You are on page 1of 88
Reliability Assessment of Complex Power Systems and the Use of NEPLAN Tool Master Thesis by:

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

XR-EE-ETK 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 N-1 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 re-closing 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. IEEE-RTS 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. IEEE-RTS

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 man-made 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

work is focused on adequacy analysis. System reliability System adequacy System security Figure 1.1. 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

System Transmission system Distribution System HLI HLII HLIII Figure 1.2. Hierarchical levels for

HLI

System Transmission system Distribution System HLI HLII HLIII Figure 1.2. Hierarchical levels for reliability

HLII

Transmission system Distribution System HLI HLII HLIII Figure 1.2. Hierarchical levels for reliability

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 IEEE-RTS 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.

S S 2 1 λ Up μ 1 Down 1
S
S
2
1 λ
Up
μ
1 Down
1

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.

S 1 Up Up λ λ 1 2 μ μ 1 2 Down Up S
S
1
Up
Up
λ
λ
1
2
μ
μ
1
2
Down
Up
S
S
2
Up
Down
3
λ
λ
2
1
μ
μ
2
1
Down
Down
S
is a state of the system
i
S
4
Figure 2.2. Markov model for 2-repair able-independent-component [5], [6]
λ and μ are the failure rate and repair rate of component i respectively.
i
i

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.

Up Up λ λ 1 2 μ μ 1 2 Down Up S S 2
Up
Up
λ
λ
1
2
μ
μ
1
2
Down
Up
S
S
2
Up
μ
Down
3
λ
C
C
λ
λ
2
1
μ
μ
2
1
Down
Down
S
is a state of the system
i
S
4
Figure 2.3. Markov model for 2-repair able-dependent-outages [5], [6]
the
number
of
possible
system state
in
the
composite
power

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 in-service components in state i

D = Set of out of service components in state i

P

k

Q ki

μ k = μ λ + k k λ k = μ λ + k
μ
k
=
μ λ
+
k
k
λ
k
=
μ λ
+
k
k

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 2-component- 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

μ 1 P = 1 μ λ + 1 1 μ 2 P = 2
μ
1
P
=
1
μ λ
+
1
1
μ
2
P
=
2
μ λ
+
2
2
μ = μ=
0 System state repair rate
si
i
λ = λλλ=+
System state failure rate
si
i
1
2

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 2-repairable-componet 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.

Com. 1 Com. 1 Comp.2 Com. 2 (a) (b)
Com. 1
Com. 1
Comp.2
Com. 2
(a)
(b)

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 depth-first [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 ⎤ 1 ⎢ ⎢ U ⎥ 2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ U ⎦ ⎥
⎡ U ⎤
1
U
2 ⎥
⎢ ⎣ U
⎦ ⎥
3
⎡ U ⎤
1
D
2
⎢ ⎣ U
3 ⎥ ⎦

U


⎢ ⎣ D

⎦ ⎥


1

D

2

3

⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ D ⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ 1 D 2 3 ⎡ U ⎤
⎡ U ⎤ ⎢ 1 U ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ D 2 ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦
⎡ U ⎤
1
U
⎢ ⎣ D
2
⎥ ⎦
3

D

⎢ ⎣ U

⎦ ⎥


1

U

2

3

⎡ D ⎤ 1 ⎢ ⎢ D 2 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ U 3 ⎥
⎡ D ⎤
1
D
2
⎢ ⎣ U
3 ⎥ ⎦
⎡ D ⎤
1
D
2
⎢ ⎣ D
⎦ ⎥
3
⎡ D ⎤ 1 ⎢ ⎢ U 2 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ D 3 ⎦
⎡ D ⎤
1
U
2
⎢ ⎣ D
3 ⎦ ⎥

U i : In service operation mode for component i

D i : Out of service mode for component i

Figure 2.3. Depth-first enumeration techniques for 3-component 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 network-based programs failure is defined in terms of line overloads and unacceptable bus voltage level [12]. Network solution [8] which applied in network-based 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 re-supplying the loads. After performing the corrective action to re-supply 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] :

= ∑ si ∈ F p si - Failure Frequency(FF) [ occ yr ] : FF

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]:

8760 2.8 - Expected energy not supplied(EENS) [ MWh yr ] : EENS = ∑ si

EENS

=

si

F

p

si

L

c.si

8760

- Expected power not supplied(EPNS) [MW yr] :

. si 8760 - Expected power not supplied(EPNS) [ MW yr ] : EEPS = ∑

EEPS

=

si

F

p

si

L

c si

.

