1144

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

Risk Evaluation of Combinative Transmission Network and Substation Congurations and its Application in Substation Planning
Wenyuan Li, Fellow, IEEE, and Jiping Lu
AbstractThis paper proposes a method to perform risk assessment of a combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations. Compared to the traditional approach, in which system risks of transmission networks and substation congurations are separately assessed, the presented method can automatically capture the mutual impacts between the transmission network and substation arrangements. The key of the method is the united load curtailment model for the combinative system. The presented risk evaluation procedure also provides a vehicle to perform the probabilistic economic analysis for system reinforcement schemes. A simple example is offered to demonstrate the risk evaluation of two substation layouts under a transmission network environment and its application to the nancial justication of the ring-bus structure vis--vis the section-bus structure in the given substation. Index TermsComposite system reliability, probabilistic economic analysis, substation planning, substation reliability, system risk assessment.

I. INTRODUCTION

ONSIDERABLE efforts have been devoted to probabilistic risk evaluation of transmission systems and substation congurations in the past decades [1][15]. Substations are the points of energy transfers between generation and transmission or between transmission and distribution. In terms of functional division in utilities, substations are generally portions of a transmission system. Traditionally, however, risk assessment of substation congurations has been performed separately [10], [11]. One of the reasons is due to the fact that transmission networks and substation congurations have different modeling concepts. The power-ow equation constraints have to be modeled in risk assessment of transmission networks, while only connectivity identication is needed in risk evaluation of substation layouts. It has been recognized for a long time that reliability performances of transmission networks and substation congurations are mutually impacted. It is difcult to capture this type of mutual impact using the traditional separate approach. Some efforts were made to consider the effects of substations in composite system risk evaluation through introducing equivalent terminal
Manuscript received June 21, 2004; revised December 2, 2004. Paper no. TPWRS-00329-2004. W. Li is with the System Planning and Performance Assessment, British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Vancouver, BC V7X 1V5 Canada J. Lu is with the College of Electrical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, 40004, China Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846112

failures into the transmission assessment [12][15]. Reference [1, Ch. 6] presented a concept to assess outage probabilities and frequencies of the sets of substation external connections that can be used as input data in transmission risk evaluation. All of the methods developed so far are based on separate models for transmission networks and substation arrangements. This paper proposes a united risk evaluation model for a combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations. In assessing the risk of such a combinative system, mutual impacts between transmission network and substation arrangements can be automatically captured. The presented risk evaluation procedure also provides a vehicle to perform the probabilistic economic analysis for system reinforcement schemes. A simple example is given to demonstrate the application of the method. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the united load curtailment model for a combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations. Section III addresses the risk-evaluation approach, including the component failure modeling, risk-evaluation procedure, and probabilistic economic analysis method. The case study is given in Section IV, with a focus on the risk evaluation of two substation layouts under the transmission network environment and its application to the nancial justication of the ring-bus structure vis--vis the section-bus structure in the given substation. Conclusions are made in Section V. II. LOAD CURTAILMENT MODEL The key to risk evaluation is to assess the load curtailments at load points for each failure state in a combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations. The load curtailment models described in previous papers [1], [4][15] applied to either a transmission network or a substation conguration but not to both. This is partly due to the fact that there is no impedance for breaker branches in the substation conguration, and thus, the breaker branches cannot be incorporated into the Jacobian matrix of power-ow equations. Fig. 1 shows the skeleton of a combinative system, where one substation in the transmission system has a complete layout diagram (the lower portion in the gure), while the others are still simplied using the single buses (the upper portion in the gure). Depending on the purpose of a study, one or several substations can be represented using a detailed conguration. Generally, if the task is to evaluate the risk of a transmission net-

