0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

23 (de) vizualizări9 paginiReliability Evaluation of Composite Power Systems Using Markov Cut-Set Method

Nov 22, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Reliability Evaluation of Composite Power Systems Using Markov Cut-Set Method

© All Rights Reserved

23 (de) vizualizări

Reliability Evaluation of Composite Power Systems Using Markov Cut-Set Method

© All Rights Reserved

- The Woman Who Smashed Codes: A True Story of Love, Spies, and the Unlikely Heroine who Outwitted America's Enemies
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook, Red Letter Edition
- Steve Jobs
- Cryptonomicon
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- Make Your Mind Up: My Guide to Finding Your Own Style, Life, and Motavation!
- Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle that Defined a Generation
- The Golden Notebook: A Novel
- Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built
- Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Autonomous: A Novel
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

2, MAY 2010

777

Systems Using Markov Cut-Set Method

Yong Liu and Chanan Singh, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractIn power system reliability evaluation, usually component failures are assumed independent and reliability indices

are calculated using methods based on the multiplication rule of

probabilities. But in some cases, for instance when the effects of

fluctuating weather are considered, the previous assumption is invalid. Generally, two kinds of methodologies are adopted to solve

this problem, namely analytical and simulation. This paper proposes a DC-OPF based Markov cut-set method (DCOPF-MCSM)

to evaluate composite power system reliability considering weather

effects. The proposed method uses DC-OPF approach to determine minimal cut sets (MCS) up to a preset order and then uses

MCSM to calculate reliability indices. In the second step, Markov

process is applied, at a time, to the components of the determined

MCS (and their unions) instead of the entire system. Since enumerating all MCS (and their unions) of a power system is impractical and unnecessary, this paper proposes an algorithm to calculate the bounds of reliability indices and it can automatically generate transition rate matrix (TRM) of the determined MCS (and

their unions). The proposed method is tested on the modified IEEE

Reliability Test System (RTS) and the results are compared with

those of the next-event sequential simulation (NESS). The implementation demonstrates that the proposed method is effective and

efficient and can conveniently incorporate more system operational

considerations.

Index TermsComposite power systems, IEEE reliability test

system, Markov cut-set method, reliability index bound.

I. INTRODUCTION

for power system reliability evaluation. Thus, reliability

indices are calculated directly and simply [1]. In some cases,

e.g., when the effect of fluctuating weather or common-mode

failures is considered, the prior assumption is invalid and the

obtained evaluation results are not correct. In the past decades,

failure dependence of power system components has been investigated in numerous papers [2][7]. Generally, the methods used

fall into two categories: analytical methods based on Markov

processes [3][5] and Monte Carlo simulation [6], [7]. Generally speaking, the simulation method is suitable when complex

system operational conditions are modeled. However, by its nature this method depends on random experiments and its convergence may need acceleration by using other techniques. On

Manuscript received December 27, 2008; revised July 15, 2009. First

published December 01, 2009; current version published April 21, 2010. This

work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant EECS-0725823. Paper no.

TPWRS-01037-2008.

The authors are with Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 USA

(e-mail: liuy0004@neo.tamu.edu; singh@ece.tamu.edu).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2033802

the other hand, complete Markov process representation is accurate within the distribution assumptions but it is only practical

when the number of system components is small considering the

linear equations is required [8];

fact that the solution of

here is the number of system components and the two-state

weather model [3] is used. Some approaches have been proposed to alleviate this dimensionality problem [1], [8]. In [1],

the proposed techniques included reducing the state space by

merging system states and systematically deleting low probability states. In [8], MCSM was proposed to evaluate transmission and distribution systems considering weather effects. This

method uses MCS method to compute reliability indices and

applies Markov process to the components of MCS (and their

unions) to alleviate the computation burden. MCSM is based on

the concept that if a two-state weather model is used, the reliability indices of an MCS (or MCS union) can be calculated

by applying Markov process only to its members and the full

Markov process application to all system components is not necessary. Thus, if the MCS up to some order (e.g., third-order)

are determined, only a limited number of linear equations need

to be solved at a time. For example, considering a system of

500 components, if the entire system is to be modeled by the

number of states and thus as

Markov process, there will be

many equations to be solved. However, if the maximum number

of components in an MCS (or MCS union) is say 6, then using

MCSM, the highest number of equations to be solved at a time is

. This can make the difference in the practical applicability of

Markov processes. For more details of MCSM reader can refer

to [8].

In [8], MCSM was applied in a simple five-component system

and MCS were determined by using simple enumeration method

and the connectivity criterion in transmission and distribution

systems only. Additionally, the algorithm for applying Markov

process to MCS (and their unions) and the comparison with the

simulation method were not given in [8]. In this paper, DCOPFMCSM is proposed to solve these problems in composite power

systems.

