PSE4NE2 - Power System Analysis 101

Competency Training and Certification Program in Electric Power Distribution System Engineering
Training Course in
Power System Engineering for Non-Engineers
Power System Analysis 101
U. P. NATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER

NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION
Power System Analysis 101 2
Power System Analysis
Performance Power System

Standards Analysis
Power Quality Load Flow Analysis
Efficiency System Loss Analysis
Safety Short Circuit Analysis
Reliability Reliability Analysis
U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

National Electrification Administration for Non-Engineers
1
LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS

Load Flow Analysis
1. What is Load Flow?

2. Uses of Load Flow Studies
3. Load Flow Control

2
What is Load Flow?
Bus2
I23 , Loss23 = ? Bus3
Bus1 I12 , Loss12 = ?
V3 = ?
Utility P3 , Q3 = ?
I24 , Loss24 = ? V4 = ?
Grid P4 , Q4 = ?
V1 = 67 kV Bus4
P1 , Q1 = ? V2 = ? Lumped Load A
P2 , Q2 = ? 2 MVA 85%PF
Lumped Load B
1 MVA 85%PF
What are the Voltages,

Currents, Power and Losses of
the Distribution System?

What is Load Flow?

Load Flow of an Existing System
Can we see how electric power flows in the system,
coming from the sources (where power is purchased)
and down to all customers (where power is sold)?
Can we determine:
• If any customer is being provided with voltage that is
too low (or even too high)?
• If too much power flow through any of our equipment,
especially our transformers?
• How much power is lost along the lines and equipment?
YES! LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS

3
What is Load Flow?

Load Flow of a Contemplated System
Can we have a picture of the system as we
contemplate possible changes?
Can we determine in advance the effects of:
• Growth or addition of new loads
• Addition of generating plants
• Upgrading of Substation
• Expansion of distribution lines
• Installations of equipment such as capacitors
before the proposed changes are implemented?
YES! LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS
What is Load Flow?
Load Flow (also called Power Flow) is a

snapshot picture of the power system at a
given point.
Load Flow Analysis simulates (i.e.,

mathematically determine) the performance
of an electric power system under a given
set of conditions.

4
What is Load Flow?
How would the engineers do that?

• Identify physical components
• Know the characteristic of components
• Mathematically represent the behavior of
components
• Calculate electrical parameters

What is Load Flow?

5
What is Load Flow?
Utility Grid or
Substation Transmission Generator
Transformer Line
G
Bus
Distribution
Transformer
Distribution
Line
Load Flow mathematically
determines the Voltages,
Currents, Power and Losses
Load

Uses of Load Flow Studies
Basic Information
From a Load Flow Study
Voltage Profile
Injected Power (Pp and Qp)
Line Currents (Ipq and Ipq)
Power Flows (Ppq and Qpq)
Line Losses (I2R and I2X)

6
Other Information
From a Load Flow Study
Overvoltage and Undervoltage Buses
Critical and Overloaded Transformers
and Lines
Total System Losses


Sensitivity Analysis
1) Take any line, transformer or generator out of service.
2) Add, reduce or remove load to any or all buses.
3) Add, remove or shift generation to any bus.
4) Add new transmission or distribution lines.
5) Increase conductor size on T&D lines.
6) Change bus voltages.
7) Change transformer taps.
8) Increase or decrease transformer size.
9) Add or remove rotating or static var supply to buses.
7

1) ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Check for voltage violations
PGC: 0.95 – 1.05 p.u. (For Transmission)
PDC: 0.90 – 1.10 p.u (For Distribution)*
*Recommended 0.95 – 1.05 p.u.
• Check for branch power flow violations
Transformer Overloads
Line Overloads
• Check for system losses
Caps on Segregated DSL


2) ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTING PQ PROBLEMS
• Voltage adjustment by utility at delivery point
Request TransCo to improve voltage at
connection point
TransCo as System Operator will determine
feasibility based on Economic Dispatch and
other adjustments such as transformer tap
changing and reactive power compensation

8

• Transformer tap changing
Available Taps
At Primary Side
At Secondary Side
Both Sides
Typical Taps
Tap 1: +5%
Tap 2: +2.5%
Tap 3: 0% (Rated Voltage)
Tap 4: -2.5%
Tap 5: -5%


•Capacitor compensation
• Compensate for Peak Loading
• Check overvoltages during Off-Peak
• Optimize Capacitor Plan
• System configuration improvement

9

3) EXPANSION PLANNING
• New substation construction
• Substation capacity expansion
• New feeder segment construction / extension
• Addition of parallel feeder segment
• Reconducting of existing feeder segment/ circuit
• Circuit conversion to higher voltage
• Generator addition


4) CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS
Reliability analysis of the Transmission (Grid) and
Subtransmission System
5) SYSTEM LOSS ANALYSIS

Segregation of System Losses

10
Load Flow Control

1. For Generating plants, the amount of power that can be delivered
can be controlled by the plant operator (as long as within the
capacity of the plant)
2. Flow of power is affected by the voltages and impedances across
the components
• Specialized Transformers and other equipment may be
utilized to control the flow of power across the network
3. Capacitors are used to improve the voltage profile across the
network
• The current drawn by the load is reduced
• The voltage drop across the line is reduced
• The voltage at the load side is increased

SYSTEM LOSS ANALYSIS

11
System Loss Analysis
1. Components of Distribution System

Losses
2. Segregation of Distribution System
Losses
3. System Loss Reduction and Control

Components of Distribution
System Losses
The Philippine Distribution Code (PDC)
mandates system losses to be segregated into
the following components:
a. Technical Loss;
b. Non-Technical Loss; and
c. Administrative Loss.

12
Total Distribution System Losses

Energy Delivered Energy
to the Distribution - Delivered to
System Users
=
Total Distribution
System Losses
Administrative
+ Technical Loss + Non-Technical Loss
Loss
Bundled Technical & Non-Technical Losses
System Losses
Administrative Losses
The electric energy used by the Distribution
Utility in the proper operation of the Distribution
System.
a. Distribution Substations;
b. Offices, warehouses and workshops of the DU; and
c. Other essential electrical loads of the Distribution
Utility.

13
System Losses
Technical Losses
Load and no-load losses in:
a. Sub-transmission lines and substation
transformers;
b. Primary distribution lines and distribution
transformers;
c. Secondary distribution lines and service drops;
d. Voltage regulators, Capacitors and reactors; and
e. All other electrical equipment necessary for the
operation of the distribution system.

System Losses
Non-Technical Losses
The component that is not related to the physical
characteristics and functions of the electrical
system, and is caused primarily by human error,
whether intentional or not.
Includes the electric energy lost due to pilferage,

tampering of meters and erroneous meter
reading.
Errors that are attributable to inaccuracies in
metering and billing.

