Part II

Reliability Evaluation of Power System

Lecture Contents
 Composite & Distribution System
 System Reliability Assessment
 Methods to improve reliability
Hierarchical levels from the point of view of reliability calculations

Figure A

Figure B
Composite System (HLII) Reliability Assessment
Objective
Composite generating and transmission system evaluation is concerned with the total problem of as-
sessing the ability of the generation and transmission system to supply adequate and suitable electrical
energy to the major system load points
Applications
 Planning/Expansion
 Operation
 Maintenance
Composite System (HLII) Reliability Assessment
Assessment requires:
 Basic models
 Assessment Tools
 Reliability Measures
NETWORK MODELING
Network modeling translates a physical network into a reliability network based on series and parallel
component connections.
Each component is described by a probability of being available, P, and a probability of not being availa-
ble, Q.
The probability of power availability and unavailability of a component having failure and repair rates (λ
and μ) is given in Eqs. (1) and (2).

Also, if a component is described by an annual failure rate (λ) and a Mean Time To Repair in hours
(MTTR), The probability of being available can be computed as follows:

Where;
Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) — MTTR represents the expected time it will take for a failure to be re-
paired (measured from the time that the failure occurs).
Network modeling is based on two fundamental types of component connections: series and parallel.
Two components are in series if both components must be available for the connection to be available.
Two components are in parallel if only one of the components needs to be available for the connection
to be available

12/4/ 8

Examine the effect of each component's reliability on the overall

system reliability.
The first row: given reliabilities for each component. In the second
row, the reliability of Component 1 is increased by a value of 10%
and so on. It is clear that the highest value for the system's relia-
bility was achieved when the reliability of Component 1, which is
the least reliable component, was increased by a value of 10%.
Effect of Number of Components in a Series System
As the number of components in series increases, the sys-
tem's reliability decreases.

Effect of Component Reliability in a Parallel Configuration

In series, we found that the least reliable component has the biggest effect on the reliability of the system.
However, the component with the highest reliability in a parallel configuration has the biggest effect on
the system's reliability, since the most reliable component is the one that will most likely fail last. This is
a very important property of the parallel configuration, specifically in the design and improvement of
systems.

the highest system's reliability: when the reliability of Component 3 was increased. Once again, this is
the opposite of what was encountered with a pure series system.
Effect of Number of Components in Parallel
The number of components has the opposite effect of
the series configuration. For a parallel configuration, as
the number of components/subsystems increases, the
system's reliability increases.

Many systems consist of both series and parallel connec-

tions. In these instances, it is necessary to reduce the network in order to compute its over- all availabil-
ity.
 Series-parallel approach
If two components are connected in series in a branch of the network then the equivalent failure rate
for the branch is given as:

Similarly if two components are connected in parallel as shown, then the equivalent failure rate is given
as:

IEEE 6 bus reliability test system

The interconnected power system network (IEEE 6 bus reliability test sys-
tem) used here consists of a number of circuit breakers, two generating
units and four load points as shown in Figure 1. In this IEEE 6 bus reliability
test system, the failure and repair rates (λ and μ) of each component are
assessed from internet source.
The probabilities of average power availability at each load are calculated
using series parallel and star-delta approach and are given in Table 1. e.
In this practical example, all components are assumed to have identical
reliability data (λ = 0.1; μ = 10).

Figure 1. IEEE 6 bus reli-

ability test system

Figure 2. Equivalent reliability model of the

IEEE 6 bus reliability test system
STATE ENUMERATION METHOD

Bridge network

If the reliability of each component is assumed

to be 0.95, then system reliability is:

Event tree diagram for state enumeration

of bridge network

Distribution System Reliability

Interest to find out the reliability level at Toad point

Standard Reliability Metrics (System Oriented Reliability Indices)

UK System Indices
 Security or Customer Interruptions (CIs)
o similar in concept to SAIFI
 Availability or Customer Minutes Lost (CMLs)
o similar in concept to SAIDI
Utilities most commonly use two indices, SAIFI and SAIDI, to benchmark
o SAIFI-reduce the number of sustained interruptions experienced by cus-
tomers. Also average failure rate ,λ
o SAIDI can be improved by reducing the number of inter-
ruptions or by reducing the duration of these interruptions.
o CAIDI can be improved by reducing the length of interruptions, but can also be reduced by increas-
ing the number of short interruptions.
Consider the following example. What is the SAIDI for the 28th of the month where five outages were
recorded? The table shown below shows each outage, the duration of the outage, and the customer-
hours. The utility has a total of 50,000 customers.

Table 1
Calculation of Customer-Hours
Customer
Date Time Customers Duration -hours
28th 9:53 10 90 15.00
28th 11:02 1,000 20 333.33
28th 13:15 2 175 5.83
28th 20:48 1 120 2.00
28th 22:35 1 38 0.63
1.014 443 356.80

Calculation of Customer-Hours
Date Time Customers Duration -hours
28& 9:53 10 90 15.00
28th I I :02 1.000 20 333,33
28th 13:15 2 175 5.83
28tIi 20:48 I I20 2.00
28M 22:35 1 58 0.63
1.014 445 356.80
The customer hours are calculated for each outage and then summed for a total of 356.80 customer-
hours. Since we want to know the SAIDI calculation in minutes the customer- hours must be converted
to customer-minutes by multiplying by 60. The result is 356.80 * 60 = 21,408 customer-minutes.
The SAIDI is,
SAIDI = 21,408 / 50,000
SAIDI = 0.428 minutes.
This says that the average customer was out for 0.428 minutes on the 28th of the month. If the SAIDI is
calculated for each day, the monthly SAIDI is found by summing the daily values.
From our previous example, what is the CAIDI for the 28°'*.

