Reliability Assessment of Complex Power Systems and the Use of NEPLAN Tool
Master Thesis
by:
Shima Mousavi Gargari
Master thesis written at the School of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, 2005/2006.
Supervisors:
Dr. Lina Bertling, KTH, School of Electrical Engineering Dr. Gabriel Olguin, ABB Corporate Research
Examiner:
Dr. Lina Bertling, KTH, School of Electrical Engineering
XREEETK 2006:011
Abstract
Consumers of electrical energy expect a network to support their apparatuses with continuous and reliable supply. That is the supply should be continuously available on demands. Such an expectation from the power systems makes planners to consider the reliability studies as an important task besides all the other analyses required for assessing the system performance. Results from such kind of studies equip the planners with an appropriate knowledge over a system performance at different load points and consequently help them to identify weak points of the system and decide on possible available solutions for improving the system reliability e.g. more investments at the weak points. Until fairly recent, the inherent reliability of a power system was specified in term of N1 criterion known as deterministic approach which says that the system must withstand a simple contingency or loss of equipment. As it is clear, such evaluation approach is based on determined system behaviors, however the power system behaviors are stochastic and the failures may occur randomly. Therefore, it is of necessity to consider the possible random behavior of the systems to perform an accurate and precise reliability assessment. New techniques and consequently new computer software packages have been recently developed in which, in contrast to deterministic approach, the idea of using historical performance of the power system components and modeling the stochastic behavior of faults have been considered.
As mentioned previously, from customers’ point of views the supply should be always available i.e. no interruption is expected, while practically, due to such stochastic behaviors of the system, supplying the load centers with 100% reliable power source is somehow impossible, however, the probability of the supply interruptions to the load centers can be reduced with more investment at the planning phase. Blackouts events in North America and Europe are good examples for showing that not always the system can guarantee the continuous supply to its customers. It is evident that there is a confliction between reliability and economical constraints which in case may lead to difficult managerial decisions. Therefore, it is important to find out if a certain load point or a specific part of the system deserves more investment or not. Such information can be provided by reliability studies.
The power system comprises several complex subsystems. Each subsystem has its own relevant impact on the reliability of the overall system. Transmission systems reliability is not an exception in this category. Busbars, transmission lines and switches functioning may have an extreme influence on the overall system performance. Researches indicate that stations configurations and their fundamental components are important factors which should not be ignored in reliability studies. Failures of station components lead to temporary removal of the failed components and consequently temporary modification of the station configuration. Creating such changes in the protection system configuration can make the system more vulnerable to the disturbances that may occur. Besides tripping of one circuit breaker may result in multiple switch functioning and consequently multiple line outages. Therefore, the relevant load centers
i
will experience supply interruption at least for a certain time required for removing the failed breakers and reclosing the affected ones.
This thesis work presents a research conducted on evaluating the system reliability as a result of a bulk power system performance. This research work was accomplished by using the university version of commercial software designated as NEPLAN. The quantitative analyses illustrated in this work provide information on how the contributions of sub systems impact the reliability of the overall system. Also, it indicates that, how the contribution of the station components may cause different results. One of the important aspects of this work is to illustrate the application of the computer software package, NEPLAN, in reliability analyses. Three different test systems have been taken under consideration in this work. Due to some restriction in using the university version of the software some simplifications have been applied for the two of the test systems. A simple distribution system has been implemented in NEPLAN, and the results have been validated by comparing the results to the ones obtained from another reliability solver known as RADPOW, developed in KTH, for reliability evaluation of distribution system.
ii
Acknowledgment
This thesis work is a part of a long term research cooperation within EKC (Swedish Center of Excellence in Electric Power System) between KTH and ABB Corporate Research. This work has been performed within RCAM (Reliability Centered Asset Management) group in the School of Electrical Engineering, KTH and has been financed by EKC and ABB Corporate Research. The financial support is acknowledged.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Lina Bertling, my supervisor and examiner from KTH, for all her supports, advices and encouragements.
Hereby, I also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Gabriel Olguin, my supervisor from ABB, for sharing his opinions with me, giving me valuable comments to improve my work and supporting me during the course of this work.
Also I am really grateful to professor Math Bollen, from STRI, for allocating his valuable time to help me in my work and sharing his ideas with me to give me a deep insight over my work.
It is also deserved to thank the people in the School of Electrical Engineering for providing me the opportunity to study and learn more.
Besides, I would like to thank the persons in the BCP group for providing me an access to the NEPLAN tool.
Appreciation also goes for friends and colleagues in RCAM group in the School of Electrical Engineering, KTH, and other friends inside and outside Sweden.
And Finally I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deepest appreciation to my parents and my brothers for their consistent supports and encouragements.
Shima Mousavi Gargari Stockholm, June, 2006
iii
Definitions
Definition 1: Any events that cause a violation in system characteristics e.g. buses voltages, circuits currents, active and reactive power are defined as fault.
Definition 2: Outage refers to any system state in which the component is not available to perform its intended function. Outages can be categorizes as Forced outages and Scheduled outage.
Definition 3: Forced outage is the outage which results from emergency conditions [1] and requires the components disconnection either manually or automatically.
Definition 4: Scheduled outages are usually performed foe construction, maintenance or repair purposes [1].
Definition 5: Failure refers to any outage events that prevent the system from supplying the load centers.
Failures are divided to two main categories based on the restoration time.
1 
Permanent failure 
2 
Temporary failure 
Definition 6: Credible events are defined as the failure mode which has the most significant impact on the system.
Definition 7: Curtailable load refers to the load category which has not a significant importance in the system and they can be disconnected from the system during remedial action for a certain period.
Definition 8: Firm load refers to the load that can not be remained unsupplied in the system. Thus not be disconnected during a remedial action.
Definition 9: Availability is the probability of the component to be available or in service
[2].
Definition 10: Unavailability is the probability of component being out of service [3].
Definition 11: Failure rate is the probability that the component will fail [3].
Definition 12: Repair rate is the probability that the out of service component will return in service mode [3].
iv
Table of Contents
Table of contents
Abstract 
i 

