Generating Capacity Reliabi pe Evaluation 17.1. Introduction i if he keeps his promise. A q The concept of reliability is very old. A person ec Palate aoa reliability a is reliable iit works satisfactorily. However such a i icceuany if Chas 0 be taal not entirely adequate. A quantitative cvaiasr spplications of probability techniques provide z into engineering design and apple mance 0 thatthe reliability levels of alternate Proposals auantative prediction of sytem performances yared along witl ci ee reste of probability techniques in the quantitative ee of poe sem scl is rapidly increasing. Tis is de to the fact thot we ate ecoming more and mor dependent on electrical energy for our duly comforts and the power uti ies allover the world am being called upon to provide a high quality product (i.e., electrical energy). foreover the tend in electri energy generation is towards bgger and bigger generating units, The constuction of many super-‘thrmal ations has ben taken up our country and we have SOO MW thermal unis in operation. Units of 1500 MW size are in operation in advanced countries and still bigger units are being planned. These large sized generating units have o be very reliable because a forced shut down of such units can lead to power system stability and security problems. The only way to properly judge the reliability is to express the reliability in quantitative terms. For evaluating the reliability of a power system, reliability studies have to be made on generation systems, ttansmission systems and. distributiom systems, Generating capacity liability eYalustion(€an be YfOKEn up into_static and Spinning (operating) requirements The’statie-genéfating capacity reliability evaluation aims at determining the amount of installed capacity which must be planned and constructed so that the risk of not being able to supply the load, at any time in future, is below a predetermined level. In spinning Benerating capacity reliability evaluation the interval between a unit failure and the start up ofthe Teserve unit is examined and the amount of spinning (or operating) reserve is determined so thet the risk is kept below an acceptable level. In this chapter we confine our attention to the state geacng cae relly valuation The techniques which have been developed for this isthe most widely et a ae quency and duration method’. The ‘loss of load approach Pred and used mote often than the other method. We discuss thie method in detail in this chapter. For the ‘frequency and duratio r th a n method’ and other approaches to Problem, the reader should refer to the end of the chapter bibliography el a available to perform its intended tion of eoesociated with that device. An outage of component may or machete consumers depending on system conne , utage oF a scheduled outage alain q 376 Sabi | a io , ) Fo oo oe UeHuation sate: S.A devia hab 8 © integrates S Provide a © Proposals Ver system and more World, are le trend in ruction of, mal units sBcr units red Shut y Way\to ating the systems, pinning mining of not pinning ) of the so that static roach jethod 0 the nded ay or Hee Canacity Reliability Evaluation generating Cee hy Eval wih a ¢ utomatically oF ‘hing operations A Faproper operation of equipment or human error," P° Petformed or an outage caused by ‘A scheduled outage (also known ant is deliberately taken out of servic component is OF reece, at Selected time, usually for the purpose of veative maintenance or ovethaul\or repair. The, ‘mple test tp dctemale' thereto \e whether an outage ould be classified as forced or scheduled is as under If m nos or example, to prevent over-loadi ci oo a a wie eam 'stinct sections. In the initial period, known ‘ality, the failures of the component may be fter the de-bugging period comes the normal operating period or useful life. It is expected that the pa SiF7 — during the useful life, becomes mote or less constant, or wear-out period. Once a component enters the the wear-out period become so costly that itis more because its shape resembles that of a bath-tub, Power OE te USEFUL LiFe —-hwenne/ ‘TINE the de-busging period and the failure rate, \ I ‘The failures during the useful life are only chance feces ar es LTH eCOTOniBal to Teplacg the component bysél newsGne, NM ONASSKStacret:© constant and. 17.4. Two State Model A simple representation of the life history of a repairable unit (during the useful life period) is by a two state model shown in Fig. 17.2. After the unit has been in operation for some time a | . pORRMBN ,BEPAR, fault develops aid repair work is carried out Wg During the period of repair the unit is shut down UP alan or is in down state. After the repair, the unit is decatmlas occaianle switched on again and another operating period’™" penn GPEMON® | "panos starts. Then another fault develops and so on. PERIOD | | | Thus the life history of the unit consists of “up” “tent |e ee periods when the unit is operating and ‘down’ DOWN periods when the unit is under repair. These “up ‘areful preventive maintenance Fig. 17.2. Two state model, and ‘down’ periods alternate each other. 17.5, orced Ou ry to find out the probability of outage Hf ul life period the The probability of ating unit, During the uset atistical regularity In power system reliability calculations it ism ¢ ent such as genera existence for a piece of equipment panna equipnient failures occur at random and, therefore, with st