- Expected load curtailed(ELC) [MW yr] :

p si L c si . - Expected load curtailed(ELC) [ MW yr ] : ELC

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

the number of customers at load point i , λ i [ 1 yr ] is

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
Creating possible outage events combination
Creating possible outage events combination

Creating possible outage events combination

Creating possible outage events combination
Creating possible outage events combination
Creating possible outage events combination
Creating possible outage events combination
network data Creating possible outage events combination First order outage events Second order outage events Single
network data Creating possible outage events combination First order outage events Second order outage events Single
network data Creating possible outage events combination First order outage events Second order outage events Single
First order outage events

First order outage events

First order outage events
First order outage events
First order outage events
First order outage events
First order outage events
First order outage events
Second order outage events

Second order outage events

Second order outage events
Second order outage events
Second order outage events
Second order outage events
First order outage events Second order outage events Single stochastic Single deterministic   Two
First order outage events Second order outage events Single stochastic Single deterministic   Two
First order outage events Second order outage events Single stochastic Single deterministic   Two
First order outage events Second order outage events Single stochastic Single deterministic   Two

Single stochastic

Single deterministic

 

Two

 

Single stochastic and deterministic outages

outage

 

outage

stochastic outages

     
  Effect analysis of each outag es mode on s y stem p erformance
 

Effect analysis of each outages mode on system performance

  Effect analysis of each outag es mode on s y stem p erformance
Normal System performance Abnormal Alleviating the abnormality of the system Normal System performance Abnormal
Normal
System
performance
Abnormal
Alleviating the abnormality of
the system
Normal
System
performance
Abnormal

Load curtailment

∑

Load point indices, failure frequency, duration, etc.

∑ Load point indices, failure frequency, duration, etc. Overall system indices Registering the failure rate

Overall system indices

failure frequency, duration, etc. Overall system indices Registering the failure rate Figure.3.1. Flowchart for

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]

[ 1 yr ]

Expected frequency of supply interruption per year

Interruption Duration

[min yr]

[ min y r ] [ hrs yr ]

[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]

[ kW yr ] [ MW yr ]

[MW yr]

Product of interrupted power and its interruption frequency

Energy not supplied

[kWh yr]

[ kWh y r ] [ MWh yr ]

[MWh yr]

Product of interrupted power and its interruption probability

Interrupted cost

[$ yr]

[ $ 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]

[ 1 yr ]

System average interruption frequency index

SAIDI

[min yr]

[ min yr ]

System average interruption index

CAIDI

h

Customer average interruption duration index

ASAI

%

System average availability

F

[1 yr]

[ 1 yr ]

System load interruption frequency

T

h

System load interruption frequency

Pr

[min yr]

[ min y r ]

System load interruption probability

P

[MW yr]

[ MW yr ]

Total interrupted load power

W

[MWh yr]

[ MWh yr ]

Total load energy not supplied

C

[CU yr]

[ 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.

CB TR DISC Figure 3.2. Test system [13]
CB
TR
DISC
Figure 3.2. Test system [13]

Mode 1:

LP-5

LP-6

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.

CB TR DISC
CB
TR
DISC

LP-5

LP-6

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

)

1 + λ ⋅ r + λ ⋅ r 1 1 2 2 r ⋅
1 +
λ
r
+
λ
r
1
1
2
2
r
⋅ r
1
2

r

1

+

r

2

[13]

3.5

Figure 3.4 shows the southern part of the sample test system.

