EUROPEAN TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL POWER

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

Published online 8 November 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/etep.139

A new reduction method for reliability assessment of bulk

electric power systems
H. Gharaghozloo1, M.-R. Haghifam1,2*,y, H.-J. Haubrich2 and M. Fotuhi Firozabad3
2

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, P.O. Box 14115-111, Iran
Institute of Power System and Power Economic (IAEW), RWTH Aachen University, 52056, Aachen, Germany
3
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Sharif Technical University, Tehran, P.O. Box 11365-8639, Iran

SUMMARY
Data requirements and large computation times are still major difficulties in bulk electric systems (BES). When
small area of BES is noticed as area of interest (AI) in reliability studies, the other parts of the network can be
considered as interconnected area (IA). A reduction method based on generations and loads importance of IA is
presented in this paper to equivalent the IA. Generation Reliability Importance Factor (GRIF) of generation units
and Load Reliability Importance Factor (LRIF) of loads with respect to power system reliability are defined for the
generation and load points associated with the IA. Application of graph theory concept is used for obtaining the
equivalent network. With some rules based on graph networks, an equivalent network will be obtained for this
network and some nodes are remained in final network such as main nodes based on GRIF and LRIF indices. The
applicability of the proposed approach is examined using the 3-area IEEE-RTS network and the results are
presented and compared for various case studies. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: reduction method; equivalent method; reliability; bulk power system; graph theory concept

1. INTRODUCTION
A major difficulty in adequacy evaluation of large composite generation and transmission systems is
the computation time required to perform the analysis [1]. This difficulty can be alleviated using an
adequacy equivalent approach which is a practical and effective way to perform detailed or repeated
analysis in a selected area of interest (AI) with reduced computation time [2,3]. Some reliability studies
focus on small area of a large-scale power system. Therefore, these studies need to reduce the other
parts of power system as simple as possible. The equivalent network should have the same effects on AI
such as IA network with high accuracy in final results. Different equivalent approaches are presented to
reduce the time consumption in reliability studies of large-scale power systems. These approaches can
be divided into three main categories. The first category uses component reduction methods [47], the

*Correspondence to: M.-R. Haghifam, Department of Electrical Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, P.O. Box
14115-111, Iran.
y
E-mail: haghifam@modares.ac.ir

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

298

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

System reduction methods in BES reliability evaluations

Contingency Limitation

Equipment
Level

Network Limitation

System
Level

Generation

Equipment
Level

Transmission

State Space Limitation

System
Level

Using Capacity Outage

Probability Table

Load

Figure 1. Different types of system reduction methods.

second uses state space limitation methods [8], and the third category uses contingency limitation
approaches [9,10]. Figure 1 shows different types of system reduction methods.
Some of the other methods also are used to system reduction such as AC to DC system conversion or
star to delta and reverse conversion [1117]. These methods are not stand-alone and always are used
with one of the above three main methods. A comparison of the proposed method and the other methods
from the accuracy, speed, and simplicity points of view is shown in Table I.
This paper presents a new reduction method based on two new indices, which defined for generation
and load points of IA. This method can be belonged to the first category. This approach uses the
concepts of graph theory to find a final reduced network of IA. A graph network is first created for the
composite system using graph theory terms of nodes and links. In the presented graph network, system
buses are considered as source (generation), intermediate or sink (load) nodes and transmission lines
are considered as links.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Two new indices for generation and load points of IA
are defined in Section 2. The new sensitivity-based reduction algorithm is proposed in Section 3.
Implementation of the proposed algorithm to the 3-area IEEE-RTS is discussed in Section 4 and the

Table I. Comparison between the existing system reduction methods and the sensitivity-based method.
Methods

Accuracy

Speed

Simplicity

SL
SSL
SCL
SBR

Low
High
Medium
Medium

High
Low
Medium
High

Medium
Medium
High
Low

SL, system limitation methods.

SSL, state space limitation methods.
SCL, state contingency limitation methods.
SBR, sensitivity-based reduction method.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

299

associated reduced network is obtained. Numerical results are presented in Section 5 in order to
examine the applicability of the proposed method. Finally, conclusion and remarks are given in
Section 6.

