0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

7 просмотров61 страницаpower system reliability

Mar 24, 2018

Power Systems

© © All Rights Reserved

PPT, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

power system reliability

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

7 просмотров61 страницаPower Systems

power system reliability

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 61

by

L Goel

elkgoel@ntu.edu.sg

School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

IEEE - IICPE - December 2006

1

Outline

• Generating System (HLI) Reliability Assessment

• Composite System (HLII) Reliability Assessment

• Distribution System Reliability Assessment

• Cost-Benefit Considerations

• Concluding Remarks

2

Power System Reliability

An electric power system serves the basic function of supplying customers, both

large and small, with electrical energy as economically and as reliably as

possible. The reliability associated with a power system is a measure of its ability

to provide an adequate supply of electrical energy for the period of time intended

under the operating conditions encountered.

Modern society, because of its pattern of social and working habits, has come to

expect the power supply to be continuously available on demand - this, however,

is not physically possible in reality due to random system failures which are

generally outside the control of power system engineers, operators and planners.

3

Power System Reliability

investment during either the planning phase, operating phase, or both. Over-

investment can lead to excessive operating costs which must be reflected in the

tariff structure. Consequently, the economic constraints can be violated even

though the system may be highly reliable.

On the other hand, under-investment can lead to the opposite situation. It is

evident therefore that the economic and reliability constraints can be quite

competitive, and this can lead to extremely difficult managerial decisions at both

the planning and operating phases.

4

Power System Reliability

The criteria and techniques first used in practical applications were basically

deterministic (rule-of-thumb) ones, for instance

• Planning generating capacity - installed capacity equals the expected

maximum demand plus a fixed percentage of the expected maximum demand;

• Operating capacity - spinning capacity equals the expected load demand plus

a reserve equal to one or more largest units;

• Planning network capacity - construct a minimum number of circuits to a load

group, the minimum number being dependent on the maximum demand of the

group.

5

Power System Reliability

Although the above-mentioned three and other criteria have been developed to

account for randomly occurring failures, they are inherently deterministic. The

essential weakness of these methods is that they do not account for the

probabilistic/stochastic nature of system behavior, customer load demands and/or

of component failures. Such aspects can be considered only through probabilistic

criteria.

6

Power System Reliability

• Forced outage rate of generating units is known to be a function of unit size

and therefore a fixed percentage reserve cannot ensure a consistent risk;

• Failure rates of overhead lines are functions of their lengths, design aspects,

locations and environment, etc. - therefore a consistent risk of supply

interruption cannot be ensured by constructing a minimum number of circuits;

• All planning and operating decisions are based on load forecasting techniques

which cannot predict future loads precisely, i.e., uncertainties will always exist

in the forecasts. This imposes statistical factors which should be assessed

probabilistically.

7

Power System Reliability

assessment and why it is necessary. Failures of components, plant, and systems

occur randomly; the frequency, duration and impact of failures vary from one year

to the next. Generally all utilities record details of the events as they occur, and

produce a set of performance measures, such as:

• system availability

• estimated unsupplied energy

• number of incidents

• number of hours of interruption

• excursions beyond set voltage (and frequency) limits

8

Power System Reliability

• they identify weak areas needing reinforcements and modifications

• they establish chronological trends in reliability performance

• they establish existing indices which serve as a guide for acceptable values if

future reliability assessments

• they enable previous predictions to be compared with actual operating

experience

• they monitor the response to system design changes

The important thing to note is that the above measures are statistical indices -

they are not deterministic values.

9

Adequacy and Security

The concept of power system reliability, i.e., the overall ability of the system to

satisfy the customer load requirements economically and reliably, is extremely

broad. For the sake of simplicity, power system reliability can be divided into the

two basic aspects of

• system adequacy, and

• system security.

Adequacy relates to the existence of sufficient facilities within the system to

satisfy customer load demands. These include the facilities to generate power,

and the associated transmission and distribution facilities required to transport the

generated energy to the load points. Adequacy, therefore, relates to static system

conditions.

10

Adequacy and Security

it is subjected to. These may include conditions associated with local and

widespread disturbances and loss of major generation/transmission.