Acknowledgment 
iii 

Definitions 
iv 

Table of contents 
v 

1. Introduction 
1 

1.1. 
Background 
1 
12. Power system reliability evaluation 
2 

1.3. Research objective 
4 

1.4. Thesis scope and outline 
4 

2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach 
6 

2.1. Introduction 
6 

2.2. Analytical approach 
7 

3. Overview of NEPLAN software 
17 

3.1. Introduction 
17 

3.2. Application study 
21 

3.3. Validation of the results 
26 

4. System Studies 
28 

4.1. Background 
28 

4.2. Overview of test systems RBTS, IEEE RTS and Birka system 
29 

4.3. RBTS Studies 
32 

4.4. IEEERTS test system 
46 

4.5. Birka system study 
51 

5. Alternative Reliability Tools 
54 

5.1. Introduction 
54 

5.2. Composite power reliability tools 
55 

5.3. Transmission/distribution reliability tools 
60 

6. Closure 
66 

6.1. Conclusion 
66 

6.2. Future work 
67 

References 
68 

Appendix 
A 

A. Sample test system 
A 

B. IEEERTS 
B 

C. RBTS 
E 

D: Birka Nät 
F 
v
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Electric power system is one of the most complexes and complicated manmade systems exist in this world. The basic function of the power system is to supply its customers with electrical energy as economically and reliably as possible. The power systems are subjected to many changes in order to fulfill this basic function. For instance, nowadays interconnecting the neighboring systems to enhance the efficiency of the overall system and support deficit power regions with the excessive power in surplus areas, is a common practice. Modifying the system does not necessarily imply that the system is capable of supporting the load centers with 100% reliable source. The blackout events happened in Europe and North America showed that the power systems are not as reliable as they are expected [4]. However, identifying the weak points of the system and reinforcing those areas in an appropriate way may result in achieving the higher reliability and lower probability of interruption.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Nowadays, due to increases in load demands, interconnecting the neighboring power systems is a common practice in order to increase the stability, reliability and cost efficiency. The role of transmission system which refers to transfer the bulk power from power station to load centers is highly significant in interconnected systems. Transmission lines outages may result a significant abnormality in system performance and may possibly result in supply interruptions in the load centers. Statistics indicates that transmission systems are less subjected to outages comparing to the distribution systems, however, their outages may result in longer interruptions in the load centers.
Due to inherent stochastic characteristics of the power systems, not always the system can guarantee the continuous supply to the load centers i.e. facing supply interruptions in a practical system is unavoidable, however, the probability of its occurrence can be reduced by more investment during planning stage. It is evident that there is a confliction between reliability and economical constraints which in case may lead to difficult managerial decisions. Results for reliability studies may provide the planners an appropriate benchmark to decide if a certain part of the system deserves more preliminary investment during planning phase or not.
12. Power system reliability evaluation
Generally, the term of reliability refers to the ability of a component or a system to perform its intended function. In field of power system, such evaluation can be defined as analyzing the ability of the system to satisfy the load demands. Therefore, power system reliability assessment is performed in two main domains; system adequacy and system security. The term of system adequacy relates to existence of sufficient facilities within a system to meet the consumers demand, whereas system security refers to the ability of the system to respond to disturbances arising within a system [5], [6]. Although these concepts are not independent of each other, the reliability evaluation is conducted only in one of the mentioned domains, either adequacy or security, and mostly in adequacy one. The research described in this work is focused on adequacy analysis.
System reliability
System adequacy
System security
Figure 1.1. Reliability evaluation domains [5], [6]
A power system can be divided into three main functional regions [1], [5], [6] designated as generation, transmission and distribution systems. Reliability evaluation of the power systems can be performed in either each individual functional zone or at the hierarchical levels obtained from combining the functional regions.
2
Chapter 1. Introduction
Generation System
Transmission system
Distribution System
HLI
HLII
HLIII
Figure 1.2. Hierarchical levels for reliability evaluation [5], [6]
HLI analyses refer to evaluating the generation systems and its ability to supply the load points. In this level, the transmission systems and their associated influences on the reliability of the overall system are disregarded. The adequacy indices in this level are loss of load expectation (LOLE), loss of energy expectation (LOEE), failure frequency and its relevant duration (FF and FD).
HLII studies can be used to assess the adequacy of an existing or proposed system including the impact of various reinforcement alternatives at both the generation and transmission levels [6]. The adequacy evaluation in this level, results in achieving two different set of indices related to the system load points (individual bus) and the overall system. The most important indices in this level are failure frequency and its duration (FF and FD).
Finally the level associated to the overall power system analysis including all the functional zones, starting from generation units and terminating at costumers load points [6] is known as HLIII evaluation. Generally, due to complexity of a practical power system, assessment in this level is not performed by considering all three functional zones; instead, the distribution system which receives its reliability data from the load point indices of HLII is evaluated. The common reliability indices in this level are system average interruption frequency index (SAIFI), the system average interruption duration index (SAIDI) and the customers average interruption duration index (CAIDI).
The reliability evaluation of power system can be performed based on either deterministic or probabilistic techniques. Deterministic methods have been used considerably in practical applications. The main drawback of such techniques is their disability to respond to a stochastic behavior of the practical system, such as random failure
3
Chapter 1. Introduction
occurrence. Such impediments have led to utilizing the application of stochastic method for reliability evaluation which results in more accurate and precise prediction on the system reliability.
The result of performing the reliability study is illustrated by reliability indices. The reliability indices, which are the numerical parameters, reflect the capability of the system to provide the customers by acceptable level of supply. Two fundamental methodologies are applied to calculate such indices. These methods can be categorized as an analytical approach and a simulation approach. In the analytical approach the system is represented by its mathematical equivalent model. The reliability indices are calculated by applying the direct numerical solution on the equivalent model. On the other hand, the simulation approach deals with analyzing random behaviors of the system in order to estimate the reliability indices. Even though the results of the analytical approach are not as precise as the one for simulation approach, applying this method consumes a comparatively shorter computational time which is an important factor in reliability studies.
Reliability assessment in this thesis work has been conducted in adequacy domain with main focus on transmission system, by applying the analytical approach.
1.3. Research objective
The main aim of this research work is to perform a reliability study of power system with main focus on the transmission system, by applying analytical approach and utilizing the NEPLAN tool. This research work is a part of a long term project in which the main goal is to develop the new techniques and their computer implementations suitable not only for reliability evaluation of a traditional power system (AC system), but also convenient for reliability assessment of a complex power systems where new technologies such as HVDC are employed in transmission systems in order to enhance the efficiency of the overall power system [7].
1.4. Thesis scope and outline
This thesis work is organized in 6 chapters.
Chapter 1 introduces the basic reliability concepts and different approaches available for assessing the reliability of power system.
