DR Lalit Goel: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

by
Dr Lalit Goel

Professor of Power Engineering & Director of Admissions
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

IEEE PES Distinguished Lecturer Program
India, Nov/Dec, 2011
Power System Reliability
Concepts & Techniques
2
Outline
1. Power System Reliability
Generating System (HLI) Reliability Assessment
Composite System (HLII) Reliability Assessment
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
Cost-Benefit Considerations
Concluding Remarks
Outline
3
Outline
2. Generation System Reliability Assessment
Generating Unit Modeling
Capacity Outage Probability Table
Evaluation of Risk of Capacity Shortfall
Comparison of Deterministic & Probabilistic Criteria
Incorporating Load Forecast Uncertainty
Concluding Remarks
4
An electric power system serves the basic function of supplying
customers, both large and small, with electrical energy as economically
and as reliably as possible. The reliability associated with a power system
is a measure of its ability to provide an adequate supply of electrical
energy for the period of time intended under the operating conditions
encountered.

Modern society, because of its pattern of social and working habits, has
come to expect the power supply to be continuously available on demand
- this, however, is not physically possible in reality due to random system
failures which are generally outside the control of power system
engineers, operators and planners.
1. Power System Reliability
5
The probability of customers being disconnected can be reduced by
increased investment during either the planning phase, operating phase,
or both. Over-investment can lead to excessive operating costs which
must be reflected in the tariff structure. Consequently, the economic
constraints can be violated even though the system may be highly reliable.

On the other hand, under-investment can lead to the opposite situation. It
is evident therefore that the economic and reliability constraints can be
quite competitive, and this can lead to extremely difficult managerial
decisions at both the planning and operating phases.
6
Planning generating capacity - installed capacity equals the expected
maximum demand plus a fixed percentage of the expected maximum
demand;

Operating capacity - spinning capacity equals the expected load
demand plus a reserve equal to one or more largest units;

Planning network capacity - construct a minimum number of circuits
to a load group, the minimum number being dependent on the
maximum demand of the group.
The criteria and techniques first used in practical applications were
basically deterministic (rule-of-thumb) ones, for instance
7
Although the above-mentioned three and other criteria have been
developed to account for randomly occurring failures, they are inherently
deterministic. The essential weakness of these methods is that they do
not account for the probabilistic/stochastic nature of system behavior,
customer load demands and/or of component failures. Such aspects can
be considered only through probabilistic criteria.
8
Forced outage rate of generating units is known to be a function of
unit size and therefore a fixed percentage reserve cannot ensure a
consistent risk;

Failure rates of overhead lines are functions of their lengths, design
aspects, locations and environment, etc. - therefore a consistent risk of
supply interruption cannot be ensured by constructing a minimum
number of circuits;

All planning and operating decisions are based on load forecasting
techniques which cannot predict future loads precisely, i.e.,
uncertainties will always exist in the forecasts. This imposes statistical
factors which should be assessed probabilistically.
Typical probabilistic aspects are as follows:
9
The concept of power system reliability, i.e., the overall ability of the
system to satisfy the customer load requirements economically and
reliably, is extremely broad. For the sake of simplicity, power system
reliability can be divided into the two basic aspects of
system adequacy, and
system security.
Adequacy relates to the existence of sufficient facilities within the
system to satisfy customer load demands. These include the facilities to
generate power, and the associated transmission and distribution
facilities required to transport the generated energy to the load points.
Adequacy, therefore, relates to static system conditions.
Adequacy and Security
10
Security pertains to the response of the system to the
perturbations/disturbances it is subjected to. These may include
conditions associated with local and widespread disturbances and loss of
major generation/transmission.