1.1. Definitions
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Source node: a node for which sum of output flows is greater than the input flows.
Intermediate node: a node for which sum of output flows is equal to input flows.
Sink node: a node for which sum of output flows is less than input flows.
Electric distance: electric distance between two nodes is defined as equivalence impedance of
path between them [1821].

1.2. Assumptions
i. Each node of graph network has only one of the sink, source or intermediate states.
ii. Generation and load of each node simplified together and node converted to source or sink node.
iii. Nodes of graph network considered as substations of power system. Failure events of substations
are neglected.
iv. Reliability data associated with generating units, loads and transmission lines are respectively
used as the source nodes, sink nodes and links of the graph network.

2. GRIF AND LRIF INDICES FOR EQUIPMENT APPROACH

Graph concepts are used to find a new equivalent method in this paper. First, the graph network of
composite power system is constructed. This graph network is divided into two main parts, inside
graph (IG) and outside graph (OG). OG is the graph network of IA and IG is the graph network of
AI. The first one is related to AI and the second one to IA. The goal of proposed method is to obtain
the equivalent network of OG. Generation Reliability Importance Factor (GRIF) and Load
Reliability Importance Factor (LRIF) indices are defined for generation and load points of OG
respectively. Generation and load points of OG are considered as Source (S) or Sink (t) nodes of
OG. When S or t nodes are far from IG, then the effects of them will be decreased and vice
versa. Moreover, it may be required to conduct a comprehensive study for a specific part of a
large-scale composite system. In this case, it is more convenient to keep AI and represent other parts
of the network with reduced equivalent nodes and branches. The generation and load buses
outside AI are represented by equivalent nodes. Two new indices are defined for IA nodes in order
to determine the capability of a generation or load node to be represented as an equivalent node
among of nodes.

2.1. Generation reliability importance factor (GRIF)

GRIF is defined for source nodes of OG. It shows the effects of each source node of OG on reliability
indices of sink nodes of IG. This factor represents the importance of each source node of OG and
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

300

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

indicates that whether it should be remained or deleted from the graph network. This factor is
calculated as shown in Equation 1.
GRIFSi

m X
n
100 X
SNRIkj IG
Si
SNRIkj IG
m:n k1 j1
SNRIkj IG

(1)

Generation of a given source node can be obtained by subtracting the source node output flows from its
input flows. GRIF is directly related to the generation of Si and inversely related to the electric distance
from IG sink nodes. This implies that when generation of a source node in OG increases, GRIF
increases too. However, when electric distance between this node and a sink node of IG increases,
GRIF decreases.

2.2. Load reliability importance factor (LRIF)

LRIF represents the effects of each OG sink nodes on reliability indices of IG sink nodes. Therefore, it
is defined for sink nodes of OG. While a large value of LRIF associated with a given sink node implies
that the sink node is important and should be remained in the graph network, a small value of LRIF
indicates that the sink node can be eliminated from the network. LRIF is calculated for each sink node
of OG using Equation 2.
LRIFti

m X
n
100 X
SNRIkj IG
SNRIkj IG
ti
m:n k1 j1
SNRIkj IG

(2)

Applied algorithm for calculation GRIF (LRIF) indices is shown in Figure 2.

The load shedding is one of the most important issues in composite system reliability evaluations.
There are different policies which can be utilized in bulk electric systems (BES). Two basic polices are:
curtailing load at buses close to the faulted equipment and curtailing load at buses based on the degree
of their importance. For the later policy, a priority code is given to each sink node. In this paper, a
Monte Carlo-based computer program named MECORE, is used in which a priority code is assigned
for each sink node. Based on this method, at first the load is curtailed in a sink node, which has a lower
priority code. Then if load shedding is necessary, extra load will be curtailed in a higher priority code
sink nodes [22].

2.3. Graph reduction rules

A number of rules are pointed in this section in order to simplify the graph network. All nodes in a
network are divided into two categories: Intermediate nodes and sink or source nodes. Intermediate
nodes are simply eliminated. For source or sink nodes, generation or load of the node is first transferred
to other nodes, based on the impedance of connected branches. Then, the source or the sink node is
changed to an intermediate node. The new intermediate node can then be eliminated from the graph
network. Table II shows the rules for node elimination for various cases. The load and generation of
middle (not main) sink or source nodes are divided between the main sources or sinks nodes, which are
remained in the final graph network. If the node is converted to an intermediate node, it will be
eliminated based on the rules given in Table II.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

301

Figure 2. Applied algorithm for GRIF (LRIF) calculation.