In Chapter 2, the main concern is with describing the reliability evaluation of composite power system by applying the analytical approach and introducing the relevant reliability indices.
In Chapter 3, a detail explanation and description about NEPLAN software which is used as an analytical solver has been presented.
4
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 4 illustrates the application of the mentioned analytical solver for practical systems. In this chapter, three different test systems; modified RBTS test system, modified IEEERTS and Birka system have been presented and implemented in NEPLAN. The results of reliability evaluations have been introduced in this chapter.
In Chapter 5, some commercial and non commercial tools used for reliability assessment of power systems convenient for evaluating comparatively large systems are introduced.
In Chapter 6 very short conclusions and discussions on possible future work have been presented.
5
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
2.1. Introduction
The basic function of a composite power system is to generate and deliver a required electrical energy to the load centers. From consumers’ point of view, the interruption in supply is not ideal, that is the customers prefer not to encounter any disconnection from network. Besides sometimes such interruptions are not desired from the supplier point of view, especially when the cost of compensation that should be paid to the customers of the network in case of interruption in supply is comparatively high. Therefore, in order to evaluate the system performance and reduce the probability of supply interruption and consequently reducing the possible social and economical disasters, it is an important task to study how often the system may encounter outages and how such outages influence the loads of the network,. Performing such studies require an appropriate knowledge over a system. That is, it is necessary to verify what kind of outages may occur in a practical system.
6
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
Generally, inadequacy of the individual load points is caused by the distribution system [6], however, the outages in bulk power systems affect a larger section of the system. Considering the severity of the outages in the load centers caused by unreliability of the composite power systems, predicting the possible weaknesses within these regions is an important task in planning criteria. A considerable role of transmission system and its fundamental components in such studies is evident. The reliability assessment by focusing on the transmission system can be performed either on HLII level or on the transmission system individually.
Due to the complexity of power system, its stochastic nature and its extremely large number of component, performing an adequacy assessment and analyzing the system performance for a practical system, is a very sophisticated work and requires a long computational time. Such analyses include many aspects such as load flow analysis, contingency assessment, generation rescheduling, transmission overload alleviation, load curtailment and etc [6]. In this thesis work it has been tried to cover all the procedures required in analytical approach. The load flow analyses have not been explained here, however, readers are referred to references on power systems analysis for detailed information regarding different load flow analyses. Application of load flow has been also explained in reference [8] and [9].
In following section analytical approach applied for reliability analysis of the bulk power system has been presented.
2.2. Analytical approach
As explained in previous chapter, the analytical approach is one of the most common methods applied for reliability assessment of power systems. Results obtained from applying this approach provide an appropriate benchmark for evaluating the system performance and its reliability. In this section it has been tried to describe analytical approach briefly.
In analytical approach the system is represented by its mathematical equivalent model. Direct numerical solutions are applied to provide the reliability indices.
Generally, there are five main procedures in analytical approach.
 State space diagram generation
 System state enumeration
 System state analysis
 Remedial action
 Reliability indices
Each of the mentioned procedure has been explained in following parts.
7
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
2.1.1. State space diagram generation
An important and basic stage in performing the reliability investigation is to generate the appropriate reliability model. In this level the physical system is transferred to the simple model which is convenient for reliability studies. The system model can be generated by applying the Markov process.
Markov process is a stochastic and memory less process in which the present state of the system is independent of all former states except the immediately proceeding one [8], [10]. In Markov process the transition rates are assumed to be constant. Figure 2.1 shows the state space model for a single component which can have either in service or out of service modes.
Figure 2.1. Markov model for one component
Practically, systems include more than a component. Generally, each component can be repaired in case of any outages and will be return back to the operating status after the certain time required for reparation.
Figure 2.2 shows the Markov model for a system consists of two repairable independent components is shown in.
where,
The given model in Figure 2.2 is represented by IEEE committee for the independent events.
8
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
The transitional probability matrix for the model shown in Figure 2.2 is given in Eequation 2.1.
α
1
=
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
−
(
λ λ
1
+
2
μ
1
μ
2
0
)
−
(
λ
1
μ λ
1
+
2
0
μ
2
)
−
(
λ
2
0
μ λ
2
+
1
μ
1
)
−
(
0
λ
2
λ
2
+
μ μ
1
2
)
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
2.1
General approach in order to obtain the state probably is to solve the Equation set 2.2.a. This approach is applicable for the system consists of either independent or dependent component. More explanation can be found in [8], [10].
[
P
S
−
P
S
1 2
−
P
S
P
1
+
− −
S
2
+
P
S
−
3
P
S
−
3
+
P
S
−
4
P
S
−
4
][ ]
⋅
α
1
= 1
= 0
2.2.a
For a system with “ n ” component the probability of each state can be calculated through Equation set 2.2.b.
[
P
S
−
1
P
S
−
2
P
S
P
1
+
− −
S
2
+
.
.
+
.
P
S
−
n
P
S
−
n
= 1
][]
⋅
α
=
0
2.2.b
where, [α]is general transitional probability matrix for the model and P is a probability of state i .
S
−
i
Figure 2.3 shows the Markov model proposed for dependent outages. The probability of existence of each state can be calculated by applying the Equation set 2.2.b.
system
evaluation is extremely large when both dependency and independency of outages
Practically,
9
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
considered in evaluation. Therefore, applying Equation set 2.2.b to calculate the system state probability is complicated. Generally, to simplify the calculation the assumption of independency may consider in reliability evaluation of the composite power system. By such assumption Equation set 2.2.b will be simplified to the one presented in Equation 2.3. Note that to calculate the state probability for dependent outages such as station originated outages equation 2.2.b should be used. The probability of encountering state i and its associated failure rate and repair rate for independent events can simply be obtained through Equation set 2.3. [5], [8], [11].
P
s − i
μ
s − i
λ
s − i
=
=
=
∏ ∏
P
k
⋅
k U
∈
m
∈
D
∑
m ∈ D
μ
m
∑
k ∈ U
λ
k
Q
m
2.3
where
P
k
and
λ
k
=
Q
m
and
μ
m
Availability and failure rate of the component k respectively
=
unavailability and repair rate of the component m respectively
μ
si and
λ si
=
Repair rate and failure rate of the state i respectively
U = Set of inservice components in state i
D = Set of out of service components in state i
P
k
Q ki
2.4
The result from Equation sets 2.2.b and 2.3 can be used to calculate the frequency of encountering each state. The frequency of each state is the probability of being in that specific state multiple by the departure rate from that state [5]. Such indices can be calculated by applying Equation 2.5.
f
si
d
si
=
=
P (
si
μ +λ
si
si
P
si
)
f .8760
si
[8]
2.5
Applying the equations presented in 2.3 to 2.5, for the 2component repairable system shown in Figure 2.2 yields:
P
s
1
=
P
1
⋅
P
2
where;
10
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
f
s 1
= P . P ( λ+λ
1
2
1
2
)
The same calculation can be done for the other states. Table 2.1 presents the results of this calculation.
Table 2.1. System state data for 2repairablecomponet system
State 
Probability 
Repair 
Failure 
Frequency 

