2020 Emerging Technology in Computing, Communication and Electronics (ETCCE)

Sequential and Nonsequential Monte Carlo in

Assessing Reliability Performance of Distribution
Network
Nur Nabihah Rusyda Binti Roslan
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Pekan, Pahang
nabihahrusyda96@gmail.com
NoorFatin Farhanie Binti Mohd Fauzi
Department. of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Pekan, Pahang
fatinfarhanie96@gmail.com
Mohd Ikhwan Muhammad Ridzuan
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Pekan, Pahang
ikhwanr@ump.edu.my

Abstract— Reliability evaluation is one of the fundamental compulsory components in simulation. Other than that, the
2020 Emerging Technology in Computing, Communication and Electronics (ETCCE) | 978-1-6654-1962-8 /20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ETCCE51779.2020.9350906

methods in determining the stability of the distribution network.
The variety of techniques in evaluating the reliability has
increased as time passes, and the development of the
distribution system also becomes more complex. Any network
once it is starting to operate, the time for the network to fail,
increases as the time passes, mostly when operated for a long
time. Hence, it becomes a questionable situation whether the
network will keep functioning without any fault or else there will
be faults that occur between the operation times. Thus, due to
that, the reliability evaluation was used to estimate the
reliability of the network. Hence, based on the current
evaluation methods, which methods suitable to evaluate the
distribution networks without neglecting the distribution
network's complexity. Two methods were used: Sequential
Monte Carlo (SMC) and Nonsequential Monte Carlo (NSMC).
These two methods are used to determine the efficiency of
output and to check whether both methods suitable to apply for
the current distribution system. IEEE-14 buses are used to
simulate the reliability of the network and the efficiency of
reliability output. It is expected both methods produce almost
the same result. Based on the output, the values for the
reliability indices (SAIFI, SAIDI, CAIDI) for this simulation are
different due to the simulation process. Practically based on the
output, it shows that the SMC method is more suitable to
evaluate the distribution system since it pictures the real
situation because of the time-based simulation.
Keywords—Sequential Monte Carlo, Nonsequential Monte
Carlo, reliability assessment
I. INTRODUCTION
The distribution also one of the components in the
network, which is responsible to distribute the electrical
supply towards the consumer. Even though electrical is
important within the community, however, the awareness
towards distribution is less known compared to generation and
transmission. Plus, the main thrust of power-system-reliability
evaluation over the past few decades has been focused on
generation and transmission, with relatively little effort
applied to the distribution domain, especially low-voltage
distribution systems [1]. To check the stability of the
distribution network, an evaluation is needed to assess the
performance of the network. To do so, a few methods to
evaluate were listed, which are Bayesian Network (BN) [2],
Markov Chain, Analytical Enumeration, Monte Carlo
Simulation [3], and a few more. The BN is suitable to evaluate
the reliability of the network, however, these methods lack in
term of computing the simulation with time which means this
method not able to reflect the exact failure rate and repair time
of the component [4], whereas both variants are one of the
Markov Chain only suitable to manipulate when the
complexity of the network is low [5], which means for this
research it is not suitable since the complexity of the network
is high.
Most papers already discussed the best two approaches to
evaluate reliability which are analytical and simulation [6].
The analytical approach used mathematical ways [1] to solve
the specific problem, especially in reliability evaluation.
These are a few analytical methods Markov Model, state
space, contingency enumeration method, and minimal cut set
method [7]. From articles in [8], it states that the analytical
techniques evaluate the reliability indices using its
mathematical solutions. The analytical techniques are usually
focused on the mean value of the indices and did not even
bother with future performance analysis [6].
Compared to Analytical techniques, the Monte Carlo is
commonly used to simulate a complex network [9], [10], [11].
A complex network means that almost all needed components
that should be existed in the network, present. There are two
basic techniques utilized in Monte Carlo applications to power
system reliability evaluation. These are known as the
sequential (SMC) and nonsequential (NSMC) methods [12].
In the sequential method, simulation proceeds chronologically
with the state change of one or multiple components including
load. The system states and corresponding time durations are
recorded based on which the reliability indices can be
computed after the simulation is performed for an adequately
long time. Sequential techniques replicate the system
evolution process and preserve the characteristics of
chronological, causal, and dependent events. In the non-
sequential method, the states are sampled from the state space
proportional to their probabilities [12]. The main concern to
choose evaluation methods is the ability of the methods to be
able to evaluate complex networks, and this condition applies
in Monte Carlo Simulation where this method able to do
assessments for large and complex network systems [5].
II. MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
A. Sequential Monte Carlo
Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) method is a set of
simulation-based methods that provide an advantageous and
appealing approach to enumerating the posterior distributions.
From Fig. 1, the sequential method is a chronological method
which means it involves time [13]. There are two times needed
in the simulation, which are Time to Fail (TTF) and Time to
Repair (TTR). TTF was used to decide the allocation of the
time. While TTR was used to prolong the time needed to

