Distribution System Loss (DSL) Segregator

Competency Training and Certification Program in Electric Power Distribution System Engineering
Certificate in
Power System Modeling and Analysis
Training Course in
Power System Reliability

Analysis
U. P. NATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER

NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION
Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 2
Course Outline
1. Reliability Models and Methods

2. Distribution System Reliability Evaluation
3. Economics of Power System Reliability
U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

National Electrification Administration Electric Power Distribution System Engineering
1
Reliability Models and Methods
Reliability Definition
Probability Function
The Reliability Function
Availability
System Reliability Networks

Reliability Definition
A reliable piece of equipment or a System is
understood to be basically sound and give
trouble-free performance in a given
environment.
Reliability is the probability that an

equipment or system will perform
satisfactorily for at least a given period of
time when used under stated conditions.

2
Subjective Definition (or Man-in-the-Street)
The probability P(A) is a measure of the degree of belief one
holds in a specified proposition A
Example: Out of 100 equipment that were upgraded by

introducing a new design, 75 will perform better
P(improved performance) = 75/100 = 0.75

SET THEORY CONCEPTS
SET
A finite or infinite collection of distinct objects or elements with
some common characteristics
Venn Diagram of a SET of Geometric Figures

3
SET THEORY CONCEPTS
SUBSET
A partition of the SET by some further characteristics that
differentiate the members of the SUBSET from the rest of the
SET
Venn Diagram of the SUBSET “Circles” from the

SET of Geometric Figures
SET THEORY CONCEPTS
Identity SET
SET that contains all the elements under consideration. Also
called Reference SET and denoted by letter I
Zero SET
SET with no element denoted by letter Z

4
Probability and Statistics

SET THEORY CONCEPTS
Size of a SET
The number of elements in the SET A is denoted by m(A) and is
referred to as the size of the SET A
Example: The NEC SET company employs ten non-professional

workers. Three of these are Assemblers (the Set A),
five are Machinists (the Set M), and two are Clerks
(the Set C) A M C
m(A) = 3 m(M) = 5 m(C) = 2 m(I) = 10

SET THEORY CONCEPTS
The SET Q, made up of all workers who are both machinists
and assemblers, does not contain any element (mutually
exclusive), i.e., Q = AM = Z. Hence,
m(Q) = m(Z) = 0
The SET F, consisting of all factory workers (assemblers
and machinists), is the Union of SETs A & M, i.e., F = A + M
This SET contains eight distinct elements, three from A and
five from M. Thus,
m(F) = m(A+M) = 3 + 5 = 8
m(A+B) = m(A) + m(B) if AB = Z

5
SET THEORY CONCEPTS
Example:
In addition to the 10 Non-professional workers, the NEC SET
Company also employs eight full time Engineers (the Set E),
three full time supervisors (the Set S), and two individuals who
are both engineers and supervisors (the Set ES).
E ES S A M C
The size of the Set of all professional employees (engineers and

supervisors) is 13 m(E+S) ≠ m(E) + m(S)
13 ≠ 10 + 5
SET THEORY CONCEPTS
Note the Set ES is counted twice. Hence,
m(E+S) = m(E) + m(S) – m(ES)

= 10 + 5 - 2
= 13
m(A+B) = m(A) + m(B) – m(AB) if AB ≠ Z
“NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE”

6
PROBABILITY AND SET THEORY
The PROBABILITY of some Event A may be regarded as
equivalent to comparing the relative size of the SUBSET
represented by the Event A to that of the Reference SET I
m(A)
P(A) =
M(I)
Example:
The probability of the employee of NEC SET Company being
both Engineers and supervisor
m(ES) 2
P(ES) = =
M(I) 23

Random Variable
A function defined on a sample space
• Tossing two Dice
• Operating time (hours)
• Distance covered (km)
• Cycles or on/off operations
• Number of revolutions
• Throughput volume (tons of raw materials)
Discrete Random Variable - Countable and Finite

Continuous Random Variable - Measured and Infinite

7
Random Variable Results of Tossing two dice
Sample Value of Sample Value of Sample Value of

Point R.V. Point R.V. Point R.V.
1,1 2 3,1 4 5,1 6
1,2 3 3,2 5 5,2 7
1,3 4 3,3 6 5,3 8
1,4 5 3,4 7 5,4 9
1,5 6 3,5 8 5,5 10
1,6 7 3,6 9 5,6 11
2,1 3 4,1 5 6,1 7
2,2 4 4,2 6 6,2 8
2,3 5 4,3 7 6,3 9
2,4 6 4,4 8 6,4 10
2,5 7 4,5 9 6,5 11
2,6 8 4,6 10 6,6 12

Probability Distribution
Value of Occur. Probablity 0.2
R.V. m(xi) p(xi)
0.15
Probability
2 1 1/36
0.1
3 2 2/36
0.05
4 3 3/36
5 4 4/36 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6 5 5/36
Random Variable y = x1 + x2
7 6 6/36
8 5 5/36
9 4 4/36  xi − 1
 36 x i = 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
10 3 3/36

11 2 2/36 p (x i ) = 
12 1 1/36  13 − x i
 36 x i = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


8
Cumulative Distribution
Value of R.V. Cum. Probablity 1
F(xi)
Cum. Probability
0.8
<2 0 0.6
2 1/36 0.4
3 3/36 0.2
4 6/36 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 10/36
6 15/36
7 21/36
8 26/36
F ( xi ) = ∑ p ( xi )
9 30/36
10 33/36
11 35/36 x ≤ xi
12 36/36 = 1.0

For Continuous Random Variable
Probability Density Function
f (x ) x – random variable
Cumulative Probability Function
x
F (x ) = ∫−∞
f ( x )d τ

9

Random Variable Results of Tossing two dice
Sample Value of Sample Value of Sample Value of

Point R.V. Point R.V. Point R.V.
1,1 2 3,1 4 5,1 6
1,2 3 3,2 5 5,2 7
1,3 4 3,3 6 5,3 8
1,4 5 3,4 7 5,4 9
1,5 6 3,5 8 5,5 10
1,6 7 3,6 9 5,6 11
2,1 3 4,1 5 6,1 7
2,2 4 4,2 6 6,2 8
2,3 5 4,3 7 6,3 9
2,4 6 4,4 8 6,4 10
2,5 7 4,5 9 6,5 11
2,6 8 4,6 10 6,6 12


Probability Distribution
Value of Occur. Probablity 0.2
R.V. m(xi) p(xi)
0.15
Probability
2 1 1/36
0.1
3 2 2/36
0.05
4 3 3/36
5 4 4/36 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6 5 5/36
7 6 6/36
8 5 5/36
9 4 4/36  xi − 1
 36 x i = 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
10 3 3/36

11 2 2/36 p (x i ) = 
12 1 1/36  13 − x i
 36 x i = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


10

Cumulative Distribution
Value of R.V. Cum. Probablity 1
F(xi)
Cum. Probability
0.8
<2 0 0.6
2 1/36 0.4
3 3/36 0.2
4 6/36 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 10/36
6 15/36
7 21/36
8 26/36
F ( xi ) = ∑ p ( xi )
9 30/36
10 33/36
11 35/36 x ≤ xi
12 36/36 = 1.0

For Continuous Random Variable
Failure Density Function
f (t ) t – random variable
time-to-failure
Cumulative Probability Function
t
F (t ) = ∫ f (τ )dτ
0

11

The probability that a component will fail by the
time t can be defined by cumulative distribution
function of failure
P(T ≤ t ) = F (t ) t ≥0
where t is a random variable denoting time-to-
failure.
Since success and failure are mutually exclusive,
then the Reliability Function can be defined by
R(t ) = 1 − F (t ) t ≥0
If the time to failure random variable t has a

density function f(t), then
t
F (t ) = ∫ f (τ ) dt
0 f (t )
t λ f(t)
R (t ) = 1 − ∫ f (τ )dτ F(t)
0
or
∞ R(t)
R (t ) = ∫ f (τ )dτ
t
t time

