating the reliability of wind farms (WF) in offshore environment. In Section II, some denitions for power system reliability assessment are presented. In Section III, the current status of WF reliability modeling is described. The rst part of Section III introduces some available models, then lists relevant aspects of offshore WF reliability evaluation. In the last section, an assessment example is presented, and a Monte Carlo simulation, which includes some aspects listed in Section III, is performed. II. POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT Power system reliability assessment can be performed considering two main system aspects: adequacy and security [2]. System adequacy, which is mainly used in power system planning, is an indicator of sufcient system facilities to satisfy future consumer demand or system operational constraints [4]. System security, which may be used in both power system planning and operation, is a measure of the systems ability to respond to dynamic and transient disturbances arising within the system [4]. This paper focuses on the adequacy issue. In order to analyze a power system for any purpose, it can be divided into three functional zones: generation, transmission, and distribution. The three zones can be combined to create three hierarchical levels that provide a basic framework for power system adequacy evaluation [4], [5]. Hierarchical level I (HLI) assessment, usually termed as generating capacity reliability evaluation, mainly concerns assessing the installed generating capacity to satisfy the perceived system load and to perform necessary corrective/preventive maintenance at an acceptable risk level. The effects of transmission networks and distribution facilities are neglected.

Manuscript received July 12, 2006; revised October 18, 2006. This work is a part of the project, Offshore wind powerResearch related bottlenecks, and was supported in part by Danish Research Agency under Grant 2104-04-0005, in part by Elsam Engineering A/S, a part of Dong Energy, and in part by the Danish Academy of Wind Energy (DAWE). Paper no. TEC-00269-2006. N. Barberis Negra and O. Holmstrm are with Elsam Engineering A/S, Dong Energy, Fredericia DK-7000, Denmark (e-mail:; B. Bak-Jensen is with Aalborg University, Aalborg DK-9100, Denmark (e-mail: P. Srensen is with Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark (e-mail: Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TEC.2006.889610

0885-8969/$25.00 2007 IEEE



Hierarchical level II (HLII) analysis, usually called a composite system reliability evaluation or bulk power system reliability evaluation, considers generation and transmission systems. HLII adequacy evaluation techniques consider assessing both generation and transmission facilities for their ability to supply adequate, dependable, and suitable electrical energy at bulk power load points. Hierarchical level III (HLIII) analysis that is called complete power system reliability evaluation, includes all three functional zones, starting with generation and terminating at individual consumer load points. The objective of an HLIII study is to obtain suitable adequacy indices at actual consumer load points. This power system structure is still useful, but two new aspects must be considered in the analysis [3]: power system planning that is inuenced by economic competition between generation owners, and power system operation that is inuenced by power uctuations due to embedded generation. These two factors must be considered and need special consideration when power system reliability is assessed. Reliability calculation may be performed considering deterministic and probabilistic approaches [5]. Deterministic techniques are still used today for general studies, and in the past, were the practical application, when reliability became a relevant power system analysis issue, i.e., worst-case scenarios analysis. However, to apply deterministic techniques, the system had to be articially constrained into a xed set of values, which have no uncertainty or variability. The main drawback of deterministic techniques is that they do not assess the systems stochastic behavior (i.e., forced outages of system components and uncertainty of customer demand) [5]. Probability methods were developed later, and can provide more meaningful information for design, resource planning, and resource allocation since they consider probability aspects of a system. Two main approaches can be considered for probability methods [5]. 1) Analytical methods: The system is represented by mathematical models, and where direct analytical solutions evaluate a priori reliability indices from the models. 2) Monte Carlo simulation: This estimates a posteriori reliability indices by simulating the systems actual random behavior, either randomly or sequentially. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages and may be very powerful with the proper application. The main advantage of the analytical approach is its relative compactness that can be enhanced by suitable approximations, and can simplify so much, such that it gives unrealistic results. Monte Carlo simulation may be preferable for [4]: r models with nonexponential time distributions; r characterization of peaking units; r denition of distributions function of output indices; r use of time dependent on chronological issues. Monte Carlo simulation usually requires more computational time, but might be more suitable for analysis with a high level of stochastic phenomenon. Both techniques may be used for static capacity adequacy or frequency and duration (F&D) studies. F&D analysis provides