978-1-6654-1962-8/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
repair the interruption at the allocating TTF. The sequential
method simulates the state in chronological order as the states
of its components change. Besides, the chronological model is
related to the assessment of series or sequence of states of the
system in the stochastic process of the course of its operation
over a given period. The simulation of the period is
reproduced a great number of times to obtain statistically
reliable averages of the results.
Fig. 1. Sequential Monte Carlo Method
B. Nonsequential Monte Carlo
Fig. 2. Nonsequential Monte Carlo Method
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. Network
In this research, a network that will be used to evaluate the
reliability by using SMC and NSMC is the IEEE-14 buses.
This network comes with 20 branches with two types of
components, which are overhead line and transformer. Also,
each overhead line represents a different length. Originally the
IEEE-14 bus network comes with 5 generators, however, after
a modification, only one generator remained function so that
the observation towards faulty bus due to interruption at
branches can be observed clearly (refer to Fig. 3). For
information, the length of the overhead line was decided by
the researcher.
Fig. 3. IEEE-14 Buses (source Matpower)
III. FAULT RATE AND REPAIR TIME
Fault rate and repair time are the manipulated variables in
this simulation. Since the value will be determined before the
simulation. The fault rate will be expanded based on the length
of the branch and the repair time will be generated based on
how many branches had been interrupted.
Noted that for TABLE II. , the occurrence of interruption
is based on the determined fault rate. Thus, if the fault rate
high, then the interruption that will be occurred also will be
high and vice versa. To determine the fault rate, the length of
the overhead line will be the indicator, since the longer the
length of the overhead line, the higher the fault rate.
TABLE I. FAULT RATE AND REPAIR TIME DATA [17]
Fault rate Repair Time
Component kV
(Fault/year) (hours/fault)
Overhead Line
0.4 0.168 5.7
(per km)
Transformer 0.4 0.002 5
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Interruption at Branch
Based on Fig. 4, illustrates the number of interruptions
when using SMC and NSMC simulation. The interruption
when using SMC is slightly lower than NSMC. This is
because the interruption at the branch for SMC depends on the
TTF since the TTF will calculate at which time should the
interruption occur, thus when the TTF fulfills the condition
where it should interrupt at that time, then the branch will be
forced to interrupt. Compared to NSMC, the interruption is
based on the comparison of the random number that represents
the variant for the branch with the fault rate for the branch. If
the variant is larger than the fault rate, then the component will B. Interruption at Bus
be in on state, however, if it is below the targeted fault rate,
then the branch will be considered in the off state. As shown NSMC SMC
in Fig. 4, the number of interruptions at Branch H, I, and J are 500
the lowest among the other branches. That is because, the fault

Total number of
400

Interruption
rate for Branch H, I, and J are small which is 0.002, hence, it
was estimated to experience interruption only 2 interruptions 300
within 1000 years. 200

100
SMC NSMC
600
Number of Interrruption

0
500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
400 Number of Interruption
300 Fig. 5. Interruption by Year at the Component
200
100 Based on Fig. 5, the number of interruptions by year at the
component for SMC and NSMC illustrated in this figure.
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T From the figure, the NSMC had the highest number of
Number of Branch interruption occurred at one time. For the NSMC, the highest
Fig. 4. Interruption at the Branch after Simulation number of interruption that occurs at the same time is 20
which all the branch interrupts. While for SMC, the highest
TABLE II. INTERRUPTED BRANCH AFTER SIMULATION DEPENDS ON interruption that occurs at the same time is only 11
THE LENGTH interruptions, which means only half of the components will
be interrupted. Thus that explains why the interruption occurs
Number of simulated
Length Fault Rate, λ
interruption at the branch
at each bus when using NSMC. Compared to SMC, there are
Branch
(km) (fault/year) a few buses that did not experience any interruption that is
SMC NSMC
because most of the interruptions at the component for SMC
C 2.5 0.420 267 427
is occurred not more than 11 interruptions at the same time.
D 3.0 0.504 308 499
E 0.7 0.118 119 129 SMC NSMC
F 2.0 0.336 238 342 400
Number of Interruption