rate 
rate 

S 1 
P.P 1 2 
0 
λ+λ 1 2 
P λ+λ P 1 ) . 2 ( 1 2 

S 2 
P.Q 1 2 
μ 1 
λ 2 
P 1 . 
Q μ+λ 2 ( 1 2 
) 

S 3 
Q 1 .P 2 
μ 2 
λ 1 
Q 1 
. P λ+μ 2 ( 1 2 
) 

S 3 
Q 1 .Q 2 
μ+μ 1 
2 
0 
( Q Q μ+μ 1 . 2 1 2 
) 
Now these results can be used to calculate the availability and unavailability of the both series and parallel systems. For a system with series components it is of necessity that all the components operate simultaneously in order to be in operating mode. For instance a system with two series components shown in Figure 2.4.a requires functioning of both components in order to be available.
Figure2.4. System with 2 repairable components (a) Series system, (b) Parallel system
Considering the Markov process for this case yield that only the state 1 is the success mode and the other three states are the outages modes. Therefore, the availability of this system is equal to the probability of being in state 1 and the unavailability of this system is equal to the summation of the probability of being states 2, 3 and 4.
11
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
When the system is a parallel system, functioning of one of the components is enough to keep the system in operation or success mode. Figure 2.4.b shows a simple parallel system. Applying the Markov process for this system yield that only state 4 is the state in which the system encounters outage, and states 1, 2 and 3 are the states in which the system operates successfully. That is the availability of such system is equal to the summation of the probability of being in states 1, 2 and 3 and unavailability of the system is equal to probability of being in state 4.
2.1.2. System state enumeration
One of the significant drawbacks of applying the Markov technique to achieve the reliability model is the extremely large number of generated states which assigns a large computational effort for reliability evaluation. Assume a system contains n components, by applying Markov process the total number of the states which should be evaluated for
reliability studies will be
desired in reliability analysis. Therefore, some techniques should be applied in order to
2 .This leads to consume long computing time, which is not
n
reduce the size of state space diagram.
Several techniques such as enumerating the states in form of a tree graph, truncation of the states and contingency and ranking can be applied to reduce the number of the states for the system under study.
The tree graph enumeration technique used in adequacy analysis is depthfirst [8], in which the enumeration starts from level zero and continue from up to down and left to right direction. In Figure 2.3 it has been tried to illustrate this approach for system which consists of three components.
12
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
⎡ U ⎤
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎣ D
⎦ ⎥
⎥
⎥
1
D
2
3
⎡ D ⎤
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎣ U
⎦ ⎥
⎥
⎥
1
U
2
3
U i : In service operation mode for component i
D i : Out of service mode for component i
Figure 2.3. Depthfirst enumeration techniques for 3component system
In another method known as truncation of the state space, the size of the space can be reduced by eliminating the states which has the lower probability of occurrence. System state probability decrease when the system level increased [8]. This can be done by performing the analysis up to certain level of probability.
Another method for reducing the number of states is contingency and ranking. In this approach only the credible events are considered. As defined previously the credible events are the failure events which have the most significant impact on the system performance. In order to choose the appropriate contingencies, it is necessary to obtain a deep understanding over the system under study and the factors that may cause a failure.
Various solution techniques and their associated software packages depending upon the adequacy criteria employed and the intention behind the studies are developed and made available in order to analyze the adequacy of a power system [6]. Each software packages has a special predefined failure modes based on the intention behind its development. Such tools are mostly dealing with reliability assessment of either the transmission system or the composite power system and known as network based programs. Generally, in networkbased programs failure is defined in terms of line overloads and unacceptable bus voltage level [12]. Network solution [8] which applied in networkbased program can
13
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
be a network flow, AC load flow, fast decoupled load flow and DC load flow depends on the purpose of the study. AC load flow and fast decoupled one are the most popular programs while they provide the complete information on system characteristics. When the main concern is the reactive power balance then the DC load flow is the most appropriate program. Reader refers to [6] and [8] for detailed explanation.
By applying the mentioned techniques a suitable model for reliability studies will be obtained. The next stage is to study how the possible outages influence the system performance.
2.1.3. System state analysis