The implementation of DCOPF-MCSM is as follows.

1) DC-OPF approach is used to determine MCS. In practice,

only the MCS up to a preset order are determined. In

the literature, numerous techniques have been proposed

to generate MCS to evaluate large/complex systems

[9][17]. These graph-based techniques mainly explore

the connectivity feature of network and are not applicable

to power system reliability evaluation considering link

capacities and admittances. Normally, a power system

can be modeled as a capacitated-flow network subjected

to some operational constraints, such as generation-load

778

limits. In this paper, MCS generation is modeled as a

constrained nonlinear (the objective function is nonlinear)

optimization problem and it is solved using DC-OPF to

reduce computational time. When voltage is considered,

the proposed method can be easily extended to AC-OPF

model.

2) MCSM is used to calculate the bounds of reliability indices and an algorithm is proposed to automatically generate TRM of determined MCS (and their unions). In practice, exhaustively enumerating all MCS (and their unions)

of a power system and computing exact values of reliability indices is not necessary. This paper proposes an algorithm to calculate the bounds of reliability indices. It

can automatically generate TRM of determined MCS (and

their unions) and makes the calculation of reliability indices much easier. The proposed algorithm is an improvement of the method proposed in [20]. The detailed description of the improvements is given in Part B of Section IV.

3) To verify the effectiveness of DCOPF-MCSM, it is tested

on the modified IEEE RTS [18] and the results are compared with those of NESS [22]. The implementation shows

that the proposed method is effective and efficient and can

easily incorporate more system operational considerations.

The salient features of this paper are summarized below.

1) DC-OPF approach is proposed to determine system and

nodal MCS of composite power systems.

2) An improved algorithm is proposed to compute the bounds

of reliability indices. This algorithm can automatically

generate TRM of determined MCS (and their unions) and

makes the computation of reliability indices much easier.

3) System and nodal reliability indices are computed to

demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

4) An algorithm for NESS considering the effects of fluctuating weather is proposed and the confidence interval of

estimate is computed.

5) The proposed method is compared with the simulation

method and the comparison is analyzed in detail. The

analysis shows that the average of the bounds of reliability

indices can approximate system reliability indices and the

confidence interval variation tendency of the simulation

results can be used as a convergence criterion.

This paper is organized as follows: Section II lists the assumptions adopted in this paper; Section III briefly reviews MCSM;

in Section IV, the proposed method is described in detail; in

Section V, NESS and its confidence interval are introduced;

in Section VI, the implementation of DCOPF-MCSM is presented and the comparison of two methods is analyzed; finally

Section VII is the conclusion.

II. ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions are used in this paper.

1) Voltage is assumed as 1 pu at each bus and DC power flow

is used.

2) The distribution of state residence times is assumed exponential permitting constant-parameter Markov process to

be used to compute reliability indices.

but the proposed method is also applicable to time specific

case.

4) All system components have two possible states: success

or failure.

5) The two-state weather model is used considering the effects of fluctuating environment.

In this section, MCSM proposed in [8] is briefly reviewed.

A cut set (CS) is a set of components whose failures alone will

cause system failure. Here, the definition of system failure is

rather broad and it can be any kind of anomaly defined. An MCS

has the further property that it has no proper subset of components whose failures alone will cause system failure. Here, the

term component is also used in a broad sense. It can be any

device in a power system and can even be a condition or a function whose presence/absence can cause system failure.

The basic idea of MCSM is that MCS method is applicable

not only when the component failures are independent but also

when the two-state weather model is used to consider the effects

of fluctuating weather and Markov process can be used within

MCS (and their unions) only.

A. Reliability Indices Calculation

The equations to compute steady state reliability indices are

as follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

is the failure probability;

represents MCS

where

is the event that all members of

fail;

is the joint

and

fail; is the number

event that all members of both

is the failure frequency;

is the repair rate of

of all MCS;

component

is the

mean duration of failure.

It should be pointed out that the above equations can be used

to compute both system and nodal reliability indices although

in [8] the nodal reliability indices were not computed and discussed.

LIU AND SINGH: RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE POWER SYSTEMS USING MARKOV CUT-SET METHOD

779

to approximate the results of (1)(3) using the following equations [19]:

(4)

(5)

(9)

where

, and

are the active power of total generator output, system load, and total load shedding, respectively.

2) Transmission line capacity limit:

(6)

(10)

(7)

where

is the active power flow in transmission line

is its upper limit.

from bus to and

3) Generator capacity limit:

where

are the first upper and lower bounds of failure

are the first upper and lower bounds of

probability;

failure frequency. Using the inclusion-exclusion formula a

sequence of increasingly closer bounds of reliability indices

can be obtained [19].