Most of the techniques presently available are in the domain of adequacy
assessment.
11
Power system functional zones
Hierarchical levels
12
13
14
15
16
Generating capacity reliability is defined in terms of the adequacy of the
installed generating capacity to meet the system load demand. Outages
of generating units and/or load in excess of the estimates could result in
loss of load, i.e., the available capacity (installed capacity - capacity
on outage) being inadequate to supply the load. In general, this condition
requires emergency assistance from neighboring systems and emergency
operating measures such as system voltage reduction and voluntary load
curtailment. Depending on the shortage of the available capacity, load
shedding may be initiated as the final measure after the emergency
actions. The conventional definition of loss of load includes all events
resulting in negative capacity margin or the available capacity being less
than the load.
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
17
The basic methodology for evaluating generating system reliability is to
develop probability models for capacity on outage and for load
demand, and calculate the probability of loss of load by a convolution
of the two models. This calculation can be repeated for all the periods
(e.g., weeks) in a year considering the changes in the load demand,
planned outages of units, and any unit additions or retirements, etc.
Assessment
18
1. loss of load probability (LOLP)
2. loss of load expectation (LOLE)
3. loss of energy expectation (LOEE)/expected energy not
supplied (EENS)
4. frequency & duration (F&D) indices
5. energy index of reliability (EI R)
6. energy index of unreliability (EI U), and
7. system minutes (SM).
Probabilistic Criteria and Indices
An understanding of the probabilistic criteria and indices used in
generating capacity reliability (HLI) studies is important. These include:
Assessment
19
This is the oldest and the most basic probabilistic index. It is defined as
the probability that the load will exceed the available generation. Its
weakness is that it defines the likelihood of encountering trouble (loss of
load) but not the severity; for the same value of LOLP, the degree of
trouble may be less than 1 MW or greater than 1000 MW or more.
Therefore it cannot recognize the degree of capacity or energy shortage.

This index has been superseded by one of the following expected values
in most planning applications because LOLP has less physical
significance and is difficult to interpret.
LOLP
Assessment
20
This is now the most widely used probabilistic index in deciding future
generation capacity. It is generally defined as the average number of
days (or hours) on which the daily peak load is expected to exceed the
available capacity. It therefore indicates the expected number of days (or
hours) for which a load loss or deficiency may occur. This concept
implies a physical significance not forthcoming from the LOLP, although
the two values are directly related.

It has the same weaknesses that exist in the LOLP.
LOLE
Assessment
21
This index is defined as the expected energy not supplied (EENS) due to
those occasions when the load exceeds the available generation. It is
presently less used than LOLE but is a more appealing index since it
encompasses severity of the deficiencies as well as their likelihood. It
therefore reflects risk more truly and is likely to gain popularity as power
systems become more energy-limited due to reduced prime energy and
increased environmental controls.
LOEE
Assessment
22
These are directly related to LOEE which is normalized by dividing by
the total energy demanded. This basically ensures that large and small
systems can be compared on an equal basis and chronological changes in
a system can be tracked.
EIR and EIU
Assessment
23
The F&D criterion is an extension of LOLE and identifies expected
frequencies of encountering deficiencies and their expected durations.

It therefore contains additional physical characteristics but, although
widely documented, is not used in practice. This is due mainly to the
need for additional data and greatly increased complexity of the analysis
without having any significant effect on the planning decisions.
Frequency & Duration (F&D) Indices
Assessment
24
All basic reliability indices can be represented by this expression, by
using suitable definitions of the test function.
Objective
Composite generating and transmission system evaluation is concerned
with the total problem of assessing the ability of the generation and
transmission system to supply adequate and suitable electrical energy to
the major system load points (Hierarchical level II - HL II)

The problem of calculating reliability indices is equivalent to assessing
the expected value of a test function F(x), i.e., :
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
25
Expansion - selection of new generation, transmission,
subtransmission configurations;

Operation - selection of operating scenarios;

Maintenance - scheduling of generation and transmission equipment
Applications in power system planning
Basic models
Up Down