M 1.6 0.269 209 266 350

N 2.3 0.386
Based on TABLE II. below, shows that the length of the
branch does affect the number of interruptions at the branch,
this is because the components that are connected with these
branches are the overhead lines. Hence, it can be concluded
that if the length of the overhead line exceeds 1.2 km, then the
interruption of the branch will able to reach 200 interruptions
and more. Compare to Branch E (italic) from TABLE II. , the
length of Branch E is less than 1.2 km, thus the number of
interruptions will not reach 200 interruptions. This is because
the length of the branch will affect the value of the fault rate.
Thus, the longer the branch, the bigger the value for the fault
rate will be, then the higher the chances for the interruption to
occur.
TABLE III. THE NUMBER OF INTERRUPTION AT THE TRANSFORMER
Number of interruption at the
Fault Rate, λ
Branch
(fault/year)
SMC
H 0.002
I 0.002
J 0.002
Compare to Error! Reference source not found., the
length of the branch did not exist because the component that
attaches to these branches is the transformer. The fault rate for
the transformer is fixed, which is 0.002, thus within 1000
years, the expected interruption should be around 2 only.
Hence that is explained why the interruption at Branch H, I,
and J less than compared to the interruption in Error!
Reference source not found..
259 397 300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Buses
Fig. 6. Interruption at the Bus
As illustrates in Fig. 6, it shows the number of
interruptions at buses. These interruptions occur due to the
interruption at the branch. From Fig. 5, the interruption of
buses when using SMC methods is lower compared to when
using the NSMC method. This is because the interruption at
the branch for SMC is lower than the interruption at the branch
when using NSMC as shown in Error! Reference source not
branch found.. While for the NSMC, each bus experienced
interruptions. That is because the interruption that occurs at
NSMC
2 1
the branch is high, thus the possibility for the bus to interrupt
2 1 also high. The main reason why the SMC has a lower number
2 1 of interruptions is that the simulation for SMC tries to
minimize the number of simulations by avoiding the branch to
interrupt simultaneously at the same time. Thus, that
explained why the interruption for SMC lower than NSMC.
Since NSMC was not able to avoid the simultaneous
interruption, resulting interruptions occur at each bus.
Other than that, the reasons why Bus 3 and Bus 8
experienced a lot of interruption is because the branch that
connected with both buses is experienced a lot of interruption,
due to the length of the branches longer, compared to other