From the above equations it can be seen that the implementation of MCSM is as follows.

1) Determine MCS up to desired order and higher order MCS

are ignored.

2) Compute reliability indices of MCS (and their unions).

3) Use (3)(7) to compute the bounds of reliability indices.

In the next section, DCOPF-MCSM is proposed to solve these

problems and is described in detail.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF DCOPF-MCSM

In this section, the proposed method is described in detail.

The implementation of this method is as follows: 1) Model MCS

generation as a nonlinear constrained optimization problem and

use DC-OPF to solve this problem to reduce computation time;

2) use MCSM to compute the bounds of reliability indices. Here,

an algorithm is proposed to generate TRM of the MCS (and their

unions) determined in step 1).

A. MCS Determination

The first stage of the proposed method is to determine MCS

up to the desired order in composite power systems. Here, this

problem is modeled as a nonlinear constrained optimization

problem and DC-OPF is used to shorten computation time.

When voltage is considered, this method can be easily extended

to AC-OPF model. This problem is formulated as follows:

component failure may cause load shedding constrained by the

required system operational conditions while system overall

cost is kept at minimum. Mathematically, this is formulated as

follows.

Minimize objective function:

(8)

where

, and

are system overall cost, total generator

operational cost, and total load shedding cost.

The above objective function is subject to the following constraints.

(11)

where

is its upper limit.

4) Load shedding limit:

and

(12)

where

is the active power shedding of load and

is its upper limit.

The algorithm to determine MCS up to the preset order is

described as follows.

1) Choose an -order arbitrary combination of system components.

2) Check all existing lower-order MCS to examine if they are

subsets of the above combination: if yes, go back to step

1); if not, go to the next step.

3) Run DC-OPF on the condition that these components are

unavailable simultaneously.

4) Examine if load shedding is needed: if yes, these components make up an -order MCS; otherwise, not.

5) Check if all -order combinations of system components

have been examined: if not, go back to step 1); if yes, forward to the next step.

6) Check if the pre-set combination order is reached: if yes,

stop; if not, forward to the next step.

and go back to step 1).

7) Let

It should be pointed out that the above algorithm can be used

to determine both system and nodal MCS. The only difference

is in step 4) and is described as follows.

To determine system MCS and indices, load shedding at any

single node or a combination of nodes means there is system

loss of load but the information about actual nodes where load

is shed need not be saved. However, for nodal MCS, information

about the nodes that suffer loss of load needs to be stored. So for

computing nodal indices, the only additional work that needs to

be done is to store for each system MCS, the nodes that suffer

loss of load. In the end, there are two lists, first a list of all system

MCS and then an additional list of nodes that have loss of load

corresponding to each system MCS. For system indices, all the

MCS will be used. For computing indices for a node, only those

780

MCS that have that node suffering loss of load will be used.

It should be noted that most of the computation time is used

in identifying the MCS. The time taken by the computation of

(4)(7) is relatively small. Since the MCS used for nodal indices

are the subsets of system MCS, no additional time is needed for

nodal indices as far as the identification of MCS is concerned.

The only additional time needed is for the use of (4)(7) for

calculation of nodal indices and this is not significant. This point

will be further illustrated during the discussion of results in the

numerical example.

The following points may be noted in using DC-OPF to determine MCS.

1) This method is simple to implement. Since DC-OPF is

widely used in power system applications, the proposed

method can be implemented by slightly modifying the current software.

2) This method is based on a nonlinear constrained optimization problem and it is easy to incorporate more system operational considerations. For instance, it is very simple to

extend this method to AC-OPF model.

3) It is easy to compare the proposed method with other

methods since DC-OPF is also used in other analytical

and simulation methods to analyze the failure effect (determining whether an event causes system failure or not).

adverse weather.

two weather states.

Next, the proposed algorithm to generate TRM is presented

in detail. Generally, the steady state probabilities of a continuous time Markov chain can be calculated using the following

equation:

(13)

where

The second stage of the proposed method is to use MCSM to

compute the bounds of reliability indices. Here, an algorithm is

proposed to generate TRM of the determined MCS (and their

unions) and it makes the calculation of reliability indices much

easier. This algorithm is an improvement of the method proposed in [20]. The improvements are summarized as follows.

1) Although the algorithm in [20] is applicable to -component system (the number of system components), it is different from that in this paper. The index in [20] is fixed

whereas in this paper is set as a variable. In other

words, the algorithm in [20] is applicable to a fixed-dimension problem whereas the proposed algorithm in this paper

is applicable to the variable-dimension problem. This is

needed as the number of components in MCS (or their

unions) keeps on changing.