14
Total Distribution System Losses

Total DSL = Energy Input - Energy Output
Total DSL
= Σ[Energy delivered by the Transmission System]
+ Σ[Energy delivered by Embedded Generating Plants]
+ Σ[Energy delivered by Other Distribution Systems]
+ Σ[Energy delivered by User Systems with
Generating Units]
- Σ[Energy delivered to the Users of the Distribution
System]

Unbundling the Technical and

Non-Technical Loss
Technical Non-Technical
+
Losses Losses
-
Shall be quantified
Technical through 3-Phase
Losses (Unbalanced) Load
Flow Simulations
=
Residual after
subtracting Non-Technical
Administrative &
Technical Losses from Losses
the Total Distribution
System Losses

15

Non-Technical Loss
Technical Loss
= Σ[Hourly Load and No-Load (or Fixed) Losses in all
electrical equipment, devices and conductors]
a)Sub-transmission Lines g) Voltage Regulators

b)Substation Power Transformers h) Capacitors
c)Primary Distribution Lines i) Reactors
d)Distribution Transformers j) Other electrical equipment
e)Secondary Distribution Lines
f) Service Drops Hourly Load Flow Simulations
Plus Calculated Metering Equipment Loss


Non-Technical Loss
Subtransmission Lines Primary Distribution Lines
(Main Feeder)
Substation
Transformer Primary Distribution Lines
(Laterals)
Three-Phase Unbalanced
Load Flow Simulations Misc Loads
a)Sub-transmission Lines
b)Substation Power Transformers Secondary Distribution Lines
c)Primary Distribution Lines Service
d)Distribution TransformersDistribution Drop
Transformer
e)Secondary Distribution Lines
f) Service Drops Residential Commercial Industrial
g)Voltage Regulators
h)Capacitors Load Losses and
i) Reactors No-Load (Fixed) Losses
j) Other electrical equipment
16

Non-Technical Loss
Calculation of Metering Equipment
Potential Transformer Loss
= Power Loss in PT (kW) x Number of PT x Number of Operating
Hours in the Billing Period
Current Transformer Loss
= Power Loss in CT (kW) x Number of CT x Number of Operating
Hours in the Billing Period
Electric Meter Potential Coil Loss
= Power Loss in Electric Meter Potential Coil (kW) x Number of
Electric Meters x Number of Operating Hours in the Billing Period
Electric Meter Current Coil Loss
= Power Loss in Electric Meter Current Coil (kW) x Number of
Electric Meters x Number of Operating Hours in the Billing Period
Operating Hours = No. of days x 24 hours – SAIDI

Non-Technical Loss
Non-Technical Loss
= Total Distribution System Losses
- Administrative Loss
- Technical Loss
- Recovered Losses
Note: Losses recovered from anti-pilferage

activities are subtracted from the total
distribution system losses.

17
DSL Segregation
Distribution
System Loss
Segregation Segregated
Program Technical
Distribution System Data Loss
(3-phase Load Flow) (Billing Period)
Distribution Reliability
Assessment
Metering
Customer Energy Bill Equipment
Metering Equipment Loss
Inventory

Segregated Distribution System

Losses
Monthly DSL Segregation
Segregated DSL for the Whole Distribution System
Segregated DSL Per Receiving/Metering Point
Segregated DSL per Substation
Segregated DSL per Feeder
Segregated DSL per Distribution Transformer

18
Distribution Network Models
IA Ia
A Impedance/ a
IB Admittance Ib
Distribution B parameters of b
System IC Distribution Ic
C System Element c
Element
VA VB VC Vc Vb Va
Ground (Reference Node)
Distribution Network Model must capture

the unbalance characteristics of the System

Distribution Load Models

350
300
250
Demand (W)
200
Customer Energy Bill

150
1.2
1
NormalizedDemand(per unit)
100 Area under the curve

0.8
= Customer Energy
0.6 50
Bill
0.4
0
0.2
0
Time (24 hours)
Customer Energy Bill
Converted to Hourly Power
Normalized Customer Load
Demand
Curve
19
Data Requirements
ERC-DSL-01 Administrative Load Data
ERC-DSL-02 Customer Data
ERC-DSL-03 Billing Cycle Data
ERC-DSL-04 Customer Energy Consumption Data
ERC-DSL-05 Load Curve Data
ERC-DSL-06 Bus Data
ERC-DSL-07 Subtransmission Line Data - Overhead
ERC-DSL-08 Subtransmission Line Data - Underground/Submarine Cable
ERC-DSL-09 Substation Power Transformer Data - Two Winding
ERC-DSL-10 Substation Power Transformer Data - Three Winding
ERC-DSL-11 Primary Distribution Line Data - Overhead
ERC-DSL-12 Primary Distribution Line Data - Underground Cable
ERC-DSL-13 Primary Customer Service Drop Data - Overhead
ERC-DSL-14 Primary Customer Service Drop Data - Underground Cable
ERC-DSL-15 Distribution Transformer Data
ERC-DSL-16 Secondary Distribution Line Data
ERC-DSL-17 Secondary Customer Service Drop Data
ERC-DSL-18 Voltage Regulator Data
ERC-DSL-19 Shunt Capacitor Data
ERC-DSL-20 Shunt Inductor Data
ERC-DSL-21 Series Inductor Data

Optimal Level of System Loss
Total Cost
Cost
System Loss
Reduction
Unrecovered Program Cost
Energy Cost
High Optimal Low System Loss

20
BENECO DSL Segregation

SEGREGATED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
LOSSES ANALYSIS
NON-TECHNICAL LOSS
REDUCTION PROGRAM
TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
TECHNICAL LOSS REDUCTION

PROGRAM
TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS

Technical
Loss, Non-
TEST YEAR SEGREGATED
52.76% Technical
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES Loss,
46.74%
Administrative
Loss, 0.50%
Loss Kwhr %
Administrative 167, 791 0.0594%
Technical 18,181,059 6.3153%
Non-Technical 15,487,726 5.5951%
TOTAL 33,836,577 11.9698%

21
BENECO DSL SEGREGATED

SYSTEM LOSSES 13.2 KV System
Segregation Administrative
Loss
0.3998%
Technical Loss 9.8906%
Non-Technical Loss 7.4183%
TOTAL LOSSES 17.7088%
13.2KV SYSTEM
23KV SYSTEM
SEGREGATED
SYSTEM 23 KV
LOSSES System
Administrative 0.0393%
Loss
Technical Loss 6.1051%

Non-Technical
Loss 5.4879%
TOTAL LOSSES 11.6324%

DSL RESULT PER FEEDER PER HOUR PER DAY IN A MONTH

22


SEGREGATED TECHNICAL LOSS % LOSS % SHARE
Power Transformer Load Loss 0.0590% 0.9338%
Power Transformer No-Load Loss 0.2372% 3.7559%
Primary Line 1.3805% 21.8597%
Primary Service Drop 0.0000% 0.0000%
Dist. XF Load Loss 0.3438% 5.4445%
Dist. XF No-Load Loss 1.7397% 27.5469%
Secondary 2.1652% 34.2848%
Secondary Service Drop 0.0691% 1.0937%
Shunt Capacitor Loss 0.0029% 0.0456%
kWhR Meter Loss 0.3180% 5.0350%
Total Technical Loss 6.3153% 100.0000%

23

TECHNICAL LOSS
TECHNICAL DISTRIBUTION
LOSS ALLOCATION
kWhR Meter Loss
5% Pow er Xformer Load Loss
1%
Shunt Capacitor Loss Pow er Xformer No-Load