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
buses, refer Error! Reference source not found.. The NSMC for particular buses. There are a hugely different
uninterrupted buses, such as Bus 2, 4, and a few more (refer number of interruption at the bus for both methods. For Bus 2,
Error! Reference source not found.), did not experience the interruption is none when using SMC, while when using
any interruption because the branches that connected with the NSMC the interruption is 129, this can be concluded that the
buses did not interrupt simultaneously at one time. Thus that interruption at a branch using NSMC is interrupted at the same
explained why the interruption did not occur on the bus. Stated moment, or in other words, there are 129 times where the
in Error! Reference source not found. below are the interruption occurs simultaneously compared to SMC, where
uninterrupted buses with their reasons. the interruption did not interrupt simultaneously, hence it can
avoid the interruption occur at the bus. When using SMC, it
TABLE IV. UNINTERRUPTED BUS USING SMC tries to minimize the interruption, since the number of
Bus Reasons
possibilities to interrupt small, thus the possibilities to
interrupt at the same time also become lower.
1 Presents of generator
The branch that connected with Bus 2 did not interrupt
TABLE V. DIFFERENT NUMBER OF INTERRUPTION USING SMC AND
2 simultaneously at each time. Resulting, no interruption at NSMC SIMULATION.
Bus 2
4 The fault rate for the transformer that is connected to these Total Interruption Total Interruption
5 buses is small, which is 0.002. Hence, the occurred (SMC) (NSMC)
interruption also small, thus, most of the time the Bus Branch
6 transformer is functioning very well. In conclusion when
7 Branch Bus Branch Bus
other branches at fault the transformers still operating to
9 give supply to the connected buses. A 203 251
C 267 427
2 0 129
Based on Fig. 6, it shows the highest interruption goes to D 308 499
Bus 3 and Bus 8 for both methods. Thus, display in Error! E 267 129
Reference source not found., the branches that connected I 2 1
with both buses. From the table below, the NSMC methods O 83 81
recorded the highest interruption, while SMC is less than the 9 0 81
P 112 119
NSMC in between 100 to 200. Q 155 154
Error! Reference source not found. is illustrated in Fig. J 2 1
3. From the figure, it shows that Bus 3 (green circle) were K 101 108
6 0 1
connected with Branch C (from Bus 2) and Branch F (from L 189 229
Bus 4). To interrupt Bus 3, both branches need to be at fault. M 209 266
From the table, when Bus 3 simulate using SMC, the number C 267 427
of interruption at the bus is only 194, however, the interruption 3 194 342
F 238 342
for both branches is quite high which are 267 for Branch C
8 N 256 256 397 397
and 238 for Branch F. At here, it can be concluded that, from
267 and 238, only 194 times the interruption at the branch
occur at the same time, resulting only 194 interruptions at the The same goes for other buses, when the interruption at the
bus. While the rest of the time, the interruption occurs at bus is none for SMC, while for NSMC there is an interruption
different times. For the NSCM method, Branch C experienced since NSMC not able to avoid the simultaneous interruption
427 times of interruption and Branch F experienced 342 for the branch resulting in interruption at each bus. Thus at
interruptions. Resulting from the Bus 3, interrupt 342 times of here, it can be assured that the SMC method is way better than
interruption. From the result, it can be concluded that the the NSMC method. As for Bus 5 and Bus 6, the interruption
interruption for both branches interrupt simultaneously for at bus using NSMC is only one within 1000 times. That is
342 times, while the rest 85 times, the interruption only occur because, there is an interruption that occurs at all branches at
at Branch C. This is due to the fault rate for Branch 3 is bigger the same moment, and this one-time interruption occurs when
than Branch F. For the rest of 85 times when the interruption the transformer (Branch J) also in a faulty condition. On the
occurs at Branch 3, Branch F will keep on give power supply other time, the interruption at the bus did not occur because
to Bus 3. the transformer was able to receive supplies from other buses
and give it to Bus 5 and Bus 6.
For Bus 8 (blue circle), the number of interruptions at the
branch and the bus is the same when using both methods. That C. Reliability Indices
is because, Bus 8 has only one branch that is connected with Shown in Fig. 8 is the reliability indices when using both
the bus, compared to Bus 3, where it has 2 branches that are methods. From the figure, the reliability indices for SMC is
connected with the bus. Since the branch that is connected smaller than the NSMC. This because the reliability indices
with the Bus 8 is only one, thus when the interruption occurs are reflected from the interruption on the bus. When the
at the branch, the bus also will be interrupted, given that only interruption at the bus is smaller, then the reliability indices
one branch that connected with the bus. The difference for also will be smaller. Noted that, the smaller the reliability
both methods is just the number of interruption, the number of indices, the better the system will be. Same goes for this
interruption when using SMC is lower than NSMC, because situation, the smaller the reliability indices for that method,
of the time involved in SMC. The SMC methods try to reduce the better the method will be. The reason why the SMC is
the number of interruptions as minimum as possible, smaller because the SMC is a time-based simulation. For the
compared to the NSMC method. SAIFI, the SMC is less than the NSMC, since the interruption
occurs at the bus is less than compared to the NSMC. While
Also present in Error! Reference source not found. is for SAIDI, it also reflects from the interruption on the bus. If
the different number of interruptions when using SMC and

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the interruption at the bus is smaller, the time taken to repair However, when the interruption is zero, like SMC methods,
the interruption is not much. Compared to the situation where the time needed also zero. From Fig. 8, SMC has the lowest
the interruption occurs on a huge scale, then the time that will number of interruptions which is zero, and it was the highest
be needed also longer. While for CAIDI, if the more the time PDF which is 0.5%. This means that there are 7 buses that
needed to repair the interruption then CAIDI also will be uninterrupted, and the time need to repair is none. The other 7
increased based on the time needed. buses needed different total repair time since the total number
of interruption at the bus is different.
SAIFI PDF
SMC (0.0496) NSMC (0.1131) For NSMC, since the interruption occurs at each bus, thus,
0.6 0.25 each bus required repair time. The more of the interruption
0.5 then the more total duration time needed to repair the bus. For
0.2
0.4
the spike at NSMC, there are 6 buses with each two of the
PDF (%)