2) The algorithm in [20] is for a single weather environment

whereas in this paper the algorithm is applicable in the twostate weather model considering the effects of fluctuating

weather. Thus, TRM produced in this paper comprises four

parts and it is generated in sequential steps and finally all

diagonal elements are updated.

3) The core parts of the two algorithms are different. The core

part of the algorithm in [20] is based on number processing and in this paper it is based on bit processing.

As previously mentioned, in this paper the two-state weather

model is used to consider the effects of fluctuating weather. In

Fig. 1 the two-state weather model of one component is shown.

are the failure and repair rates in normal

Here

are the failure and repair rates in

weather whereas

is obtained from

by replacing

by summing vector 1;

the elements of an arbitrary row

are

TRM in normal weather,

adverse weather, from normal to adverse weather, and from

adverse to normal weather, respectively, and is the order of

MCS (or their unions) (i.e., the number of components in MCS

or their unions); is a column vector whose th element is the

is a vector of zeros

steady state probability of system state

with the th element set to 1.

It is pointed out that actually only the sum of probabilities

of states in two weathers in which all members of an MCS (or

MCS union) fail, needs to be calculated. Next, the algorithm

to generate matrix is presented in detail. The basic idea is

as follows: 1) Generate TRM in different weathers; 2) generate

TRM between two weathers; 3) update TRM in step 1).

1) Generating

is a TRM whose element

and

is the transition rate from system

state to in normal weather. The following algorithm

: For

the number of system

is used to determine

states is and each system state is represented by an -bit

binary number with this principle: for each bit the binary

number is 1/0 if the state of the corresponding component

is success/failure.

is assigned to state 1. From

a) Firstly, number

state 2 to

, the binary representation of each

system state is determined as follows.

i. From state 2 to state

, the corresponding

.

LIU AND SINGH: RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE POWER SYSTEMS USING MARKOV CUT-SET METHOD

to state

, the

.

as:

.

iii. ..

iv. From state

781

state, i.e., the time of the next event. Usually, this is achieved by

using function inversion approach. For more details of NESS

readers can refer to [22].

B. Estimation and Convergence

to state

, the

indices is simple compared with that of the random sampling

are as follows:

[21]. The estimates of

.

as:

v. Finally, number

is assigned to state

(14)

bit of their binary numbers being different, forward to

. Here only state change

the next step; if not,

of one component at one time is considered, i.e., the

common-mode failure is not considered.

c) Suppose that the change takes place at -bit of two

; otherwise,

binary numbers: if it is

.

d) If all pairs of system states are examined, stop; if not,

go back to step b).

2) Generating

is a TRM whose element

, and

is the transition rate from system

state to in adverse weather. The algorithm to generate

is the same as that to get

except that the transition

rates in adverse weather are used instead.

and

3) Generating

Both

and

are diagonal matrices and it is easy to

is a TRM whose element

produce them.

and

is the transition rate of system state

from normal to adverse weather.

is a TRM whose

and

is the transition rate

element

of system state from adverse to normal weather.

4) Update

and

Finally,

and

are updated as follows:

and

.

V. SIMULATION METHOD

Since in this paper the two-state weather model is used to consider the effects of fluctuating weather, i.e., components failure

are dependent, sequential simulation is suitable for simulation

to estimate reliability indices. Here, NESS is used. In this section, NESS is briefly reviewed and the proposed algorithm to

implement it in the two weather model is presented. Moreover,

the confidence interval of the estimated index is introduced. In

the next section, the results obtained using DCOPF-MCSM are

compared with those of NESS.

(15)

where

are the estimates of

, respectively; is the

number of simulation cycles (e.g., the number of years) and is

a sufficiently large number; is the system failure time in th

cycle; is the system failure frequency in th cycle, e.g., the

frequency of system state from success to failure.

and

.

Apparently,

are used

In this paper, coefficient of variation (COV) of

as convergence criterion:

(16)

where

(17)

where

;

are COV of

, respectively;

are the

, respectively;

are the

variances of

variances of

, respectively;

are the

, respectively. The derivation

estimates of

process is given in detail in [22].

C. Confidence Interval

It can be seen from (14)(15) that actually

and

are

random variables. Suppose that they have expected values

and variances

, respectively. Thus, the following

conclusion is available [1]: Suppose that sample variances of

are respectively defined as follows:

(18)

A. Review of NESS

The basic idea of NESS is that of all possible system events

only the most imminent one happens and then the next most

imminent event happens, and this process continues until the

simulation is terminated. The next event method is very useful

for simulating the continuous time Markov processes. The key

(19)

where

tively. Then

, respecand

782

confidence intervals of

are as follows:

TABLE I

GENERATION MCS

(20)

(21)

where

is the

th percentile of -distribution.

TABLE II

TRANSMISSION MCS

D. Implementing NESS

The algorithm to implement NESS is as follows.