0885-8950/$20.00 2005 IEEE

LI AND LU: RISK EVALUATION OF COMBINATIVE TRANSMISSION NETWORK

1145

subject to

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) where is the power ow on Branch in the transmission network and is positive when it ows into a bus; , , and are the generation injection, real power load, and load curtailment at Bus , respectively; is the element of the relationship matrix between the branch ows and bus power injections in the transmission network; is the power ow on Branch in the substation conguration and is positive when it ows out of a bus; , , , and are the limits of , , and , respectively; is the number of the substation branches that are connected to Bus ; is the number of the transmission branches that are connected to Bus ; , , and are, respectively, the sets of generation buses, load buses, and branches in the transmission network; is the set of branches in the substation conguration; , , , and are, respectively, the sets of buses in the rst, second, third, and fourth category dened earlier; and is the weighting factor reecting the importance of bus loads. The objective of the model is to minimize the total load curtailment while satisfying the power balance, linearized power-ow relationship in the transmission network, Kirchhoff s rst law at each bus in the substation conguration, and all the limits. The generation variables are included in the model for generality. These variables may represent real generators if the whole system is modeled or equivalent generation injections at some buses if a reduced transmission system is considered. In the latter case, the equivalent generation variables should be selected at main substations so that a sufciently large upper limit can be designated. The load curtailment model is a linear programming problem and can be solved using a simplex algorithm. Mathematically, the weighting factor in the model only needs to be selected in terms of relative importance of bus loads. An important bus corresponds to a relatively large value of . In this model, if a branch in the transmission network fails, a zero branch limit is

Fig. 1. Skeleton of a combinative system.

work considering the impact of substation congurations, main substations should be modeled in detail. If the task is to evaluate the risk of a substation conguration with the constraint of transmission network, only the substation conguration under consideration needs a complete representation. In order to incorporate the transmission network and substation congurations into one model, all buses are classied into four categories. The rst one includes the simplied single buses in the transmission network portion, each of which represents a substation. The second one includes the buses to which both transmission lines and substation equipment (breakers or transformers) are connected, such as Buses 13 in the gure. The third one includes the buses inside the substation to which only substation branches (breakers and/or transformers) are connected, such as Buses 46. The fourth one includes the buses to which substation equipment is connected at the one side and a load at the other side, such as Buses 79.

With the bus classication and the expression of power ows on the substation branches, the load curtailment model for the combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations can be formulated as follows: Min (1)

1146

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

applied, and a sufciently large branch reactance value is used in calculating the relationship matrix A for the system failure state. If a branch in the substation conguration fails, only a zero branch limit is applied.

III. RISK EVALUATION APPROACH A. Component Failure Models The components (lines, cables, or transformers) in the transmission network portion are modeled using the two-state (up and down) random variables. Generally, the failures of generators or equivalent generators are not considered since the focus is placed on the risk evaluation of transmission network and substation congurations. Modeling the failures of components in the substation portion requires more sophisticated representations. Both the active and passive failure modes should be considered. An open-circuit failure of substation components can be modeled in the same way as the transmission components. A short-circuit failure on breakers or transformers is represented using the switching model. Fig. 2 shows a united model for both openand are the failure and short-circuit failures [1], [2]. is rates for open- and short-circuit failures, respectively; is the switching rate. For example, if the repair rate; and the breaker B4 in Fig. 1 has a short-circuit fault, B1, B2, and B5 are opened, resulting in the switching state in which B1, B2, B4, and B5 plus the transformers Tx1 and Tx2 are out of service. After B4 is isolated through opening the switches at both of its sides, B1, B2, and B5 are closed again to restore the supply to Tx1 and Tx2, leading to the repairing state with only B4 out. B4 is closed again to get back to the normal state once it is repaired. A bus failure in the substation can be represented using the group outage model, which is dened as the case where several components form a group, and the failure of the trigger component leads to simultaneous outages of other components. For example, the failure of Bus 4 in Fig. 1 causes the simultaneous outage of the bus itself together with the two breakers that are directly connected to it, and these components cannot be recovered to the normal state until Bus 4 is repaired. B. Procedure of Risk Evaluation The procedure of risk evaluation for the combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations includes the following steps. 1) Select a load level in a multiple-level model. 2) Select a system state using the state enumeration or Monte Carlo simulation method. In the selection, the component failure models discussed above are used. 3) Check if there is any load bus in the substation congurations that is disconnected from the system using a direct connectivity identication method. 4) Conduct the contingency analysis for the transmission network portion using the traditional contingency analysis method to examine whether or not there is any system problem [1].
Fig. 2. Three-state model for a breaker or transformer failure.