3. SENSITIVITY-BASED REDUCTION ALGORITHM

Application of graph theory in composite system reliability evaluation is presented in this section.
Using the two indices GRIF and LRIF and the rules of graph reduction, a new algorithm is presented for
system reduction in reliability studies. A general outline for the presented algorithm is shown in
Figure 3.
The effects of the equivalent network on the other parts of the network must be the same as the base
case (original network) in any equivalent method. In sensitivity-based method, the total load and
generation of the IA is constant and only they transferred between some source and sink nodes.
Also with equivalent rules for transmission lines, it is assumed that enough power can be transferred
between the sink and source nodes. Thus, from load flow points of view, the equivalent network
has same effects such as IA on AI. Also, from reliability points of view, it will be later shown
with numerical results that the final graph network and IA have similar effects on AI reliability
indices.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

302

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

Table II. Modified graph reduction rules [14,23,24].

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

303

Start
Determination of Area of Interest(AI) and Interconnected Area(IA)
Constitution of graph network for the IA(OG) and AI(IG)
Type of graph nodes determination(Source,Intermediate,Sink)
Determination of GRIF index for all source
nodes of OG and sorting nodes based on GRIF
Determination of LRIF index for all sink
nodes of OG and sorting nodes based on GRIF
Reduction of created Intermediate node of graph
Select some source and sink nodes of OG as main nodes
Transfer the generation or load of not main jth
source or sink node of OG on main sink and source
nodes of OG and change it to intermediate node
.
Reduction of created Intermediate nodes of graph

No

Not main source or sink

nodes of OG are completed?

Yes

Reliability evaluation for total graph network

End

Figure 3. Flowchart of the proposed sensitivity-based algorithm.

4. REDUCED GRAPH OF THE 3-AREA IEEE-RTS

The concepts of the proposed sensitivity-based reduction algorithm are examined by creating a reduced
graph of the 3-area IEEE-RTS. This system has 73 buses, 108 branches. and 96 generation units. 3-area
IEEE-RTS system is used with modifications in order to make the transmission network weak. First, the
capacity of generation units is reduced with 5%. Second, transfer power capacity of each transmission
line is decreased to 90% of the rated ones. With these situations, total system load is 8550 MW and the
total installed capacity is 9757 MW. Additional information for this system can be found in Reference
[25]. The step-by-step procedure for the determination of the reduced graph of the 3-area IEEE-RTS is
as follows:
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

304

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

S18

S42

S21

t19 t20

S16

t44

S23

t14
S13

t3

t10

S9

t4
S1

t6

S47

t43
t39 t38
t27

t8

t5

S69

S46

S40

t15

S66

S45

S22

S70

S37

t34

S33

t28

t68

t64

t30
t32

t62

t63

S61

t51

S25

S7

S26 S31
Area of interest

t58

S57

t52

t29
S2

S71

t67

t56

t53

S49

t54

S50

S55

Figure 4. Graph network of the 3-area IEEE-RTS and area of interest (AI).

Step 1. Graph-network for the 3-area IEEE-RTS is constituted and sink, source, and intermediate
nodes are determined. OG has 63 nodes and 90 links and IG has 10 nodes and 12 Links. Six
links are between OG and IG. Figure 4 shows the graph network of the 3-area IEEE-RTS.
Step 2. GRIF and LRIF indices are calculated for the source and sink nodes of OG, respectively.
Then, nodes are sorted based on these indices and some of them are selected as the main
source and sink nodes as shown in Tables III and IV. The remaining nodes are then modeled
on the selected main nodes. The decision on the number of main source and sink nodes
depends mainly on the computation time and the required accuracy.
Step 3. Intermediate nodes of OG are simplified and eliminated using the rules given in Table II. In
this step, the reduced graph network of OG has 51 nodes and 75 links as shown in Figure 5.
Step 4. First, the load and generation of not selected nodes of OG at Tables III and IV is transferred
to main sources and sinks nodes. Then based on the rules given in Table II, these nodes are
modeled on the selected main sink and source nodes. The reduced graph network of OG has
30 main nodes and 44 links as shown in Figure 6.
Step 5. Reliability evaluations are conducted for the final reduced network and load point indices
are calculated for AI.
Table III. Sorted and selected source nodes of OG based on GRIF.
So #

