9 Distribution systems — extended techniques 9.1 Introduction ‘The models and techniques described in Chapter 8 allow the three basic reliability indices, expected failure rate (A), average outage duration (r), and average annual outage time (U), to be evaluated for each load point of any meshed or parallel system. These three basic indices permit a measure of reliability at each load point to be quantified and allow subsidiary indices such as the customer interruption indices (see Section 7.3.2) to be found. They have three major deficiencies, however: (a) they cannot differentiate between the interruption of large and small loads; (b) they do not recognize the effects of load growth by existing customers or additional new loads; (c) they cannot be used to compare the cost-benefit ratios of alternative rein- forcement schemes nor to indicate the most suitable timing of such rein- forcements. i These deficiencies can be overcome by the evaluation of two additional indices, these being: (i) the average load disconnected due to a system failure, measured in kW or MW and symbolized by L; (ii) the average energy not supplied due to a system failure, measured in kWh or MWh and symbolized by E. ‘These are not new indices since they were developed for generating capacity reliability evaluation using the loss of energy method (see Chapter 2). The recent application [1,2] 0 distribution systems, however, allows a more complete analysis of these systems. This was demonstrated in Section 7.3.3, in which the load and energy indices for simple radial systems were evaluated. This was a simple exercise for these basic systems because the load and energy indices are easily deduced from the average load and the annual outage time of each load point. This chapter describes how these additional indices can be evaluated [2] for more complex systems. ‘The criterion used in Chapter 8 for determining a load point failure event was ‘Joss of continuity’, ie. a load point fails only when all paths between the load point and all sources are disconnected. This assumes that the system is fully redundant 202Distribution systems — extended techniques 303 and any branch is capable of carrying all the load demanded of it. This clearly is unrealistic. For this reason, the previous ‘loss of continuity’ criterion is best described as ‘total loss of continuity’ (TLOC). In addition, a system outage or failure event may not lead to TLOC but may cause violation of a network constraint, eg. overload or voltage violation, which necessitates that the load of some or all of the load points be reduced. This type of event was initially defined [3, 4] as loss of quality. These initial considerations have now been considerably developed (2) and the event defined as partial loss of continuity (PLOC). The evaluation of PLOC events becomes of great significance if the load and energy indices are to be evaluated. The relevant techniques needed to evaluate these events and the load and energy indices are described in this chapter. Many systems have interconnections which allow the transfer of some or all the load of a failed load point to other neighboring load points through normally open points. This concept was previously described in a simplistic way for radial systems in Section 7.8. A more realistic discussion of available techniques (2] is given in this chapter. Finally, management decisions of the most appropriate reinforcement or expansion scheme cannot be based only on the knowledge of the reliability indices of each scheme. It is also necessary to know the economic implications of each of these schemes. This aspect is briefly discussed in the final section of this chapter. 9.2 Total loss of continuity (TLOC) The criterion of TLOC is that used consistently in Chapter 8, and therefore the values of 2, rand U can be evaluated exactly as described in Chapter 8. Furthermore the values of L and E are readily evaluated knowing only the average load connected to each load point since, as described in Section 7.3.3, L=L, =L,f (9.1) where 6 +— x—___*—___-x 7 Fig. 9.1. Typical ring system with two load points304 Chapter 9 Table 9.1 Reliability data for the system of Fig. 9.1 Component Failure rate (fr) Repair time (hours) lines 47 0.02 10 busbars 1-3. 0.01 5 Table 9.2 Loading data for the system of Fig. 9.1 Load Point Peak load (MW) __Number ofcustomers 2 20 2000 3 10 1000 wverage load at load point 1» = peak load at load point (maximum demand) (f = load factor (9.2) E U where U = annual outage time of load point. Finally the additional customer-orientated indices described in Section 7.3.2 can be obtained if so desired. ‘Table 9.3 Total loss of continuity indices for system of Fig. 9.1 a r uv p E Event (lyn (hours) (hours) __ (MW) uni) Load point 2 1 0.01 3 0.05 1s 0.75 2 0.01 5 0.05 15 0.75 44546 313x107 3.33 1.04 10"? 15 1.56 x 10% 44543 114x10" 25 2.60 x 10"! 1s 3.90 x 10 44547 3.13 x10 3.33 1.04 x 10" 15 1.56 x10? Total 2.00 10? 5 100x107 5 15 Load point 3 1 0.01 5 0.05 15 3.75 x 10" 3 0.01 5 0.05 18 3.75 x 10" 6+2 342x107 3.33 114 x 10% 1S 8.55 x 10° 6+7 9.13 «107 5 4.57 «10% 1S 3.43 x 10% 44546 3.13 x10 3.33 1,04 x 10" 1s 7.8 x10" Total _2.00 x 107 Ss 1,00 x 107! 