5) Solve the load curtailment model described inSection II for the selected system state to minimize the total load curtailment while satisfying all of the constraints. 6) Update the risk indices. 7) Repeat Steps 2) to 6) until the convergence rule is met. 8) Go to Step 1) until all the load levels are considered. It is possible to perform simplications in some cases. For example, if the task is the risk evaluation of a substation conguration under the constraint of a transmission network, it is generally unnecessary to include the whole transmission network. Incorporating only the transmission lines around the substation into the model is often good enough. If the task is to conduct the comparison between different substation layouts and the failures of some components in the transmission network are estimated to have the same impact, it is normally acceptable to assume that these components are 100% reliable. In this case, the effect of the transmission network in the evaluation is focused on the constraint due to the power-ow equations but not the transmission component failures. C. Economic Analysis Method In general, risk evaluation is only one portion of the whole system planning process. The comprehensive economic analysis is always crucial in decision making. The benet/cost analysis is the commonly used approach to ranking system reinforcement schemes, which may include additions, replacements, and topology changes. The basic idea is straightforward: System reinforcement such as additional equipment requires the investment cost while it improves system reliability or reduces system risk. The benet/cost analysis includes the following aspects. 1) The cash ow of the annual investment cost is estimated using the capital return factor (CRF) [16], [17] CRF CRF (11) (12)

Here, is the annual equivalent capital, is the actual investment in some year, is the discount rate, and is the economic life (in years) of the investment . 2) The benet is reduction in the risk cost due to system reinforcement. The risk cost refers to the interruption damage cost caused by random system component outages. Conceptually, it equals the product of the unit interruption cost

LI AND LU: RISK EVALUATION OF COMBINATIVE TRANSMISSION NETWORK

1147

(in dollars per Megawatthour) and the risk index expected energy not supplied (EENS), in Megawatts per year. There are different approaches to determining the unit interruption cost. The customer damage function, which is based on customer surveys, is a widely recognized method. The EENS, as a risk index, includes both probabilities and consequences (loads lost) of outage events. The risk cost and, thus, the benet can be evaluated on the yearly basis so that the cash ow of the benet can be created through the annual risk assessment for the years within the planning time frame. 3) The two cash ows of investment cost and benet can be converted to the present values using the formula (13) is the present value, is the annual cost where is the or benet in Year , is the discount rate, and number of years considered in system planning. 4) The benet/cost ratio of reinforcement alternatives is obtained. This is a key index for ranking system reinforcement schemes. IV. CASE STUDY The presented method can be used to conduct the risk assessment of a combinative system containing transmission network and substation congurations and perform comparisons between different transmission networks or substation congurations. This example demonstrates an application indicating risk evaluation of two substation layouts under the transmission network environment; justication of the ring-bus structure vis--vis the section-bus structure in the given substation. The Monte Carlo simulation method is utilized to determine system states in the risk assessment. A. Two Substation Layouts The single line diagrams of the two substation layouts under the same transmission network environment are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The 138-kV transmission network has been reduced in such a way that only the transmission lines around the substation are included, and the two generators in the gures are the equivalent power injections. Note that the breakers on the transmission lines as well as the switches at both sides of each substation breaker or transformer are not shown in the gures. The rst substation conguration is a traditional section-bus design, while the second one is a ring-bus arrangement. Intuitively, the ring-bus structure is more reliable but needs one more breaker compared to the section-bus design. The objective of the study is to quantify the difference in the risk between the two layouts and examine whether or not the additional breaker in the ring-bus structure can be justied. B. Risk Evaluation 1) Study Conditions and Data: Both the transmission network and substation layouts are included in the evaluation. The failures of the components are modeled as follows.

Fig. 3.

Transmission network and a section-bus substation.

Fig. 4. Transmission network and a ring-bus substation.

The failures of the transmission lines are represented using the two-state model (up and down states). The failures of the breakers and transformers are represented using the three-state model shown in Fig. 2. In other words, protection schemes are considered. A protection scheme refers to a protection logic indicating which switching action should take place to respond to the failure of a component. This normally causes temporary outages of some healthy components and/or separation of the faulted component. The failures of all the buses or bus sections in the substation are represented using the group outage model. The two equivalent generators are considered 100% reliable. The data of the transmission lines and substation components are shown in Tables I and II. The bus peak loads in 2002 are