-bit binary

1) Each system state is represented by an

number. From bit 1 to , each binary number is 1/0 if the

state of the corresponding component is success/failure.

The last bit indicates the state of the weather and it is 1/0

if the weather is normal/adverse.

binary numbers,

2) For any arbitrary combination of

firstly examine the last bit: if it is 1, the transition rates of

all components in normal weather are used; otherwise, the

transition rates of all components in adverse weather are

used.

3) Determine the next most imminent event. Here, the

weather transition is also treated as an event.

4) Check the event type: if it is weather transition, go back to

step 2); if it is component transition, go to the next step.

5) After the event has happened, check if the obtained system

state is failure (Here the same evaluation criterion is used

as that of the analytical method): if yes, the corresponding

event time is saved; otherwise, go to the next step directly.

6) Check if the system state before this event is failure: if yes,

the system state transition is counted; otherwise, go to the

next step directly.

7) Update all values: estimates, COV, confidence intervals

and all event times with this principle: each event time

minus the residence time in last system state and the one

being 0 will get a new event time.

8) Check if COV is smaller than the pre-set value: if yes, stop;

if not, go back to step 1).

VI. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In this section, the proposed method is applied to the modified IEEE RTS [18] and the results are compared with those of

NESS.

A. Test System

Considering that the transmission part of IEEE RTS is relatively over-reliable [24], [25], IEEE RTS is modified as follows:

installed capacities of all generators and load at each bus are increased 1.5 times. Other assumptions adopted are listed as follows.

1) All generators and transmission lines are assigned integer

numbers starting from 1 in an ascending order, respectively.

TABLE III

MIXED MCS

are polynomial curves.

3) For simplicity, the annual peak load is used as system load

and it is 2850 MW, i.e., the system load is a constant. But

the proposed method is also applicable when varied system

load is used.

B. System Reliability Indices

1) Determined System MCS: Here, the MCS of generation

and transmission parts of IEEE RTS are determined up to

second-order. The determined MCS include: first-order MCS

of generation/transmission part, second-order MCS of generation/transmission part, and mixed type. The mixed MCS is

represented in the form as Generator, Transmission Line . The

determined system MCS are listed in Tables IIII. It is pointed

out that distinguishing MCS of different orders and different

types in three tables is just for the purpose of illustration.

Actually in programming they are processed indistinguishably

as one table by using the algorithm developed in Part B of

Section IV.

2) System Reliability Indices: The system reliability indices

and the computation time are listed in Table IV. The mean value

is the average of the upper and lower bounds. For simplicity,

only the system reliability indices in normal weather are calculated. If the relevant data is available, the effects of adverse

LIU AND SINGH: RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE POWER SYSTEMS USING MARKOV CUT-SET METHOD

TABLE IV

SYSTEM RELIABILITY INDICES

783

TABLE VIII

NODAL RELIABILITY INDICES (BUS 19)

TABLE IX

RESULTS OF NESS (1)

TABLE V

NODAL GENERATION MCS (BUS 19)

TABLE VI

NODAL TRANSMISSION MCS (BUS 19)

TABLE X

RESULTS OF NESS (2)

TABLE VII

NODAL MIXED MCS (BUS 19)

computation time is spent in determining system MCS.

C. Nodal Reliability Indices

As described in Section IV, the proposed method can also be

used to compute nodal reliability indices. The algorithm is the

same as that used to compute system indices except that only a

subset of MCS corresponding to that node is used instead. For

illustration, in Tables VVII the determined MCS for bus 19

of IEEE RTS are listed and it can be seen that, as expected, the

MCS for bus 19 are the subsets of system MCS; in Table VIII the

reliability indices obtained at bus 19 are listed. The indices for

all the nodes were computed but are not listed for the purposes

of saving space and also not much can be gained by listing all

the nodal indices. The computation time for the system and all

20 bus indices is approximately 138 s as compared with the only

system indices (Table IV) of 133 s. So the additional computation time for nodal indices is 5 s, about 4% of time for system

indices. The reason, as explained earlier, is that the part of determining MCS (where the most CPU time is spent) is the same in

the algorithms for both system and nodal indices computation.

D. Simulation Results

The simulation results after a certain number of iterations

(system events) are listed in Tables IX and X. Corresponding to

the analytical results, only the reliability indices in the normal

is used to compute the confidence intervals of simulation. Here

are the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval

are the upper and lower bounds of the confidence

of

interval of . For simplicity, only the system reliability indices

are simulated. But the proposed algorithm is also applicable to

simulate the nodal indices.