information on both occurrence frequency and duration of insufcient capacity condition, whereas, the static approach evaluates expected results as a number of days or as unsupplied energy when the load exceeds production. The terminology presented is for analytical methods; in Monte Carlo simulation, the rst analysis is called random or nonchronological approach, and the second one is called sequential or chronological approach. Reliability assessment results are usually expressed by indices that attribute values to the aspects of the analyzed power system. Indices, which have been dened for different HL analyses are classied into [5] absolute indices that are evaluated before and after consideration of design or operating changes, or relative indices that are calculated with past system performance and with no assessment of the future. Another classication that ts HLII analysis distinguishes between bus and global system indices [2]. Given these denitions, this paper describes current probabilistic approaches for reliability adequacy assessment of offshore WF. An example of simulation that may be used for both HLI and HLII analysis is presented. III. WF RELIABILITY MODELING A. Current Available Reliability Models for WF A WF poses special difculties in the analysis of the adequacy of generating system capacity. Wind energy is intermittent and nondispatchable, because wind speed (WS) is highly variable and site-specic. Each wind parks wind turbine (WT) has no independent capacity distribution, and is dependent on the same primary energy source. Other problems are related to the nonlinear relationship between WT output power and WS [4]. The reported research on modeling wind power generation refers mainly to probabilistic methods, both analytical and simulation. Older studies refer to the analytical solution with a static approach [6][8]. Chowdhury [9] adapts a standard load modication approach to adequacy assessment of wind energys power system generating capacity. Zhao et al. [10] denes an offshore WF reliability model that can provide output power information and that can be used for optimization analysis. The model emphasizes the WF design including components (i.e., WTs, transformers, cables, buses, and converters) and different system congurations. The model evaluates the probability that a certain percentage of wind power cannot be sent to the grid system due to component failures. Since the model focuses on generation and transmission system reliability, WS variabilitys effect is weakened in the evaluation, and is only considered as an occurrence probability. The most evident static analytical solution deciency is that information might be lost since chronological characteristics of WS and its effects on wind power output are compacted in a probability table. Sayas and Allans F&D analytical method [11] for generating WF reliability assessment accounts for winds stochastic and chronological nature, WTs failure and repair rates, WTs output curves, wind spatial correlation, and wake effects. Failure and repair rates assume different values for normal or extreme WS conditions. WF internal grid and preventive maintenance are



neglected. This very detailed model accounts for many reliability evaluation aspects, but may require greater computational time and huge memory storage when large numbers of WT and WS states are considered. Finally, in [12], probabilistic reliability calculations are performed for an offshore WF using NEPLAN software. This system analysis combines an analytical approach and a failureeffect analysis. The analysis considers the entire grid system, including cable, WT, and offshore component failures. The results highlight components, which inuence most WF generation, and include some sensitivity analysis of relevant parameters. Simulation approaches for reliability assessment have been considered in the last years. Models for a random Monte Carlo method are presented in [13]. This paper accounts for conventional generating units, small combined power plants, and chronology (assumes the loads seasonal, weekly, and daily cycles). In [14], a nonsequential Monte Carlo method is presented, where many grouped WFs are modeled based on weekly cumulative power function. In many other studies, a sequential Monte Carlo approach is considered to appreciate the chronological nature of the system [3], [15]. Ubeda and Garcia [15] describes a wind generation model for an electric energy systems stochastic simulation, based on a sequential approach. The wind generation model is divided into three components (models of WS, WT, and WF). Hourly measurements, hub height variations, WF wake effects, a two-state model for each WTs forced outage, and correlation between WSs of different WFs are included. Forced outages of the WFs internal grid and different WS installation and scheduled outages are neglected. A WT model based on a sliding window technique is presented in [16]. An effective forced-outage rate for wind plants (EFORW) is calculated after dening a window of hours before and after the current hour. EFORW measures the statistical expectation that the WF will not achieve a given output level over a specied time period. With this value, the WF is then convolved in the standard capacity outage table. This approach accounts for WS variability and can include each WT availability.