G&T Equipment : Markovian or not; Two or multi-states.
Assessment
26
System : AC or DC network
representation.
Load : Chronological or not;
Markovian or not; Correlated
or not.
Basic models
Assessment
27
Reliability Measures (Conventional)
System indices (sometimes appearing under different names)
LOLP = Loss of load probability
LOLE = Loss of load expectation (h/year)
EPNS = Expected power not supplied (MW)
EENS = Expected energy not supplied (MWh/year)
LOLF = Loss of load frequency (occ./year)
LOLD = Loss of load duration (h)
LOLC = Loss of load cost ($/year)
Load point indices
LOLP, LOLE, etc.
Assessment
28
Reliability Measures (Well-Being)
System indices
Load point indices
Healthy
Marginal
At Risk
Success
Prob {H} = Probability of healthy state
Prob {M} = Probability of marginal state
Prob {R} = Probability of at risk state (LOLP)
Freq {H} = Frequency of healthy state (occ./year)
Freq {M} = Frequency of marginal state (occ./year)
Freq {R} = Frequency of at risk state (LOLF) (occ./year)
Dur {H} = Duration of healthy state (h)
Dur {M} = Duration of marginal state (h)
Dur {R} = Duration of at risk state (LOLD) (h)
Prob {H}, Freq {H}, etc.
Assessment
29
Assessment Tools
State Selection State Analysis (adequacy)
Enumeration Power flow
Monte Carlo simulation o Linear DC model
o Non-sequential o Non-linear AC model
o Sequential or chronological Optimal power flow
o Pseudo-chronological/sequential o Linear DC model
o Non-linear AC model
Assessment
30
Load Point Indices
failure rate,
average outage time, r
average annual unavailability, U = .r
average load disconnected, L
expected energy not supplied, E = U.L
31
State Space (Markov) Model
State Probability (P) Visiting frequency (f) Residence time (r)
0 P
0
= A
1
.A
2
f
0
= P
0
/r
0
r
0
= 1/(
1
+
2
)
1 P
1
= U
1
.A
2
f
1
= P
1
/r
1
r
1
= 1/(
1
+
2
)
2 P
2
= A
1
.U
2
f
2
= P
2
/r
2
r
2
= 1/(
2
+
1
)
3 P
3
= U
1
.U
2
f
3
= P
3
/r
3
r
3
= 1/(
1
+
2
)
0 1
3 2
2
State space diagram for
two-component, four-
state model
32
Series Structure, n Components
33
Parallel Structure, n (independent) Components
n n
i i
i
i=1 i=1
r 1

r
(
| |
| |
(
|
|
\ .
\ . (

[
8760
Interruption frequency f = 8760 [Interruptions/year]
s
n
i
i=1
1

1
r

Interruption duration r = [hours/interruption]

s
n
i i
i=1
r

| |
|
\ .
[
8760
Annual downtime U = 8760 [hours/year]
s
U
s
Unavailability q =
s
8760
34
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Number of Interruptions
Weighting by number of customers
System Average
Interruption Frequency Index :
f
i
= number of interruptions at load point i
N
i
= number of customers connected to load point i
n = number of load points interrupted
n
tot
= total number of load points
35
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Annual Interruption Time
System Average
Interruption Duration Index :
U
i
= f
i
r
i
= annual outage time for load point i
r
i
= Average outage duration for load point i
36
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Average Interruption Duration
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index :
SAIFI CAIDI = SAIDI
tot tot tot tot
n n n n
i i i i i i i i i
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
n n n n
i i i i i
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
f N U N U N f r N
= =
N f N N N

37
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Unavailability, Energy Not Supplied
Average Service Unavailability I ndex
Energy Not Supplied
Average Energy Not Supplied
38
COST of providing quality and continuity of service
< should be related to the >
WORTH or BENEFIT of having that quality and continuity
39
Due to the complex and integrated nature of a power system, failures in
any part of the system can cause interruptions which range from
inconveniencing a small number of local residents to a major and
widespread catastrophic disruption of supply.