GRIF

So #

GRIF

So #

GRIF

G13
G23
G61
G71
G7
G70

LFNC
LFNC
LFNC
LFNC
84.297
74.295

G69
G66
G18
G22
G63
G49

74.090
73.978
73.109
69.442
59.288
56.120

G50
G2
G64
G1
G16

56.024
48.940
48.498
47.696
46.943

#: Selected main source nodes which should be remained on the final network.
LFNC, load flow not converged.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

305

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Table IV. Sorted and selected sink nodes of OG based on LRIF.

Si #

LRIF

Si #

LRIF

Si #

LRIF

Si39
Si15
Si38
Si63
Si14
Si19
Si10
Si3
Si43

89.696
81.524
75.892
63.204
62.804
61.588
59.168
57.871
57.479

Si44
Si62
Si9
Si67
Si20
Si6
Si68
Si8
Si58

57.479
55.372
54.847
53.922
48.418
48.030
48.030
46.333
42.624

Si57
Si56
Si51
Si4
Si5
Si54
Si52
Si53

40.792
39.395
30.914
26.917
25.606
24.646
15.454
15.218

S18

S42

S21

t19 t20

S16

t44

S23

S13

t10

S9

t4
S1

t27

t6
t8

t5

S47

t43
t39 t38

t14

t3

S69

S46

S40

t15

S66

S45

S22

S70

t68

t64

t34

t30

t28

t62

t63

S37

S33

S61

t51
t52

t32

S25

S7

t58

S57

t29
S2

S71

t67

t56

t53

S49

S26 S31
Area of interest

t54

S50

S55

Figure 5. Graph network of the 3-area IEEE-RTS after reduction of intermediate nodes.

S18

S42

S23

t15

t3

S40

t19
t14

S9

S13

t44
t43
t39 t38
t27

t10

t29

S69

S46

S70

S47

S71

S37

t34

S33

t28
S7

S66

S45

S21

t63

t62

S61
S55

t30
t32

S25

S26 S31
Area of interest

Figure 6. Final reduced graph network of 3-area IEEE-RTS.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

306

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

Table V. Priority codes for the 3-area IEEE-RTS load points.

Bus #
1,25,49
2,26,50
3,27,51
4,28,52
5,29,53
6,30,54

Priority

Bus #

Priority

Bus #

Priority

2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

7,31,55
8,32,56
9,33,57
10,34,58
13,37,61
14,38,62

2000
2000
2000
2000
2100
2200

15,39,63
16,40,64
18,42,66
19,43,67
20,44,68

2300
2400
2500
2600
2700

5. NUMERICAL RESULTS
The 3-area IEEE-RTS are used to illustrate the benefits of proposed technique. Four different case
studies are conducted on this system using the proposed sensitivity-based reduction method. In the first
case, annual system and load point indices are calculated for the systems without implementing any
reduction. A special load shedding philosophy is considered in these studies. If necessary, load is first
curtailed in AI and then in IA, if further load curtailment is required. Table V shows the priority code of
3-area IEEE-RTS load points. Each load point with smaller value of priority code has higher priority to
be curtailed if necessary. In MECORE, priority codes begin from 1000 and end at 9999.
As it can be seen from Table V, southern load points in the 3-area IEEE-RTS have higher priority in
load curtailment than those located in the northern part of the system. Thus, the load will be shed from
south part before the north part. These priority codes are assigned based on voltage level of sink nodes.
North part has 230 kV voltage on sink nodes and south part has 138 kV. Tables VI and VII show the
annual system and load point indices for the base case respectively. In the second case, intermediate
load points of OG are eliminated and total nodes of the graph network is reduced to 61 nodes as shown
in Figure 5.
Table VIII shows the system indices in this case and their differences with the base case results.
Table IX shows the annual load point results for Case 2.
Table VI. Annual system indices for the base case (case 1).
Index

Value
a

ENLC
ADLCc
EDLCe
PLCg
EDNSi
EENSk

58.10
737.50
14.83
3.667
179.87
2735.4

Index
b

BPII
BECId
BPACIf
MBECIh
SIj

Value
12.69
0.0841
129932
45.59
0.0052

Expected number of load curtailment [occurrence/year].