B. Relevant Factors of Inuence Based on available literature, the following aspects for wind generations realistic reliability assessment are clearly important: 1) WS simulation; 2) wake effects; 3) WT technology; 4) offshore environment; 5) different WSs in the installation site; 6) power collection grid in the wind park; 7) correlation of output power for different WTs; 8) grid connection conguration; 9) hub height variations. Each of these aspects will be individually analyzed in the following sections.

1) Simulation of WS: The most relevant aspects for reliability assessment are WS variability and randomness. A set of WS measurements is required for both probability approaches. Statistical information from the set of measurements (e.g., probability, occurrence frequency, etc) is extrapolated to describe the phenomenon, and analyzed from a WS probability table. Depending on the topology of analysis (static or F&D), the amount of required information varies, as shown in [9][11]. In the Monte Carlo simulation, random and sequential approach must be distinguished. In the random approach, a simple WS probability table may be sufcient to obtain the random values of the necessary WS. In the sequential approach, each sample (i.e., in an year) needs a new random WS time series obtained from, and representative of, real measurements. Different solutions have been dened for this purpose. The University of Saskatchewans [3] time-series model is based on an autoregressive moving average (ARMA), which considers different orders of the function to t wind measurement data in the most suitable way. Other WS time series have been developed based on Markov chains. At Colorados National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a WS simulation tool is based on a state-transition matrix with wind data from a single year [17]. The Chalmers University model includes two wind conditions, (above and below the yearly mean) and the hub height [18]. Ubeda and Garcia [15] considers an hourly WS model based on the Weibull distribution and a Markov transition matrix. Another approach is presented in Section IV of this paper. 2) Wake Effects: WT spatial arrangement inuences output power. Wake effects reduce total WF output to a fraction of what would be obtained if each WT stood alone. In available literature, this seems to be considered mainly in more detailed models ([11] and [15]) and is included as an efciency coefcient assumed equal to 90%95% of the total WF production [15]. 3) WT Technology: The choice of WT technology is one of the main tasks for planning new WFs. The choice of technology and its components depends on available state of the art, and inuences some parameter values in the analysis (mainly failure/repair rate and maintenance). Reliability evaluation used to model a WF, considerations for possible WT technologies, and concepts for offshore installation can be found in [19][21]. The WT availability model, which is independent of technology, is usually dened as a machine either at full service or out of service (two-state model). Preventive outages are not added to most of the considered models since maintenance may be scheduled during low-wind periods [11] and may be performed in a short time due to the relatively simple machines used in WFs [15]. 4) Offshore Environment: Little data are available for maintenance and failure/repair rates for offshore WTs due to their relatively new development. An evaluation of this issue has been performed in the DOWEC project, and presented in [19] and [22]. Data for onshore WF failures and maintenance in Germany, Denmark, and USA are collected in these papers. Figures for availability are shown, which consider different WT concepts, future evolution, and necessary offshore installation improvements.