12

Example
What is the probability that an equipment will not fail
in one year if its failure density function is found to
()
be exponential ( f t = λe − λt ) where λ = 0.01failure/yr
The reliability function is
t
R (t ) = 1 − ∫ λ e − λτ d τ
0
− λτ t
= 1+ e 0|
= 1 + e − λt − e −0
R(t ) = e − λt = e − (0.01 f / yr )(1 yr ) =

Hazard Function (Failure Rate)
The propones of failure of a system or a component
is expressed by a the Hazard Function h(t).
In terms of the Hazard Function, the Failure Density
Function is
− ∫0t h (τ )dτ
f (t ) = h(t )e
the Reliability Function in terms of Hazard Function
is t
R (t ) = e ∫0
− h (τ )d τ

13

Example
What is the reliability of a component in one year if it
has constant hazard function of λ = 0.01failure/yr
The reliability function is
t Note: the failure
R (t ) = e ∫0
− h (τ )d τ
density function for
t
a constant hazard is
− ∫ λ dτ exponential
= e 0 = e − λt − ∫0t h (τ )dτ
− (0.01 f / yr )(1 yr )
f (t ) = h(t )e
=e t
λ dτ
= λe ∫0
= = λ e − λt

Component Failure Data
Item No. Time-to-Failure (hrs.) How do you
1 8 determine
2 20 the Failure
3 34
Density and
4 46
5 63
Hazard
6 86 Functions?
7 111
8 141
9 186
10 266

14

Estimating Failure Density Function
Data Density Function (fd(t))

The data density function (also called empirical density
function) defined over the time interval ∆ti is given by the
ratio of the number of failures occurring in the interval to
the size of the original population N, divided by the length of
the interval.
f d (t ) =
[n(ti ) − n(ti + ∆ti )] N for ti < t ≤ ti + ∆ti
∆ti
where n(t) is the number of survivor at any time t.


Failure Time ∆ti f(t)
Density 0–8 8 1 10
8
= 0.0125
Function 8 – 20 12 1 10
12
= 0.0084
f(t) 20 – 34 14 1 10
14
= 0.0074
1 10
34 – 46 12 = 0.0084
12
1 10
measure of the 46 – 63 17 17
= 0.0059
overall speed 63 – 86 23 1 10 =
0.0043
23
at which 1 10 =
86 – 111 25 0.0040
failures are 25
1 10
occurring. 111 – 141 30 = 0.0033
30
141 – 186 45 1 10
= 0.0022
45
1 10
186 – 266 80 = 0.0013
80

15
f(t) fractional failures/hr.x10-2

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300
Operating time, hr.
Failure Density Function from Component Failure Data


Data Hazard Rate or Failure Rate [hd(t)]
The data hazard rate or failure rate over the time
interval ∆ti is defined by the ratio of the number of
failures occurring in the time interval to the
number of survivors at the beginning of the time
interval, divided by the length of the time interval.
hd (t ) =
[n(ti ) − n(ti + ∆ti )] n(ti ) for ti < t ≤ ti + ∆ti
∆ti

16

Failure Time ∆ti h(t)
Hazard 0–8 8 1 10
= 0.0125
8
Function 8 – 20 12
19
= 0.093
12
h(t) 20 – 34 14
18
= 0.0096
14
17
34 – 46 12 = 0.0119
12
16=
measure of the 46 – 63 17
17
0.0098
instantaneous 63 – 86 23 15=
0.0087
23
speed of 14=
86 – 111 25 0.0100
failure 25
13
111 – 141 30 30
= 0.0111
12
141 – 186 45 45
= 0.0111
11
186 – 266 80 80
= 0.0125

1.4
h(t) failures/hr.x10-2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300
Operating time, hr.
Hazard Function from Component Failure Data

17

Constant Hazard Model h(t )
h(t ) = λ λ
t t
∫ h(τ )dτ = ∫ λdτ = λt
0 0
t
f (t ) = λe − λt
F (t ) = 1 − e − λt
R(t ) = e − λt

The Reliability f Function

(t )
h(t )
λ
λ
λ e
t t
t =1 λ
a. Constant Hazard b. Exponential failure
density function
F (t ) R(t )
1 1
1−1 e
1e
t t
t =1 λ t =1 λ
c. Rising exponential d. Decaying exponential
distribution function reliability function
18

Linearly Increasing Hazard Model
h(t ) = Kt t ≥0
t t 1 2
∫ 0
h(τ )dτ = ∫ Kτ dτ =
0 2
Kt
1
− Kt 2
f (t ) = Kte 2 h(t )
1
− Kt 2
R(t ) = e 2 Kt


h(t ) f (t )
K slope K
K e
Kt
t t
1K
a. Linearly increasing b. Rayleigh density
hazard function
F (t ) R (t )
1 1 Initial slope = 0
e1 2
1 − e1 2
t t
1 K 1 K
c. Rayleigh distribution d. Rayleigh reliability

function function
19

Linearly Decreasing Hazard
h (t )
K 0 − K 1t 0 < t ≤ K0 K1
K0
h(t ) = 0 K0 K1 < t ≤ t0
K (t − t0 ) t0 < t ≤ +∞
t
K0 K1 t0
t 1
∫ (K
0
0 − K 1τ )dτ = K 0 t −
2
K 1t 2
t K 0 K1 t 1 K 02
∫ h(τ )dτ =
0 ∫
0
(K 0 − K 1τ )dτ + ∫K 0 dK τ
0 1
=
2 K1
K 0 K1 t t 1
∫ (K 0 − K 1τ )dτ + ∫K 0 dK τ + ∫t K (τ − t0 )dτ K (t − t0 )
2
=
0 0 1 0 2

Linearly Decreasing Hazard
 1 
− K 0 t − K 1t 2 
(K0 − K1t )e  2 
0 0 < t ≤ K0 K1
f (t ) = K 0 K 1 < t ≤ t0
1 K 02 1 2
− − K (t − t 0 )
K (t − t0 )e 2 K1
e 2
t0 < t ≤ +∞
 1 
−  K 0 t − K 1t 2 
 2 
e 0 < t ≤ K0 K1
R(t ) = 0
K 0 K 1 < t ≤ t0
1 K 02 1 2
− − K ( t − t0 )
2 K1 2 t0 < t ≤ +∞
e e

20

Weibull Hazard Model
h(t ) = Kt m m > −1
t t 1
∫0
h(τ )dτ = ∫ Kt m dτ =
0 m+1
Kt m +1
1 h (t ) K
− Kt m+1 m=3
f (t ) = Kt e m m +1 5
4
m=2
1
− Kt m+1 3 m=1
R(t ) = e m +1 2 m = 0 .5
1 m=0
m = −0 .5
t→ 1 2


m (m + 1 )
f (t ) [(m + 1)]
h (t ) K K K
5 m=3 5
m=2
4 4
3 m=1 3 m = − 0 .5
2 2 m=0
m = 0 .5 m = 0 .5
1 m=0 1 m=1
m=2
m = − 0 .5 m=3
t→ 1 2 τ → 1 2
a. Hazard function b. Density function

21

F (t ) R (t )
m=3 m=2 m=1
5 m = 0 .5 5
4 m=0 4
m = − 0 .5
3 3
2 2
m=1 m = − 0 .5
1 1 m=2 m=0
m=3 m = 0 .5
τ → 1 2 τ → 1 2
 K  1 ( m + 1 )   K  1 ( m + 1 ) 
τ =   t τ =   t
 m + 1    m + 1  
c. Distribution function d. Reliability function


The Bathtub Curve
a. Hazard Function
b. Failure Density Function

22

Hazard Model for Different System
a. Mechanical b. Electrical c. Software

Mean-Time-To-Failure
MTTF = Expected value of t
t
= E (t ) = ∫ tf (t )dt
0
dF (t ) d [1 − R (t )] dR (t )
but f (t ) = = =−
dt dt dt
∞ tdR(t ) ∞ t
MTTF = − ∫ dt = − ∫ tdR(t ) = ∫ R(t )dt
0 dt 0 0
1 n
For a population of n components MTTF = ∑ ti
n i =1
23

RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
of MERALCO Distribution Transformers*
Distribution Transformer Failures
• 1997: 996 DT Failures
• Average of three (3) DT Failures/day
• Lost Revenue during Downtime
• Additional Equipment Replacement Cost
• Lost of Customer Confidence
Identify the Failure Mode of DTs
Develop strategies to reduce DT failures
* R. R. del Mundo, et. al. (1999)
METHODOLOGY: Reliability Engineering

(Weibull Analysis of Failure Data)
• Gather Equipment History (Failure Data)
• Classify DTs (Brand, Condition, KVA, Voltage)
• Develop Reliability Model
• Determine Failure Mode
• Recommend Solutions to Improve Reliability

24
Parametric Model
• Shape Factor Failure Mode
• Characteristic Life
Shape Factor Hazard Function Failure Mode
<1 Decreasing Early
=1 Constant Random
>1 Increasing Wear-out


MERALCO DTs (1989–1997)
Brand New Recond Rewind Convert Total
A 29,960 835 1,333 2,048 34,712
B 5,986 118 135 269 6,586
C 6,358 49 31 21 6,561
D 2,037 116 90 - 2,344
E - - - - 192
F - - - - 168
G - - - - 79
H - - - - 69
TOTAL 44,341 1,118 1,588 2,338 51,129
Note: Total Include Acquired DTs

25

Reliability Analysis: All DTs
Interval Failures Survivors Hazard
200 1444 57095 0.0269
400 797 48852 0.0178
600 638 39997 0.0174
800 508 32802 0.0167
1000 475 27515 0.0189
1200 363 22129 0.0178
1400 295 18200 0.0178
1600 224 14690 0.0167
1800 159 11865 0.0151
2000 89 9010 0.0114
2200 98 6473 0.0177
2400 51 4479 0.015
2600 19 2254 0.0122
2800 2 821 0.0042
3000 0 127 0


Reliability Analysis: All DTs
0.03
0.025
Weibull Shape = 0.84
0.02
Hazard
0.015
0.01
Failure Mode: EARLY FAILURE
0.005
Is it Manufacturing Defect?
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Time Interval
26

Reliability Analysis: By Manufacturer
BRAND Size Shape Failure Mode

A 34712 0.84 Early Failure
B 6586 0.81 Early Failure
C 6561 0.86 Early Failure
D 2344 0.76 Early Failure
E 192 0.85 Early Failure
F 168 0.86 Early Failure
G 79 0.76 Early Failure
H 69 0.98 Early Failure


Reliability Analysis:
By Manufacturer & Condition
BRAND New Reconditioned Rewinded Converted

A 1.11 1.23 1.12 1.4
B 0.81 1.29 1.27 1.23
C 0.81 1.13 0.77 0.94
D 0.67 1.11 1.49 -

27

Reliability Analysis: By Voltage Rating
PRI SEC All DTs New DTs
20 7.62 0.75 -
20 120/240 0.79 0.94
20 139/277 1.14 1.1
20 DUAL 0.72 1.03
13.2 120/240 0.88 1.54
13.2 240/480 0.91 -
7.62 120/240 0.99 1.46
7.62 DUAL 0.77 -
4.8 120/240 0.87 1.61
3.6 120/240 0.78 1.17
2.4 120/240 1.15 -

Reliability Analysis: By KVA Rating (New DTs)
KVA Shape Failure Mode
10 1.3 Wear-out
15 1.25 Wear-out
25 0.92 Early
37.5 0.83 Early
50 0.73 Early
75 1.05 Random
100 1.04 Random
167 1.16 Random
250 1.11 Random
333 1.46 Wear-out
28

MERALCO Distribution Transformer
Reliability Analysis: Recommendations
• Review Replacement Policies
- New or Repair
- In-house or Remanufacture
• Improve Transformer Load Management Program
- Predict Demand Accurately (TLMS)
• Consider Higher KVA Ratings
• Consider Surge Protection for 20 kV DTs

of MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers*
Number of Feeder Power Circuit Breakers
VOLTAGE OCB VCB GCB MOCB ACB

34.5 KV 149 160 41
13.8 KV 7 28 2 36 12
6.24 KV 26 3 122
4.8 KV 2 11
TOTAL 156 216 43 39 145
* R. R. del Mundo (UP) & J. Melendrez (Meralco), 2001

29

of MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
Annual Failures of 34.5 kV OCBs
Causes of 1997 1998 1999 2000 Average
Failure Failures
Installed Failed Installed Failed Installed Failed Installed Failed (Units/yr)
Contact 158 2 155 2 149 1 145 2 1.15
Wear
Bushing 158 1 155 3 149 3 145 1 1.317
Failure
Mechanis - - 155 1 - - - - 0.645
m Failure
3 Circuit Breakers failing per year!
Preventive Maintenance Policy: Time-based (Periodic)

Reliability Assessment of
MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV OCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 13.8 KV MOCBs
0.4 0.2 0.4

H a za rd R a te
H a z a r d R a te
H a z a rd R a t e
0.3 0.15 0.3

0.2 0.1 0.2
0.1 0.05 0.1
0 0
0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time Interval (months) Time Interval (months) Time Interval (months)
34.5 kV OCBS OCBs 34.5 kV GCBs 13.8 kV MOCBs

HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV MOCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV ACBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR ALL PCBs CONSIDERED
0.4 0.2 0.4

H a z a rd R a t e
H a z a rd R a t e
H a z a r d R a te
0.3 0.15 0.3

0.2 0.1 0.2
.
0.1 0.05 0.1
0 0 0
3 6 9 12 15 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time Interval (months) Time Interval (months) Time Interval (m onths)
6.24 kV MOCBs 6.24 kV ACBs All PCBs
TIME-BASED HAZARD FUNCTION

30
Reliability Assessment of
MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV OCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs
0.05 0.05
0.25
H a z a r d R a te
H a z a r d R a te
0.2 0.04 0.04
H a z a rd R a t e
0.15 0.03 0.03

0.1 0.02 0.02
0.05 0.01 0.01
0 0 0
25 50 75 100 125 150
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 25 50 75 100 125 150
Tripping Interval Tripping Interval Tripping Interval
34.5 kV OCBS OCBs 34.5 kV GCBs 13.8 kV MOCBs
HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV OCBs
MOCBs MOCBs
0.25
0.3 0.3
0.2
H a z a rd R a t e
H a z a rd R a te
H a z a r d R a te
0.2 0.2 0.15

0.1
0.1 0.1
0.05
0 0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Tripping Interval Tripping Interval Tripping Interval
6.24 kV MOCBs 6.24 kV ACBs All PCBs
TRIPPING OPERATIONS-BASED HAZARD FUNCTION


of MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
Schedule of Servicing for 41XV4
0.08
Hazard Rate
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Tripping Operations
Reliability-Based
Preventive Maintenance Schedule

31

Series Reliability Model
R(x1) R(x2) R(x3) R(x4)
Series System
This arrangements represents a system whose
subsystems or components form a series network. If
any of the subsystem or component fails, the series
system experiences an overall system failure.
n
Rs = ∏ R( xi )
i =1


Example:
Two non-identical cables in series are required to

feed a load from the distribution system. If the two
cables have constant failure rates λ1 = 0.01
failure/year and λ2 = 0.02 failure/year. Calculate the
reliability and the mean-time-to-failure for 1 year
period.

32
Parallel Reliability Model
This structure represents

R(x1) a system that will fail if
and only if all the units in
R(x2) the system fail.
R(x3)
n
Rs = 1 − ∏ [1 − R( xi )]
R(x4) i =1
Parallel Network
Example
Supposing two identical machines are operating in a

redundant configuration. If either of the machine fails,
the remaining machine can still operate at the full
system load. Assuming both machines to have
constant failure rates and failures are statistically
independent, calculate (a) the system reliability for
λ = 0.0005 failure/hour, t = 400 hours (operating time)
and (b) the mean-time-to-failure (MTTF).

33

Standby Redundancy Model
R(x1)
R(x2)
R(x3)
R(x4)
This type of redundancy represents a distribution
with one operating and n units as standbys. Unlike a
parallel network where all units in the configuration
are active, the standby units are not active.