0.15 buses has the same number of interruption, which are, Bus 9
0.3
0.1 and Bus 10 (47 interruptions), Bus 12 and Bus 13 (117
0.2 interruptions), and Bus 7 and Bus 9 (81 interruptions). All
0.1 0.05 these buses needed their own repair time, thus when the
0 0 interruption is numerous such as Bus 12 and Bus 13, the time
0

0.001

0.047

0.081

0.117

0.129

0.142

0.342

0.397
needed also longer. Compared to Bus 9 and Bus 10, the time
needed is small. Thus that explained why there are spikes at
Relibility Indices NSMC.
Fig. 7. PDF SAIFI CAIDI PDF
SMC (2.85) NSMC (5.1429)
Illustrate in Fig. 7 is the probability distribution function 0.6 0.8
(PDF) for the SAIFI. Most of the reliability indices for the 0.7
SMC is lowered compared to the NSMC since these reading 0.6
0.4
PDF (%)
0.5
are the reflection from the interruption at the bus. Thus when
0.4
the interruption at the bus low, then the reading for the
0.2 0.3
reliability indices also becomes low. Noted that, the lowered 0.2
the value for the reliability indices, the reliable the network. 0.1
From the graph, 50% of the SMC did not experience any 0 0
interruption, while the rest of the 50% of the buses were 0 5 5.7
affected by the interruption at the branch with each of the Reliability Indices
buses has a different number of interruptions. Which means,
most of the bus remains uninterrupted even there are Fig. 9. PDF CAIDI
interrupted branch. The highest interruption at the SMC was
0.256 and has only 1 possibility to occur. From Fig. 9, it illustrates the PDF for CAIDI. For SMC,
there are half of the buses did not interrupt (zero interruption),
From the NSMC, 0.081 has 3 times the possibility of thus not required any repair time. However, the rest of the bus
occurrence on the bus, and specifically, it happened at Bus 4, required 5.7 hours to repair each interruption. The 5 hours
Bus 7, and Bus 9. These three buses were connected with were not being used because this repair time was only
transformers at each bus (refer to Fig. 3). Thus, the designed for the transformers, and the bus that connected with
interruption at these buses is only 81 occurrences during the the transformers were not interrupted thus no time was needed
simulation because of the presence of the transformer at the to repair the fault.
branches.
Compared to NSMC, there is only one uninterrupted bus,
SAIDI PDF which is Bus 1 where the generator is located. Thus only Bus
SMC (0.2826) NSMC (0.6364) 1 did not need repair time. While the rest 13 buses required
0.6 0.2
repair time because of the interruption occurred. Since the 5
hours are only designed for the bus that connected with the
0.5
0.15 transformers, thus only 3 buses that connected with the
PDF (%)

0.4 transformers need the repair time. The rest 11 buses required
0.3 0.1 5.7 hours to repair the fault at the bus that connected with the
0.2 overhead line.
0.05
0.1
0 0
V. CONCLUSION
0