Most of the techniques presently available are in the domain of adequacy

assessment.

11

Adequacy and Security

Power system functional zones Hierarchical levels

12

Adequacy and Security

13

Adequacy and Security

14

Adequacy and Security

15

Adequacy and Security

16

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

generating capacity to meet the system load demand. Outages of generating

units and/or load in excess of the estimates could result in “loss of load”, i.e., the

available capacity (installed capacity - capacity on outage) being inadequate to

supply the load. In general, this condition requires emergency assistance from

neighboring systems and emergency operating measures such as system voltage

reduction and voluntary load curtailment. Depending on the shortage of the

available capacity, load shedding may be initiated as the final measure after the

emergency actions. The conventional definition of “loss of load” includes all

events resulting in negative capacity margin or the available capacity being less

than the load.

17

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

probability models for capacity on outage and for load demand, and calculate the

probability of loss of load by a convolution of the two models. This calculation

can be repeated for all the periods (e.g., weeks) in a year considering the

changes in the load demand, planned outages of units, and any unit additions or

retirements, etc.

18

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

An understanding of the probabilistic criteria and indices used in generating

capacity reliability (HLI) studies is important. These include

1. loss of load probability (LOLP)

2. loss of load expectation (LOLE)

3. loss of energy expectation (LOEE)/expected energy not supplied (EENS)

4. frequency & duration (F&D) indices

5. energy index of reliability (EIR)

6. energy index of unreliability (EIU), and

7. system minutes (SM).

19

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

LOLP

This is the oldest and the most basic probabilistic index. It is defined as the

probability that the load will exceed the available generation. Its weakness is that

it defines the likelihood of encountering trouble (loss of load) but not the severity;

for the same value of LOLP, the degree of trouble may be less than 1 MW or

greater than 1000 MW or more. Therefore it cannot recognize the degree of

capacity or energy shortage.

This index has been superseded by one of the following expected values in most

planning applications because LOLP has less physical significance and is difficult

to interpret.

20

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

LOLE

This is now the most widely used probabilistic index in deciding future generation

capacity. It is generally defined as the average number of days (or hours) on

which the daily peak load is expected to exceed the available capacity. It

therefore indicates the expected number of days (or hours) for which a load loss

or deficiency may occur. This concept implies a physical significance not

forthcoming from the LOLP, although the two values are directly related.

It has the same weaknesses that exist in the LOLP.

21

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

LOEE

This index is defined as the expected energy not supplied (EENS) due to those

occasions when the load exceeds the available generation. It is presently less

used than LOLE but is a more appealing index since it encompasses severity of

the deficiencies as well as their likelihood. It therefore reflects risk more truly and

is likely to gain popularity as power systems become more energy-limited due to

reduced prime energy and increased environmental controls.

22

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

These are directly related to LOEE which is normalized by dividing by the total

energy demanded. This basically ensures that large and small systems can be

compared on an equal basis and chronological changes in a system can be

tracked.

23

Generating System (HLI) Reliability

Assessment

The F&D criterion is an extension of LOLE and identifies expected frequencies of

encountering deficiencies and their expected durations.

It therefore contains additional physical characteristics but, although widely

documented, is not used in practice. This is due mainly to the need for additional

data and greatly increased complexity of the analysis without having any

significant effect on the planning decisions.

24

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Objective

• Composite generating and transmission system evaluation is concerned with

the total problem of assessing the ability of the generation and transmission

system to supply adequate and suitable electrical energy to the major system

load points (Hierarchical level II - HL II)

• The problem of calculating reliability indices is equivalent to assessing the

expected value of a test function F(x), i.e., :

suitable definitions of the test function.

25

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Applications in power system planning

• Expansion - selection of new generation, transmission, subtransmission

configurations;

• Operation - selection of operating scenarios;

• Maintenance - scheduling of generation and transmission equipment

Basic models

• G&T Equipment : Markovian or not; Two or multi-states.

Up

Down

26

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Basic models

• Load : Chronological or not; • System : AC or DC network

Markovian or not; Correlated or not. representation.