The system reliability of the (n+1) units, in which one
unit is operating and n units on the standby mission
until the operating unit fails, is given by
R(t ) = 1 − ∑
n
(λt ) i e −λt
i =1 i!
The above equation is true if the following are true:
1. The switch arrangement is perfect.
2. The units are identical.
3. The units failure rate are constant.
4. The standby units are as good as new.
5. The unit failures are statistically independent.
34

In the case of (n+1) non-identical units whose failure
time density functions are different, the standby
redundant system failure density is given by
t yn y2
f (t ) = ∫ ∫ ... ∫ f ( y ) f ( y
y n y n−1 y1 = 0
1 1 2 2 − y1 )... f n +1 (t − yn )dy1dy2 ...dyn
Consequently, the system reliability can be obtained

by integrating fs(t) over the interval [t,∞] as follows:
∞
R(t ) = ∫ f ( t )dt
t


K-Out-of-N Reliability Model
R(x1) The system reliability for

k-out-of-n number of
R(x2) independent and identical
units is given by
R(x3)  n
n
Rs = ∑   R i ( 1 − R )n −i
i=k  i 
This is another form of redundancy. It is used where

a specified number of units must be good for the
system success.

35
System Reliability 3
1
5
2
4
6
Networks
7
8
Primary side 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Reliability Network Models for 19
21
20
22
Typical Substation Configurations 23
25
24
26
of MERALCO* 27
29
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
Secondary side 37
36
38
Scheme 1: Single breaker-single bus

39
40
41
(primary and secondary side) 43

44
45
42
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
* Source: A. Gonzales (Meralco) & 56

57
R. del Mundo (UP), 2005 58


Reliability Network Diagram of Single breaker-single bus scheme
(Scheme 1)
λc
15λ λct
29λ λbus
2λ λd1
4λ λb1
2λ λp λb2
2λ λd2
3λ
Summary of Substation Reliability Indices for Scheme 1
Event 1 Probability λs (failure/yr) Us (hr/yr)

Opened 115kV bus tie 1.0 0.247152 0.828784
breaker & opened
34.5kV bus tie breaker
(normal condition)
Total 1.0 0.247152 0.828784
where: λs - substation failure rate or interruption frequency

Us – substation annual outage time or unavailability

36
L1 L2
System Reliability 3
1
5
2
4
6 75
71
73
70
72
74
Networks
7 76
8 77
9 78
18 16
17
127
128 19 15
129 20
14
130 21 13
131 22 12
132
Reliability Network Models for

23
133 10 11 92 79
134 35
91 80
135
136 24 34 90
137 81
Typical Substation Configurations

33 89
138 25 82
32
139 26 88 83
140 31 87 84
27
141 28 30 86 85
of MERALCO 36
93
29
Primary side
37 94
38 95
39 96
40 97
41 98
Scheme 2: Single breaker-double bus Bank 1 42 99

Bank 2
(primary side) and two single 43
44
100
101
breaker-single bus with bus tie 45
46
102
103
47 104
breaker (secondary side) 49

48
50
106
108
105
107
Secondary side
51
52 109
53 110
54 111
55 126 112
56
57
125 124 119 115 113
58 121 117
59 116 114
60 122
61 123 120 118
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69

Substation Reliability Models

Reliability Network Diagram of Single breaker-double bus with
normally opened 115kV bus tie breaker (Scheme 2)
λc
16λ λct
29λ λbus
2λ λd1
3λ λb1
2λ λp λb2
2λ λd2
3λ
Event 1: Opened 115kV and 34.5kV bus tie breakers; P1 = 0.997985
λc
20λ λct
37λ λbus
3λ λd1
5λ λb1
2λ λp λb2
2λ λd2
3λ
Event 2: Closed 115kV bus tie breaker & opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P2 = 0.000188
λc
20λ λct
37λ λbus
2λ λd1
3λ λb1
2λ λp λb2
3λ λd2
5λ
Event 3: Closed 115kV bus tie breaker & closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P3 = 0.000000344
λc
20λ λct
37λ λbus
2λ λd1
3λ λb1
2λ λp λb2
3λ λd2
5λ
Event 4: Opened 115kV bus tie breaker & closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P4 = 0.00182614

37
Summary of Substation Reliability Indices for Scheme 2
Event Probability λs (failure/yr) Us (hr/yr)

1 0.997985 0.251752 0.848919
2 0.000188 0.302966 1.008374
3 0.000000344 0.308936 1.023840
4 0.001826 0.308936 1.023840
Total 1.0 0.251866 0.849275
Event 1: With two primary lines energized & opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P1 = 0.997985

normally closed 115kV bus tie breaker (Modified Scheme 2)
λΒ1 λΒ1
Β3
λΒ2
Β3 λΒ1
Β3 λΒ1 λΒ2 λΒ2
Β3 Β3
λ17 λ54 λΒ3 λΒ4 λΒ5
λΒ6 λΒ7 λΒ7

Β4 λλΒ4
29 λΒ9 λΒ6 λΒ4
29
λ17 λB1 λB2 λB3 λB4 λB5
Event 2: With one line, L2 interrupted & opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P2 = 0.000188
λ17 λ29 λB1 λB2 λB5 λB8 λB9 λB10 λB11
Event 3: With one line, L2 interrupted and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P3 = 0.000000344

38

normally closed 115kV bus tie breaker (Modified Scheme 2)
λΒ1 λΒ1 λΒ3
Β2 λΒ3
Β6 λΒ3
Β2 λΒ6 λΒ3
Β7 λλΒ3
Β7 λΒ7
Β3
λ29 λ111 λΒ5 λΒ8 λΒ10 λΒ11
λΒ6 λΒ7 λΒ7 λλΒ4

17 λΒ4
Β6 λΒ9 λΒ9 λλΒ4
Β8 λλΒ4
17
Event 4: With two lines energized and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P4 = 0.001826140
Summary of Substation Reliability Indices for Modified Scheme 2
Event Probability λs (failure/yr) Us,(hr/yr)

1 0.997985 0.176076 0.583548
2 0.000188 0.251122 0.847621
3 0.000000344 0.377120 1.261549
4 0.001826 0.233261 0.758472
Total 1.0 0.176194 0.583923
Comparison of Substation Reliability Indices for Scheme 2
Scheme 2 λs (failure/yr) Us (hr/yr)

Original (opened 115kV bus tie
0.251866 0.849275
breaker)
Modified (closed 115kV bus tie
breaker) 0.176194 0.583923
Note: A remarkable 30% improvement in the performance

of Scheme 2 by making the 115kV bus tie breaker
normally closed.

39
System Reliability B1
1 67
B4
Networks
17
16 32 82
15 81
80
14
13 79
12 78
11 77
10 76
B2 9
8
75 B5
73 74
7 72
6
5 71
70
4

69
3 68
2
Primary side
3 69
83
Typical Substation Configurations

18
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
of MERALCO B3
88
24
25
23
89
90
B6
26 91
27 92
28 93
29 94
30 95
31 96
33
97
B7 34 98
B8
Scheme 3: Ring bus (primary side) and two Bank 1 35 99

Bank 2
single breaker-single bus with 37

36
38
101
100
102
103
39
bus tie breaker (secondary side) 42

40
41
43
104 105
106
107
44 108
45 109
46 110
47 111
48 112 Secondary side
49 113
51 50 114 115
52 130 116
53
54
128 123 119
55 125 121 117
56
B10 58
57 129
127
126
124
120
122
118
59
60
62
61
63
B9
64
65
66


Reliability Block Diagram of Ring Bus Scheme (Scheme 3)
λB1 λB4
λB1 λB2
λB5 λB2 λ17 λ51 λB7 λB10
λB4 λB5
λB6 λB3
λB1 λB4
λB1 λB3
λB5 λB2 λ31 λB8 λB9 λ51 λB10
λB4 λB6
λB6 λB3
Event 2: With two primary lines energized & closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P2 = 0.00182614
40

Reliability Block Diagram of Ring Bus Scheme (Scheme 3)
CONT.
λB2 λB2 λB2 λB2
λB1 λ17 λB7 λ51 λB10
λB3 λ31 λB6 λB5
Event 3: With one primary line (L2) interrupted and opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P3 = 0.000188056
λB2 λB3 λB3 λB3
λB1 λ31 λB8 λB9 λ51 λB10
λB3 λ17 λB5 λB6
Event 4: With one primary line (L2) interrupted and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P4 = 0.000000344