BB4 CB6 BB5 CB7 TB3 CB8 BB6
BB4
CB6
BB5
CB7
TB3
CB8
BB6

LP-6

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

+ 0.02 1 yr
+
0.02
1
yr

+

0.001

+

0.02

+

0.015

+

0.02

+

0.001

Failure duration calculation for load point 6:

∑ λ r i i R = S λ s 0.001 ∗ 2 + 0.02
λ
r
i
i
R
=
S
λ
s
0.001
2
+
0.02
24
+
0.001
2
+
0.02
24
+
0.015
15
+
0.02
24
+
0.001
2
R
=
S
0.078
R
= 21.42
[h yr]
S

22

Chapter 3. Overview of NEPLAN software

System Indices:

System indices can be calculated by applying equations 2.12-2.15

Applying equation these equations yield:

SAIFI =

SAIDI =

CAIDI =

0.103

80

+

0.078

100

=

0.09

[int yr.cust]

[ 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]

0.103 ∗ 100 + 0.078 ∗ 80 [ min yr . cust ] ASAI = (100

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 Frequency [ 1 yr ]

Failure Duration [h]

L-5

0.103

5.362

L-6

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]

[ 1 yr ]

0.092

SAIDI

[min yr]

[ 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.

LP-5 LP-6 Figure 3.5. Single line diagram of the test system, open disconnect switch [13]
LP-5
LP-6
Figure 3.5. Single line diagram of the test system, open disconnect switch [13]

Load point indices:

Table.3.5. Load point indices for test system when DICS switch is open

Load Point

Failure Frequency [1 yr]

Failure Frequency [ 1 y r ]

Failure Duration[h]

L-5

0.103

1.011

L-6

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]

[ 1 yr ]

0.091

SAIDI

[min yr]

[ 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, re-supplying 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:

LP-5 LP-6 Figure 3.7. Single line diagram of the test system, Closed disconnect switch [13]
LP-5
LP-6
Figure 3.7. Single line diagram of the test system, Closed disconnect switch [13]

Load point indices:

Table.3.7. Load point indices for test when DICS switch is close.

Load Point

Failure Frequency [1 yr]

Failure Frequency [ 1 yr ]

Failure Duration [h]

L-5

0.063

1.049

L-6

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]

[ 1 yr ]

0.063

SAIDI

[min yr]

[ 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]

Neplan [ 1 yr ]

RADPOW

[1 yr]

RADPOW [ 1 yr ]

Simulation

[1 yr]

Simulation [ 1 yr ]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

0.103

0.103

0.103

0.000

0.000

LP-6

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

NEPLAN [ h yr ]

yr]

RADPOW

[h

RADPOW [ h yr ]

yr]

Simulation

[h

Simulation [ h yr ]

yr]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

0.0964

 

0.097

   

0.0006

 

LP-6

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]

NEPLAN [ 1 yr ]

RADPOW

[1 yr]

RADPOW [ 1 yr ]

Simulation

[1 yr]

Simulation [ 1 yr ]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

 

0.103

 

0.103

   

0.103

   

0.000

 

0.000

LP-6

 

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

NEPLAN [ h yr ]

yr]

RADPOW

[h

RADPOW [ h yr ]

yr]

Simulation

[h

Simulation [ h yr ]

yr]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

0.104

0.104

0.104

0.000

0.000

LP-6

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]

NEPLAN [ 1 yr ]

RADPOW

[1 yr]

RADPOW [ 1 yr ]

Simulation

[1 yr]

Simulation [ 1 yr ]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

0.063

0.064

0.064

0.001

0.001

LP-6

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]

NEPLAN [ h yr ]

RADPOW

[h yr]

RADPOW [ h yr ]

Simulation

[h yr]

Simulation [ h yr ]

Δ(NEP RAD)

Δ(NEP Sim)

LP-5

0.066

0.065

0.065

0.001

0.001

LP-6

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 IEEE-RTS [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, so-called 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 IEEE-RTS 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 24-bus 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

1 × 40 MW G × 40 MW 4 × 20 MW × 20 MW
1
×
40 MW
G
× 40
MW
4
×
20 MW
× 20
MW
2
×
5 MW
G
× 10
MW
3
Bus 2
Bus 1
20MW
2
7
1
6
4
Bus 4
Bus 3
40MW
85MW
5
8
Bus 5
9
20MW
Bus 6
20MW

Figure 4.1. Single line diagram of the RBTS [17]

30

Chapter 4. System studies