0.005

0.006

0.268

0.405

0.462

0.667

0.735

0.809

1.949

2.263

From the above discussion, it shows that the SMC is more

efficient compared to NSMC. It is because the SMC is close
Reliability Indices to accurate in evaluating the reliability of the distribution
system. The SMC is a time-based simulation that included
Fig. 8. PDF SAIDI
time as the input for the simulation. Hence because of the time
Fig. 8 shows the PDF for SAIDI. The SAIDI only exists being takes into account, the created interruption at the
when the interruption occurred. Since, when an interruption simulation is not too severe, which is the interruption can
occurs, a time will be needed to recover the system. Thus achieve only 11 interruptions of the component at the same
SAIDI represents the time needed for the interruption. The time. Thus, when the interruption of the branch not too severe
time will be longer when the interruption occurs is a lot. than, the interruption at the buses also able to be minimized.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Compared to NSMC, there is no time included in the Reliability Evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
simulation thus, the interruptions were created based on the 1064–1072, 2017.
generated random numbers that are measured with the fault [13] H. Lei and C. Singh, “Non-Sequential Monte Carlo Simulation for
Cyber-Induced Dependent Failures in Composite Power System
rates as the benchmark. Hence resulting in the interruption at Reliability Evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
the branch able to reach until 20 interruptions in one time. 1064–1072, 2017.
Since the interruption at the component is severe, thus it [14] A. Tang, C. Li, and J. Zhu, “Reliability evaluation of distribution
affected the performance of the buses, since the buses attached network based on improved non sequential Monte Carlo method,” no.
to the components (overhead lines and transformers). Because Icmra, pp. 535–540, 2015.
of the interruption at the bus severe thus the time needed to [15] C. L. T. Borges and J. A. S. Dias, “A Model to Represent Correlated
repair the interruption also becomes longer. Compared to Time Series in Reliability Evaluation by Non-Sequential Monte Carlo
Simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1511–1519,
SMC, the interruption is not many, thus the time needed to 2017.
repair is small.
[16] N. A. Shalash, “Fuzzy-Based Multi-Agent Approach for Reliability
Hence, it proves that the SMC method is more convenient Assessment and Improvement of Power System Protection,” 2015.
compared to NSMC. Since the SMC creates less interruption [17] M. I. Muhammad Ridzuan, “Reliability Assessment of Distribution
compared to NSMC due to its method that included time in Networks Incorporating Regulator Requirements , Generic Network
Equivalents and Smart Grid Functionalities,” in Reliability
the simulation. For future direction, these methods can be Assessment of Distribution Networks Incorporating Regulator
improvised by adding variance reduction technique (VRT) Requirements , Generic Network Equivalents and Smart Grid
elements to improve the convergence of the simulation. And Functionalities, 2017, pp. 141–142.
this method able to evaluate any complex network with
numerous buses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is supported by the Ministry of Education
(FRGS/1/2018/TK04/UMP/02/16) and University Malaysia
Pahang under grant number RDU190186. The authors would
also like to thank the Department of Electrical Engineering
University Malaysia Pahang for providing facilities to
conduct this research and financial support throughout the
process.
REFERENCES
[1] N. F. M. Fauzi, N. N. R. Roslan, and M. I. M. Ridzuan, “Low voltage
reliability equivalent using monte-carlo simulation technique,” {IOP}
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 863, p. 012042, 2020.
[2] B. Cai et al., “Application of Bayesian Networks in Reliability
Evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. INFORMATICS, vol. 15, no. 4, pp.
2146–2157, 2019.
[3] X. Song, Z. Zhai, Y. Liu, and J. Han, “A stochastic approach for the
reliability evaluation of multi-state systems with dependent
components,” vol. 170, no. October 2017, pp. 257–266, 2018.
[4] A. Su and M. Fan, “The reliability analysis of distribution system based
on Dynamic Bayesian Network,” no. Ciced, pp. 5–6, 2012.
[5] S. Rebello, H. Yu, and L. Ma, “An integrated approach for system
functional reliability assessment using Dynamic Bayesian Network and
Hidden Markov Model,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 180, no. January,
pp. 124–135, 2018.
[6] A. S. N. Huda and R. Zivanovic, “Distribution System Reliability
Assessment Using Sequential Multilevel Monte Carlo Method,” 2016
IEEE Innov. Smart Grid Technol. - Asia Melbourne, Aust., pp. 1–6,
2016.
[7] T. K. Vrana and E. Johansson, “Overview of Analytical Power System
Reliability Assessment Techniques,” no. August, 2015.
[8] M. Aien, A. Hajebrahimi, and M. F. Fellow, “A comprehensive review
on uncertainty modeling techniques in power system studies,” Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 57, pp. 1077–1089, 2016.
[9] Z. Li, S. Member, W. Wu, S. Member, and B. Zhang, “Complex
Distribution Networks Considering Post-Fault Network
Reconfiguration,” vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1457–1467, 2020.
[10] W. An et al., “Reliability Evaluation and Comparison for Different
Topologies of VSC-HVDC Distribution Networks Using Analytical
and Simulation Methods,” 12th IET Int. Conf. AC DC Power Transm.
(ACDC 2016), 2016.
[11] X. G. Chen, “A novel reliability estimation method of complex
network based on Monte Carlo,” Cluster Comput., vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
1063–1073, 2017.
[12] H. Lei and C. Singh, “Non-Sequential Monte Carlo Simulation for
Cyber-Induced Dependent Failures in Composite Power System

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 06:31:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.