Summary of Substation Reliability Indices of Ring Bus
(Scheme 3)

1 0.997985 0.137928 0.436499
2 0.001826 0.195112 0.618379
3 0.000188 0.147283 0.468233
4 0.000000344 0.204467 0.650114
Total 1.0 0.138034 0.436836

41
L L
System Reliability
1 2
1 7
1 8
7
1 9
1 61 9
9 3
B1
5 2
4 1
1 9
3 1 1 8 0
Networks
21 8
1 89
8
0
B2 9
7
8 B5
7
8
5 8 8
8
6 B6
6 4
5 3 8
4 8 2
3 1 8
2 7 0
9
3 8
1 9 0
8 1 4
9

9 5
2 9
2 9
B3 2 0
2
1
2 B7 96
8
7
9
2
4 2 2
3
10 10
9 Primary
Typical Substation Configurations 5 0 10 1
62 2 10
2 7
8
2
10
4 10
3 side
9 4 12 5
of MERALCO 3
0
3
2
9
3 0
10
6
10
5
10
3 1 10 7
3 10
3 2
3 118 9
B4 4
3
6 3
3
5
0
11 11
11
1 B8
3 7 2 11 3
83 4 11
4 9 5
11
0 4 6 11
11
4 1 11 7
9
2 8
4 12
4 1
B9 B10
4 12
5 2
Scheme 4: Breaker-and-a-half bus (primary Bank

1
4
6
12
3
Bank
2
4
side) and two single breaker-single 12 12

4 7 4
8 4 5 12
9 6
5 12
5 0 12 7
bus with bus tie breaker 5 12

5 1
2 13 8 9
3 5 0 13
5 4 1
13
5 5 5 2 13
13
(secondary side)
6 3
75 4 13
5
8
13
6 13
5
Secondary
9 6
6
6
2
6 0
1
15 14
13 7
8 side 13
9
3 6 4 0
6 4 15 14 14
5 14
6 2 158 6 14 14
1
4 2
6 66 15
0
14
15 14
6 7 8 3 14 5 14
9 7 1 9 7 3
7 0
1 7 7
37 2
4
B1
7
5
7 6
7 1
7


Reliability Block Diagram of Breaker-and-a-half Scheme (Scheme 4)
λΒ1
Β3 λΒ2
Β3
λλΒ1
6 λλΒ1
6
λΒ1 λΒ3 λΒ3 λΒ3 λΒ3
λΒ9 λ62 λΒ12 λΒ6

Β2 λΒ3
33
λλΒ7
7 λΒ8 A
λΒ5 λΒ4 λΒ7 λλ119 λΒ8

Β4 Β4
λΒ7
33 λΒ5
34
λ17 λΒ2
17
λΒ1
Β3 λΒ1
Β3 λΒ1
Β3 λΒ1
Β3
λλΒ1
6 λλΒ1
6 λΒ3 λΒ3 λλΒ3
6 λλΒ3
6
A λλΒ2
17 λλΒ4
33 λΒ2 λλΒ2
33
λλΒ2
7 λΒ2 λΒ5
Β2 λΒ5
33
λλΒ5
7 λΒ5
λλ119
33 λ17
34 λΒ7
33 λλΒ8
34
λ119 λΒ4
Β2 λ17
33 λΒ6
34
λΒ8 λλ119
Β2
Event 1: With two primary lines energized and opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P1 = 0.997985

42

λΒ1
Β3 λΒ2
Β3
λλΒ1
6 λλΒ5
6
λΒ1 λΒ7 λΒ3 λΒ7

Β3 λΒ4
Β3
λΒ10 λ139 λΒ11 λ62 λΒ12 λΒ6

Β2 λΒ3
33
λλΒ2
7 λΒ8 A
λΒ5 λΒ8 λΒ7 λλ119

Β4 λΒ7
Β4
λλΒ7
33 λΒ5
34
λΒ7 λλΒ2
17
λΒ5
Β3
λλΒ2
6 λλΒ2
6 λΒ5
Β3 λΒ4
Β3
λλΒ4
6 λλ119
6 λλ119
6
A λΒ2
17 λΒ5
33 λΒ5
Β2 λΒ5
33
λλΒ5
7 λΒ4 λΒ6
Β2 λΒ5
33
λλΒ5
7 λΒ5 λΒ5
λλ119
33 λ17
34 λΒ6
33 λΒ8
34
λ119 λΒ5
Β2 λΒ8
33 λΒ6
34
λ17 λΒ7
Β2 λΒ6
Β2
Event 2: With two primary lines energized and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P2 = 0.001826


λΒ3 λΒ6
Β3 λΒ6 λΒ6 λΒ6 λΒ7
Β3 Β3 Β3 Β3
λΒ9 λ62 λΒ12 λΒ5 A
λΒ4 λΒ7 λΒ8 λλ119 λΒ4 λΒ4

Β4 Β4 17
λΒ7 λΒ7
Β3 λΒ8 λΒ8 λΒ8 λΒ3 λΒ3 λΒ2
Β3 Β3 17 17 Β3 λλ119
Β3 λλ119
Β3
λΒ2 λΒ3 λΒ4 λΒ2 λΒ3 λ119 λΒ4 λΒ4

17 Β4 λΒ2
Β4 λΒ3
Β4
Event 3: With one primary line (L1) interrupted and opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P3 = 0.000188

43

λΒ7 λΒ6
Β3 λΒ7
Β3 λΒ7
Β3 λΒ7 λΒ4 λλ119
Β3 Β3
λΒ10 λ139 λΒ11 λ62 λΒ12 λΒ5
λΒ8 λΒ7 λλΒ4

17 λΒ2
Β4
Event 4: With one primary line (L1) interrupted and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P4 = 0.000000344
Summary of Substation Reliability Indices of Breaker-&-a-half

(Scheme 4)
1 0.997985 0.137306 0.435214
2 0.001826 0.195120 0.611433
3 0.000188 0.146674 0.466972
4 0.000000344 0.204473 0.643165
Total 1.0 0.137413 0.435545

Comparison of Substation Reliability Indices (Scheme 1 to 4)
Configuration λs (failures/yr) Us (hrs/yr)

Scheme 1 (Single breaker-single bus) 0.247152 0.828784
Scheme 2 (Single breaker-double bus)
- with normally opened 115kV tie bkr. 0.251866 0.849275
- with normally closed 115kV tie bkr. 0.176194 0.583923
Scheme 3 (Ring bus) 0.138034 0.436836
Scheme 4 (Breaker-and-a-half bus) 0.137413 0.435545
Note: Scheme 3 & 4 - better than Scheme 1 & 2 by 44% & 45% respectively for substation
failure rates.
Scheme 3 & 4 - better than Scheme 1 & 2 by 47% & 49% respectively for substation
interruption duration or unavailabilty.
Scheme 3 & 4 - better than Modified Scheme 2 by 22% & 25% for substation failure
rates & unavailability, respectively

44
Distribution System
Reliability Evaluation
Distribution System Reliability Indices
Historical Reliability Performance
Assessment
Predictive Reliability Performance
Assessment
Substation Reliability Evaluation

Outages, Interruptions and

Reliability Indices
Outage (Component State)
Component is not available to perform its intended
function due to the event directly associated with
that component (IEEE-STD-346).
Interruption (Customer State)
Loss of service to one or more consumers as a result of
one or more component outages (IEEE-STD-346).
Types of Interruptions
(a) Momentary Interruption. Service restored by
switching operations (automatic or manual) within a
specified time (5 minutes per IEEE-STD-346).
(b) Sustained Interruption. An interruption not
classified as momentary
45
Distribution System Reliability

Indices
CUSTOMER-ORIENTED RELIABILITY INDICES
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)*
The average number of interruptions per customer served
during a period
T otal number of customer - interrupti ons
SAIFI =
Total number of customers served
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI)
The average interruption duration per customer served during a
period
Sum of customer interruption duration
SAIDI =
Note: SAIFI for Sustained interruptions. MAIFI for Momentary Interruptions

