You are on page 1of 85

Objective : to determine the required amount of system

generating capacity to ensure an adequate supply.

1. Static Capacity Requirement :
Long-term evaluation of the overall system requirement.
Practice : Percentage Reserve method. Issue : comparison
Probabilistic approaches.
2. Operating Capacity Requirement
Short term evaluation of the actual capacity required to
meet a given load.
Fundamental difference: Time period

Generation System Adequacy Evaluation
Generation System Adequacy Evaluation






The Generation and Load models are
combined to form Risk model
Binomial Distribution
P(H) + P(T) = [P(H) + P(T)]
1
P(H).P(H) + 2P(H).P(T) + P(T).P(T)
= P
2
(H) + 2P.(H)P(T) + P
2
(T) = [P(H) + P(T)]
2


P
3
(H) + 3P
2
(H)P(T) + 3P(H)P
2
(T) + P
3
(T)
= [P(H) + P(T)]
3
Ex. Consider a system with 4 components. The
components are identical with a success
probability of 0.9 and a failure probability of 0.1
Obtain the various states in which the components
can exist.
• Since there are 4 components and each one of
them is either available OR unavailable, the
total number of states is
• All components working
• 1 component failed
• 2 components failed
• 3 components failed
• All components failed


• (S+F)
4
= S
4
+4S
3
F+6S
2
F
2
+4SF
3
+F
4

System state Individual Probability
All components working 0.94 = 0.6561
1 component failed 4X0.93X0.1 = 0.2961
2 components failed 6X0.92X0.12 = 0.0486
3 components failed 4X0.9X0.13 =0.0036
All components failed 0.14 = 0.0001
1.0000
• If at least three components are required for
success then
• Success Probability OR Reliability R
• R = 0.6561 + 0.2916 = 0.9477
• Failure probability of the system Q
• Q = 0.0486 + 0.0036 + 0.0001 = 0.0523 = 1 – R
Capacity Outage Probability Table
• An array of capacity levels and the associated probabilities of
existence.
• Ex. A small generating plant is o be designed to satisfy a
constant 10 MW load. Four alternatives are under
consideration as shown below. Obtain the capacity outage
probability table. Assume that the probability of a unit failing
is the same for all the units and is equal to 0.02
Alternative Capacity
A 1 X 10 MW
B 2 X 10 MW
C 3 X 5 MW
D 4 X 10/3 MW
FOR = 0.02
Availability = 0.98
Binomial function = (S + F)
2

Case Units out Capacity Individual
Probability
Out available
A 1 X 10 MW
0 0 10 0.98
1 0.02
B 2 X 10 MW
0 0 20 0.9604
1 10 10 0.0392
2 20 0 0.0004
C 3 X 5 MW
0 0 15 0.941192
1 5 10 0.057624
2 10 5 0.001176
3 15 0 0.000008
D 4 X 10/3 MW
0 0 40/3 0.92236816
1 10/3 10 0.07529536
2 20/3 20/3 0.00230496
3 10 10/3 0.00003136
4 40/3 0 0.00000016








• Expected Load Loss

Case Capacity Out
(MW)
Probability

Load loss
(MW)

Expected Load Loss
(MW)
A 1 X 10 MW
0 0.98 0 ---
10 0.02 10 0.2 0.2 MW
B 2 X 10 MW
0 0.9604 0 ---
10 0.0392 0 ---
20 0.0004 10 0.004 0.004 MW
C 3 X 5 MW
0 0.941192 0 ----
5 0.057524 0 -----
10 0.001176 5 0.00588
15 0.000008 10 0.00008 0.00596
MW
D 4 X 10/3 MW
0 0.92236816 0 ------
10/3 0.07529536 0 ------
20/3 0.00230496 10/3 0.00768320
10 0.00003136 20/3 0.00020907
40/3 0.00000016 10 0.00000160 0.0078938
7 MW
• Let the cost per 10 MW unit be 1 unit. The
investment cost for the alternatives is
• Investment cost of plant



• Expected Load curtailment





System Expected Load Loss (MW) Investment cost p.u.
1 X 10 MW 0.2 1.0
2 X 10 MW 0.004 2.0
3 X 5 MW 0.00596 1.5
4 X 10/3 MW 0.00789387 1.33
System Probability of loss
of load
Expected load
curtailment hr/yr
1 X 10 MW 0.02 175.2
2 X 10 MW 0.0004 3.504
3 X 5 MW 0.001184 10.37814
4 X 10/3 MW 0.00233648 20.46756
• Effect of unavailability