Bulk power interruption index [MW/MW-Year].
c
Average duration of load curtailment [hours/year].
d
Bulk energy curtailment index [MWh/MW-year].
e
Expected demand of load curtailment [MW/year].
f
Bulk power supply average curtailment [MW/disturbance].
g
Probability of load curtailment.
h
Modified bulk energy curtailment index[MW/MW].
i
Expected demand not supplied [MW].
j
Severity index [system-minutes/year].
k
Expected energy not supplied [MWh/year].
b

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

307

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Table VII. Annual load point indices for the base case (case 1).
Bus no.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

ENLC [Occ./yr]

ELC [MW/yr]

EDNS [MW]

EENS [MWh/yr]

0.00284
0.00373
0.00237
0.01272
0.02059
0.02913
0.00495
0.03014
0.03621
0.10829

0.12
0.153
0.098
0.563
0.793
1.626
0.243
1.831
2.112
7.476

0.00004
0.00006
0.00004
0.00018
0.00025
0.00065
0.00009
0.00073
0.00084
0.00307

0.372
0.484
0.307
1.615
2.186
5.691
0.825
6.384
7.365
26.901

Table VIII. Comparison of annual system indices for the base case and case 2.
Index
ENLC [occur/yr]
ADLC [hours/yr]
EDLC [MW/yr]
PLC
EDNS [MW]
EENS [MWh/year]
BPII [MW/MW-year]
BECI[MWh/MW-year]
BPACI [MW/disturb.]
MBECI [MW/MW]
SI [SM/yr]

Base case

Case 2

Dif. (%)

1.5952
3.9259
6.2632
0.00071
0.1379
1207.583
0.0370
0.1412
198.4063
0.00002
8.4743

1.6032
3.9913
6.3444
0.000713
0.1402
1229.942
0.0376
0.1432
199.7184
2.03E-05
8.6006

0.50
1.67
1.30
0.44
1.71
1.85
1.47
1.38
0.66
1.57
1.49

Table IX. Annual load point indices for the case 2.

Bus no.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

ENLC [Occ./yr]

ELC [MW/yr]

EDNS [MW]

EENS [MWh/yr]

0.00303
0.00388
0.00247
0.01336
0.02192
0.03032
0.00496
0.03081
0.03711
0.11307

0.1221
0.1611
0.1030
0.5832
0.8280
1.7160
0.2501
1.9191
2.1309
7.6782

0.000041
0.000062
0.000040
0.000192
0.000267
0.000690
0.000091
0.000770
0.000842
0.003263

0.3794
0.5011
0.3088
1.7173
2.3147
5.7940
0.8575
6.4219
7.6978
27.3440

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

308

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

Table X. Annual system indices for cases 3 and 4 and their differences with the base case results.
Index

Case 3

ENLC [occur/yr]
ADLC [hours/yr]
EDLC [MW/yr]
PLC
EDNS [MW]
EENS [MWh/yr.]
BPII [MW/MW-yr]
BECI[MWh/MW-yr]
BPACI [MW/dist.]
MBECI[MW/MW]
SI [SM/yr]

Case 4

Value

Dif %

Value

Dif %

1.6839
4.1017
6.5064
0.00071
0.1392
1239.81
0.0388
0.1470
206.404
2.04E-5
8.8316

5.56
4.48
3.88
0.04
0.97
2.67
4.88
4.10
4.03
1.81
4.22

1.7059
4.1121
7.0884
0.000745
0.1467
1331.86
0.0412
0.1556
207.335
2.2E-5
9.4621

6.94
4.74
13.18
4.91
6.43
10.29
11.34
10.15
4.50
9.80
11.66

Table XI. Annual load point indices for case 3.