Indices
Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index
(CAIFI)
The average number of interruptions per customer interrupted
during the period
Total number of customer interruptions
CAIFI =
Total number of customers interrupted
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI)
The average interruption duration of customers interrupted
during the period
Sum of customer interruption duration
CAIDI =
Total number of customers interrupted
46

Indices
Average Service Availability Index (ASAI)
The ratio of the total number of customer hours that service
was available during a year to the total customer hours
demanded Customer hours of available service
ASAI =
Customer hours demanded
Average Service Unavailability Index (ASUI)
The ratio of the total number of customer hours that service
was not available during a year to the total customer hours
demanded
C ustomer hours of unavailabl e service
ASUI =
Customer hours demanded


Indices
LOAD- AND ENERGY-ORIENTED RELIABILITY
INDICES
Average Load Interruption Index (ALII)
The average KW (KVA) of connected load interrupted per year
per unit of connected load served.
Total load interruption
ALII =
Total connected load
Average System Curtailment Index (ASCI)
Also known as the average energy not supplied (AENS). It is
the KWh of connected load interruption per customer served.
Total energy curtailment
ASCI =
47

Indices
LOAD- AND ENERGY-ORIENTED RELIABILITY
INDICES
Average Customer Curtailment Index (ACCI)
The KWh of connected load interruption per affected customer
per year.
Total energy curtailment

ACCI =
Total number of customers affected

Historical and Predictive

Assessment
HISTORICAL SYSTEM
ORGANIZATION, INCIDENTS
PERFORMANCE
CUSTOMER, kVA MANAGEMENT
HISTORICAL
OPERATIONS
ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING
COMPONENT CUSTOMER INQUIRIES
POPULATION
COMPONENT
PERFORMANCE
PREDICTED SYSTEM
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DEFINITION PREDICTIVE
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
ASSESSMENT
AID TO DECISION-MAKING
PLANNING STUDIES
Conceptual Design of an Integrated Reliability Assessment Program
48
Historical Reliability
Performance Assessment
Required Data:
1. Exposure Data
N - total number of customers served
P - period of observation
2. Interruption Data
Nc - number of customers interrupted on interruption i
d - duration of ith interruption, hours
d1
d3
Number of
customers N1 d2 N3
interrupted N2
Time
S 1 2 3
A B C
Source
L1 L2 L3
SYSTEM LOAD DATA
Number of Average Load
Load Point
Customers Demand (KW)
L1 200 1000
L2 150 700
L3 100 400
INTERRUTION DATA
Number of
Interruption Load Point Average Load Duration of
Disconnected
Event i Affected Curtailed (KW) Interruption
Customers
1 L3 100 400 6 hours
49
SAIFI =
∑N C
=
100
∑N 200 + 150 + 100
= 0.222222 interruption customer - yr
SAIDI =
∑ N d = (100 )(6 )
C
∑ N 200 + 150 + 100

= 1.333333 hours customer - yr
CAIDI =
∑ N d = (100 )(6 )
C
∑N C100
= 6 hours custumer - interruption
ASUI =
∑ N d ∑ N = SAIDI = 1.333333
C
8760 8760 8760

= 0.000152
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000152

= 0.999848
ASCI =
ENS
=
∑ L d = (400 )(6 )
a
∑N ∑ N 200 + 150 + 100

= 5.333333 KWh customer − yr
Note: ENS - Energy Not Supplied
50
Outage & Interruption Reporting

Date Affected hours

Historical 1 01/08/04 3 1.5 Line Fault at C
Reliability 2* 02/06/04 All 4 Transmission
3 02/14/04 5, 6 0.5 Line Fault at D
Performance 4* 03/15/04 4, 5, 6 3 Pre-arranged
Assessment 5 04/01/04 6 1.5 Overload
6* 05/20/04 3, 4 3.5 Pre-arranged
7 05/30/04 1, 2, 3 0.5 Line Tripped
8 06/12/04 1 2 Line fault
Outage & 9 07/04/04 5 1 Line Overload
Interruption 10* 07/25/04 All 5 Transmission
Reporting 11 07/30/04 5 1 Line Fault
12* 08/15/04 4 2 Pre-arranged
13 09/08/04 2 1 Line Fault
*Not included in 14* 09/30/04 1, 2, 3 2.5 Pre-arranged
Distribution 15 10/25/04 3 1.5 Line Tripped
Reliability 16 11/10/04 2, 3 1.5 Line Fault at A
Performance 17* 11/27/04 3 2 Pre-arranged
Assessment 18* 12/14/04 3, 4, 5 3.5 Pre-arranged
19* 12/27/04 2, 3 3 Pre-arranged
20 12/28/04 1, 2, 3 0.075 Line Fault

51
Customer Count
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
January 900 800 600 850 500 300 3,950
February 905 796 600 855 497 303 3,956
March 904 801 604 854 496 308 3,967
April 908 806 606 859 501 310 3,990
May 912 804 608 862 509 315 4,010
June 914 810 611 864 507 318 4,024
July 917 815 614 866 512 324 4,048
August 915 815 620 872 519 325 4,066
September 924 821 622 876 521 328 4,092
October 928 824 626 881 526 331 4,116
November 930 826 630 886 530 334 4,136
December 934 829 635 894 538 332 4,162
Annual Average 916 812 615 868 513 319 4,043

Interruption Load Number of Duration Customer Frequency Duration Date
Number Points Customers (Hrs.) Hours (Inter/Cust.) (Hrs/Cust.)
Affected Affected Curtailed
1 3 600 1.5 900 0.1519 0.2278 01/08/04
3 5 497 0.5 248.5 0.1256 0.0628 02/14/04
6 303 0.5 151.5 0.0766 0.0383
5 6 310 1.5 465 0.0777 0.1165 04/01/04
7 1 912 0.5 456 0.2274 0.1137 05/30/04
2 804 0.5 402 0.2005 0.1002
3 608 0.5 304 0.1516 0.0758
8 1 914 2 1,828.00 0.2271 0.4543 06/12/04
9 5 512 1 512 0.1265 0.1265 07/04/04
11 5 512 1 512 0.1265 0.1265 07/30/04
13 2 821 1 821 0.2006 0.2006 09/08/04
15 3 626 1.5 939 0.1521 0.2281 10/25/04
16 2 826 1.5 1,239.00 0.1997 0.2996 11/10/04
3 630 1.5 945 0.1523 0.2285

52
Calculate the Annual Reliability Performance of the

Distribution System (according to Phil. Distribution Code)
SAIFI =
∑N C
∑N
SAIDI =
∑N d C
∑N
MAIFI =
∑N C
∑N
Predictive Reliability
A λA, rA, UA A
Distribution
Source B Loads Source λB, rB, UB B Loads
System
C λC, rC, UC C
Required Data:
1. Component Reliability Data
λi - failure rate of component i
ri - mean repair time of component i
2. System Load Data
Ni - number of customers at point i
Li - the demand at point i

53
Load Point Reliability Equivalents
For series combinations: For parallel combinations:
1
1 2 S P
2
n
λs = Σ λi λp = λ1λ2 (r1 + r2)
i=1
n r1 r2
Σ λiri rp = __________
i=1
rs = _________ r1 + r2
λs

S 1 2 3
A B C
Source
L1 L2 L3
COMPONENT DATA
λ r
Feeder
(f/year) (hours)
A 0.2 6
B 0.1 5
C 0.15 8
SYSTEM LOAD DATA
Number of Average Load
Load Point
Customers Demand (KW)
L1 200 1000
L2 150 700
L3 100 400
54
Load Point Reliability Equivalents

For L1 U 1 = λ1r1
λ1 = λ A r1 = rA
= (0.2 )(6 )
= 0.2 f yr = 6 hrs
= 1.2 hrs yr
For L2 λ A rA + λB rB
λ2 = λ A + λB r2 = U 2 = λ2 r2
λ A + λB
= 0.2 + 0.1 = (0.3)(5.666667 )
=
(0.2 )(6 ) + (0.1)(5 )
= 0.3 f yr = 1.7 hrs yr
0.2 + 0.1
= 5.666667 hrs
For L3 λ A rA + λB rB + λC rC
λ3 = λ A + λB + λC r3 = U 3 = λ3 r3
λ A + λB + λB = (0.45 )(6.444444 )
= 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.15
=
(0.2)(6) + (0.1)(5) + (0.15)(8) = 2.9 hrs yr
= 0.45 f yr
0.2 + 0.1 + 0.15
= 6.444444 hrs
Reliability Indices
SAIFI =
∑ λ N = (0.2 )(200 ) + (0.3)(150 ) + (0.45 )(100 )
i i
∑N i 200 + 150 + 100