0% Loss
4%
Secondary Service Drop Primary Line

1% 22%
Secondary
34%
Dist. XF Load Loss
5%
Dist. XF No-Load Loss

28%


TEST YEAR SEGREGATED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES
PER SYSTEM VOLTAGE
PERCENT (%) TECHNICAL

KWHR TECHNICAL LOSSES LOSSES
SEGREGATED
SYSTEM 13.2 KV 23 KV
LOSSES 13.2 KV System 23 KV System Total System System Total
Administrative
Loss 62,768.60 105,022.54 167,791.14 0.3998% 0.0393% 0.0594%
Technical Loss 1,552,634.80 16,299,669.83 17,852,304.63 9.8906% 6.1051% 6.3153%
Non-Technical
Loss 1,164,538.99 14,651,941.84 15,816,480.83 7.4183% 5.4879% 5.5951%
17.7088 11.6324 11.9698

TOTAL LOSSES 2,779,942.39 31,056,634.21 33,836,576.60 % % %

24

TEST YEAR SEGREGATED TECHNICAL LOSSES
PER SYSTEM VOLTAGE
KWHR TECHNICAL LOSSES PERCENT (%) TECHNICAL LOSSES
13.2 KV
TECHNICAL LOSSES 13.2 KV System 23 KV System Total System 23 KV System Total
Power Xformer Load Loss 5,232 161,467 166,700 0.0333% 0.0605% 0.0590%
Power Xformer No-Load

Loss 105,295 565,221 670,517 0.6708% 0.2117% 0.2372%
Primary Line 451,032 3,451,427 3,902,460 2.8732% 1.2927% 1.3805%
Primary Service Drop - 6 6 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%
Dist. XF Load Loss 32,239 939,729 971,968 0.2054% 0.3520% 0.3438%
Dist. XF No-Load Loss 591,212 4,326,553 4,917,765 3.7661% 1.6205% 1.7397%
Secondary 209,447 5,911,176 6,120,623 1.3342% 2.2141% 2.1652%
Secondary Service Drop 4,275 190,979 195,254 0.0272% 0.0715% 0.0691%
Shunt Capacitor Loss 394 7,753 8,147 0.0025% 0.0029% 0.0029%
kWhR Meter Loss 153,507 745,359 898,866 0.9779% 0.2792% 0.3180%
Total Technical Loss 1,552,635 16,299,670 17,852,305 9.8906% 6.1051% 6.3153%


FORECASTED SEGREGATED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES
Non
Total Administrativ
Energy Input Technical Loss Technical
YEAR System e Loss
(KWH) (%) Loss
Losses (%) (%)
(%)
2006
313,577,324 12.1222% 0.0621% 6.4611% 5.5951%
2007
341,755,055 12.2757% 0.0583% 6.6187% 5.5951%
2008
372,339,284 12.3994% 0.0535% 6.7477% 5.5951%
2009
405,588,445 12.5074% 0.0491% 6.8604% 5.5951%
2010
442,271,657 12.7071% 0.0493% 7.0604% 5.5951%

25
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS CAPS

Declining Non- Administrative
Technical Loss
YEAR Technical Loss Loss Cap (Annual
Cap
Caps KWH)
2006 5.9833% to 6.9388% 5.5951% 194,741

2007 6.1281% to 7.1094% 4.7486% 199,147
2008 6.2431% to 7.2523% 3.8585% 199,147
2009 6.3431% to 7.3778% 3.1278% 199,147
2010 6.5249% to 7.5959% 2.7644% 218,218
FORECASTED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS

YEAR FORECASTED SYSTEM LOSS RANGE
2006 11.6480% - 12.6047%
2007 10.9425% - 11.9251%
2008 10.1628% - 11.1733%
2009 9.5279% - 10.5639%
2010 9.3467% - 10.4191%

BENECO SEGREGATED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS (base year 2004)

Peso Equivalent (Php)
Distribution System Loss Energy (KWHR) Percentage (%) (as of February 2007
costing**)
Total System Loss 33,836,577 11.970% P 239,339,641
Administrative Loss 167,791 0.059% P 1,186,854
Technical Loss 17,852,305 6.315% P 126,276,492
Non-Technical Loss 15,816,481 5.595% P 111,876,296
BENECO SEGREGATED TECHNICAL LOSS (base year 2004)

Peso Equivalent (Php)
Technical Losses Energy (KWHR) Percentage (%) (as of February 2007
costing**)
Power Xformer Load Loss 166,700 0.0590% P 1,179,134

Power Xformer No-Load
Loss 670,517 0.2372% P 4,742,833
Primary Line 3,902,460 1.3805% P 27,603,658
Primary Service Drop 6 0.0000% P 42
Dist. XF Load Loss 971,968 0.3438% P 6,875,117
Dist. XF No-Load Loss 4,917,765 1.7397% P 34,785,321
Secondary 6,120,623 2.1652% P 43,293,617
Secondary Service Drop 195,254 0.0691% P 1,381,108
Shunt Capacitor Loss 8,147 0.0029% P 57,626
kWhR Meter Loss 898,866 0.3180% P 6,358,036

U. P. National Engineering 17,852,305
Center Power System Engineering
Total Technical Loss 6.3153% P 126,276,492
26
SEGREGATED SYSTEM LOSS PER METERING CONNECTION POINT
ENERGY LOSSES (KWHR) LOSSES IN PERCENTAGE (%)
Metering Metering
Connection Connection Metering Non-
Pt. Admin Non-Technical Connection Pt. Technical Technical
Loss Loss Technical Loss Loss Loss Admin Loss Loss Loss
Lamut 3,326,440 1,533,634 10.0966% 0.0791% 6.8564% 3.1611%

4,898,458 38,384
Irisan 3,081,395 2,094,032 11.8636% 0.0152% 7.0544% 4.7940%

5,182,063 6,636
NSC Old 20MVA 3,643,277 4,104,556 11.8636% 0.0341% 5.5626% 6.2669%

7,770,156 22,323
NSC New 20MVA 4,973,278 4,843,859 11.8636% 0.0454% 5.9870% 5.8312%

9,854,817 37,680
NPC-Beckel 959,893 1,722,755 11.8636% 0% 4.2450% 7.6186%

2,682,647 -
Atok 890,558 655,073 19.5406% 0.6136% 10.9053% 8.0217%

1,595,739 50,108
Mankayan 547,017 373,918 14.8130% 0.1846% 8.6889% 5.9394%

932,559 11,625
Asin Mini-Hyrdo 38,621 59,151 16.4621% 0% 6.5027% 9.9594%

97,772 -
Bakun Mini-hydro 17,677 7,378 12.1417% 0% 8.5662% 3.5755%

25,055 -
Ampuhaw Mini-
24,629 38,613 15.0311% 0% 5.8537% 9.1774%
hydro 63,242 -
Ambuclao 115,060 135,549 20.3546% 0.0838% 9.3068% 10.9641%

251,644 1,036
NPC-Itogon 190,389 181,600 18.8304% 0% 9.6377% 9.1927%

371,989 -
LUELCO 44,072 66,364 26.5489% 0% 10.5949% 15.9540%

110,435 -


NON-TECHNICAL LOSS PER METERING CONNECTION POINT
Non-Technical Loss Cost of Unrecovered
Metering Connection NTL % (System) NTL % (Feeder)
(kWhr) NTL (Pesos)
Lamut 1,533,634.21 P 11,289,465 0.5425% 3.1611%
Irisan 2,094,031.95 P 15,414,693 0.7408% 4.7940%
NSC Old 20MVA 4,104,556.00 P 30,214,663 1.4520% 6.2669%
NSC New 20MVA 4,843,859.12 P 35,656,858 1.7135% 5.8312%
NPC-Beckel 1,722,754.60 P 12,681,627 0.6094% 7.6186%
Atok 655,072.51 P 4,822,153 0.2317% 8.0217%
Mankayan 373,917.67 P 2,752,501 0.1323% 5.9394%
Asin Mini-Hyrdo 59,150.85 P 435,424 0.0209% 9.9594%
Bakun Mini-hydro 7,378.26 P 54,313 0.0026% 3.5755%