E. Comparison of Results From Two Methods

The comparison of the results from two methods is presented

in Figs. 2 and 3. Here, the simulation cycles represents the numbers of system event. The straight lines represent the bounds and

the mean values of the analytical results and the curves represent the confidence intervals and the estimates of the simulation

results. Here, the legends used are as follows:

UBAM: upper bound of the analytical method;

LBAM: lower bound of the analytical method;

MVAM: mean value of the analytical method;

UBCI: upper bound of the confidence interval;

LBCI: lower bound of the confidence interval;

EFP: estimate of the failure probability;

EFF: estimate of the failure frequency.

From above comparison, the following conclusions can be

obtained.

1) The simulation results fall into the bounds of the analytical

results and the bounds of the analytical results are wider

than the confidence intervals of the simulation results (except in the beginning of simulation).

784

method is acceptable and the additional computation

burden in computing nodal reliability indices and storing

corresponding data is not significant. For real-world

applications further investigation and improvement of

implementation could be done. For instance, in both analytical and simulation methods OPF approach is usually

used to analyze the failure effect and this is time-consuming. Some heuristics combined with OPF can make

the process much faster and may be the way to go in a

commercial software.

VII. CONCLUSION

2) The mean values of the analytical results fall into the confidence intervals of the simulation results and they are close

to the simulation estimates, i.e., the mean values can approximate the system reliability indices with an accuracy

comparable to that of the simulation method.

3) When simulation is proceeding its confidence intervals become narrower and the bounds of the confidence intervals

become parallel. Therefore, the variation tendency of the

confidence intervals can be used as the convergence criterion of the simulation, e.g., setting the difference of the

bounds of the confidence intervals being less than a small

value as the convergence criterion.

4) In this paper no special technique is used to accelerate the

simulation convergence. The comparison shows that in the

current case the proposed method is fast and the comparable accuracy with the simulation method is obtained. One

reason of not using any special technique is that in composite system reliability studies, variance reduction techniques may or may not provide a significant advantage. To

the knowledge of the authors, most commercial simulation

software do not use variance reduction techniques.

power system reliability considering the dependence of components introduced by fluctuating weather. The proposed method

comprises the following two steps.

1) Use DC-OPF to determine MCS up to a preset-order.

2) Use MCSM to compute the bounds of the reliability indices.

In the second step, an algorithm is proposed to automatically

generate TRM of MCS (and their unions) determined in step 1).

This makes the calculation of reliability indices much easier.

This method is tested on the modified IEEE RTS for computing

system and nodal reliability indices. Finally, these results are

compared to those of NESS.

The implementation demonstrates the following.

1) The proposed method is effective and efficient. It can compute the bounds of the reliability indices and the mean

values of the bounds can approximate the system indices

with accuracy comparable to that of the simulation method.

2) The proposed method has the advantage of easy implementation, convenience of incorporating more system operational considerations and easy interpretation of the obtained results.

3) The variation tendency of the confidence intervals can be

used to terminate simulation.

4) The additional computation burden in computing nodal reliability indices and storing corresponding data is not significant. It has been explained that this is due to the fact

that the MCS for nodal calculations are subsets of the MCS

for system indices. Therefore the additional time for calculation of nodal indices is only due to applying four equations which does not consume much time compared with

the time for identification of MCS. For real-world applications further investigation and improvement of implementation could perhaps be done.

5) Finally it should be mentioned that the results obtained

here are by using research grade software to demonstrate

the feasibility of this idea. Perhaps further improvements

can be obtained by using, e.g., some sort of heuristics combined with OPF rather than using OPF alone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Part of the programming is developed on the basis of MATPOWER [23] developed by Dr. R. D. Zimmerman of Cornell

University and his colleagues.

LIU AND SINGH: RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE POWER SYSTEMS USING MARKOV CUT-SET METHOD

REFERENCES

[1] C. Singh and R. Billinton, System Reliability Modeling and Evaluation. London, U.K.: Hutchinson Educational, 1977.

[2] D. P. Gaver, F. E. Montmeat, and A. D. Patton, Power system reliability I-measures of reliability and methods of calculation, IEEE

Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-83, pp. 727737, Jul. 1964.

[3] R. Billinton and K. E. Bollinger, Transmission system reliability evaluation using Markov processes, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.

PAS-87, no. 2, pp. 538547, Feb. 1968.

[4] R. Billinton and G. Singh, Application of adverse and extreme adverse

weather: modeling in transmission and distribution system reliability

evaluation, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 153,

no. 1, pp. 115120, Jan. 2006.

[5] C. Dichirico and C. Singh, Reliability analysis of transmission

lines with common mode failures when repair times are arbitrarily

distributed, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 10121019,

Aug. 1988.

[6] R. Billinton and W. Li, A novel method for incorporating weather

effects in composite system adequacy evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11541160, Aug. 1991.