System 1X10 MW 2X10 MW 3X5 MW 4X10/3 MW
Unavailabili
ty %
Expected Load loss, MW
2 0.2 0.004 0.00596 0.00789387
4 0.4 0.016 0.02368 0.03112407
6 0.6 0.036 0.05292 0.06909417
• Ex. A system consists of three 20 MW units
with a FOR of 4%. Obtain the capacity outage
probability table. (COPT). If a 4
th
unit of 40
MW with an FOR of 4%, is added to the
system, obtain the COPT on a 100 MW
installed capacity.
• Table A




• Table B


Sl. No Capacity
Available
Capacity out Probability
1 60 0 0.884736
2 40 20 0.110592
3 20 40 0.004608
4 0 60 0.000064
Sl No Capacity
available
Capacity out Probability
1 40 0 0.96
2 0 40 0.04
• Table C

State Capacity
available
Capacity
out
How
obtained
Probability
a 100 0 1(a),1(b) 0.8493465
b 60 40 1(A), 2(B) 0.0353894
c 80 20 2(A), 1(B) 0.1061683
d 40 60 2(A), 2(B) 0.0044236
e 60 40 3(A), 1(B) 0.0044236
f 20 80 3(A),2(B) 0.0001843
g 40 60 4(A),1(B) 0.0000614
h 0 100 4(A), 2(B) 0.0000025
• Table D

State Capacity
availabl
e
Capoacit
y out
How
obtain
ed
Probability
(state)
Cumulativ
e
probability
i 100 0 a 0.8493465 1.00
ii 80 20 c 0.10616863 0.1506534
iii 60 40 b+e 0.039813 0.0444851
iv 40 60 d+g 0.004485 0.004672
v 20 80 f 0.0001843 0.0001868
vi 0 100 h 0.0000025 0.0000025
• Ex. A system consists of two 3 MW units with
a FOR of 2%. Obtain the capacity outage
probability table. (COPT). If a 3
rd
unit of 5 MW
with an FOR of 2%, is added to the system,
obtain the COPT.
• Also obtain the COPT in the increments of 5
MW
• Table 1. COPT for two units



• Table 2. COPT with 5 MW unit in service

Capacity Out Probability
0 0.9604
3 0.0392
6 0.0004
Capacity Out Probability
0+0 = 0 MW (0.9604) X (0.98) = 0.941192
3 + 0 = 3 MW (0.0392) X (0.98) = 0.038416
6 + 0 = 6 MW (0.0004) X (0.98) = 0.000392

= 0.980000
• Table 3. COPT with 5 MW out of service



• Table 4. COPT with all the units
Capacity Out Probability
0+5 = 5MW (0.9604) X (0.02) = 0.019208
3 + 5 = 8 MW (0.0392) X (0.02) = 0.000784
6 + 5 = 11 MW (0.0004) X (0.02) = 0.000008
= 0.020000
Capacity Out Probability Cumulative Probability
0 0.941192 1.000000
3 0.038416 0.058808
5 0.019208 0.020392
6 0.000392 0.001184
8 0.000784 0.000792
11 0.000008 0.000008
• Table 5. Rounded table






Capacity Out Probability
0 0.9565584
5 0.0428848
10 0.0005552
15 0.0000016
• Comparison of percentage reserve margin and
largest unit reserve criteria
• —system 1, 24 x 10 MW units each having a FOR of 0.01
• —system 2. 12 x 20 MW units each having a FOR of 0.01
• —system 3, 12 x 20 MW units each having a FOR of 0.03
• —system 4,22 x 10 MW units each having a FOR of 0.01


Loss of Load Indices
• The generation system model is convolved
with an appropriate load model to produce a
system risk index. The risk indices depends
upon the nature of load model.
• Sample types of load models
– Daily peak load variation curve.
• Each day is represented by its daily peak load.
• Individual peak loads arranged in descending manner
forming a cumulative model – daily peak load variation
curve.