Ampuhaw Mini-
hydro 38,613.44 P 284,243 0.0137% 9.1774%
Ambuclao 135,548.81 P 997,809 0.0480% 10.9641%
NPC-Itogon 181,599.91 P 1,336,802 0.0642% 9.1927%
LUELCO 66,363.50 P 488,518 0.0235% 15.9540%
TOTAL 15,816,480.83 P 116,429,070 5.5951%
ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED AND COSTED FOR NON-TECHNICAL LOSS REDUCTION

OPTIMIZATION COMPUTATION
Communal Distribution Transformer Block
► Metering ► Streetlight kwhr Metering
► Inspection, Calibration and Apprehension ► Streetlight Photo Switching

Kwhr Meter Replacement (apprehended and
► defective) ► Right-of-Way Clearing
Phased-Out Kwhr Meter Replacement (Old kwhr
► meters) ► Loose Connection Correction
Software and Hardware Requirements
► Sole-Use Distribution Transformer Monitoring ► Procurement
27
PRIORITY RANKING IN TERMS OF SELECTED NTL ACTIVITES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
COMMUNAL TRANSFORMER BLOCK METERING INSPECTION, APPREHENSION, CALIBRATION
Average Rank Metering Connection Metering Connection
KWHR NTL / NO. OF DT's RANK KWHR NTL / NO. OF METERS RANK
1 NSC Old 20MVA 38,722 1 NSC Old 20MVA 430 1
2.5 NPC-Beckel 10,194 3 NPC-Beckel 201 2
2.5 NSC New 20MVA 11,009 2 NSC New 20MVA 157 3
5.5 Lamut 6,786 4 Lamut 88 7
5.5 LUELCO 2,765 7 LUELCO 155 4
5.5 NPC-Itogon 2,977 6 NPC-Itogon 107 5
6.5 Irisan 6,326 5 Irisan 86 8
7 Ampuhaw Mini-hydro 2,413 8 Ampuhaw Mini-hydro 105 6
9 Asin Mini-Hyrdo 2,366 9 Asin Mini-Hyrdo 83 9
10 Atok 2,120 10 Atok 77 10
11.5 Ambuclao 1,442 12 Ambuclao 69 11
11.5 Mankayan 1,723 11 Mankayan 42 12
13 Bakun Mini-hydro 434 13 Bakun Mini-hydro 21 13
FEEDER COVERAGE
Single Feeder Metering Points
Multi-Feeder Metering Connection Points
Lamut
Asin Mini-Hyrdo
NSC New 20MVA
Feeder 1
Atok Bakun Mini-hydro
Feeder 7
Feeder 2
Circuit 1 Ampuhaw Mini-hydro
Feeder 8
Irisan
Circuit 2 Ambuclao
Feeder 9
Feeder 3
Circuit 3 NPC-Itogon
Feeder 10
Feeder 4
Mankayan LUELCO
NPC-Beckel
NSC Old 20MVA
Circuit 4
Totalizer 1 Power System Engineering
FeederU.
5 P. National Engineering
Center
Circuit 5
FeederNational
6 Electrification
TotalizerAdministration
2 for Non-Engineers
SUMMARY OF OPTIMIZED PROJECT COST FOR NON-TECHNICAL LOSS

REDUCTION PROGRAM
% Recovered NTL Optimized Project

Metering % Unrecovered Level of Optimum % Recovered NTL per as per Entire Cost for NTL
Connection NTL per Feeder %NTL per Feeder Feeder System Reduction
Lamut 3.161% 2.024% 1.137% 0.3474% 6,643,459.93
Irisan 4.794% 3.053% 1.741% 0.4718% 9,021,486.28
NSC Old 20MVA 6.267% 2.154% 4.113% 0.4991% 9,544,620.05
NSC New 20MVA 5.831% 3.029% 2.802% 0.8901% 17,019,823.88
NPC-Beckel 7.619% 3.237% 4.382% 0.2589% 4,950,875.25
Atok 8.022% 5.403% 2.618% 0.1561% 2,984,882.11
Mankayan 5.939% 4.532% 1.408% 0.1009% 1,929,917.47
Asin Mini-Hyrdo 9.959% 5.623% 4.337% 0.0118% 225,901.85
Bakun Mini-hydro 3.575% 3.056% 0.520% 0.0022% 42,656.16

Ampuhaw Mini-
hydro 9.177% 4.752% 4.426% 0.0071% 135,238.81
Ambuclao 10.964% 7.769% 3.195% 0.0340% 649,735.01
NPC-Itogon 9.193% 5.534% 3.659% 0.0387% 739,469.91
LUELCO 15.954% 8.611% 7.343% 0.0127% 242,309.48
TOTAL = 5.5951% 2.7644% 2.8308% P 54,130,376.19
NOTE:
Project Cost for implementation per Metering Connection at targeted reduced Non-technical Loss
percentage SHALL NOT EXCEED the computed Optimized Project Cost.

28
BENECO NON-TECHNICAL LOSS REDUCTION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Cost of Unrecovered VS NTL Reduction Program
120
M illion s
110 Cost of Unrecovered NTL
100
Cost NTL Reduction Program
90
80 Optimum level of
loss reduction
C ost (Php )
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5.5951%
5.3853%
5.1755%
4.9657%
4.7559%
4.5461%
4.3362%
4.1264%
3.9166%
3.7068%
3.4970%
3.2871%
3.0773%
2.8675%
2.6577%
2.4479%
2.2381%
2.0282%
1.8184%
1.6086%
1.3988%
1.1890%
0.9791%
0.7693%
0.5595%
Non-Technical Loss (%)
OPTIMUM LEVEL OF NON-TECHNICAL LOSS REDUCTION = 2.7644%
EQUIVALENT PROJECT COST = P53,447,802.55

System Loss
Reduction and Control
Reduction and Control of Technical Losses

Reduction and Control of Non-Technical
Losses

29

of Technical Losses
Use the results of the Distribution
System Loss Segregator for System
Loss Reduction Program.
Ranks the losses from the highest to lowest ( Per
Substation, Per feeder, per distribution transformer)
Prepare a Specific Technical Loss Reduction Program
based on your technical analysis!!!
Simulate your proposed technical loss reduction solutions
to quantify the technical loss reduction
Optimize your proposed technical loss reduction solutions


of Technical Losses
Distribution Rehabilitation Plan
Safety
Power Quality Problem Correction
Reduce Technical Losses
Distribution Expansion Plan

Capacity that complies with Power Quality Standards and
Controlled Technical Losses
PDC: Distribution Development Plan

• Technical Analysis • Economic Analysis • Financial Analysis
30

of Non-Technical Losses
NEA SLRP
Causes of Pilferages
Long run of secondary networks “conducive” for illegal
tapping
Services run from one building to the next and attached to
various structures (e.g., trees) making it difficult for meter
readers to follow the wires or spot illegal connections
Secondary wiring with “rat’s nest” appearance due to poor
workmanship
Inaccessible meters (located indoor or inside a compound)
Control of meter seals
Poor meter records (where and when the meters are
installed, maintained, removed, condemned, etc.)