[7] M. R. Bhuiyan and R. N. Allan, Inclusion of weather effects in composite system reliability evaluation using sequential simulation, Proc.

Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 141, no. 6, pp. 575584,

Nov. 1994.

[8] C. Singh, Markov cut-set approach for the reliability evaluation of

transmission and distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,

vol. PAS-100, no. 6, pp. 27192725, Jun. 1981.

[9] P. A. Jensen and M. Bellmore, An algorithm to determine the reliability of a complex system, IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 18, no. 4, pp.

169174, Nov. 1969.

[10] A. C. Nelson, J. R. Batts, and R. L. Beadles, A computer program for

approximating system reliability, IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 19, no. 2,

pp. 6165, May 1970.

[11] C. L. Hwang, F. K. Tillman, and M. H. Lee, System-reliability evaluation techniques for complex/large systemsA review, IEEE Trans.

Reliab., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 416423, Dec. 1981.

[12] C. O. A. Awosope and T. O. Akinbulire, A computer program for generating power-system load-point minimal paths, IEEE Trans. Reliab.,

vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 302308, Aug. 1991.

[13] Y. Shen, A new simple algorithm for enumerating all minimal paths

and cuts of a graph, Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 973976,

Jun. 1995.

[14] J. Lin, C. Jane, and J. Yuan, On reliability evaluation of a capacitated-flow network in terms of minimal path sets, Networks, vol. 25,

no. 3, pp. 131138, May 1995.

[15] A. M. Al-Ghanim, A heuristic technique for generating minimal path

and cut sets of a general network, Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 36, no. 1,

pp. 4555, Jan. 1999.

[16] S. M. Lee and D. H. Park, An efficient method for evaluating networkreliability with variable link-capacities, IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 50,

no. 4, pp. 374379, Dec. 2001.

[17] M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, R. Billinton, T. S. Munian, and B. Vinayagam,

A novel approach to determine minimal tie-sets of complex network,

IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 6170, Mar. 2004.

785

[18] RTS Task Force, IEEE reliability test system, IEEE Trans. Power

App. Syst., vol. PAS-98, no. 6, pp. 20472054, 1979.

[19] C. Singh, On the behavior of failure frequency bounds, IEEE Trans.

Reliab., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 6366, Apr. 1977.

[20] C. Singh, A matrix approach to calculate the failure frequency and

related indices, Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 395398,

1979.

[21] J. Mitra and C. Singh, Pruning and simulation for determination of

frequency and duration indices of composite power systems, IEEE

Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 899905, Aug. 1999.

[22] C. Singh and P. Jirutitijaroen, Monte Carlo simulation techniques for

transmission systems reliability analysis, in Tutorial Presentation at

the IEEE PES General Meeting, 2007.

[23] MATPOWER. [Online]. Available: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/.

[24] J. C. O. Mello, M. V. F. Pereira, and A. M. Leite da Silva, Evaluation

of reliability worth in composite systems based on pseudo-sequential

Monte Carlo simulation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 3, pp.

13181326, Aug. 1994.

[25] A. M. Leite da Silva, J. G. de Carvalho Costa, L. A. da Fonseca Manso,

and G. J. Anders, Transmission capacity: Availability, maximum

transfer and reliability, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp.

843849, Aug. 2002.

Yong Liu was born in China. He received the B.E. degree from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST), Wuhan, China, and the M.E. degree

(by research) from Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Now

he is pursuing the Ph.D. degree at Texas A&M University, College Station.

His main research interest is in power system reliability techniques.

Chanan Singh (S71M72SM79F91) is currently Regents Professor and Irma Runyon Chair

Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University (TAMU),

College Station. From 1995 to 1996, he served

as the Director of Power Program at the National

Science Foundation, and from 1997 to 2005, he

served as the Head of the Electrical and Computer

Engineering Department at TAMU. His research

and consulting interests are in the application of

probabilistic methods to power systems. He has

authored/co-authored around 300 technical papers and two books and has

contributed to several books. He has consulted with many major corporations

and given short courses nationally and internationally.

Dr. Singh was the recipient of the 1998 Outstanding Power Engineering

Educator Award given by the IEEE Power Engineering Society. For his

research contributions, he was awarded a D.Sc. degree by the University of

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, in 1997. In 2008, he was recognized

with the Merit Award by the PMAPS International Society.