– Load duration curve.
• Individual hourly loads are used.
• Area under the curve represents the energy required in
the given period.
Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE)
• The expected number of days in the specified
period in which the daily peak load will exceed
the available capacity.
• Capacity Outage – loss of generation which may or may not
result in a loss of load. This depends on the generating
capacity reserve margin.
• Loss of load – occur only when the capability of the
generating capacity remaining in service is exceeded by the
system load.
• The applicable system capacity outage probability
table is combined with the system load
characteristics to give an expected risk of loss of
load.



• Where
– C
i
= available capacity on day I
– L
I
= forecast peak load on day I
– P
i
(C
i
– L
i
) = probability of loss of load on day i.
( obtained from the capacity outage cumulative probability table)

• Ex. A system consists of two units of 25 MW each and one unit of 50
MW with a FOR 0.02. Obtain LOLE with the load data given in table 1
below.
Capacity Out Cumulative Probability
0 1.000000
25 0.058808
50 0.020392
75 0.000792
100 0.000008
Table 2
• LOLE from daily peak load variation curve.








• Q
k
- magnitude of kth outage in the system COPT
• t
k
– number of time units in the study interval that an outage of magnitude Q
k
would result in a loss of load.
• The load model is a represented by a continuous curve for 365 days.







P
k
– cumulative outage probability for capacity
state Q
k
• Ex. Consider a system containing five 40 MW units each with a FOR of 0.01. the
COPT for the system is given in the table 3. The system load model is represented
by the daily peak load variation curve shown in the figure. Obtain LOLE if the
forecast peak load is 160 MW
• 100 % means 365 days on the x - axis and 160 MW on the
y - axis.

LOLE using individual probability
The LOLE is 0.0412413 % of the time base
unit. With 365 days year, the LOLE will be
0.150410 days.
LOLE using Cumulative Probability
Capacity out Capacity In Cumulative
Probability
Time interval
T
k
LOLE
0 200 1.000000 0 ----------
40 160 0.049009 0 ----------
80 120 0.000980 41.7 0.0408660
120 80 0.000009 41.7 0.0003753
0.0412413 %
Table 4. The LOLE obtained is identical to the value obtained with
the value obtained with individual probability.
Examples
• A power system contains the following generating capacity.
• 3 X 40 MW hydro units FOR = 0.005
• 1 X 50 MW thermal units FOR = 0.02
• 1 X 60 MW thermal unit FOR = 0.02
• The annual daily peak load variation curve is given by a
straight line from the 100 % to the 40% point. Calculate the
loss of load expectation for the following peak load values.
a. 150 MW
b. 160 MW
c. 170 MW
d. 180 MW
e. 190 MW
f. 200 MW.
Table 5. Variation in risk as a function of peak load
Sensitivity Studies
Fig 1. Variation in risk with system peak load, drawn on a semi log sheet
Table 6 . Effect of FOR and System Peak Load
• The system used is very small hence the effect of
generating unit unavailability is quite
pronounced. The effect for a big system with
large units having high FORs is shown in the fig. 2
• The total installed capacity of the system is 10100
MW
• The largest units have 300 MW and 500 MW
capacity with FOR varying from 4 % to 13%.
• The risk profile is almost a straight line.
• This is because, a large system with a wide range
of unit sizes has a more continuous COPT
resulting in a smoother risk profile.


• Fig 2. LOLE as a function of FOR
• The system peak load carrying capability (PLCC)
• The PLCC at a risk level of 0.1 day/year is 9006 MW for FOR of 0.04. Table
7 shows the change in PLCC for FOR values from 0.04 to 0.13. the decrease
in PLCC is 815 MW.

FOR % PLCC (MW) Difference (MW) Cumulative difference MW
4 9006 ------ ------
5 8895 111 111
6 8793 102 213
7 8693 100 313
8 8602 91 404
9 8513 89 493
10 8427 86 579
11 8345 82 661
12 8267 78 739
13 8191 76 815
Table 7 . Changes in PLCC
• If the forecast peak load is 9000 MW and the
FOR of the large units are 0.13, an additional
capacity of approximately 1000 MW has to be
installed.
• The investment has to be therefore increased
to meet the new demand.
• This clearly shows the consequences of the
unit unavailability in terms of additional
capacity.

