10.10.
2011
Case Study
Generator data 6 x 40 MW units = 0.01 f/day = 3.65 f/yr = 0.49 r/day = 178 .85 r/yr Transmission elements Individual line-carrying capability =160 MW 2 lines = 0.5 f/yr r= 7.5 hours/repair
Objective
Load point indices LOLP, LOLE, Expected Energy Not served EENS or Loss of Energy Expectation are computed without considering transmission facilities for the Given load model using binominal distribution as well as Markov Model Then Transmission Constrains is imposed and Load point indices LOLP, LOLE, Expected Energy Not served EENS or Loss of Energy Expectation are computed Also the Load point indices are computed by varying transmission capacity and peak load.
1 10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 2
Load Peak load = 180MW, The load is represented by a straight-line load-duration curve from the 100% to the 60% load points.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Generating System Transmission System Daily Load Curve %of Time
Load (MW)
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
Generation Model
Availability, A= Unavailability, U=
Gen. Model Continue
U Failure Repair 0,02 A 0,01 3,65 0,49 178,85 0,98
Table 1
Here the system fulfill the following requirements hence Binominal distribution can be applied number of trials (n) must be known each trial results in either a success (p) or failure (q) i.e. p + q = 1 values for p and q are constant for each trial all trials are independent Hence the generation model of Table 1 is obtained using binominal distribution and
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 3
Generation Model Using Binominal Expansion *Dept *Frequency of Occ/year Rate States Power IN Pout Indi.Prob Cum Prob 0 240 0 0,885842381 1 21,9 19,39994814 1 200 40 0,108470496 0,114157619 197,1 21,37953469 2 160 80 0,005534209 0,005687124 372,3 2,060385996 3 120 120 0,000150591 0,000152915 547,5 0,082448419 4 80 160 2,30496E-06 2,32384E-06 722,7 0,001665795 5 40 200 1,8816E-08 1,888E-08 897,9 1,68949E-05 6 0 240 6,4E-11 6,4E-11 1073,1 6,86784E-08
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
10.10.2011
Gen. Model Continue
Gen. Model Continue
Steady State Equations
*Departure Rate = rate by which system departed from state j to other states = *Frequency of occurrence/ annum = Departure Rate from j state x probability of being in state j =Pj.
Markov Model
6 5 4 3 2
The above equations are dependent hence can be solved using one more equation which replace one of the above six equations is sum of probabilities of being all possible states is equal to 1 P0+P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6=1
P0 0.885842 P1 0.108470 P2 0.0055342 P3 0.000150 P4 0.0000023 0 P5 0.0000000 18816 P6 0.0000000 00064
6
6 UP
5UP 1 DN
4UP 2 DN
3UP 3 DN
2UP 4DN
1UP 5 DN
0UP 6 DN
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
Transmission Model
2 t
t
Load Model
2 t
Both Up
One Up
Both down
Load =Peak load 180 MW
Max Min 180 108
Failure/year Avialibility
0.5 0,99957 No.Line outage 0 1 2
Repair /year Unaviability
1168 0,00043
States 1 2 3
10/10/2011
Depart Capacity IN Probablity Rate 0,9991401 2X 85 1 0,0008596 1X 3 1168,5 0 1,849E-07
Lalit Rana
Frequency of Occ/year 0,999140185 1,004477889 0,000431926
7 10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 8
2336
10.10.2011
When Gen. and Load model are Merged
Load Point Indices LOLP : Loss of load probability is defined as the probability of the generating capacity is less than daily peak load over a space of time usually one year
LOLP =
Continue
Table 2 Generation Model is merged with Load Model
States Power IN Pout 0 240 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 200 160 120 80 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 LOLP Indi.Prob Cum Prob % of Time 0,885842381 1 0 0 0,108470496 0,11415761 9 0,005534209 0,00568712 4 0,000150591 0,00015291 5 2,30496E-06 2,32384E06 1,8816E-08 1,888E-08 6,4E-11 6,4E-11 0 0,2777 0,8333 1 1 1 0 0,00154 0,00013 2,3E-06 1,9E-08 6,4E-11 0,00166
Where P(Ci) is individual probability of the state i which is obtained from the capacity outage table P(Li>Ci) is percentage of time for which outage capacity will cause loss of loads LOLE The Loss of load Expectance (LOLE) risk index is the most widely accepted an used probabilistic method in system reliability evaluation for generating systems. Load Duration Curve (LDC), and the the COPT are merged . The units of the LOLE are in days per year (d/y). Mathematical
LOLP =0+0+(0,005534209*0,2777)+( 0,000152915*0,8333)+( 2,30496E06*1)+( 1,8816E-08*1)+ (6,4E -11*1) =0,00166 If 100% time is one year then LOLE =0,00166*365 =0.6076 day/year
9 10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 10
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
Expected Energy Not supplied (EENS) or Loss of Energy Expectance (LOEE)
Load P0 240 P1 200 P Max 180 P2 160 P3 120
P4 80
P5 40 P6 0 27.77% 83.33 % % of Time
St. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 11 10/10/2011
Pin 240 200 160 120 80 40 0
Load Curtailed 0 0,885842381 0 0 40 0,108470496 0 0 80 0,005534209 0,2777 20 120 0,000150591 0,8333 60 160 2,30496E-06 1 100 200 1,8816E-08 1 140 240 6,4E-11 1 180
Lalit Rana
Po
Ind.Pr.