1148

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

TABLE I DATA OF TRANSMISSION LINES

TABLE IV TWELVE -LEVEL LOAD CURVE MODEL

TABLE II DATA OF SUBSTATION COMPONENTS

TABLE V RISK INDICES AT BUSES 11 AND 12

TABLE III BUS PEAK LOADS TABLE VI RISK INDICES AT OTHER BUSES

given in Table III. The failure data are based on historical statistics. The 12-level load curve model in Table IV is obtained from the average chronological hourly load records in the local area. 2) Results: The following three annual risk indices were evaluated: probability of load curtailment (PLC); expected frequency of load curtailment (EFLC) (in failures per year); EENS (in Megawatthours per year). The risk indices of Buses 11 and 12 at the low-voltage side of the substation can be used for the comparison between the two substation layouts and are summarized in Table V. The indices of the other buses in the transmission network portion are given in Table VI. It should be appreciated that the PLC and EFLC indices of the buses cannot be directly summed up since load curtailment events at different buses are not mutually exclusive. The total of the PLC and EFLC indices in Table V is the sum of the indices at Buses 11 and 12 minus the portion contributed by the simultaneous load curtailment events

at the two buses. In this example, the common portion is very small, indicating that the separate load curtailment events at the two buses are dominated. Unlike the PLC and EFLC indices, the EENS indices at the buses can be summed up to obtain the total EENS index. The following observations can be made from the results. Compared to the section-bus layout, the ring-bus layout creates the risk reduction by 24% in the PLC and EENS indices and by 41% in the EFLC index. The substation conguration is the symmetric structure to buses 11 and 12, although the transmission network provides an asymmetric outside environment. The PLC and EFLC indices at the two buses are basically the same.

LI AND LU: RISK EVALUATION OF COMBINATIVE TRANSMISSION NETWORK

1149

TABLE VII ECONOMIC DATA

TABLE VIII EQUIVALENT ANNUAL INVESTMENT, REDUCTION IN THE EENS BENEFIT DUE TO USE OF RING-BUS CONFIGURATION

AND

(11) and (12). The present values (PV, in 2002 dollars) of the equivalent annual investment costs and benets from 2002 to 2011 are calculated using (13) and also shown in the table. The benet/cost ratio of using the ring-bus layout vis--vis . the section-bus conguration is Obviously, the ring-bus conguration can be nancially justied in this case. It is worth noting that if uncertainties of all data are considered, the benet/cost ratio should be a probability distribution instead of a single number. Methodologically, this can be done using Monte Carlo simulation. V. CONCLUSIONS The paper proposes a method to perform risk assessment of a combinative system of transmission network and substation congurations. Compared to the traditional approach, in which system risks of transmission networks and substation congurations are separately assessed, the presented method can automatically capture the mutual impacts between the transmission network and substation arrangements. The key of the method is the united load curtailment model for the combinative system. The presented risk evaluation procedure also provides a vehicle to perform the probabilistic economic analysis for system reinforcement schemes. Risk evaluation is only one component of the decision-making process. The overall economic analysis, including the risk cost, is always imperative in system planning. In the given application, the benet/cost analysis based on the risk assessment has been conducted for the ring-bus substation structure. A ring-bus layout is generally more reliable than the traditional section-bus arrangement but may require more breakers. The nancial justication on additional breakers is a challenging issue in the substation design. The result indicates that the additional breaker in the given example is nancially justiable. However, it is worth noting that this does not mean that a ring-bus layout can be justied in any situation. Each case has to be evaluated individually. The given example shows an application of the presented method in risk assessment of substation layouts under the transmission network environment. Conceptually, the method also can be applied to risk evaluation of a transmission network with impacts from substation congurations. REFERENCES
[1] R. Billinton and W. Li, Reliability Assessment of Electric Power Systems using Monte Carlo Methods. New York: Plenum, 1994. [2] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power System. New York: Plenum, 1996. [3] R. N. Allan, R. Billinton, A. M. Breipohl, and C. H. Grigg, Bibliography on the application of probability methods in power system reliability evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 5157, Feb. 1999. [4] Reliability Evaluation for Large Scale Bulk Transmission Systems, EPRI, Rep. EL5291, 1988. [5] IEEE Tutorial Course Text, Reliability Assessment of Composite Generation and Transmission Systems, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 90EH0311-PWR, 1990. [6] Composite power system reliability analysis: Application to the New Brunswick power corporation system, in CIGRE Symp. Elect. Power Syst. Reliabil., Montreal, QC, Canada, Sep. 1618, 1991, Proc. CIGRE Task Force 380310 Rep..