27

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Reliability Measures (Conventional)

• LOLP = Loss of load probability

• LOLE = Loss of load expectation (h/year)

• EPNS = Expected power not supplied (MW)

• EENS = Expected energy not supplied (MWh/year)

• LOLF = Loss of load frequency (occ./year)

• LOLD = Loss of load duration (h)

• LOLC = Loss of load cost (US$/year)

• etc.

Load point indices

• LOLP, LOLE, etc.

28

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Reliability Measures (Well-Being)

System indices

•Prob {H} = Probability of healthy state

•Prob {M} = Probability of marginal state Success

•Prob {R} = Probability of at risk state (LOLP) Healthy

•Freq {H} = Frequency of healthy state (occ./year)

•Freq {M} = Frequency of marginal state (occ./year)

•Freq {R} = Frequency of at risk state (LOLF) (occ./year) Marginal

•Dur {H} = Duration of healthy state (h)

•Dur {M} = Duration of marginal state (h)

•Dur {R} = Duration of at risk state (LOLD) (h) At Risk

Load point indices

•Prob {H}, Freq {H}, etc.

29

Composite System (HLII) Reliability

Assessment

Assessment Tools

• Enumeration • Power flow

• Monte Carol simulation o Linear DC model

o Non-sequential o Non-linear AC model

o Sequential or chronological • Optimal power flow

o Pseudo-chronological/sequential o Linear DC model

o Non-linear AC model

30

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

• failure rate,

• average outage time, r

• average annual unavailability, U = .r

• average load disconnected, L

• expected energy not supplied, E = U.L

31

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

State Space (Markov) Model

State Probability (P) Visiting frequency (f) Residence time (r)

0 P0 = q2q1 f0 = P0/r0 r0 = 1/(1 + 2)

1 P1 = q2p1 f1 = P1/r1 r1 = 1/(1 + 2)

2 P2 = p2q1 f2 = P2/r2 r2 = 1/(2 + 1)

3 P3 = p2p1 f3 = P3/r3 r3 = 1/(1 + 2)

1 1

i 0 1

pi

i i 2 2

State space diagram for

qi = 1 - pi two-component, four-state

2 2 model

1 1

2 3

32

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

n

Interruptionfrequencyfs = i [interruptions/year]

i 1

n

i ri

Interruptiondurationrs = i=1 [hours/interruption]

n

i

i=1

n

r = i ri [hours/year]

Annual downtimeUs =fss

i 1

n

i ri

Unavailabilityqs = i=1

8760 33

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

n i ri n 1

Interruptionfrequencyfs =8760 [Interruptions/year]

i=1 8760 i=1 ri

1

Interruptiondurationrs = n

[hours/interruption]

1

r

i=1 i

n

i ri

Annual downtimeUs =8760 [hours/year]

i=1

8760

Us

Unavailabilityqs =

8760

34

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

System Oriented Reliability Indices, Number of Interruptions

• Weighting by number of customers

– System Average

Interruption Frequency Index :

n

fi Ni

SAIFI =i=1

n

(interruptions/year)

tot

Ni

i=1

Ni = number of customers connected to load point i

n = number of load points interrupted

ntot = total number of load points

35

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

System Oriented Reliability Indices, Annual Interruption Time

– System Average

Interruption Duration Index :

n n

Ui Ni fi ri Ni

SAIDI =i=1

n

= i=1

n

(hours/year)

tot tot

Ni Ni

i=1 i=1

ri = Average outage duration for load point i

36

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

System Oriented Reliability Indices, Average Interruption Duration

• Weighting by number of customers

– Customer Average Interruption Duration Index :

n

Ui Ni

CAIDI =i=1

n

(hours/interruption)

tot

fi Ni

i=1

n n n n

fi Ni Ui Ni Ui Ni fi ri Ni

SAIFI CAIDI = SAIDI i=1

n tot

i=1

n tot

= i=1

n tot

= i=1

n tot

Ni fi Ni Ni Ni

i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

37

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

SAIDI

• Average Service Unavailability Index ASUI =

8760

n

• Energy Not Supplied ENS= Pav(i) Ui (kWh/year)

i=1

Pav(i) =Averageloadconnectedtoloadpoint i

ENS

• Average Energy Not Supplied AENS=n (kWh/customer . year)

tot

Ni

i=1

38

Distribution System Reliability Assessment

UK System Indices

- similar in concept to SAIFI

• Availability or Customer Minutes Lost (CMLs)

- similar in concept to SAIDI

39

Cost-Benefit Considerations

40

Cost-Benefit Considerations

Due to the complex and integrated nature of a power system, failures in any part

of the system can cause interruptions which range from inconveniencing a small

number of local residents to a major and widespread catastrophic disruption of

supply.