NEA SLRP
Detection of Pilferages
Surveillance Teams (working full time)
Consumer connections inventory to assure that:
• All service connections are metered
• All energized services are in an “active” status in the
billing system
• There are no illegal taps, by-passed meters, or
tampered meters
• Each household is metered separately (no flying
taps)
• Each consumer is properly classified
1. Match all service connections found in the field to a
distribution transformer
2. Match the meter number to the account number
3. Check meter reading against previous readings to assure
that meter readings are being properly reported
31

NEA SLRP
Tampered Meters
In-Place Quick-test for Accuracy
Hard-to-Detect Tampering
• Gear teeth removed
• Small hole bored at the top of the meter housing
• “Floating Neutral”
• Swapping the line-side and load side
Correcting Problems
• Service conductors are not properly supported
• Service wire insulation has deteriorated


NEA SLRP
Apprehension of Pilferers
Confronting the consumer
Documenting the findings
Calculating the amount of electricity stolen
Setting the penalty amount to be charged
Disconnecting service and removing the meter
• May include policemen or barangay officials

32

NEA SLRP
Punitive Measures Against Pilferers
R.A. 7832 – Theft of electricity is a crime
Removal of fraudulent hook-ups
Collection for unregistered consumption
Penalty charge
Connection charge
Disconnection of service
Filing charges with judicial authorities
Charging for tampering with seals
Regularly scheduled inspections


NEA SLRP
Prevention of Pilferage by Service Entrance
Modification
Installation of meters on the service pole
Meter clustering in apartment buildings
Better meter seals
Security plates or cabinets
Coaxial service cable

33

NEA SLRP
Political and legal measures
Strengthening of laws that would impose severe penalties
on employees who collaborate with consumers for the
purpose of defrauding the DU
Modification of Procedures for recovery and prosecution
Elimination of political interference with bill collections
Consistent enforcement practices
Publicize successes


NEA SLRP
Complaints for low voltage from the customers
Look for the overload distribution transformers
and compared the billings of all customers
connected to that DT.
Distribution transformers that always trips may
be suspected for illegal connections.

34
SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS

Short Circuit Analysis
1. What is Short Circuit?

2. Short Circuit Studies
3. Selection of Device Duties

35
What is Short Circuit?
+ Very Large V
Current
Very Small
Resistance
I= ⇒∞
- Flow R →0
Short Circuit

Analogy of Normal and Short Circuit

Current in a Hydroelectric plant

36

Equipment Explosion because of Short Circuit


Type of Faults
Three Phase Fault Line-to-Line Fault
Double Line-to-Ground Fault Single Line-to-Ground Fault

37

Sources of Short Circuit Currents
G
Utility
MV Fault
LV
Fault Current Contributors


PROTECTIVE DEVICES: FUSE
Low Voltage Fuses

Up to 1000 Volts
High Voltage Fuses

Above 1000 Volts

38

PROTECTIVE DEVICES: LOW VOLTAGE
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
Molded-Case Circuit Breakers
Low Voltage
Power Circuit
Breakers

Substation Vacuum Circuit Breakers
PROTECTIVE DEVICES: HIGH VOLTAGE
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
Outdoor-Type Circuit Breaker in Switchyard

39

PROTECTIVE DEVICES: HIGH VOLTAGE
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
Indoor Type Circuit Breaker in a Switchgear

Short Circuit Studies
Short Circuit Current and Time Characteristics of Protective Devices

40

Comparison of Momentary and Interrupting
Duties of Interrupting Devices
Comparison of Short-time or withstand
rating of system components
Selection of rating or setting of short circuit
protective devices
Evaluation of current flow and voltage levels
in the system during fault


First Cycle Fault Current
Short circuit ratings of low voltage equipment
Ratings of Medium Voltage (MV) to High Voltage
(HV) switch and fuse
Close & Latch (Making) capacity or ratings of HV
Circuit Breakers
Maximum Fault for coordination of instantaneous
trip of relays

41

1.5 to 4 Cycles Fault Current
Interrupting (breaking) duties of HV circuit
breakers
Interrupting magnitude and time of breakers for
coordination
30 Cycles Fault Current

For time delay coordination

Selection of Device Duties
ANSI/IEEE: American National

Standards Institute/ Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IEC: International Electrotechnical
Commission
Prescribes Test Procedures and

Calculation Methods
42
Selection of Device Duties

8-Cycle Total-Rated Circuit 5-Cycle Symmetrical-Rated
Breakers (KA) Circuit Breakers (KA)
Short-Circuit
Example Interrupting Closing and
Momentary Capability
Circuit Breaker Maximum Rating (Total Latching
Rating (Total (Symmetrical
Nominal Size System RMS Current at Capability (Total
1st-Cycle RMS RMS Current at
Identification Operating 4-cycle Contact- First Cycle RM
Current 3-Cycle Parting
Voltage Parting Time Current)
Time
4.16 – 75 4.16 KV 20 10.5 19 10.1
4.16 – 250 4.16 KV 60 35 58 33.2
4.16 – 350 4.16 KV 80 48.6 78 46.9
13.8 – 500 13.8 KV 40 21 37 19.6
13.8 – 750 13.8 KV 60 13.5 58 30.4
13.8 – 1000 13.8 KV 80 42 77 40.2

COMPARISON OF DUTIES
TFF LLF DLGF SLGF MAX SC
BUS ID PHASE Margin Remarks
(KA) (KA) (KA) (KA) I Duty
BACKBONE LINES
S/S 3 2.30005 1.99190 2.86464 2.76467 2.86464 15 524 % Adequate
PG-17 3 2.09517 1.81447 2.32896 2.21705 2.32896 4 172 % Adequate
PG-26 3 1.98127 1.71583 2.10904 1.96635 2.10904 4 190 % Adequate
PG-40 3 1.82417 1.57978 1.85435 1.66821 1.85435 4 216 % Adequate
PG-52 3 1.70334 1.47514 1.68370 1.46936 1.70334 4 235 % Adequate
PG-53 3 1.69336 1.46650 1.67035 1.45395 1.69336 4 236 % Adequate
PG-63 3 1.59908 1.38485 1.54879 1.31529 1.59908 4 250 % Adequate
LATERAL LINES
PG-17-1 3 2.08156 1.80268 2.30059 2.18533 2.30059 4 174 % Adequate
PG-17-2 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.14564 2.14564 4 186 % Adequate
PG-17-1-3 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.01008 2.01008 4 199 % Adequate
PG-17-2-3 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.06014 2.06014 4 194 % Adequate
PG-17-3-7 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.87921 1.87921 4 213 % Adequate
LATERAL LINES
PG-26-5 3 1.86883 1.61845 2.15303 1.79814 2.15303 4 186 % Adequate
PG-26-5-3 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.54157 1.54157 4 259 % Adequate
LATERAL LINES
PG-40-2 3 1.78352 1.54457 1.83166 1.61561 1.83166 4 218 % Adequate
PG-40-2-5 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.50666 1.50666 4 265 % Adequate
PG-40-2-6 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.58620 1.58620 4 252 % Adequate
LATERAL LINES
PG-52-7 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.38134 1.38134 4 290 % Adequate
LATERAL LINES
PG-53-1 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.44395 1.44395 4 277 % Adequate