One of the main parts in reliability assessment is to analyze the impact of the possible failures that may occur in a practical system on the performance of the overall system. For instance how the overloaded transmission lines influence the overall power systems, is an important issue in reliability study of the bulk power systems. Network solutions can be applied to perform such analyses. In case of any violation in system characteristics the system state is defined as an abnormal state and requires the remedial action in form of corrective action or load curtailment to clear the abnormality.
2.1.4. Remedial action
After identifying the violation in the system, remedial actions are applied. Remedial action is applied to alleviate the system abnormal conditions [8]. Therefore the main emphasis is on clearing the abnormality of the system due to the special contingency. This can be performed by applying corrective action such as removing the failed component or rescheduling the generation unit and resupplying the loads. After performing the corrective action to resupply the load if the violation still exists, then load curtailment will be required. The contingency which led to load curtailment contributes to provide the reliability indices.
2.1.5. Reliability indices
Reliability indices are numerical parameters that reflect the capability of the system to provide its customers by an acceptable level of supply. They estimate the system reliability by providing the quantitative measures at each individual load point or for the whole system. In composite power evaluation, as described before, two sets of indices which indicate the performance of the whole system or the performance at each individual load buses within a system may obtain. The main reliability indices in the composite power system evaluation are frequency of interruption and the associated duration. These two indices are important as they indicate the expected frequency and duration of load supply interruption [11].
The load point indices are represented in Equations 2.6 to 2.11. [5], [8]. The main reliability indices in HLII are given in following:
14
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
 Failure Probability ( FP ):
FP
=
∑
si
∈
F
p
si
 Failure Frequency(FF) [occ yr] :
FF
=
∑
si
∈
F
f
si
2.6
2.7
 Failure duration(FD) [hour distrubance]:
FD
=
FP
FF
⋅ 8760
2.8
 Expected energy not supplied(EENS) [MWh yr]:
EENS
=
∑
si
∈
F
p
si
L
c.si
8760
 Expected power not supplied(EPNS) [MW yr] :
EEPS
=
∑
si
∈
F
p
si
L
c si
.
 Expected load curtailed(ELC) [MW yr] :
ELC
=
∑
si
∈
F
f L
si
c si
.
2.9
2.10
2.11
F is a specific system failure state.
p
L
and f are the probability and frequency of each failure state respectively.
si
c si
,
si
is a load curtailed at a specific bus or for overall system in system state
s .
i
For reliability evaluation with main focus on the transmission system or distribution system the overall system results obtained from HLII can be replaced by indices obtained from HLIII. The software employed for this thesis work has been developed for reliability evaluation of transmission and/or distribution systems and has the capability of providing indices results from HLIII. The indices obtained from HLIII are presented in the following.
Reliability indices for HLIII [5], [13]:
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)[int yr,cust]:
15
Chapter 2. Composite system adequacy assessment by applying analytical approach
SAIFI =
Total Number of Customers Interruption
=
Total Number of Customers Served
∑
λ
i
⋅ N
∑
N
i
i
2.12
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI)[h yr,cust]:
SAIDI =
Sum of Customers Duration Interruption
=
Total Number of Customer Service
∑
U
i
⋅ N
i
∑
N
i
2.13
Customers Average Interruption Index (CAIDI)[h int.]:
CAIDI =
Sum of Customers Duration Interruption Total Number of Customer Interruption
=
∑
∑
U
i
λ
i
⋅ N
i
⋅ N
i
2.14
Average Service Availability Index (ASAI)[%]:
ASAI =
Customer hours of available Service
Customers hours service Demands
.
=
∑
N
i
⋅
8760
−
U N
⋅
i
i
∑
N
i
⋅
8760
2.15
where,
failure rate per year at load point i ,
N i represents the number of customers at load point i ,
λ i [1 yr] is a expected
U is the unavailability of load point i
i
16
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
3. Overview of NEPLAN software
3.1. Introduction
NEPLAN is an electric power analyzer which has been developed by the BCP group in Switzerland. This software package is used mainly for transmission and distribution systems analyses. It includes optimal power flow, transient stability and reliability analyses [14]. NEPLAN reliability software can be used to provide not only the reliability indices for both the individual load points and the overall power system, but also it can be used to provide the cost of unreliability. NEPLAN is based on Markov process and enumeration techniques. This implies that the approach in NEPLAN follows the same procedure that has been explained in the pervious chapter. Figure 3.1 shows the evaluation approach taken in NEPLAN to achieve the reliability indices for both load point ant the overall system.
17
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
Processing of
network data
Creating possible outage events combination
First order outage events
Second order outage events
Single stochastic 
Single deterministic 
Two 
Single stochastic and deterministic outages 