Capacity Expansion Analysis
• Time required for designing, construct and commissioning a
large power station takes normally 5 – 10 years.
• Consider a plant with five 40 MW units whose COPT is shown
in table 8

Table 8
• It is decided to add additional 50 MW units
with FOR 0.01, to meet a projected load
growth of 10 %.
• The question- In what years must the units be
committed in order to meet the accepted
system risk level?
• Table 9 shows the change in risk level for with
the sequential addition of 50 MW units.
Table 9. The change in risk level with sequential addition of 50 MW units
System Peak
Load (MW)
LOLE (days/year)
200 MW 250 MW 300 MW 350 MW
100 0.001210 ---- ---- ----
120 0.002005 ---- ---- ----
140 0.08686 0.001301 ---- ----
160 0.1506 0.002625 ---- ----
180 3.447 0.06858 ---- ----
200 6.083 0.1505 0.002996 ----
220 ---- 2.058 0.03615 ----
240 ---- 4.853 0.1361 0.002980
250 ---- 6.083 0.1800 0.004034
260 ---- ---- 0.6610 0.01175
280 ---- ---- 3.566 0.1075
300 ---- ---- 6.082 0.2904
320 ---- ---- ---- 2.248
340 ---- ---- ---- 4.880
350 ---- ---- ---- 6.083
Year number Forecast peak load (MW)
1 160
2 176
3 193.6
4 213.0
5 234.3
6 257.5
7 283.1
8 311.4
Table 10. Load growth at 10 %
Fig 3. Variation in risk with unit additions.
• If it is accepted that an installed capacity of
200 MW is adequate for a system peak load of
160 MW, the risk criterion is 0.15 days/year.
• Choosing this risk criterion, the timing of unit
additions can be obtained.
• The actual choice of the risk value is a
management decision.
• In the present case, 50 MW additions can be
made in the years 2,4 and 6
• The expansion is shown in the table 11.
Table 11. Generation expansion results
Year Unit added (MW) System capacity
(MW)
Peak Load
(MW)
LOLE
(days/year)
1 ----- 200 160 0.15
2 ----- 200 176 2.9
50 250 176 0.058
3 ----- 250 193.6 0.11
4 ----- 250 213 0.73
50 300 213 0.011
5 ----- 300 234.3 0.11
6 ----- 300 257.4 0.55
50 350 257.4 0.009
7 ----- 350 283.1 0.125
8 ----- 350 311.4 0.96
Perturbation Effects
• Large units have relatively low cost per KW installed.
• Large units have better heat rates than the smaller units.
• However, the impact on the system reliability by adding a
large unit should be considered when carrying out economic
evaluation of alternate sizes.
• This effect is considered in Increased Peak Load Carrying
Capacity due to unit additions. (IPLCC)

• The IPLCC values with each 50 MW unit at a system risk level
of 0.1 is shown in table 12.

Table 12. IPLCC for five unit system.
System Capacity
(MW)
Available peak load
(MW)
Increase in PLCC (MW)
Individual Cumulative
200 144 0 0
250 186 42 42
300 232 46 88
350 279 47 135
• Consider a large system with 20 – 10 MW
units. The total installed capacity = 200 MW
• With the criterion of loss of largest unit , this
system can carry a 190 peak load.
• The initial load carrying capability is different
than the 5 unit system
• The addition of each 50 MW unit has a
different IPLCC
• Initial PLCC penalty

Table 13. IPLCC for 20 unit system.
System Capacity
(MW)
Available peak load
(MW)

Increase in PLCC (MW)

Individual Cumulative
200 184 0 0
250 202 18 18
300 250 48 66
350 298 48 114
Scheduled Outages
• If the units are removed from the service for periodic
inspection/maintenance, the capacity available
during this period is not the same as that during the
other period.
• Hence a single COPT is not applicable.
• The year is divided into several periods and the LOLE
is calculated for each period.
• The annual risk index is obtained as

• Modified capacity model is obtained by creating new
COPT for each capacity condition.



• If a new unit is added to the system, the same can be
added to the capacity model also.
• If the actual in-service date of the new unit is
uncertain, it can be represented by a probability
distribution function and LOLE is obtained as


Alternate method

Another alternate method

• Most realistic approach is to obtain the COPT by considering the
units actually available in a given period.
• Other methods give a higher risk value which increases with
increased maintenance capacity.

• Maintenance Scheduling.