43
POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY

ANALYSIS

Reliability Analysis
1. What is Reliability?
2. Measuring Reliability
3. Component Reliability
4. System Reliability
5. Distribution System Reliability
6. Economics of Power System Reliability

44
What is Reliability?
Outage (Component State)
Component is not available to perform its intended
function due to the event directly associated with that
component (IEEE-STD-346).
Interruption (Customer State)
Loss of service to one or more consumers as a result of
one or more component outages (IEEE-STD-346).
Types of Interruptions
Momentary Interruption. Service restored by
switching operations (automatic or manual) within a
specified time (5 minutes per IEEE-STD-346).
Sustained Interruption. An interruption not classified
as momentary
What is Reliability?
A reliable piece of equipment or a System is
understood to be basically sound and give trouble-
free performance in a given environment.
But, How do you measure reliability? How do we

compare reliability of the same equipment from two
different manufacturers?
Definition of Reliability
Reliability is the probability that an equipment or
system will perform satisfactorily for at least a
given period of time when used under stated
conditions.
45
Measuring Reliability
1 3
System
Failure Mathematical 5
Reliability
2
Failure Model
Application
Events
(Reliability Index)
4
Reliability Data
Power System Reliability Evaluation

Measuring Reliability
HISTORICAL SYSTEM
ORGANIZATION, INCIDENTS
PERFORMANCE
CUSTOMER, kVA MANAGEMENT
HISTORICAL
OPERATIONS
ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING
COMPONENT CUSTOMER INQUIRIES
POPULATION
COMPONENT
PERFORMANCE
PREDICTED SYSTEM
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DEFINITION PREDICTIVE
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
ASSESSMENT
AID TO DECISION-MAKING
PLANNING STUDIES

46
Component Reliability
Component Failure Data
Item No. Time-to-Failure (hrs.)
1 8
How Reliable
2 20 is the
3 34 component?
4 46
5 63
6 86
7 111
8 141
9 186
10 266

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

47
f(t) fractional failures/hr.x10-2

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

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

48
1.4
h(t) failures/hr.x10-2 1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300
Operating time, hr.
Hazard Function from Component Failure Data
0.011 failure/hr x 8760 hrs/yr = 97 failures/yr

Reliability Function
t
R (t ) = e ∫0
h (τ )d τ
−
For the component with a hazard rate of 0.011 f/hr,
R(1 hour) = 0.989 R(24 hours) = 0.768
For a component with a constant Hazard

h = 0.01 f/yr R(1) = 0.99 [Probability that the
component will not
fail in 1 year]
h = 0.02 f/yr R(1) = 0.98
49
h(t ) h(t )
λ Kt
t t
a. Constant Hazard b. Increasing Hazard
h(t )
K0
t
R (t ) = e ∫0
h (τ )d τ
−
t
K0 K1 t0
Reliability Function
a. Decreasing Hazard

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

50
Hazard Model for Different System
a. Mechanical b. Electrical c. Software

Weibull Model (A General Reliability Model)
R (t )
h (t ) K
5 m=3 5
m=2
4 4
3 m=1 3
2 2
m = 0 .5 m=1 m = − 0 .5
1 m=0 1 m=2 m=0
m = −0 .5 m=3 m = 0 .5
t→ 1 2 τ → 1 2
Hazard function Reliability function

51
RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
of MERALCO Distribution Transformers*
Distribution Transformer Failures
• 1997: 996 DT Failures
• Average of three (3) DT Failures/day
• Lost Revenue during Downtime
• Additional Equipment Replacement Cost
• Lost of Customer Confidence
Identify the Failure Mode of DTs
Develop strategies to reduce DT failures
* R. R. del Mundo, et. al. (2000)
METHODOLOGY: Reliability Engineering

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

52
Parametric Model
• Shape Factor Failure Mode
• Characteristic Life
Shape Factor Hazard Function Failure Mode
<1 Decreasing Early
=1 Constant Random
>1 Increasing Wear-out

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

53
Reliability Analysis: All DTs
Interval Failures Survivors Hazard
200 1444 57095 0.0269
400 797 48852 0.0178
600 638 39997 0.0174
800 508 32802 0.0167
1000 475 27515 0.0189
1200 363 22129 0.0178
1400 295 18200 0.0178
1600 224 14690 0.0167
1800 159 11865 0.0151
2000 89 9010 0.0114
2200 98 6473 0.0177
2400 51 4479 0.015
2600 19 2254 0.0122
2800 2 821 0.0042
3000 0 127 0

Reliability Analysis: All DTs
0.03
0.025
Weibull Shape = 0.84

0.02
Hazard
0.015
0.01
Failure Mode: EARLY FAILURE
0.005
Is it Manufacturing Defect?
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Time Interval
54
Reliability Analysis: By Manufacturer
BRAND Size Shape Failure Mode
A 34712 0.84 Early Failure
B 6586 0.81 Early Failure
C 6561 0.86 Early Failure
D 2344 0.76 Early Failure
E 192 0.85 Early Failure
F 168 0.86 Early Failure
G 79 0.76 Early Failure
H 69 0.98 Early Failure

Reliability Analysis:
By Manufacturer & Condition
BRAND New Reconditioned Rewinded Converted
A 1.11 1.23 1.12 1.4
B 0.81 1.29 1.27 1.23
C 0.81 1.13 0.77 0.94
D 0.67 1.11 1.49 -

55
Reliability Analysis: By Voltage Rating
PRI SEC All DTs New DTs
20 7.62 0.75 -
20 120/240 0.79 0.94
20 139/277 1.14 1.1
20 DUAL 0.72 1.03
13.2 120/240 0.88 1.54
13.2 240/480 0.91 -
7.62 120/240 0.99 1.46
7.62 DUAL 0.77 -
4.8 120/240 0.87 1.61
3.6 120/240 0.78 1.17
2.4 120/240 1.15 -
Reliability Analysis: By KVA Rating (New DTs)
KVA Shape Failure Mode
10 1.3 Wear-out
15 1.25 Wear-out
25 0.92 Early
37.5 0.83 Early
50 0.73 Early
75 1.05 Random
100 1.04 Random
167 1.16 Random
250 1.11 Random
333 1.46 Wear-out
56
MERALCO Distribution Transformer
Reliability Analysis: Recommendations
• Review Replacement Policies
- New or Repair
- In-house or Remanufacture
• Improve Transformer Load Management Program
- Predict Demand Accurately (TLMS)
• Consider Higher KVA Ratings
• Consider Surge Protection for 20 kV DTs
Preventive Maintenance and Hazard Rates
Hazard
rate
m 2m 3m
Effect of PM on Increasing Hazard Rate
Hazard Hazard
rate rate
m 2m 3m m 2m 3m
Effect of PM on Constant Hazard Rate Effect of PM on Decreasing Hazard Rate

57
of MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers*
Number of Feeder Power Circuit Breakers
VOLTAGE OCB VCB GCB MOCB ACB