outage 
outage 
stochastic outages 


Effect analysis of each outages mode on system performance 


Load curtailment
Load point indices, failure frequency, duration, etc.
Overall system indices
Registering the failure rate
Figure.3.1. Flowchart for reliability evaluation in NEPLAN
18
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
The first step is to analyze all the input data required for load flow analysis and data required for reliability evaluation. After processing the data and solving the load flow program for the system in order to obtain the system characteristics in normal condition, the system will be modeled by applying the Markov process. The achieved model will be reduced to the reasonably small model by applying the contingency and ranking or the truncation of states techniques. But as noted before, applying such techniques require a deep understanding over practical systems i.e. it is necessary to know what kind of outages may occur in practical system. In NEPLAN the predefined outages events in are categorized in two groups i.e. first order contingencies and second order contingencies.
The second step is to create a first order and second order outage combinations. First order contingencies deal with single stochastic outages and single deterministic outages. Generally the single deterministic group does not contribute in interruption frequency while it causes no supply interruption to the loads of the system. Single stochastic outages group includes several modes such as independent single outage, common mode outage, ground fault and unintended switch opening. The reliability input data for these categories are failure rate and repair time and the output data are failure frequency and its relevant duration.
Second order contingencies can be considered either as two stochastic outages or stochastic and deterministic outages. In the case of overlapping of two stochastic outages the failure frequency is calculated by applying equation 3.1 or 3.2. The failure frequency for overlapping of stochastic and deterministic outages is obtained through equation 3.3.
For independent outages [15],
FF = λ ⋅ λ r + r
A
B
(
A
B
)
3.1.
where
λ
A
and λ are the failure rate and
B
r is their relevant repair time.
i
For dependent outages where the second outage may occur with the probability of Pr as a consequent of the first outage, like a second short circuit due to delay in clearing the first short circuit in network, the failure frequency is calculated by applying 3.2 [15].
FF = λ ⋅ Pr
A
B
3.2.
As cited previously the deterministic outage itself may not cause supply interruption in load, but simultaneous occurrence of deterministic and stochastic outages may result in forced outage, which leads to load failure. In such case the failure frequency at load points obtained by applying 3.3 [15].
FF = λ ⋅ λ ⋅ r
A
B
B
3.3.
where
and
λ and λ are the failure rate for stochastic and deterministic outages respectively
A
B
r i is the relevant repair time for maintenance (deterministic outage).
19
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
After reaching the appropriate reliability model, all the possible outages combinations which have been contributed to provide the reliability model will be analyzed individually to verify their impacts on the system performance. If the created outages result in any variation in system characteristic such as fluctuation in bus voltages, the corrective action such as disconnecting the faulty line and supplying the load in an appropriate way is performed. After performing the corrective action, if the abnormality still exists, the remedial action i.e. load curtailment will be required. The failure frequency of that specific state which results in load curtailment will be calculated. For second order combinations the failure frequency in NEPLAN is calculated by applying Equations 3.1 to 3.3. The calculated failure frequency will be registered in order to contribute for final reliability calculation. This procedure will be continued to analyze all the possible outage events that may occur within a practical system.
The last step after studying all the possible outage events is to sum up the registered failure frequency relevant to a specific load bus and calculated the relevant indices at each individual load point and overall system. Table 3.1 and 3.2 shows the indices for each individual load points and overall power system provided by NEPLAN.
Table 3.1. Load point indices [15], [16]
Index 
Unit 
Description 
Interruption Frequency 
[1 yr] 
Expected frequency of supply interruption per year 
Interruption Duration 
[min _{y}_{r}_{]} [hrs yr] 
Expected probability of interruption in minute or hours per year 
Mean Time of interruption 
min, hrs 
Average duration of customer interruption 
Power not supplied 
[kW yr] [MW yr] 
Product of interrupted power and its interruption frequency 
Energy not supplied 
[kWh _{y}_{r}_{]} [MWh yr] 
Product of interrupted power and its interruption probability 
Interrupted cost 
[$ yr] 
Cost of supply interruption 
Table 3.2. Overall system indices [15], [16]
Index 
Unit 
Description 
N 
 