A similar approach is presented in [23], where onshore WF installation gures are adjusted to offshore conditions. The analyzed gures are failure rate and mean-time-to-failure (MTTR), and the inuence of marine and electrical environment on them is considered. In [23], comments refer to main electrical components of offshore WF collection grids (breakers, cables, and transformers), while WT failures are not considered at all. All three references ([19], [22], and [23]) consider the following as relevant aspects for offshore installations. r MTTR can greatly increase during bad weather (e.g., winter), because the time to reach and repair a failed component is related to the bad-weather windows length. r Failure rate may increase due to marine conditions, or to an installation sites closeness to a sailing route. r Component quality should be improved in order to compensate the two above-mentioned problems. 5) Different WS in the Area of Installation: Wind conditions are usually dened by a unique set of measurements where the WF is installed. In reality, the WS varies in the area around its average value as a function of time and space, so the output power of each running WT at each considered time is not equal to the others. This problem increases as the size of the area increases, and can become a relevant issue for large offshore WFs [11], [23], and [24]. The available literature on reliability evaluation takes this problem into account only in [11], while in [15], it is assumed to be negligible, since the hourly mean-value averages the shortterm variations that occur during the considered hour. To evaluate this issue, several publications analyze the general problem with aggregated models of extended-area, large WF output power. For instance, in [24], an aggregated model is generated for WT power curve and WS time series, which accounts for the area dimension and the statistical data of available WS measurements. 6) Power Collection Grid in the Wind Park: WF power collection system availability is relevant to reliability assessment for an increased site size. This aspect was neglected in early offshore WF reliability modeling, but interest has grown in recent publications [10], [12], [23], and [25]. An example in [25] uses a sequential Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate WF reliability with three possible internal cablings. Collected data for available technology and cable faults showed a preferred conguration and the importance of redundancy. WT failure rates are not considered in the analysis. HLII analysis is used, due to the large number of considered transmission components. As previously mentioned Zhao et al. [10] consider the whole wind park electrical grid as obtaining information on WF output power from an analytical approach, while Sannino et al. [23] compare three offshore WFs collection grids, including cables, breakers, switches, and nacelle transformers, but neglects WT failure, the offshore transformer, and uses a probability table to dene the WS. Underbrink et al. [12] evaluates grid components individual inuence on system reliability. 7) Correlation of Output Power for Different WTs: Correlations between WS conditions and therefore WT output powers must be considered if the assessment includes WFs from different locations. The closer the WFs, the more relevant the corre-

lation that has to be considered. This issue is presented in [13] for three WFs and in [15] for a generic number of elements. 8) Grid Connection Conguration: Different congurations for power transmission to the shore can be considered for an offshore WF. Some possible solutions are presented in [26] including heating ventilation and air conditioning system highvoltage alternating current (HVAC) and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) solutions. However, all currently installed offshore WF use ac transmission for the connection to the grid. 9) Hub Height Variations: WS measurements to evaluate installation site wind conditions are obtained at a certain reference altitude, and must be scaled to hub height [15]. This aspect is usually considered using the standard logarithmic wind prole described in [20, pp. 114115]. C. Reliability Indices As previously mentioned, a generic reliability assessment can evaluate a set of indices that represent interesting aspects of the system. When a WF is included in the reliability evaluation, its generation can be evaluated by the following indices, as dened in [11], [10], and [15]. 1) Installed wind power (IWP) is the sum of the nominal power of all the WTs in the WF. 2) Installed wind energy (IWE) is the product of installed capacity and the number of hours in the period. 3) Expected available wind energy (EAWE) is the sum of energies that all installed WTs produce in the period (no component failures are considered here). 4) Expected generated wind energy with WT failure (EGWEWTF) is the sum of energies that all installed WTs produce in the period including WT failures. 5) Expected generated wind energy (EGWE) is the sum of energies that all effectively available (due to component failures) WTs produce in the period. 6) Capacity factor (CF) is the ratio of EGWE to IWE. 7) Generation ratio (GR) is the ratio of the power delivered to the point of common coupling (PCC) to the power injection generated by the WF (i.e., available power due to the current WS). It should be noticed that many aspects relevant to offshore WF reliability assessment have not been considered all together in the available models. In the Section IV, a small example of how to include some of them in offshore WF reliability assessment is presented. IV. EXAMPLE OF SIMULATION A sequential Monte Carlo simulation is used for the reliability assessment of an offshore WF. Due to the limited statistic information about offshore WF reliability issues, any presented result is a qualitative conclusion to show the function of a simulation tool for reliability assessment. The used approach is a standard Monte Carlo simulation that includes: r random generation of the yearly WS time series; r WT failures; r internal grid failures;




r connector to shore failures; r inuence of offshore environment.