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

Annual Failures of 34.5 kV OCBs
1997 1998 1999 2000 Average
Causes of Failures
Installed Failed Installed Failed Installed Failed Installed Failed
Failure (Units/yr)
Contact Wear 158 2 155 2 149 1 145 2 1.15
Bushing 158 1 155 3 149 3 145 1 1.317
Failure
Mechanism - - 155 1 - - - - 0.645
Failure
Totals 158 3 155 6 149 4 145 3 2.636
3 Circuit Breakers failing per year!
Preventive Maintenance Policy: Time-based (Periodic)

58
Reliability Assessment of
MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV OCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 13.8 KV MOCBs
0.4 0.2 0.4
H a z a r d R a te
H a za rd R a te
H a z a rd R a t e
0.3 0.15 0.3
0.2 0.1 0.2
0.1 0.05 0.1
0 0
0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time Interval (months) Time Interval (months) Time Interval (months)
34.5 kV OCBS OCBs 34.5 kV GCBs 13.8 kV MOCBs

HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV MOCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 6.24 KV ACBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR ALL PCBs CONSIDERED
0.4 0.2 0.4
H az ard R ate
H a z a rd R a t e
H a z a r d R a te
0.3 0.15 0.3

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

Reliability Assessment of
MERALCO Power Circuit Breakers
HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV OCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs HAZARD FUNCTION CURVE FOR 34.5 KV GCBs
0.05 y= 0.00006x2 – 0.0007x 0.05

0.25
+ 0.032
H a z a r d R a te
H a z a r d R a te
0.2 0.04 0.04

H a z a rd R a t e
0.15 0.03 0.03

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

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

59
Schedule of Servicing for 41XV4
0.08
Hazard Rate
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Tripping Operations
Reliability-Based
Preventive Maintenance Schedule

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

60
System Reliability
Parallel Reliability Model
This structure represents

R(x1) a system that will fail if
and only if all the units in
R(x2) the system fail.
R(x3)
n
Rs = 1 − ∏ [1 − R( xi )]
R(x4) i =1
Parallel Network
System Reliability
Standby Redundancy Model
R(x1)
R(x2)
R(x3)
R(x4)
This type of redundancy represents a distribution with one
operating and n units as standbys. Unlike a parallel network
where all units in the configuration are active, the standby units
are not active.

61
System Reliability
K-Out-of-N Reliability Model
R(x1) The system reliability for

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

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

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

39
40
41
(primary and secondary side) 43

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

57
R. del Mundo (UP), 2005 58

62
System Reliability Networks

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

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

Us – substation annual outage time or unavailability


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

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

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

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

47
48 105
49 106
50
108
107
Secondary side
51
52 109
53 110
54 111
55 126 112
56
57
125 124 119 115 113
58 121 117
59 116 114
60 122
61 123 120 118
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69

63
Substation Reliability Models

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

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

1 0.997985 0.251752 0.848919
2 0.000188 0.302966 1.008374
3 0.000000344 0.308936 1.023840
4 0.001826 0.308936 1.023840
Total 1.0 0.251866 0.849275
Event 1: With two primary lines energized & opened 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P1 = 0.997985
64

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

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


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

17 λΒ4
Β6 λΒ9 λΒ9 λλΒ4
Β8 λλΒ4
17
Event 4: With two lines energized and closed 34.5kV bus tie breaker; P4 = 0.001826140
Summary of Substation Reliability Indices for Modified Scheme 2

Event Probability λs (failure/yr) Us,(hr/yr)
1 0.997985 0.176076 0.583548
2 0.000188 0.251122 0.847621
3 0.000000344 0.377120 1.261549
4 0.001826 0.233261 0.758472
Total 1.0 0.176194 0.583923
65
Comparison of Substation Reliability Indices for Scheme 2
Scheme 2 λs (failure/yr) Us (hr/yr)

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

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

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

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

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

Bank 2
single breaker-single bus with 37

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

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

66

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

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

67

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

68

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

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

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


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

Β3 λΒ4
Β3
λΒ10 λ139 λΒ11 λ62 λΒ12 λΒ6

Β2 λΒ3
33
λλΒ2
7 λΒ8 A
λΒ5 λΒ8 λΒ7 λλ119

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

69

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

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

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


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

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

(Scheme 4)
1 0.997985 0.137306 0.435214
2 0.001826 0.195120 0.611433
3 0.000188 0.146674 0.466972
4 0.000000344 0.204473 0.643165
Total 1.0 0.137413 0.435545
70
System Reliability Networks

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

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

Distribution System Reliability

CUSTOMER-ORIENTED RELIABILITY INDICES
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)*
The average number of interruptions per customer served
during a period
Total number of customer interruptions

SAIFI =
Total number of customers served
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI)
The average interruption duration per customer served during a
period
Sum of customer interruption duration
SAIDI =
Note: SAIFI for Sustained interruptions. MAIFI for Momentary Interruptions
71

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

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

72

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

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

ACCI =
Total number of customers affected

73

Historical Reliability Performance Assessment
Required Data:
1. Exposure Data
N - total number of customers served
P - period of observation
2. Interruption Data
Nc - number of customers interrupted on interruption i
d - duration of ith interruption, hours
d1
d3
Number of
customers N1 d2 N3
interrupted N2
Time

S 1 2 3
A B C
Source
L1 L2 L3
SYSTEM LOAD DATA
Number of Average Load
Load Point
Customers Demand (KW)
L1 200 1000
L2 150 700
L3 100 400
INTERRUTION DATA
Number of
Interruption Load Point Average Load Duration of
Disconnected
Event i Affected Curtailed (KW) Interruption
Customers
1 L3 100 400 6 hours
74
SAIFI =
∑N C
=
100
∑N 200 + 150 + 100
= 0.222222 interruption customer - yr
SAIDI =
∑ N d = (100 )(6 )
C
∑ N 200 + 150 + 100

= 1.333333 hours customer - yr
CAIDI =
∑ N d = (100 )(6 )
C
∑N C100
= 6 hours custumer - interruption
ASUI =
∑N C d ∑ N = SAIDI = 1.333333
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000152
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000152

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

= 5.333333 KWh customer − yr
Note: ENS - Energy Not Supplied
75

Outage & Interruption Reporting

Date Affected hours

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

76

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


Interruption Load Number of Duration Customer Date
Number Points Customers (Hrs.) Hours
Affected Affected Curtailed
1 3 600 1.5 900 01/08/04
3 5 497 0.5 248.5 02/14/04
6 303 0.5 151.5
5 6 310 1.5 465 04/01/04
7 1 912 0.5 456 05/30/04
2 804 0.5 402
3 608 0.5 304
8 1 914 2 1,828 06/12/04
9 5 512 1 512 07/04/04
11 5 512 1 512 07/30/04
13 2 821 1 821 09/08/04
15 3 626 1.5 939 10/25/04
16 2 826 1.5 1,239 11/10/04
3 630 1.5 945

77

Calculate the Annual Reliability Performance of the

Distribution System (according to Phil. Distribution Code)
SAIFI =
∑N C
∑N
SAIDI =
∑N d C
∑N
MAIFI =
∑N C
∑N

Predictive Reliability Performance Assessment
A λA, rA, UA A
Distribution
Source B Loads Source λB, rB, UB B Loads
System
C λC, rC, UC C
Required Data:
1. Component Reliability Data
λi - failure rate of component i
ri - mean repair time of component i
2. System Load Data
Ni - number of customers at point i
Li - the demand at point i
78