= 0.288889 interruption customer − yr
SAIDI =
∑U N = (1.2 )(200 ) + (1.7 )(150 ) + (2.9 )(100 )
i i
∑N i 200 + 150 + 100

CAIDI =
∑U N i i
=
SAIDI 1.744444
=
∑λ N i i SAIFI 0.288889
= 6.038462 hours customer - interruption

55
ASUI =
∑U N ∑ N
i i i
=
SAIDI 1.744444
=
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000199
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000199

= 0.999801
ASCI =
ENS
=
∑ L ( )U
a i i
=
(1000 )(1.2 ) + (700 )(1.7 ) + (400 )(2.9 )
∑ Ni ∑N i 200 + 150 + 100
= 7.888889 KWh customer - yr

1 2 3 4
Source
a b c d
A D
C
B
Typical radial distribution system

56
SYSTEM RELIABILITY DATA

Component Length (km) λ (f/yr) r (hrs)
1 2 0.2 4
Main
2 1 0.1 4
3 3 0.3 4
4 2 0.2 4
a 1 0.2 2
Lateral
b 3 0.6 2
c 2 0.4 2
d 1 0.2 2
SYSTEM LOAD DATA

Component No. of Customers Ave. Load Connected (KW)
A 1000 5000
B 800 4000
C 700 3000
D 500 2000

RELIABILITY INDICES FOR THE SYSTEM

Load pt. ALoad pt. B Load pt. C Load pt. D
U U U U
Component λ r λ r λ r λ r
(hrs/ (hrs/ (hrs/ (hrs/
failure (f/yr) (hrs) (f/yr) (hrs) (f/yr) (hrs) (f/yr) (hrs)
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
2 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4
Main
3 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2

4 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4

Lateral
b 0.6 2 1.2 0.6 2 1.2 0.6 2 1.2 0.6 2 1.2

c 0.4 2 0.8 0.4 2 0.8 0.4 2 0.8 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4
Total 2.2 2.73 6.0 2.2 2.73 6.0 2.2 2.73 6.0 2.2 2.73 6.0
where : λtotal = ∑ λ ; U total = ∑ U ; rtotal = ∑ U ∑λ

57
SAIFI =
∑ λ N = (2.2)(1000) + (2.2)(800) + (2.2)(700) + (2.2)(500 )
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

= 2.2 int customer − yr
SAIDI =
∑U N = (6.0 )(1000) + (6.0 )(800) + (6.0 )(700) + (6.0 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

CAIDI =
∑U N i i
=
SAIDI 6.0
=
∑λ N i i SAIFI 2.2

ASUI =
∑U N ∑ N i i i
=
SAIDI
=
6 .0
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000685
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000685

= 0.999315
ASCI =
∑L U ai i
∑N i
=
(5000 )(6.0 ) + (4000 )(6.0 ) + (3000 )(6.0 ) + (2000 )(6.0 )
1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

58
Effect of lateral protection
1 2 3 4
Source
a b c d
A D
C
B
Typical radial distribution system with lateral protections

RELIABILITY INDICES WITH LATERAL PROTECTION

Load pt. A
Load pt. B Load pt. C Load pt. D
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
2 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4
Main
3 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2

4 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Lateral
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 3.6 3.6 1.4 3.14 4.4 1.2 3.33 4.0 1.0 3.6 3.6

59
SAIFI = ∑
λi Ni
=
(1.0)(1000) + (1.4)(800) + (1.2)(700) + (1.0)(500)
∑N i
1000+ 800 + 700 + 500
= 1.153333 int customer− yr
SAIDI =
∑U N = (3.6 )(1000) + (4.4 )(800) + (4.0 )(700) + (3.6 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

CAIDI =
∑U N i i
=
SAIDI 3.906667
=
∑λ N i i SAIFI 1.153333

ASUI =
∑U N ∑ N i i i
=
SAIDI 3.906667
=
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000446
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000446

= 0.999554
ASCI =
∑L U ai i
∑N i
=
(5000 )(3.6 ) + (4000 )(4.4 ) + (3000 )(4.0 ) + (2000 )(3.6 )
1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

60
Effect of disconnects
1 2 3 4
Source
a b c d
A D
C
B
Typical radial distribution system reinforce with
lateral protections and disconnects
RELIABILITY INDICES WITH LATERAL PROTECTION AND DISCONNECTS

Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4
Main
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Lateral
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.89 2.65 1.2 2.75 3.3 1.0 3.6 3.6

61
SAIFI =
∑ λ N = (1.0 )(1000) + (1.4 )(800) + (1.2)(700) + (1.0 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

= 1.153333 int customer − yr
SAIDI =
∑U N = (1.5)(1000) + (2.65)(800) + (3.3)(700) + (3.6 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

CAIDI =
∑U N i i
=
SAIDI 2.576667
=
∑λ N i i SAIFI 1.153333

ASUI =
∑U N ∑ N i i i
=
SAIDI 2.576667
=
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000294
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000294

= 0.999706
ASCI =
∑L U ai i
∑N i
=
(5000 )(1.5 ) + (4000 )(2.65 ) + (3000 )(3.3) + (2000 )(3.6 )
1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

62
Effect of protection failures

RELIABILITY INDICES IF THE FUSES OPERATE WITH PROBABILITY OF 0.9
Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 4 0.4
Main
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4 0.02 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.5 0.01
Lateral
b 0.06 0.5 0.03 0.6 2 1.2 0.06 0.5 0.03 0.06 0.5 0.03
c 0.04 0.5 0.02 0.04 0.5 0.02 0.4 2 0.8 0.04 0.5 0.02
d 0.02 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.5 0.01 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.12 1.39 1.56 1.48 1.82 2.69 1.3 2.58 3.35 1.12 3.27 3.66

Effect of load transfer to alternative

supply
RELIABILITY INDICES WITH UNRESTRICTED LOAD TRANSFERS
Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 0.5 0.05
Main
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.15
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Lateral
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.39 1.95 1.2 1.88 2.25 1.0 1.5 1.5
63
Effect of load transfer to alternative

supply
RELIABILITY INDICES WITH RESTRICTED LOAD TRANSFERS
Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 1.9 0.38 0.2 1.9 0.38 0.2 1.9 0.38
Section
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 1.9 0.19 0.1 1.9 0.19
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 1.9 0.57
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Distributor
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.59 2.23 1.2 2.23 2.67 1.0 2.3 2.3
SUMMARY OF INDICES
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Load Point A
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.12 1.0 1.0
r (hrs) 2.73 3.6 1.5 1.39 1.5 1.5
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 3.6 1.5 1.56 1.5 1.5
Load Point B
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.48 1.4 1.4
r (hrs) 2.73 3.14 1.89 1.82 1.39 1.59
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 4.4 2.65 2.69 1.95 2.23
Load Point C
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
r (hrs) 2.73 3.33 2.75 2.58 1.88 2.23
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 4 3.3 3.35 2.25 2.67
Load Point D
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.12 1.0 1.0
r (hrs) 2.73 3.6 3.6 3.27 1.5 2.34
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 3.6 3.6 3.66 1.5 2.34
64
SUMMARY OF INDICES (cont.)

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Sytem Indices
SAIFI 2.2 1.15 1.15 1.26 1.15 1.15
SAIDI 6.0 3.91 2.58 2.63 1.80 2.11
CAIDI 2.73 3.39 2.23 2.09 1.56 1.83
ASAI 0.999315 0.999554 0.999706 0.999700 0.999795 0.999759
ASUI 0.000685 0.000446 0.000294 0.003000 0.000205 0.000241
ENS 84.0 54.8 35.2 35.9 25.1 29.1
ASCI 28.0 18.3 11.7 12.0 8.4 9.7
Case 1. Base case.
Case 2. As in Case 1, but with perfect fusing in the lateral distributors.
Case 3. As in Case 2, but with disconnects on the main feeders.
Case 4. As in Case 3, probability of successful lateral distributor fault clearing of 0.9.
Case 5. As in Case 3, but with an alternative supply.
Case 6. As in Case 5, probability of conditional load transfer of 0.6.