Note that the difference in the EENS index is due to the different MW loads at the two buses. In this example, the impact of substation congurations on the transmission network portion is too small and does not turn out. The load curtailments at the other buses that are only affected by the transmission network are either extremely small or effectively zeroes. The load curtailments at Buses 2 and 4 are basically caused by the double line contingency events that have the very low probability of occurrence. Both Buses 3 and 5 have no load curtailment for different reasons. Bus 3 is directly connected to the 100%-reliable generation source, while the triple line outage that can lead to the load curtailment at Bus 5 was not sampled in the Monte Carlo simulation because of its extremely low probability.

C. Economic Analysis in Planning There are two cost components: investment and risk costs. The economic analysis is performed using a benet/cost assessment. The section-bus layout is thought of as the base structure. In contrast, the ring-bus conguration needs one more breaker but leads to the reduction in the EENS index, which can be converted to the risk cost reduction by multiplying a unit interruption cost. The planning time span over the ten years from 2002 to 2011 was considered. The economic data are given in Table VII. According to the load forecast, the loads at Buses 11 and 12 would be unchanged until 2005, increased by 2% in 2006, and then kept until 2011. The unit interruption cost was estimated to be $1.2/kWh. The equivalent annual investment of the additional breaker needed for the ring-bus option, the EENS reduction due to the use of the ring-bus conguration, and the benet (reduction in the risk cost) from 2002 to 2011 are given in Table VIII. The equivalent annual investment is obtained using

1150

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

[7] R. Billinton and W. Li, Hybrid approach for reliability evaluation of composite generation and transmission systems using Monte Carlo simulation and enumeration technique, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. C, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 233241, May 1991. [8] A. M. Leite da Silva, L. A. F. da Fonseca Manso, J. C. O. de Oliveira Mello, and R. Billinton, Pseudo-chronological simulation for composite reliability analysis with time varying loads, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 7380, Feb. 2000. [9] W. Li, Y. Mansour, J. K. Korczynski, and B. J. Mills, Application of transmission reliability assessment in probabilistic planning of BC hydro Vancouver South Metro system, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 964970, May 1995. [10] R. Billinton, H. Chen, and J. Zhou, Individual generating station reliability assessment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst,, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 12381244, Nov. 1999. [11] R. Billinton and G. Lian, Station reliability evaluation using a Monte Carlo approach, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 12391245, Jul. 1993. [12] R. N. Allan and J. R. Ochoa, Modeling and assessment of station originated outage for composite system reliability evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 158165, Feb. 1988. [13] R. Billinton and P. K. Vohra, Station initiated outages in composite system adequacy evaluation, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. C, vol. 134, pp. 1016, 1987. [14] R. N. Allan and A. N. Adraktas, Terminal effects and protection systems failures in composite system reliability evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp. 45574562, Dec. 1982. [15] R. Nighot and R. Billinton, Reliability evaluation of the IEEE-RTS incorporating station related outages, in Proc. IEEE Gen. Meeting, Denver, CO, Jun. 610, 2004, PESGM200400 205.

[16] C. S. Park, Contemporary Engineering Economics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993. [17] D. Young, Modern Engineering Economy. New York: Wiley, 1993.

Wenyuan Li (F02) received the B.Sc. degree from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1968 and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Chongqing University, Chongqing City, China, in 1982 and 1987, respectively, all in electrical engineering. He is currently a Principal Engineer at the British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and is also an advisory professor at Chongqing University. He was the coauthor of the book Reliability Assessment of Electrical Power Systems Using Monte Carlo Methods (Plenum, New York, 1994) and the author of the book Risk Assessment of Power Systems: Models, Methods, and Applications (IEEE and Wiley, Piscataway, NJ, and New York, 2005). Dr. Li was the winner of the 1996 Outstanding Engineer award from IEEE Canada for the contributions in power system reliability and probabilistic planning.

Jiping Lu received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees from Chongqing University, Chongqing City, China, in 1982, 1988, and 2000, respectively, all in electrical engineering. He is an Associate Professor in the College of Electrical Engineering, Chongqing University. His interests include power system relay and protection, automation, and probability application in power systems.