The simulation is performed with the following steps: 1) denition of WF layout and component data; 2) calculation of the WS probability table; 3) then, for each sampled year the following is carried out: a) calculation of a synthetic WS time series; b) random denition of each components hourly availability; c) then, the following is carried out on hourly basis; i) denition of the effectively available WT; ii) evaluation of the WF output power; iii) calculation of WF indices. d) evaluation of the result accuracies; 4) calculation of the nal indices by average. The framework above is the standard Monte Carlo simulation, therefore, only some points will be explained in detail in the following section. In item 3.c.i, effectively means that the WT is connected to the PCC at the current hour, and if available, produces energy. In addition, the availability of each component (3.c.ii) is calculated considering some data as listed in Table I and ssuming an exponential distribution for both failure and repair states. Regarding point (3.d), the simulation is performed until a stable accuracy of 0,2% is achieved. That criterion is based on the evaluation of the coefcient of variation [27] calculated for all the system indices. The index with the highest value is chosen and compared to a reference tolerance. In the presented study, the most critical index is EGWE. The WS data are obtained from a seven-year measurement, recorded at the Horns Rev location, in the North Sea close to the Danish coast. The data are recorded as 10-min averages from May 14, 1999 to May 13, 2006. The data should total 368208, but available data was 339492 due to some equipment failures. A. WS Time Series To assess the WFs reliability with a sequential Monte Carlo simulation, a dened wind-speed-time series with the step of interest (e.g., 1 h) must be input to evaluate the WF generation during each sample. A newly developed synthetic WS generator used in this paper is described below. First, the set of measured WS data is divided into states (step length equal to 1 m/s) and some statistics are extrapolated for each state [11]. This data are the state probability, the stateoccurrence frequency, and the state-transition rates to up and down states. The following assumptions have been made [11]. 1) The WS model is statistically stationary, i.e., the stochastic behavior of the WS is same at all points of time irrespective of the point of time being considered.

2) The distribution of residence times is based on a birth- and death-Markov process, and the distribution is exponential in a given state of the process. 3) The probability of a transition from a given WS state to another state is directly proportional to the long-term average probability of existence of the new state. 4) Transitions between WS states occur independently on transitions between WT states. 5) From a given WS state, only the case of transitions to immediately adjacent states is considered (if some transitions occur between nonadjacent WS states, the residence time duration is estimated by a linear proportion of the sampling time). After obtaining the table, it is possible to calculate the synthetic WS time series. In order to preserve some seasonal characteristics of the WS measurements, one table for each month of the year is calculated and used to dene the WS time series. The current WS can reside in one of the different mutually exclusive states presented in the WS probability table. After residing in the current state for a certain amount of time, the current WS moves to one of the two adjacent states (if at a the very rst or the very last current state of the table, there exists only one adjacent state). Since the phenomenon can be described by an exponential distribution [4], [11] and the transition rates of each state are known, it is possible to calculate the time series with the following steps. 1) Initialization of the WS vector ws(h) = ws1 and the time variable t(h) = 0. In the case presented here, the initial WS value is chosen close to the average WS of the measurements (9 m/s). 2) For the ith generic step, random numbers Ui and Ui are 1 2 generated in the interval (0,1), one for the up transition rate and one for the down-transition rate. 3) Calculation of the time to up (TTU) and time to down (TTD) for the current state by means of equations TTUi = TTDi = hyear i ln (U1 ) up hyear i ln (U2 ) down (1) (2)

where hyear is the length of the simulation period expressed in hours (i.e., one year, hyear is 8760 hours), up is the up-transition rate and down is the down-transition rate of state WSi . The smallest of the two values calculated from (1) and (2) denes the current WS movement to and duration in the current state (e.g., if TTU < TTD, it is assumed that the current WS goes to the upper state after TTU seconds). 4) Update of the two vectors, such that ti = ti1 + TTUi ws(t

(3) (4)

: t ) = ws



where (ti1 : ti ) means between time ti1 and ti (assuming that WS moves up from the current state). If ti belongs to the same hour of ti1 , the WS ws(ti1 : ti ) is not



Fig. 2.