Total number of customers not served 
SAIFI 
[1 yr] 
System average interruption frequency index 
SAIDI 
[min yr] 
System average interruption index 
CAIDI 
h 
Customer average interruption duration index 
ASAI 
% 
System average availability 
F 
[1 yr] 
System load interruption frequency 
T 
h 
System load interruption frequency 
Pr 
[min _{y}_{r}_{]} 
System load interruption probability 
P 
[MW yr] 
Total interrupted load power 
W 
[MWh yr] 
Total load energy not supplied 
C 
[CU yr] 
Total load interruption cost 
20
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
3.2. Application study
Figure 3.2 shows a small test system implemented in NEPLAN in three different modes in order to clarify a reliability calculation approach. The hand calculation for southern part of the system has been illustrated in the following part, to demonstrate how the software calculates the indices.
Mode 1:
LP5
LP6
In this mode there is no connection between bus 5 and 6. Therefore neither disconnect switch nor connection link exist. The model has been shown in Figure 3.3.
LP5
LP6
Figure 3.3. Test system without disconnect switches [13]
21
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
Hand calculation of Load point indices for LP6:
As noted previously in this part reliability indices for southern part of the sample system which supplies the load point 6 will be calculates by hand.
Equations 3.4 and 3.5 can be applied to calculate the failure frequency and associated duration for the series and parallel components.
For series components:
λ
S
=
R
S =
∑
i
∑
λ
i
i
λ
i
⋅
r
i
λ
S
[13]
3.4
For parallel components or second order failure combination:
λ
12
r
12
=
=
λ λ
1
⋅
2
⋅
(
r
1
+
r
2
)
r
1
+
r
2
[13]
3.5
Figure 3.4 shows the southern part of the sample test system.
LP6
Figure 3.4. The circuit which feeds load point 6
FF
FF =
FF = 0.078
0.001
=λ +λ +λ +λ +λ +λ +λ
BB
4
CB
6
BB
5
CB
7
TR
3
CB
8
BB
6
+
0.001
+
0.02
+
0.015
+
0.02
+
0.001
Failure duration calculation for load point 6:
22
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
System Indices:
System indices can be calculated by applying equations 2.122.15
Applying equation these equations yield:
SAIFI =
SAIDI =
CAIDI =
0.103 
∗ 
80 
+ 
0.078 
∗ 100 
= 0.09 
[int yr.cust] 

80 
+ 
100 

0.103 
∗ 
21.42 ∗ 60 
∗ 100 
+ 0.078 
∗ 23.362 
∗ 60 
∗ 
80 _{=} 
124.78 

100 + 80 

0.103 
∗ 
23.362 ∗ 100 + 0.078 
∗ 21.42 ∗ 80 _{=} 22.63 
[h] 

0.103 ∗ 100 + 0.078 
∗ 80 
[min yr.cust]
ASAI =
(100
+
80)
∗
8760
−
(0.103
∗
23.362
∗
100
+
0.078
∗
21.42
∗
80) _{∗}
180
∗
8760
10
_{=}
99.976
Results obtained from NEPLAN:
Load point indices:
[%]
Table.3.3. Load point indices for system illustrated in 3.2 obtained from NEPLAN
Load Point 
Failure Frequency [1 yr] 
Failure Duration [h] 
L5 
0.103 
5.362 
L6 
0.078 
21.425 
Overall system indices:
Table 3.4. Overall system indices for system illustrated in figure 3.2
Index 
Unit 

N 
 
180 

SAIFI 
[1 yr] 
0.092 

SAIDI 
[min _{y}_{r}_{]} 
124.748 

CAIDI 
[h] 
22.631 

ASAI 
% 
99.976 
23
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
Mode 2:
In this mode the disconnect switch has been incorporated for reliability calculation. It is worth to note that, this switch has been considered to be in open mode at the begining. The single line diagram of the circuit is illustrated in Figure 3.5.
Load point indices:
Table.3.5. Load point indices for test system when DICS switch is open
Load Point 
Failure Frequency [1 _{y}_{r}_{]} 
Failure Duration[h] 
L5 
0.103 
1.011 
L6 
0.078 
1.014 
Overall system indices:
Table 3.6. Overall system indices for test system, DISC switch is open
Index 
Unit 

N 
 
180 

SAIFI 
[1 yr] 
0.091 

SAIDI 
[min _{y}_{r}_{]} 
5.501 

CAIDI 
[h] 
1.012 

ASIA 
% 
99.999 
In this part, the failure frequency is the same while the disconnect switch is open and it has no influence on the interruption frequency in the load points. However, the duration has been influenced. That means, whenever there is any interruption occurred in each part of the system, the disconnect switch can be closed and the affected load point has the possibility to partially supply from the other part of the system. That is, resupplying at least a part of the interrupted load in the shorter period is possible by closing this switch.
24
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
Mode 3:
Disconnect switch is closed in this evaluation:
Load point indices:
Table.3.7. Load point indices for test when DICS switch is close.
Load Point 
Failure Frequency [1 yr] 
Failure Duration [h] 
L5 
0.063 
1.049 
L6 
0.063 
1.049 
Overall system indices:
Table 3.8. Overall system indices for test system, DISC switch is close.
Index 
Unit 