1S. 0.75 SAIFI = 0.02 interruptions/eustomer yr ASUI = 1.142 x 10% SAIDI = 0.10 hours/customer yr ENS = 2.25 MWh/yr CAIDI = 5.0 hours/customer interruption AENS = 0.75 kWh/customer yt ASAI = 0.999989Distribution systems — extended techniques 305 As an example, consider the system shown in Fig. 9.1, the reliability data shown in Table 9.1 and the load data shown in Table 9.2. In Table 9.1 itis assumed that the data for the lines and busbars have been modified to account for breaker | failures as described in Section 8.9, Although only permanent failures and a single-state weather model are used in this example, these can be extended to include all the aspects discussed in Chapter 8. Its also assumed, for simplicity only, that the load-duration curve for each load point follows a straight line with a load factor of 0.75. The reliability indices (A, r, U, L, E) can be evaluated using the techniques of Chapter 8, and the additional customer-orientated indices can be deduced using the techniques of Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. These results are shown in Table 9.3, 9.3 Partial loss of continuity (PLOC) 9.3.1 Selecting outage combinations A partial loss of continuity event could potentially occur for any combination of branch and busbar outages except those that cause a total loss of continuity. In order to be rigorous, it would therefore be necessary to simulate all possible outage combinations except those that are known to lead to a TLOC event. This may be feasible for very small systems but it becomes impractical for large ones. Conse- quently the outage combinations to be studied must be restricted, Itis usually feasible to study all first-order outages and usually reasonable to neglect third- and higher-order outages. The second-order outages can be selected by one of the following methods: (a) select all second-order outages if the number is small; (b) manually determine, from experience, those second-order outages that could cause concer; (©) since the minimal cut sets identify weak links of the system, the third-order cuts can be used [2] to identify potential second-order PLOC events. These are obtained by taking all second-order combinations from each third-order mini- ‘mal cut set obtained for the load point of interest. For the system of Fig. 9.1 and using the information given in Table 9.3, this would mean simulating the following second-order events: load point 2—{(4 + 5), (4 + 6), (5 + 6), (4+ 3), (5 +3), (4+7),(5+7) load point 3—(4+5), (4+6), (5+6). 9.3.2 PLOC criteria After determining the outage combinations to be considered, it is necessary to deduce whether any or all of these form a PLOC event. This can only be achieved using a load flow and establishing whether a network constraint has been violated,306 Chapter 9 ‘The most realistic load flow is an a.c. one (5), although others can be used if preferred, e.g. approximations such as a d.c. load flow can be used if deemed sufficiently satisfactory. ‘The purpose of the load flow routine, which should be performed with the peak Joads at each load point, is to identify whether any network constraints are violated under certain loading conditions and therefore to ascertain whether the outage combination being considered leads to a PLOC event at one or more load points. ‘Two possible network constraints are line overloads and busbar voltage violations, 9.3.3 Alleviation of network violations The only network violation to be considered in this book is line overload. If required, other violations can be considered using similar techniques. If any of the outage combinations causes a line overload, it may be necessary to disconnect sufficient load at one or more load points in order to remove this overload. If the load is shed at a load point of interest, then the outage condition being simulated causes a PLOC event at that load point. Ifthe overload is considered acceptable, the outage condition does not lead toa PLOC event and can be ignored. ‘A given overload can often be alleviated by reducing the load at a number of load points, either individually or in combination. Each of the possible ways produces different PLOC indices for the load points. It is therefore not possible to define a single method of achieving the objective of overload alleviation that would give absolutely consistent results. The decision as to which method should be used ‘must rest with the particular utility performing the analysis and this decision should be based on their accepted load shedding policy. Amongst others, the following are possible methods for load shedding: (a) load is shed at those load points which alleviate the overload with a minimum shedding of load; (b) load is reduced proportionately at all load points that can affect the overload; (©) load is shed [2, 6] at the receiving end of the overloaded line. 9.3.4 Evaluation of PLOC indices The reliability indices of each load point of interest due to a PLOC event can be evaluated using the model shown in Fig. 9.2 in which itis assumed that the system can satisfy all load demands without the outage condition (base case) and 2, = rate of occurrence of outage condition; this is evaluated using the tech- niques of Chapter 8 and can include all modes of failure, two-state weather model and maintenance; reciprocal of the average duration r, of the outage condition; ‘maximum load that can be supplied to the load point of interest during the outage condition; P= probability of load being greater than L,;