WF layout used for the simulation.

Fig. 1. WS time series. (a) Original measurements (year 2004), (b) synthetic WS time series based on yearly WS probability table, and (c) synthetic WS time series based on 12-monthly WS probability table.


recorded in the WS vector since the wind enters and leaves the current state during the same hour. 5) Repetition of steps 24 until t is equal to the hyear . A WS time series is thus obtained, and can be used for further calculations in the Monte Carlo simulation. The main advantage of this approach is that it accounts for the random variation of WS, and allows for a more realistic simulation. The main drawback is the long computation to calculate the time series at every sampled year, but that can be shortened by dening and storing a set of synthetic WS time series in advance (before simulation), and calling for them during computation. Since they will not be calculated yearly, computation time will be sensibly reduced. In Fig. 1, three WS time series can be compared: 1) the WS time series in year 2004; 2) a randomly simulated WS time series based on a yearly WS probability table; and 3) a randomly simulated WS time series based on the 12 monthly WS probability tables. Fig. 1(a) and (c) have similar seasonal behavior (high WS for rst and last quarters, low WS in the middle months). Fig. 1(b) has a complete random characteristic during the year, with high and low WS averages distributed all around the year. This shows why WS seasonal characteristics must be included in a sequential analysis to preserve information about the WS curve, and shows why a monthly probability table can be a useful tool for this purpose. B. Results of the Simulation The offshore WF has 25 WTs rated at 3 MW, 25 cables, and three connectors to shore. Data for the WT availability are obtained from [19] and [22]; data for cables and connectors come from [23]. The layout of the WF is presented in Fig. 2 (x indicates a WT, a line represents a cable or connector), while component data (failure rate and mean time to failure MTTR) are shown in Table I. The MTTR for cables and connectors is

chosen as an average between summer and winter hypothetical values. It is assumed that cables connecting WTs have the same electrical characteristic and length (700 m), and that connectors to shore (between nodes 2629, 2729, and 2829) have the same electrical characteristic and a 10 km length. Simulation results are presented in Table II, including time of the simulation, accuracy of the results, and required number of samples. A broad range of indices can be calculated to assess the WF generation. Also, as shown in [28], the distribution function of each index is known, and can be studied to predict the behavior of indices of interest. The inclusion of cable and connector failures inuences the WF generation. Comparing indices 4 and 5, a difference in the values is due to the above-mentioned components inclusion or noninclusion. These components should be included in the analysis to obtain more realistic results. Index GR represents WF generation with respect to component availability, and its low value compared to the standard units. This can be explained considering the assumed values for each WTs availability in Table I. Assumed values might be higher than for a realistic installation (not yet available for offshore installations) and this leads to a pessimistic estimation of the whole generation of WF.