- List of Engineering Companies Aug 2012Încărcat dePeter Collier
- Black Box Industrial Controls Catalogue 2005Încărcat deumair Hassan Raja
- Exam SolutionÎncărcat deEng Gutale
- Z 2002AP7Încărcat dealejo
- INEQUALITY IN MINAS GERAIS, BRAZIL: A STUDY CASE ON ZONA DA MATA REGIONÎncărcat deRoberto Santolin
- Learning From LossesÎncărcat dekoyasrujana
- Sampling inspection planÎncărcat deHARSH TRIPATHI
- 1fejezetÎncărcat deKomal Sahay
- The Cost Influence on Reliability and Security of the Software SystemsÎncărcat deJournal of Mobile, Embedded and Distributed Systems (JMEDS)
- SM1J43Încărcat deMiloud Chougui
- 2SA1837 Power DrvÎncărcat deytnate
- M10LZ47_ToshibaSemiconductorÎncărcat demanuel riascos
- MaintenanceÎncărcat deganeshrudra
- Design_2Încărcat deAshish Tom
- IPMA ICB 3 w edukacji - Czechy.pdfÎncărcat deTomasz Wiatr
- Mature Assets_RAM Case StudyÎncărcat demauriciomejia7
- 19 References.pdfÎncărcat deRohit Rangari
- mhloÎncărcat demdnxumalo
- Architecture Optimization of More Electric Aircraft Actuation System.pdfÎncărcat deMustafa Akın
- Ece4890 NotesÎncărcat dehenrydcl
- human reliability 07Încărcat deFernando Romero
- Cre InsertÎncărcat depapinko
- 2-151130064627Încărcat deAbde Esselam
- Multi-scale Representation of High FrequencyÎncărcat dedoc_oz3298
- Smart Motors - Point Machine MonitoringÎncărcat deMartha Miralpeix
- MIS - Customer, Product,Andre_Mahinder_BGÎncărcat deSiddharth Singh
- 5.the Common Methods to Determine the Parameters of Technical StandardsÎncărcat deAjay Vasanth
- AMS10004 SKF Results ReporterÎncărcat decarlos
- Present Design Practice5Încărcat des.thrinadhrao
- Ch_1_Slides.pptÎncărcat dePedro Carmona

- Dc Bus Voltage ControlÎncărcat deHolik Okdiansyah
- 18 PulseÎncărcat dejaimecz
- Power System PlanningÎncărcat deSheikh.H
- Integrated Generation and Transmission Maintenance Scheduling With Network ConstraintsÎncărcat deSheikh.H
- Vector Control of a DFIG Based Wind TurbineÎncărcat deSheikh.H
- Ac Ripple Current in Dc LinkÎncărcat deVijit Dubey

- Whats_New_ION_Enterprise_6.0.pdfÎncărcat deIsaac Sidibe
- FSMÎncărcat deHafeth Dawbaa
- WIT-7001-002-0021Încărcat decizer_az
- 11_DE_094I_3KW9Încărcat deIoana Bitica
- AaaÎncărcat deKhuong Lam
- Datasoft Catalog From 1983Încărcat deFeedYerBrain
- Norma AAR-M101-Axle_2007.pdfÎncărcat deLolo
- _Social Learning TheoryÎncărcat deRoshan Ravi
- Delhi Metro_Research ReportÎncărcat deraamz
- Cv Tobey ClarkÎncărcat deFrancisco Gomez
- 1 Plastic Deformation 2013 (1)Încărcat deandrew0vild
- Electrical System Comm ProcedureÎncărcat devaithy1990
- Fab Gate SpecsÎncărcat deSuharyono Sabit
- Intense Pulsed Light Devices, Are Claimed Output Parameters Valid - M Trelles, G Town, C AshÎncărcat deCaerwyn Ash
- Creating Awareness for Truck art Motifs and Patterns Through Creative Industry for Local and Global MarketÎncărcat deInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Last Chance SecurityÎncărcat deMichel Kabonga
- ictar bc eltra jane and jamesÎncărcat deapi-431972621
- CORDURA Brand Fabric Technologies-BaselayerÎncărcat dePeter Davidson
- Power-Genius-Meters.pdfÎncărcat deAritheertham Saravanan
- CFD AssociatesÎncărcat deVincent J. Cataldi
- RSBSS1020-072_-_Packet_Control_Unit.xlsÎncărcat deNguyen Xuan Nham
- Osisense Xcc Xcc1510ps10yÎncărcat delucian
- CV Template 7Încărcat deNova Yuli Prasetyo
- Original.Esquemas Electricos HILUX..pdfÎncărcat deAle Monzón
- Tnfd15 p320h Micron Pciessd Performance Testing Clanak o SSD-uÎncărcat deVladimir Jovanovic
- exam_final.pdfÎncărcat deMarceloEchegaray
- enhancing ct with FAT.pdfÎncărcat deJonathon Bender
- LNG Journal Seismic 2005Încărcat dejeovan
- CIE 430-Part 8-Wood Structural Panels-Student Version-Fall 2014Încărcat depezhmankhan
- SIMATIC PDMÎncărcat demkdo82

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.