Bus no.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

ENLC [Occ./yr]

ELC [MW/yr]

EDNS [MW]

EENS [MWh/yr]

0.00295
0.00406
0.00246
0.01353
0.02121
0.03146
0.00516
0.03090
0.03648
0.11015

0.1226
0.1603
0.1034
0.6242
0.7941
1.6757
0.2662
1.9587
2.1516
7.7953

0.000040
0.000062
0.000044
0.000181
0.000255
0.000710
0.000092
0.000755
0.000894
0.003308

0.3955
0.5136
0.3152
1.6654
2.2373
5.8750
0.8350
6.8238
7.8641
28.2581

Table XII. Annual load point indices for case 4.

Bus no.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

ENLC [occ./yr]

ELC [MW/yr]

EDNS [MW]

EENS [MWh/yr]

0.00324
0.00435
0.00257
0.01443
0.02084
0.03157
0.00510
0.03465
0.03960
0.12194

0.1255
0.1790
0.1022
0.6421
0.8966
1.7912
0.2630
1.8517
2.1403
8.2473

0.000043
0.000067
0.000040
0.000186
0.000261
0.000738
0.000099
0.000837
0.000969
0.003282

0.4184
0.5417
0.3516
1.6425
2.3039
6.2067
0.8359
7.1288
8.2112
27.3581

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

309

Figure 7. Comparison of annual system indices in different cases.

The results in Tables VIII and IX indicate that the annual system and the load point indices have a
high level of accuracy as compared to those presented in Tables VI and VII. In the third case, seven sink
and four source nodes of OG at the end of the sorted list table based on GRIF and LRIF are considered
as the nodes to be eliminated. This will reduce the total system nodes to 50. Finally, in the fourth case,
seven other sink and four other source nodes of the sorted list are omitted from the graph network.
Table X shows the system indices associated with cases 3 and 4 and their differences with the base case
results. Tables XI and XII show the annual load point indices for cases 3 and 4, respectively.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

310

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

Figure 8. Annual EENS index of load points in different cases.

Figure 7(7-a and 7-b) shows the comparison between per unit values of system indices in different
cases. Figures 8 to 10 show the variation in annual load point indices in different cases.
5.1. Discussion of the results and CPU time comparison
It is clear out from the above results that the indices associated with different cases are close to each
other. However, when the number of remaining nodes in the graph network is decreased, the accuracy
of results will be decreased. Another observation here was that the behavior of nodes in each case is
similar to the base case and the results show that this method does not change the sequence of weak and

Figure 9. Annual EDNC index of load points in different cases.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

311

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Figure 10. Annual ENLC index of load points in different cases.

strong nodes of the total network. In this section, one hypothesis test is used for checking the validity of
results. In this test, annual EENS index from load points of the base case and case 4 is used. A students
t-distribution is used due to the small number of samples.
5.1.1. Assumptions. Y1, Y2, . . . , Yn are sample results from a normal distribution with E(Yi) m.H0:
m m0Ha: m6 m0 (two-tailed alternative).
p0
T Y
m
S= n

fRR

(3)

Where H0: null hypothesis, Ha : alternative hypothesis, m: the mean of single normal values
(reliability indices), m0: specific value of m, T: test statistic, RR: reject region, S: standard deviation of
variables, n: number of variables, ta/2: border of confidence interval.
Table XIII. Hypothesis test for the EENS load point index.
Load points
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
m
S
Final T

Standard values of Ybase

0.599

0.58515

0.60705

0.4452

0.37455
0.059146

0.54295
0.144895
0.266279
2.683581
0
1

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Standard values of Ycase

0.6162

0.60125

0.6243

0.46776

0.38756
0.085712

0.56557
0.197529
0.328785
2.650607
0
1

Ybase
Ycase

0.01719402
0.01610062
0.01725161
0.02255873
0.01300807

0.02656588
0.02261875

0.05263421

0.06250521
0.03297349
1.4988E-16
0.00116805
1.3868E-14

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

312

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

Table XIV. Confidence margins for system and load point indices.
Load point index
EENS

Limits

Lower

Upper

95
98
99

0.02355

0.02898

0.03328

0.02355
0.028975
0.033277

Table XV. CPU time for 3-area IEEE-RTS calculations.