• While scheduling the maintenance, the important point to be
considered is that, “the reliability of a system becomes poorer if a
unit with low FOR is removed from service”.
• Approaches for maintenance scheduling:
1. To reduce the total installed capacity by the expected capacity loss
rather than by the actual unit capacity and then schedule
maintenance on a constant reserve base.
2. Determine the decrease of PLCC at the appropriate risk level for
each individual unit on maintenance and then using these values,
schedule is prepared on a constant reserve basis.

Evaluation methods on period basis.
• Annual risk index can be obtained by using any of the three
methods
1. Monthly (or period) basis considering maintenance
2. Annual basis neglecting maintenance
3. Worst period basis.
• Monthly approach :
• Constant capacity for the period is assumed.
• Appropriate COPT is combined with the load model.
• The annual risk is the sum of the 12 monthly risks.
• If the capacity on maintenance is not constant during the month,
the month is divided into several intervals during which the
capacity is constant.
• The COPT, modified by removing the units on maintenance for
each separate interval, is combined with monthly peak and load
characteristic using the interval as its time base.

• Annual approach neglecting maintenance:
• The annual forecast peak load and the system
load characteristics are combined with the
system COPT.
• Basic assumption: a constant capacity exists for
the entire period.
• Justification:
– The year can be divided into a peak load season and a
light load season.
– The planned maintenance can be scheduled entirely
during the light load season.
– The contribution of light load season to the annual
risk is quite low and hence a constant capacity can be
assumed.
• Worst Period Basis:
• The load level in a particular season or month
may be so high that the same may dominate
the annual figure.
• The risk value for that month is calculated.
• The annual risk level is obtained by
multiplying this risk value by 12.
• Usually the worst period is December.
• 12 December Basis.
Load Forecast Uncertainty
• Assumption that the actual peak load will
differ from the forecast peak load with zero
probability, is extremely unlikely to happen in
the actual practice, as the forecast is actually
predicted on past experience.
• Method 1: This uncertainty can be described
by a probability distribution, whose
parameters can be determined from past
experience, future load modeling.
• The load forecast probability is divided into
several class intervals.
• LOLE is computed for each load by multiplying
the class interval and the probability of the load
existing.
• The uncertainty is well described by a normal
distribution.
• The distribution mean is the forecast peak load.
• The distribution is divided into a discrete number
of class intervals.
• The load representing the class interval mid point
is taken as the probability for that class interval.

• Ex. A system consists of twelve 5 MW units,
each with a FOR of 0.01. the forecast peak
load is 50 MW. The COPT can be obtained

• The uncertainty is normally distributed using a
seven step approximation.

• Period = 1 month = 30 days = 720 hours.
• Standard deviation is 2% of the forecast peak
load = 1 MW.
• Monthly load-duration curve is represented by a
straight line .




• The LOLE is obtained as
– Probability of load X LOLE (hours/month for the load)






Method 2
Conditional Load Duration Curves
Modified Load Duration Curve
• LOLE


• In general
• LOLE is affected by
– Generation unit unavailability (FOR)
– Load Forecast uncertainty.
• Hence the calculated value is only approximate.
• The actual distribution of LOLE can be obtained by Monte
Carlo simulation





Loss of Energy Indices
• The area under the load duration curve
represents the energy utilized during the
specified period and can be used to
determine the expected energy not supplied
due to insufficient installed capacity.

• The normalized LOEE is obtained as



• Where E is the total energy under load duration curve.
• The energy index of Reliability EIR is
• EIR = 1 – LOEE
pu

Consider the LDC for a period of 100 hours and the generating unit capacity
shown in the table
The total energy in the period is 4575 MWh.
If there were no units, the Expected Energy Not Supplied
(EENS) is 4575 MWH. If the system contained only unit 1, the
EENS is obtained as
EENS with units 1 & 2
EENS with units 1,2 & 3
The expected energy produced by unit 3 is 401.7 – 64.08 = 337.6 MWh

Summary of EENS
The expected energy not supplied is therefore 64.08
MWh. The energy index of reliability EIR is obtained as
EIR = 1 – (64.08/4575) = 0.985993
• A generating contains three 25 MW
generating units each with a 4 % FOR and one
30 MW unit with 5 % FOR. If the peak load for
a 100 day period is 75 MW, what is the LOLE
and EIR for this period? Assume that
appropriate load characteristics is a straight
line from the 100 % point to 60 % point.