The economic impact of these outages is not necessarily restricted to loss of

revenue by the utility or loss of energy utilization by the customer but, in order to

estimate the true costs, should also include indirect costs imposed on customers,

society, and the environment due to the outage.

41

Cost-Benefit Considerations

For instance, in the case of the 1977 New York blackout, 84% of the total costs

of the blackout were attributed to indirect costs. In order to reduce the frequency

and duration of these events, it is necessary to invest either in the design phase,

the operating phase, or both. A whole series of questions come to mind:

• how much should be spent?

• is it worth spending any money?

• should the reliability be increased, maintained at existing levels, or allowed to

degrade?

• who should decide - the utility, a regulator, the customer?

• on what basis should the decision be made?

42

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The underlying trend in all these questions is the need to determine the worth of

reliability in a power system, who should contribute to this worth, and who should

decide the levels of reliability and investment required to achieve them.

The basic questions that therefore need to be answered are “Is it worth it?” and

“Where or on what should the next dollar be invested in the system to achieve the

maximum reliability benefit?”.

43

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The first step in answering the above questions is illustrated in the figure below,

which shows how the reliability of a product/system is related to the investment

cost, i.e., increased investment is required in order to improve reliability. This

clearly shows the general trend that the incremental cost C to achieve a given

increase in reliability R increases as the reliability level increases. Alternatively,

a given increase in investment produces a decreasing increment in reliability as

the reliability is increased. In either case, high reliability is expensive to achieve.

44

Cost-Benefit Considerations

investment in the system is worth it. However, it does not adequately reflect the

benefits seen by the utility, the customer, or society in general. The two aspects

of reliability and economics can be appraised more consistently by comparing

reliability cost (investment cost needed to achieve a certain level of reliability)

with reliability worth (benefit derived by the customer and society).

45

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The basic concept of reliability cost/reliability worth evaluation is relatively simple

and can be presented by the curves of the figure shown below. These curves

show that the investment cost generally increases with higher reliability. On the

other hand, the customer costs associated with failures decrease as the reliability

increases.

46

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The total costs are the sum of these two individual costs. This total cost exhibits

a minimum, and so an “optimum” or target level of reliability is achieved. Two

difficulties usually arise in the total cost assessment.

Firstly, the calculated indices are usually derived only from approximate models.

Secondly, there are significant problems in assessing customer perceptions of

system failure costs.

47

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The disparity between the calculated indices and the monetary costs associated

with supply interruptions is shown in the figure. The left hand side of the figure

shows the calculated indices at the various hierarchical levels. The right hand

side indicates the interruption cost data obtained by user studies.

It can be seen that the relative disparity between the calculated indices at the

three hierarchical levels and the data available for worth assessment decreases

as the consumer load points are approached.

48

Cost-Benefit Considerations

There have been many studies concerning interruption and outage costs. These

studies show that, although trends are similar in virtually all cases, the costs vary

over a wide range and depend on the country of origin and the type of customer.

It is apparent therefore that considerable research still needs to be conducted on

the subject of interruption costs.

The evaluation of reliability cost through the identification and analysis of criteria

and methods used to predict and quantify reliability has progressed significantly

during the past two decades. By comparison, the assessment of reliability worth

is not as well developed. This is due to the fact that the societal worth of electric

service reliability is an extremely complex task.

49

Cost-Benefit Considerations

perspective is dependent both on the customer and interruption characteristics.

Customer characteristics include type of customer, nature of his/her

activities/demand requirements. Outage costs will therefore vary substantially

between customers within a class, and between classes of customers.

Interruption characteristics include the parameters of frequency, duration and

magnitude of outage, time of occurrence, time of year, whether partial outage or

complete, etc.