Economics of Power System

Reliability
Impact of Power Interruptions
Reliability Worth
Optimal Power System Reliability

65

To Electric Utility
• Loss of revenues
• Additional work
• Loss of confidence
To Customers
• Dissatisfaction
• Interruption of productivity
• Additional investment for alternative
power supply
To National Economy
• Loss value added/income
• Loss of investors
• Unemployment

Impact to National Economy:
NEDA Study (1974)
P 342,380 per day – losses due to brownout in Cebu-Mandaue
area
Business Survey (1980)
P1.4 Billion – losses due to brownouts in 1980
CRC Memo No. 27 (1988)
P 3.4 Billion – loss of the manufacturing sector in 1987 due to
power outages
Viray & del Mundo Study (1988)
P 25 – losses in Value Added per kWh curtailment
Sinay Report (1989)
45% – loss in Value Added in the manufacturing sector in
Cebu due to power outages

66

Impact to Customers:
A. Short-Run Direct Cost
• Opportunity losses during outages
• Opportunity losses during restart period
• Raw materials spoilage
• Finish products spoilage
• Idle workers
• Overtime
• Equipment damage
• Special operation and maintenance during restart period
B. Long-Run Adaptive Response Cost
• Standby generators
• Power plant
• Alternative fuels
• Transfer location
• Inventory
Reliability Worth
Outage Cost to Industrial Sector in Luzon
(0.0086 + 0.0023D)F + 0.1730 Pesos/kWh

Where, F – Frequency of Interruptions
D – Average Duration of Interruptions
Losses of MERALCO Industrial Customers in 1989

Energy Sales: 3.781 billion kWh
Outage Cost: Php 0.3544/kWh
Total Losses: Php 1.34 billion
Source: del Mundo (1991)

67
Reliability Worth

Reliability Worth
Luzon Grid Outage Cost*
LOLP Frequency Duration Outage Cost
(days/yr) (per year) (Hours) (Php/kWh)
12.26 70 2.11 1.12
6.25 38 2.00 0.68
1.88 13 1.73 0.34
0.94 7 1.61 0.26
0.45 4 1.50 0.22
0.21 2 1.38 0.20
0.08 0.73 1.31 0.18
0.04 0.31 1.30 0.18
68
Reliability Worth
Luzon Grid
Outage Cost

Reliability Worth
Luzon Grid Total Cost ATC = ASC + AOC
LOLP Supply Cost Outage Cost Total Cost
(days/yr) (Php/kWh) (Php/kWh) (Php/kWh)
12.26 0.90 2.11 2.02
6.25 0.94 2.00 1.62
1.88 1.01 1.73 1.35
0.94 1.03 1.61 1.29
0.45 1.06 1.50 1.28
0.21 1.09 1.38 1.29
0.08 1.11 1.31 1.29
0.04 1.14 1.30 1.32
69
Optimal Power System Reliability
Luzon Grid
Total Cost


70
DSL Segregator
What it can do for a Distribution Utility!
Click to edit Master

DSL Segregator
title style
Distribution System Loss Segregation
Segregate Total Distribution System
Losses into its Administrative, Technical,
and Non-Technical components
…and more…
1
DSL Segregator
title style
Technical Loss Segregation
Segregates Technical Losses according to
the various components where the losses
occur:
Substation Power Transformer Primary Distribution Lines
Distribution Transformers Secondary Distribution Lines
Capacitors Inductors
Primary and Secondary Service Drops
Load and No-load losses are also reported separately.

DSL Segregator
title style
Loss Identification
Reports segregated losses by substation,
by feeder, and by distribution transformer.
Allows the utility engineers to analyze the lossiest
portions of the distribution system and concentrate
loss reduction efforts on these portions.
2
DSL Segregator
title style
Project Evaluation
Allows alternate scenario simulations that
may be used to assess the impact of
projects on the Distribution System in
terms of technical losses.
Enable the engineer to include the cost of technical
losses in the economic evaluation of the proposed
project.

DSL Segregator
title style
Project Evaluation
Produces as outputs technical quantities
such as voltage, current, and power.
Ensures that proposed projects are technically
feasible and will meet requirements of PDC
(e.g., Performance Standards in Power Quality)
3
DSL Segregator
title style
DSL Segregator for Distribution Utilities
Data Migration
Migrates existing system data in Excel file
format (already gathered by the DU for
ERC) to Access database format.
The database is a more powerful file format for data
management and organization.

DSL Segregator
title style
Database Management
FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2
SYSTEM
DATABASE
FEEDER 3 FEEDER 4
4
DSL Segregator
title style
Database Management
Allows the DU to:
Create new databases – from a blank
template database.
Copy databases – for backups and for use in
alternate scenario simulations.
Edit databases – to reflect changes in system.

DSL Segregator
title style
Database Archiving
Allows for database archiving of monthly
distribution system data for easy retrieval
and reprocessing.
5
DSL Segregator
title style
Regulatory Submission from Database
Generates Excel file format for regulatory
submissions.
Eliminates the need to maintain two separate file
formats.

DSL Segregator
title style
Data Sanity Checking
Tests network topology for connectivity,
phasing logic, and radiality.
Ensures that each data entry are within a
range of acceptable values.
Organizes system data according to power
flow (from source to loads).
Verifies completeness and consistency of
data.
6
DSL Segregator
title style
Real-time Data Integrity Checking
All entries in the database are checked
real-time – while data is being inputted.
Ensures that data entries are sanitized before being
accepted into the database.
Prompts users if there are data errors.

DSL Segregator
title style
Automatic Updating of “Dynamic” Data
Allows for easy updating of customer
energy consumption data with the single
click of a button.
Compares the updated and the existing
customer data:
Unbilled existing customers are reported.
New customers without corresponding service drop
data entries are identified.
7
DSL Segregator
title style
Fast Simulation
Automatically creates and stores power
system models of each component in the
database.
Reduces simulation time for segregation from the
database.
Stores the most recent DSL segregation
results in the database.
Eliminates reprocessing of un-updated data.

DSL Segregator
title style
Multiple Feeder Simulation
Allows the user to select feeders for
automated simulation of multiple
substations and multiple feeders with the
click of a single button.
8
Demonstration of
PowerSolv DSAS Package:
DSL Segregator

Distribution System Loss (DSL) Segregator

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Distribution System Loss (DSL) Segregator

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Competency Training and Certification Program in Electric Power Distribution System Engineering

Power System Reliability

U. P. NATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 2

1. Reliability Models and Methods

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Reliability Models and Methods

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 4

Reliability is the probability that an

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Example: Out of 100 equipment that were upgraded by

P(improved performance) = 75/100 = 0.75

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 6

Venn Diagram of a SET of Geometric Figures

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Venn Diagram of the SUBSET “Circles” from the

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 8

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Probability and Statistics

Example: The NEC SET company employs ten non-professional

m(A) = 3 m(M) = 5 m(C) = 2 m(I) = 10

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 10

m(A+B) = m(A) + m(B) if AB = Z

The size of the Set of all professional employees (engineers and

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 12

m(E+S) = m(E) + m(S) – m(ES)

m(A+B) = m(A) + m(B) – m(AB) if AB ≠ Z

“NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE”

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 14

Discrete Random Variable - Countable and Finite

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Sample Value of Sample Value of Sample Value of

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 16

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 18

Cumulative Probability Function

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

The Reliability Function

Sample Value of Sample Value of Sample Value of

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 20

The Reliability Function

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

The Reliability Function

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 22

Cumulative Probability Function

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

The Reliability Function

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 24

The Reliability Function

If the time to failure random variable t has a

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

The Reliability Function

Training Course in Power System Reliability Analysis 26

The Reliability Function

U. P. National Engineering Center Competency Training & Certification Program in

The Reliability Function