Table 1
CAIDI = Customer Average Interruption Duration Calculation of Customer-Hours
Index, minutes. Customer
∑ = Summation function. Date Tlme Customers Duration -hours
r1= Restoration time, minutes. 28th 9:53 10 90 15.00
Ni= Total number of customers interrupted. 28di I I :02 1.000 20 333,33
28th 13:15 2 175 5.83
28a z0:4s 1 120 2.00
28th 22:3z i zg o az
1.014 443 356.80

The Average Service Availability Index (ASAI) is the ratio of the total number of customer hours that ser-
vice was available during a given time period to the total customer hours demanded. This is sometimes
called the service reliability index. The ASAI is usually calculated on either a monthly basis (730 hours)
or a yearly basis (8,760 hours), but can be calculated for any time period. The ASAI is found as,
ASAI = [1 — (∑(ri * Ni ) / (NT * T))] * 100
Where,
ASAI Average Service Availability Index percent.
∑ = Summation function.
T = Time period under study, hours.
ri = Restoration time, hours.
Ni = Total number of customers interrupted.
NT = Total number of customers served.

In this calculation, the restoration time, ri is in hours instead of minutes.

What is the ASAI value for the 28'° based on the outage data reported in Table 1?
From Table 1, the customer-hours are 356.80. Since only one day, the 28°', is under study, the study pe-
riod is 24 hours. So, the ASAI is,
ASAI = [I — (356.80 / (50,000 * 24))] * 100
ASAI = 99.970/o
Another way of looking at ASAI on an annual basis is,
ASAI = [(8,760 — SAIDI) / 8760] * 100
From the ASAI, we see that the system has average availability of 99.97% for the 28th. Some utilities
have set ASAI goal of “four-nines” or 99.99% reliability. A “four- nines” reliability value translates into a
SAIDI of 52 minutes per year.
Improving SAIFI reliability indicator of the distribution line for the design phase

Consider the different disoibution line schemes and

determine the SAIFI indicator for eaKh of them. The
source data for all the schemes of Calculation. 2„ 3
off/year; J„ 4 off/year, Nz 3 PCs; Y„_ 10 PCs.
Data are taken arbitrarily for Convenience and clarity
of Calculations.

here SAIFI= 7 outages/year

Substation
Line 1 Line 2

Fig. 3. Structural scheme of distribution lines, a partitioned switch.

Substation 1 Line 2 Substation 2

B3

Fig. 4. Structural scheme of distribution lines with dual feed, are interconnected via a switch.

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) is the sole regulator of power sector in Pakistan
and protection of consumer interest is an integral part of NEPRA’s regulatory regime.
NEPRA is cognizant of this fact and back in 2005 it framed NEPRA Performance Standards Distribution
Rules 2005 (PSDR) with a grace period of four and five years to distribution companies and K-Electric,
respectively, to improve their network so as to ensure compliance with the performance standards.
Under PSDR, each distribution company is required to submit to NEPRA an Annual Performance Report
(APR) in the format as prescribed in the PSDR. These performance reports are analyzed by NEPRA in light
of the performance parameters prescribed in PSDR. The APRs, submitted by the distribution licensees,
were reviewed on the basis of parameters namely,
o Transmission and distribution losses,
o Recovery,
o System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI),
 o System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI),
o Time frame for new connections,
o Load shedding,
o Complaints,
o Safety and fault rate.

Improving Reliability
There are two basic options for improving reliability.
1. Construct the bulk power system with a high level of “adequacy” using large generation and
transmission capability.
2. Improve the operational methods or effi- Protection &
ciency of the power system. eg Demand Man-
Maintenance
agement, O&M programs
Electricity system reliability improvements can be ap-
proached from both the demand- and supply-side
Reliability through Good Planning & Design Reliability
DGs
through Proper Operations & Maintenance
Methods to Improve
 Sometimes it is less expensive to replace de-
teriorated equipment today rather than incur Reliability
Network
high maintenance costs. Reconfiguration De-
 Sometimes it is justified to spend more mand Management
money in inspection and maintenance in or-
der to ensure adequate service to customers.
 Sometimes it is justified to spend more
Demand
money in inspection and maintenance in or-
der to mitigate unacceptable risks. Management

Demand Side Management

Demand Response Programs: According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, demand response is
defined as; Changes in electricity con-
sumption by end-users from their nor-
mal usage patterns in response to
changes in the cost of electricity over
time, or against incentives designed to
utilize lower electricity at times when
wholesale market prices are high or
when system reliability is threatened

Generalized architecture for Demand Response program realization

Objectives Needed to Be Specified……

Different classification of DRP schemes

DRPs can be practiced mandatorily or voluntarily. In the former case, system operator is permitted to
dispatch non-essential consumers’ load to meet uncertainties in generation, whereas for later case, the
system operator controls real time energy costs to promote demand attenuation.
Numerous demand response schemes that can be realized through smart meters, are available based on
varying electricity prices or rewards .Essentially, DRPs are categorized as either incentive-based programs
or time-based programs/price-based programs.
Incentive-based
schemes reward
participating con-
sumers to curtail
their demands at
times requested
by the utility, ac-
tuated either be-
cause of system
reliability issue or
high generation
costs. On the
other hand, pro-
grams under
time-based cate-
gory namely; time
of use (TOU) and
real time pricing
(RTP) are those DRPs in which the electricity cost changes for different time intervals based on the elec-
tricity supply cost. It means that for peak period the price is more, for shoulder period the price is medium
and low price is offered for off-peak period.

Network Reconfiguration
DRP Implementation In Pakistan