50

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The theoretical basis for the measurement of outage cost is the loss of consumer

welfare as a consequence of an outage. Several approaches have emerged in

the literature over the past few decades. One approach is to estimate outage

costs on the basis of estimated willingness-to-pay for planned electricity

consumption. In another approach, electric supply rates (tariffs) are used to

derive the Value-based reliability (VBR) estimates. Many attempts are made on

the use of a ratio of gross economic measure (e.g. GNP) and a suitable energy

consumption measure to yield a $/kWh value that is assumed to be the cost of

unsupplied energy during interruptions. While most of these approaches are

reasonably straightforward to apply, their disadvantages are that they are based

on severely limiting assumptions.

51

Cost-Benefit Considerations

The most fundamental and methodological approach that has been used to

assess direct, short-term customer outage costs is the customer survey method.

This approach appears to find favors with electric utilities for estimating the

outage costs to be used for planning purposes. It is based on the premise that

the customer is in the best position to assess his/her monetary losses associated

with power failures. The surveys ask the monetary losses that would be

sustained by them under certain specified scenarios of interruptions, and also

their willingness to pay in order to avoid having those interruptions. A very

important consideration in determining the interruption cost through surveys is

the choice of the valuation method. Three types of approaches have been

undertaken in this regard.

52

Cost-Benefit Considerations

1. The first and the most obvious approach is a direct solicitation of the outage

costs for given outage conditions. The approach provides reasonable and

consistent results in situations where losses can be directly identified.

2. The second approach seeks the customers' opinions on what they would be

willing to pay to avoid having the interruption(s), or conversely what amount

they would be willing to accept for having to experience the outage

(willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept theories). This is based on the

theory that incremental willingness to pay (accept) gives the corresponding

marginal increments (decrements) in service reliability.

53

Cost-Benefit Considerations

3. The third and final approach is that of indirect worth evaluation, where

customers' responses to indirect questions are used to derive a monetary

figure. This approach includes the respondents' selection of

interruptible/curtailable options, their predictions of what preparatory actions

they might take in the event of recurring interruptions, their ranking of a set

of reliability/rate alternatives and selecting an option most suitable for their

needs, etc. This approach has been used in major Canadian surveys, and

has also been used by many utilities and governmental agencies to estimate

the costs of interruptions.

54

Cost-Benefit Considerations

context could involve converting the gathered data into a functional

representation or cost model. The traditional cost model is known as a

composite customer damage function (CCDF), which defines the overall average

costs of interruptions as a function of the interruption duration in a given service

area that was used in the surveys. Since the customers are asked to provide

their best estimates of monetary losses for selected outage scenarios, the

interruption cost data collected using the survey method are duration specific.

These data can be used to create customer damage functions (CDFs) for

specific customer classes (sectors). The average sector costs associated with

each studied interruption scenario are used to create sector customer damage

functions (SCDFs) which are then (usually) weighted using their respective

energy consumptions to create a CCDF for the entire studied area.

55

Cost-Benefit Considerations

56

Cost-Benefit Considerations

57

Cost-Benefit Considerations

58

Concluding Remarks

• Probabilistic, as opposed to deterministic, indices are more popular in

reliability evaluation of electric power systems.

• Fundamental reliability indices are those of probability, frequency and duration

of failures, regardless of whether the system study is at HLI, HLII or HLIII

system levels.

• There should be some conformity between the reliability of various parts of the

power system. It is pointless to reinforce quite arbitrarily a strong part of the

system where weak areas still exist. Consequently, a balance is required

between generation, transmission and distribution - this does not mean that

the reliability of each should be equal. The reliability of different zones will, in

general, be different since HLII failures can cause widespread outages

whereas distribution failures are very localized.

59

Concluding Remarks

incremental or marginal investment cost should be related to the customer’s

incremental or marginal valuation of the improved reliability. Reliability cost Vs

reliability worth (benefit) evaluation can enable utilities to make objective

decisions about investments and maintenance for enhancing supply reliability.

• Probabilistic methods are as important and critical today as they were a few

decades ago, particularly in the light of increased pressure for economic

justifications and the need to manage our assets effectively, efficiently and

reliably.

60

For your time and patience...

61

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.