Methods
Entire network (base case)
Equivalent network (case 4)

CPU time

EDNS variance coefficient

720.93 seconds
250.33 seconds

0.0093018
0.0095516

Table XIII shows the results of hypothesis test. Based on the students t-distribution tables, it can be
seen that these values are in the range of the confidence interval of all 95, 98, and 99 percent of
confidence. Table XIV shows the RR for this hypothesis test for EENS load point index.
However, when the number of remaining nodes in the graph network is decreased, the accuracy of
results will be decreased. Another observation here was that the behavior of nodes in each case is
similar to the base case and the results show that this method does not change the sequence of weak and
strong nodes of the total network. Table XV shows the computation time required for adequacy
evaluations using the proposed method and shows that adequacy equivalent approach requires less
computation time than solving the entire network. Computations are done on a Pentium 4, 1800 MHZ
computer. These times are related to reliability evaluation of the 3-area IEEE-RTS with MECORE
software. Computation time will be increased exponentially with an increase in the number of network
components.
It can therefore be concluded that the proposed method could be very useful in the analysis of
large-scale systems when reliability of a small area is of interest.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Adequacy equivalent methods are normally used to assess reliability of large composite power systems.
This paper presents a novel approach to conduct adequacy studies of a small area in a large power
network using the concepts of graph theory. In the proposed approach, the network is divided into two
parts of AI and IA, where it is required to conduct a comprehensive study for the AI. Two new indices
are defined for the sink and source nodes in IA. These two indices are used to represent the network
except the AI with reduced equivalent nodes and branches. The technique provides acceptable bus
indices associated with the AI. The computation time required to obtain these indices is less than the
time required to solve the entire network. This is particularly true as the size of the network increases.
The results indicate that when the number of equivalent graph network nodes is decreased, accuracy of
results decreases. Therefore, the computing time and the results accuracy is related to the number of
graph nodes and degrees of simplification.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

313

7. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

7.1. Acronyms
AI
IA
IG
OG
GRIF
LRIF

area of interest.
interconnected area.
graph network of AI (Inside Graph).
graph network of IA (Outside Graph).
generation reliability importance factor.
load reliability importance factor.

7.2. Notation
GRIF(i)
LRIF(i)
Si, ti
M
N
X
f
r
Cap(i)
SNRIkj(IG)
SNRIkj(IG-Si)

ith node generation reliability importance factor in OG.

ith node load reliability importance factor in OG.
ith [source, sink] node in OG.
number of load curtailed sink nodes in IG.
number of reliability indices of sink node.
impedances of each tie-line (branch of graph).
failure rate of each tie-line (branch of graph).
repair time of each tie-line (branch of graph).
ith transmission line load transfer capacity.
ith reliability index of kth sink node in IG.
jth reliability index of kth Sink node in IG without generation of ith source node
of OG.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The corresponding author, M.-R. Haghifam, would like to thank Prof. H.-J. Haubrich, head of Institute of Power
System and Power Economics (IAEW) and Alexander von Humboldt foundation for support of his research stay in
IAEW, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

REFERENCES
1. Audomvongseree K, Eua-Arpon B. Composite system reliability evaluation using AC equivalent network. IEEE,
07803-6338-8, 2000.
2. Oatts ML, Erwin SR, Hart JL. Application of the REI equivalent for operations planning analysis of interchange schedules.
IEEE Transaction on Power Systems 1990; 5(2):547555.
3. Billinton R, Agarwal SK. Examination of severe contingencies in a small area of a large composite power system using
adequacy equivalents. IEE Proceedings 1990; 137(Pt. C, No. 2):107114.
4. Maghraby HAM, Allan RN. Application of DC equivalents to the reliability evaluation of composite power systems. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems 1999; 14(1):355361.
5. Kumar S, Billinton R. Adequacy equivalents in composite power system evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
1988; 3(3):11671173.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