N 
 
180 

SAIFI 
[1 yr] 
0.063 

SAIDI 
[min yr] 
3.966 

CAIDI 
[h] 
1.049 

ASIA 
% 
99.991 
In this mode, since the disconnect switch was closed from the beginning it has been contributed in reliability calculation. The results show that the failure frequencies in both load points have been decreased.
25
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
3.3. Validation of the results
A comparison has been made between the results from NEPLAN and another reliability
tool known as RADPOW to validate the obtained results.
RADPOW is a reliability tool developed in KTH School of Electrical Engineering for
reliability assessment of distribution system. This tool was developed based on analytical approach [13]. A new version of RADPOW which has been recently developed, includes simulation approach [25]. This software package has been explained more in detail in Chapter 5. It is worth mentioning that in this work the term of RADPOW refers to analytical approach of this solver, and term of Simulation refers to Simulation approach
of RADPOW.
Comparisons of the results obtained from NEPLAN and RADPOW for the test system in three different modes have been shown in following tables.
Mode 1: 

Table.3.9. Failure frequency index obtained from different software for Mode 1. 

Failure Frequency 
Neplan [1 yr] 
RADPOW [1 yr] 
Simulation [1 yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 
LP5 
0.103 
0.103 
0.103 
0.000 
0.000 
LP6 
0.078 
0.078 
0.078 
0.000 
0.000 
Table.3.10. Unavailability index obtained from different software for Mode 1.
Unavailability 
NEPLAN [h yr] 
RADPOW [h yr] 
Simulation [h yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 

LP5 
0.0964 
0.097 
0.0006 

LP6 
0.470 
0.471 
0.001 

Mode 2: 

Table.3.11. Failure frequency index obtained from different software for Mode 2. 

Failure Frequency 
NEPLAN [1 yr] 
RADPOW [1 yr] 
Simulation [1 yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 

LP5 
0.103 
0.103 
0.103 
0.000 
0.000 

LP6 
0.078 
0.078 
0.078 
0.000 
0.000 
Table.3.12. Unavailability index obtained from different software for Mode 2.
Unavailability 
NEPLAN [h yr] 
RADPOW [h yr] 
Simulation [h yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 

LP5 
0.104 
0.104 
0.104 
0.000 
0.000 

LP6 
0.079 
0.079 
0.079 
0.000 
0.000 
26
Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software
Mode 3: 

Table.3.13. Failure frequency index obtained from different software for Mode 3. 

Failure Frequency 
NEPLAN [1 yr] 
RADPOW [1 yr] 
Simulation [1 yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 
LP5 
0.063 
0.064 
0.064 
0.001 
0.001 
LP6 
0.063 
0.064 
0.064 
0.001 
0.001 
Table.3.14. Unavailability index obtained from different software for Mode 3.
Unavailability 
NEPLAN [h yr] 
RADPOW [h yr] 
Simulation [h yr] 
Δ(NEP − RAD) 
Δ(NEP − Sim) 
LP5 
0.066 
0.065 
0.065 
0.001 
0.001 
LP6 
0.066 
0.065 
0.065 
0.001 
0.001 
The small differences between the results obtained from these tools can be justified by considering the possible different assumption defined for each tool. However, these differences are small enough to be neglected.
27
Chapter 4. System studies
4. System Studies
4.1. Background
Three test systems, two composite power systems and one distribution system are utilized in this thesis work. Roy Billinton reliability test system designated as RBTS [17] and IEEERTS [18] have been used in wide range in reliability studies. These test systems have been developed for educational purposes and are used enormously for composite power reliability evaluations. These test systems as well as a small part of the distribution system in Stockholm city, socalled as Birka system, have been implemented in the NEPLAN the results have been presented in the following sections.
28
Chapter 4. System studies
4.2. Overview of test systems RBTS, IEEE RTS and Birka system
The reliability test system designated as RBTS was developed in university of Saskatchewan for educational and research purposes. The small size of this test system makes it a suitable test system to conduct large number of reliability studies in reasonable time. The RBTS comprises of 6 buses; 2 generator buses and 5 load buses. The 2 generator buses consist of 11 generators. The buses are connected via 9 transmission lines. The total installed capacity is 240MW and the system peak load is185MW . The voltage level on transmission line is 230kV .
The second test system designated as IEEERTS was developed by the Subcommittee on the Application Methods in the IEEE Power Engineering Society to provide a common test system for reliability studies. This test system is a 24bus system comprises 10 generator buses, 10 load buses and 4 intermediate buses. The total number of generation units available in generator buses is 32 units. The buses are connected through 33 transmission lines. The system has divided two Northern and Southern part. In northern part the voltage level is 230kV and in southern part is138kV . The total installed capacity in generation units is 3405MW and the total peak load is 2850MW . The southern part is power deficit area while the northern part is surplus power area.
Birka system is a practical distribution system in Stockholm city.
Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show the single line diagram of these test systems respectively. The data for the systems required for load flow and reliability studies, including generation units’ data, transmission lines and load model data are given in Appendix A.
29
Chapter 4. System studies
2
1
1
Figure 4.1. Single line diagram of the RBTS [17]
30
Chapter 4. System studies
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.