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


S 1 2 3
A B C
Source
L1 L2 L3
COMPONENT DATA
λ r
Feeder
(f/year) (hours)
A 0.2 6
B 0.1 5
C 0.15 8
SYSTEM LOAD DATA
Number of Average Load
Load Point
Customers Demand (KW)
L1 200 1000
L2 150 700
L3 100 400
79
Load Point Reliability Equivalents

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

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

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

80
ASUI =
∑U N ∑ N
i i i
=
SAIDI 1.744444
=
8760 8760 8760
= 0.000199
ASAI = 1 − ASUI = 1 − 0.000199

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

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

81
SYSTEM RELIABILITY DATA

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

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

RELIABILITY INDICES FOR THE SYSTEM

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

3 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 4 1.2
4 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4 0.2 2 0.4

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

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

82
SAIFI =
∑ λ N = (2.2)(1000) + (2.2)(800) + (2.2)(700) + (2.2)(500 )
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

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

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

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

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

83

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

RELIABILITY INDICES WITH LATERAL PROTECTION

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

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

84
SAIFI = ∑
λi Ni
=
(1.0)(1000) + (1.4)(800) + (1.2)(700) + (1.0)(500)
∑N i
1000+ 800 + 700 + 500
= 1.153333 int customer− yr
SAIDI =
∑U N = (3.6 )(1000) + (4.4 )(800) + (4.0 )(700) + (3.6 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

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

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

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

85

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

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

86
SAIFI =
∑ λ N = (1.0 )(1000) + (1.4 )(800) + (1.2)(700) + (1.0 )(500)
i i
∑N i 1000 + 800 + 700 + 500

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

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

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

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

87
Effect of protection failures

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

Effect of load transfer to alternative

supply
RELIABILITY INDICES WITH UNRESTRICTED LOAD TRANSFERS
Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 0.5 0.05
Main
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.15
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Lateral
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.39 1.95 1.2 1.88 2.25 1.0 1.5 1.5
88
Effect of load transfer to alternative

supply
RELIABILITY INDICES WITH RESTRICTED LOAD TRANSFERS
Load pt. A
U U U U
yr) yr) yr) yr)
1 0.2 4 0.8 0.2 1.9 0.38 0.2 1.9 0.38 0.2 1.9 0.38
Section
2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 4 0.4 0.1 1.9 0.19 0.1 1.9 0.19
3 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 4 1.2 0.3 1.9 0.57
4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 4 0.8
a 0.2 2 0.4
Distributor
b 0.6 2 1.2
c 0.4 2 0.8
d 0.2 2 0.4
Total 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.59 2.23 1.2 2.23 2.67 1.0 2.3 2.3

SUMMARY OF INDICES
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Load Point A
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.12 1.0 1.0
r (hrs) 2.73 3.6 1.5 1.39 1.5 1.5
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 3.6 1.5 1.56 1.5 1.5
Load Point B
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.48 1.4 1.4
r (hrs) 2.73 3.14 1.89 1.82 1.39 1.59
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 4.4 2.65 2.69 1.95 2.23
Load Point C
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
r (hrs) 2.73 3.33 2.75 2.58 1.88 2.23
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 4 3.3 3.35 2.25 2.67
Load Point D
λ (f/yr) 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.12 1.0 1.0
r (hrs) 2.73 3.6 3.6 3.27 1.5 2.34
U (hrs/yr) 6.0 3.6 3.6 3.66 1.5 2.34
89

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

Economics of Power System

Reliability
Supply Cost
• Investment Cost
• Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Fuel Cost
IC + O&M + FC
Annual Supply Cost (ASC) =
Annual kWh Generation

90
Supply Cost
Luzon Grid Supply Cost*
LOLP Frequency Duration Supply Cost
(days/yr) (per year) (Hours) (Php/kWh)
12.26 70 2.11 0.90
6.25 38 2.00 0.94
1.88 13 1.73 1.01
0.94 7 1.61 1.03
0.45 4 1.50 1.06
0.21 2 1.38 1.09
0.08 0.73 1.31 1.11
0.04 0.31 1.30 1.14
Source: del Mundo (1991)
Supply Cost
Luzon Grid
Supply Cost

91
Outage Cost
Impact of Power Interruptions
To Electric Utility
• Loss of revenues
• Additional work
• Loss of confidence
To Customers
• Dissatisfaction
• Interruption of productivity
• Additional investment for alternative power
supply
To National Economy
• Loss value added/income
• Loss of investors
• Unemployment

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

92
Outage Cost
Impact to Customers:
A. Short-Run Direct Cost
• Opportunity losses during outages
• Opportunity losses during restart period
• Raw materials spoilage
• Finish products spoilage
• Idle workers
• Overtime
• Equipment damage
• Special operation and maintenance during restart period
B. Long-Run Adaptive Response Cost
• Standby generators
• Power plant
• Alternative fuels
• Transfer location
• Inventory
Outage Cost
Outage Cost to Industrial Sector in Luzon
(0.0086 + 0.0023D)F + 0.1730 Pesos/kWh

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

Energy Sales: 3.781 billion kWh
Outage Cost: Php 0.3544/kWh
Total Losses: Php 1.34 billion

93
Outage Cost
Luzon Grid Outage Cost*
LOLP Frequency Duration Outage Cost
(days/yr) (per year) (Hours) (Php/kWh)
12.26 70 2.11 1.12
6.25 38 2.00 0.68
1.88 13 1.73 0.34
0.94 7 1.61 0.26
0.45 4 1.50 0.22
0.21 2 1.38 0.20
0.08 0.73 1.31 0.18
0.04 0.31 1.30 0.18
Outage Cost
Luzon Grid
Outage Cost

94
Total Cost
Luzon Grid Total Cost ATC = ASC + AOC
LOLP Supply Cost Outage Cost Total Cost
(days/yr) (Php/kWh) (Php/kWh) (Php/kWh)
12.26 0.90 2.11 2.02
6.25 0.94 2.00 1.62
1.88 1.01 1.73 1.35
0.94 1.03 1.61 1.29
0.45 1.06 1.50 1.28
0.21 1.09 1.38 1.29
0.08 1.11 1.31 1.29
0.04 1.14 1.30 1.32
Optimal Reliability Level
Luzon Grid
Total Cost

95

96

PSE4NE2 - Power System Analysis 101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSE4NE2 - Power System Analysis 101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competency Training and Certification Program in Electric Power Distribution System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101

U. P. NATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER

Power System Analysis 101 2

Power System Analysis

Performance Power System

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 4

Load Flow Analysis

1. What is Load Flow?

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

What is Load Flow?

What are the Voltages,

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 6

What is Load Flow?

YES! LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS

What is Load Flow?

Power System Analysis 101 8

What is Load Flow?

Load Flow (also called Power Flow) is a

Load Flow Analysis simulates (i.e.,

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

What is Load Flow?

How would the engineers do that?

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 10

What is Load Flow?

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

What is Load Flow?

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 12

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 14

Uses of Load Flow Studies

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 16

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 18

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Uses of Load Flow Studies

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 20

Uses of Load Flow Studies

5) SYSTEM LOSS ANALYSIS

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Load Flow Control

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

Power System Analysis 101 22

SYSTEM LOSS ANALYSIS

U. P. National Engineering Center Power System Engineering

System Loss Analysis

1. Components of Distribution System