Simulation time and sample number have large values, which might even increase if the analysis is extended to an HLI or HLII study. For these cases, the Monte Carlo simulation must be improved to reduce the computation time [27]. V. CONCLUSION The evaluation of a power systems reliability when including large amounts of wind energy is relevant to avoid problems in electrical energy delivery. Many solutions have been presented to assess WF reliability, but all lack the inclusion of all relevant aspects. Based on available literature, this paper describes a set of approaches used for WF reliability calculations. It highlights nine aspects that inuence offshore installation reliability. A Monte Carlo simulation example shows how some of these factors inuence the evaluation. A standard offshore WF conguration is used, and indices for evaluating system production are calculated. These demonstrate that evaluation must account for connection grid failures, and must use a tool to represent WS variability and randomness. The Monte Carlo simulation must be optimized to reduce required time and sample numbers. Future developments of the presented simulation will include the aspects that have been left out here, and the whole model will be used to assess HLI and HLII analyses reliability when connecting a large offshore WF to a transmission grid, with some loads, and other generation units that are conventional and renewable. REFERENCES
[1] J. F. Prada and M. D. Ilic. (1999, Jun.). The value of reliability in power systemspricing operating reserves. Energy Lab., MIT, Cambridge, MA, [Online]. Available: [2] J. Endrenyi, M. P. Bhavaraju, K. A. Clements, K. J. Dhir, M. F. McCoy, K. Medicherla, N. D. Reppen, L. A. Salvaderi, S. M. Shahidehpour, C. Singh, and J. A. Stratton, Bulk power system reliability concepts and applications, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 109117, Feb. 1988. [3] R. Allan and R. Billinton, Probabilistic assessment of power systems, Proc. IEEE, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 140162, Feb. 2000. [4] H. Chen, Generating system reliability optimization Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Electr. Eng., Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, 2000. [5] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems, 2nd ed. New York, Plenum, Jul. 1996. [6] P. Giorsetto and K. F. Utsurop, Development of a new procedure for reliability modeling of wind turbine generators, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-102, no. 1, pp. 134143, Jan. 1983. [7] X Wang, H. Dai, and R. J. Thomas, Reliability modeling of large wind farms and electric utility interface system, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103, no. 3, pp. 569575, Mar. 1984. [8] C. Singh and A. Lago Gonzalez, Reliability modeling off generation system including unconventional energy source, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, no. 5, pp. 10491056, May 1985. [9] A. A. Chowdhury, Reliability models for large wind farms in generation system planning, in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meeting, Jun. 1216, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 19261933. [10] M. Zhao, Z. Chen, and F. Blaabjerg, Reliability evaluation for offshore wind farms, in Proc. 5th IASTED Int. Conf. Power Energy Syst., Benalmadena, Spain, Jun. 1517, 2005, pp. 192197. [11] F. C. Sayas and R. N. Allan, Generation availability assessment of wind farms, Inst. Electr. Eng. Proc. Generation, Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 507518, Sep. 1996. [12] A. Underbrink, J. Hansen, A. Osterholt, and W. Zimmermann, Probabilistic reliability calculations for the grid connection of an offshore wind farm, presented at the 9th Probability Methods Appl. Power Syst. Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 1115, 2006.