314

H. GHARAGHOZLOO ET AL.

6. Kumar S, Billinton R. Adequacy evaluation of a small area in a large composite power network. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems 1989; 4(2):551558.
7. Gharagozloo H, Fotuhi-Firuzabad M, Haghifam MR, Farrokhzad D. Reliability evaluation of a small area in a composite
power system using branch-cutting method and load uncertainty, CCECE, Saskatoon 2005 IEEE.
8. Billinton R, Zhang W. Equivalents in adequacy evaluation of power systems, PMAPS 97, Vancouver.
9. Fontoura N, Schilling MT, Mello JCO, Pereira JLR. Topological reduction considering uncertainties. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems 1995; 10(2):739744.
10. Billinton R. Composite system adequacy assessmentthe contingency enumeration approach, IEEE Tutorial Text, No. 90
EH0311-1-PWR, 1990.
11. Billinton R, Zhang W. An adequacy equivalent approach for composite power system reliability evaluation, Proceedings of
the IEEE WESCANEX 95 Conference, 1995; 163168.
12. Billinton R, Wang P, Zhang W. Reliability assessment of an electric power system using a reliability network equivalent
approach, IEEE WESCANEX Conference, 1997; 5358.
13. Billinton R, Wang P. Deregulated power system planning using a reliability network equivalent technique. IEE ProceedingsGeneration, Transmission and Distribution 1999; 146(1):2530.
14. Wang S, Sun C. Transformation of star-delta & delta-star reliability networks. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 1996; 45(1):
120126.
15. Zhang W, Billinton R. Application of an adequacy equivalent method in bulk power system reliability evaluation. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems 1998; 13(2):661666.
16. Billinton R, Zhong W. Enhanced adequacy equivalent for composite power system reliability evaluation. IEE Proceedings
Generation, Transmission, Distribution 1996; 143(5):420426.
17. Hsu SJ, Yuang MC. Efficient Computation of Terminal-Pair Reliability Using Triangle Reduction in Network Management,
0-7803-4788-9/98, 1998 IEEE.
18. Shooman AM, Kershenbaum A. Exact Graph-Reduction Algorithm for Network Reliability Analysis, CH2980-1/91/
0000-1412, 1991 IEEE.
19. Collet J, Renault I. Path Probability Evaluation With Repeated Rates, 0-7803-3783-2/97, 1997 IEEE.
20. Elperin T, Gertsbakh I, Lomonosov M. Estimation of network reliability using graph evolution models. IEEE Transactions on
Reliability 1991; 40(5):572581.
21. McHugh JA. Algorithmic Graph Theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood, Cliff, New Jersey, 1990.
22. Lee W. Users manual of MECORE program. BC Hydro: Canada, 2001.
23. Billinton R, Allen RN. Reliability Evaluation of Power System. Plenum: New York, 1996.
24. Steen J, Yuang Maria C. Efficient computation of marginal reliability-importance for reducible R networks. IEEE
Transaction on Reliability 2001; 50(1):98106.
25. Pinherio JM, Dernellas CR, Schilling MT, Mello ACG, Mello JC. Probing the new reliability test system (RTS-96): HL-II
assessment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 1998; 13(1):171176.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES

H. Gharaghozloo, was born in Iran. He obtained his B.Sc. and M.Sc degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Sharif University of Technology and Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,
Iran, respectively. Presently he is a Ph.D student in Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
His main interest is power system reliability.

M.-R. Haghifam was born in Iran. He obtained B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in 1988, 1990,
1995, respectively, all in power engineering. He is professor of Electrical Engineering at Tarbiat
Modarres University, Tehran, Iran and a senior member of IEEE. Currently, he is with Institute
of Power System and Power economics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany as
Alexander von Humboldt Fellow. His main research interests are electric distribution system,
power system reliability, and soft computing application in power system.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep

BULK POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

315

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES

Hans-Jurgen Haubrich is a Professor and head of the Institute of Power Systems and Power
Economics, RWTH Aachen University, Germany. He is a member of the Academy of Science of
the federal state North-Rhine Westphalia and the director of the Forschungs-gemeinschaft fur
elektrische Anlagen und Stromwirtschaft e.V. (FGH), Germany. His interests are network
planning and operation, power system quality, as well power generation and trading in
electricity markets.

M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad was born in Iran. He obtained B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Sharif University of Technology and Tehran University in 1986 and 1989,
respectively and M.Sc. and Ph.D degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Saskatchewan in 1993 and 1997, respectively. Presently, he is an Associate Professor and head
of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. He
is a senior member of IEEE.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Euro. Trans. Electr. Power 2007; 17:297315

DOI: 10.1002/etep