%T
EENS 0 0 0.01537 0.00376 0.00015 2E-06 9.2E-09 0.01928
ELL 0 0 41.2077 4.94691 0.16658 0.00237 1.2E-05 46.3236
FF 0 0 0.00317 1E-05 3.8E-09 3.2E-13 4.4E-18 0.00318
12
10.10.2011
When TL constraints is imposed
Conti.
Expected load curtailed =
Where LJ is the load not supplied at the load point due all contingencies to alleviate overloading and F J is state frequency
Since the Generation and the transmission outage are independent and no common cause failure. the different states probabilities and frequency of occurrence are computed as shown below example Probability of Failure Frequency of Failure
Where j is outage condition of the Network PI is the probability of existence of outage J, FJ is the frequency of occurrence of outage J PKJ is the probability of the load at bus exceeding the maximum load that can be supplied at that bus during the outage J
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 13
OR Expected Load Curtailed = Load Curtailed x frequency by which that amount of load is curtailed Expected energy not supplied
Where D j is the duration in hours of the load curtailment arising due to the outage j
EENS = ELL x hours associated to that ELL
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 14
State 1
All Generators are functioning and both lines is functioning Capacity Available = 240 MW State Probability =Probability of all Gen functioning x Probability of both TL functioning Total frequency occurrence per year =Probability of being that state x departure rate from that state = P(0G0L)x(6 +2 t)
State 2
All Generators are functioning and but only one line is functioning Capacity Available = 160 MW State Probability =Probability of all Gen functioning x Probability of one TL functioning Total frequency occurrence per year =Probability of being that state x departure rate from that state = P(0G1L)x(6 + t+ t)
Pkj = probability of load at bus K exceeding the maximum load that can be supplied at that bus without failure. Its computed as shown below For State 1 when capacity available is greater equal to 180 MW Pij= 0 For state 2 when capacity available is 160 MW Failure Probability = Combined State Probability x Pij=0.000761497x0.2777=0.000212 Failure Frequency =Combined state frequency of occurrence x Pij= 0.906485866x0.2777=0.25172
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 16
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
15
10.10.2011
Comparison
The Total Possible states , state probability ,frequency ,Failure probability ,failure frequency , period in hours for which power curtailed , energy curtailed and EENS is shown in Book1
Without TL With T.L constraints constraints 0.6076 16.66332624 0.003177 168.916 46.3236 0.933420583 1200.82 67.31901469
Indices Failure Probability days per year Failure Fequency EENS(MWhr) per Year Expected Load Curtailed
10/10/2011
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
17
Lalit Rana
18
Load Point Indices when TL capacity is Varied
Here two case are considered one is when Transmission Capacity is increased to 170 MW and other is Transmission Capacity is decreased to 150 MW.
Indices Failure Probability days per year Failure Fequency EENS(MWhr) per Year Expected Load Curtailed MW
10/10/2011
TL Capacity 170MW 15.6241 0.78993 1125.951 56.98081
Lalit Rana
T.L of 160 MW 0.6076 days 0.933420583 1200.82 67.31901469
TLof 150 MW 24.4428 1.36506 1760.499 98.37196
19
The Detail calculation is presented in Book1
10/10/2011
Lalit Rana
20
10.10.2011
When Peak load demand changes
To perform this analysis transmission capacity per line is considered as 160MW Load Model is also constant ie Linear variation from 100% to 60% ,only the Peak varies . Here again two situations are considered one is Peak load increased to 200MW and Other is decreased to 160 MW .
Load point Indices
Indices Failure Probability days per year Failure Fequency EENS(MWhr) per Year Expected Load Curtailed 200MW Peak 29.3247 1.63752 2346.993 131.1224 180 MW Peak 16.66332624 0.933420583 1200.82 67.31901469 160 MW Peak 0.84645 0.05384 54.65992 3.515628
The Detail calculation is presented in Book1
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 21 10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 22
Conclusion Its observed that the risk will be more when the TL constraints will imposed Also the risk will be increased with increase the value of peak and decreases with decrease in value of peak for same load model Again the risk will changes when TL capacity is upgraded with same failure and repair rate . It will decrease with increase in TL capacity for the given load model
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 23
References Lecture Notes and Handouts of Course Random Variable and Scholastic process Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems Second Edition by Roy Billinton University of Saskatchewan College of Engineering Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada and Ronald N. Allan University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology Manchester, England System Reliability Theory: Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications, Second Edition by Marvin Rausand and Arnljot Hyland
10/10/2011 Lalit Rana 24