[13] B. Bak-Jensen, J. Bech, C. G. Bjerregaard, and P. R. Jensen, Models for probabilistic power transmission system reliability calculation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 11661171, Aug. 1999. [14] P. Bresesti, R. Calisti, D. Provenzano, A. Vaiani, and B. Zecca, Probabilistic model for adequacy evaluation of electric networks with sizeable wind power generation, in Proc. IEEE PES Power Syst. Conf. Expo., Oct. 1013, 2004, vol. 3, pp. 13241328. [15] J. R. Ubeda and M. A. R. R. Garcia, Reliability and production assessment of wind energy production connected to the electric network supply, Inst. Electr. Eng. Proc. Generation, Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 169175, Mar. 1999. [16] M. R. Milligan, A sliding window technique for calculating system LOLP contributions of wind power plants, presented at the Amer. Wind Energy Assoc. Windpower 2001 Conf., Washington, DC, Jun. 2001. [17] M. R. Milligan and M. S. Graham, An enumerated probabilistic simulation technique and case study: integrating wind power into utility production cost models, Presented at the IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, Denver, CO, Jul. 29Aug. 1, 1996. [18] J. S. G. Ehnberg and M. H. J. Bollen, Reliability in small power system in remote areas based on wind power, presented at the Nordic Wind Power Conf. 2004, Chalmers Univ. Technol., Goteborg, Sweden, Mar. 12, 2004. [19] G. J. W. van Bussel and M. B. Zaarijer, Reliability, availability and maintenance aspects of large-scale offshore wind farms, a concepts study, presented at Mid-Atlantic Region Environ. Consortium 2001, Newcastle, U.K., [Online]. Available: html [20] R. Gasch and J Twele, Wind Power PlantsFundamentals, Design, Construction and Operation. Berlin, Germany: Solarpraxis AG, 2002. [21] F. Blaabjerg and Z. Chen, Wind PowerA Power Source Enabled by Power Electronics. Aalborg, Denmark: Inst. Energy Technol., Aalborg Univ. [22] DOWEC Team. (2003, Oct.). Estimation of turbine reliability gure within the DOWEC project. DOWEC project No. 10048, no. 3, [Online]. Available: http:// [23] A. Sannino, H. Breder, and E. K. Nielsen, Reliability of collection grids for large offshore wind parks, presented at the 9th Probability Methods Appl. Power Syst. Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 1115, 2006. [24] H. Holttinne and E. P. Norgaard, A multi-machine power curve approach, presented at the Nordic Wind Power Conf., Chalmers Univ. Technol., Goteborg, Sweden, Mar. 2004. [25] G. Takoudis, Development of a Monte Carlo model for assessing offshore wind farm cable reliability and the worth of redundancy. A comparison of various collector congurations, M.S. thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng., Univ. Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, 2004. [26] T. Ackermann, N. Barberis Negra, J. Todorovic, and L. Lazaridis, Evaluation of electrical transmission concepts for large offshore wind farms, presented at the Copenhagen Offshore Wind-Int. Conf. Exhib., Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 2005. [27] M. Amelin, On Monte Carlo simulation and analysis of electricity markets Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Electric Power Syst., Royal Inst. Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, 2004. [28] R. Billinton and and Bagen, Reliability considerations in the utilization of wind energy, solar energy and energy storage in electric power systems, presented at the 9th Probability Methods Appl. Power Syst. Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 1115, 2006.

Nicola Barberis Negra received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic of Turin, Turin, Italy, in 2005. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at Elsam Engineering A/S, Dong Energy, Fredericia, Denmark. His current research interests include power system reliability with a particular focus on offshore wind farm (WF) installations.



Ole Holmstrm (M02) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from The Danish Engineering from Academy, Lingby, Denmark, in 1980. He is currently a Senior Engineer with Elsam Engineering A/S, Dong Energy, Fredericia, Denmark. He has comprehensive experience in general electrical engineering and various disciplines in the analysis of electrical power systems. He has specialized in the analysis of power systems using various software tools, including advanced computer modeling and dynamic and transient simulations. His research intersts include design of wind farms (WFs), analysis of WF grid connection, the development of advanced dynamic models of wind turbines, the impact of wind power on power systems, capacity to power quality, and transient stability.

Poul Sorensen (M04) was born in Kolding, Denmark, on June 16, 1958. He received the M.Sc. degree from the Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, in 1987. Since October 1987, he has been with the Wind Energy Department of Riso National Laboratory, Roshkilde, Denmark, where he is currently a Senior Scientist and a Project Manager. His research has been concerned with integration of wind power into the power system. He was a member of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) working group preparing IEC 6140021, and is currently a member of the maintenance team MT21. He is also a member of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) annex XXI on Dynamic models of wind farms for power system studies.

Birgitte Bak-Jensen (M89M91S91M92) received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering, and the Ph.D. degree in modeling of high voltage components, from the Institute of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, in 1986 and 1992, respcetively. From 1986 to 1988, she was an Electrical Design Engineer with Electrolux Elmotor A/S, Aalborg, Denmark. Since August 1988, she has been an Associate Professor at the Institute of Energy Technology, Aalborg University. Her current research interests include modeling and diagnosis of electrical components, power quality and stability in power systems, and integrating dispersed generation to the network grid. She has participated in many projects concerning wind turbines and their connection to the grid.