The economic impact of these outages is not necessarily restricted to loss
of revenue by the utility or loss of energy utilization by the customer but,
in order to estimate the true costs, should also include indirect costs
imposed on customers, society, and the environment due to the outage.
40
For instance, in the case of the 1977 New York blackout, 84% of the total
costs of the blackout were attributed to indirect costs. In order to reduce
the frequency and duration of these events, it is necessary to invest either
in the design phase, the operating phase, or both. A whole series of
questions come to mind:
is it worth spending any money?
how much should be spent?
should the reliability be increased, maintained at existing levels, or
allowed to degrade?
who should decide - the utility, a regulator, the customer?
on what basis should the decision be made?
41
The underlying trend in all these questions is the need to determine the
worth of reliability in a power system, who should contribute to this
worth, and who should decide the levels of reliability and investment
required to achieve them.

The basic questions that therefore need to be answered are Is it worth
it? and Where or on what should the next dollar be invested in the
system to achieve the maximum reliability benefit?.
42
The first step in answering the above questions is illustrated in the figure
below, which shows how the reliability of a product/system is related to
the investment cost, i.e., increased investment is required in order to
improve reliability. This clearly shows the general trend that the
incremental cost AC to achieve a given increase in reliability AR
increases as the reliability level increases. Alternatively, a given increase
in investment produces a decreasing increment in reliability as the
reliability is increased. In either case, high reliability is expensive to
achieve.
I ncremental cost of reliability
43
The incremental cost of reliability, AC/AR, is one way of deciding
whether an investment in the system is worth it. However, it does not
adequately reflect the benefits seen by the utility, the customer, or
society in general. The two aspects of reliability and economics can be
appraised more consistently by comparing reliability cost (investment
cost needed to achieve a certain level of reliability) with reliability
worth (benefit derived by the customer and society).
44
The basic concept of reliability cost/reliability worth evaluation is relatively
simple and can be presented by the curves of the figure shown below.
These curves show that the investment cost generally increases with higher
reliability. On the other hand, the customer costs associated with failures
decrease as the reliability increases.
Utility and customer costs
45
The total costs are the sum of these two individual costs. This total cost
exhibits a minimum, and so an optimum or target level of reliability is
achieved. Two difficulties usually arise in the total cost assessment.

Firstly, the calculated indices are usually derived only from approximate
models. Secondly, there are significant problems in assessing customer
perceptions of system failure costs.
46
The disparity between the calculated indices and the monetary costs
associated with supply interruptions is shown in the figure. The left
hand side of the figure shows the calculated indices at the various
hierarchical levels. The right hand side indicates the interruption cost
data obtained by user studies.

It can be seen that the relative disparity between the calculated indices at
the three hierarchical levels and the data available for worth assessment
decreases as the consumer load points are approached.
47
There have been many studies concerning interruption and outage costs.
These studies show that, although trends are similar in virtually all cases,
the costs vary over a wide range and depend on the country of origin
and the type of customer. It is apparent therefore that considerable
research still needs to be conducted on the subject of interruption costs.

48
Broadly speaking, the cost of a power interruption from the customer's
perspective is dependent both on the customer and interruption
characteristics. Customer characteristics include type of customer,
nature of his/her activities/demand requirements. Outage costs will
therefore vary substantially between customers within a class, and
between classes of customers. Interruption characteristics include the
parameters of frequency, duration and magnitude of outage, time of
occurrence, time of year, whether partial outage or complete, etc.
49
The most fundamental and methodological approach that has been used
to assess direct, short-term customer outage costs is the customer survey
method. This approach appears to find favors with electric utilities for
estimating the outage costs to be used for planning purposes. I t is based
on the premise that the customer is in the best position to assess his/her
monetary losses associated with power failures. The surveys ask the
monetary losses that would be sustained by them under certain specified
scenarios of interruptions, and also their willingness to pay in order to
avoid having those interruptions. A very important consideration in
determining the interruption cost through surveys is the choice of the
valuation method. Three types of approaches have been undertaken in
this regard.
50
1. The first and the most obvious approach is a direct solicitation of the
outage costs for given outage conditions. The approach provides
reasonable and consistent results in situations where losses can be
directly identified.

2. The second approach seeks the customers' opinions on what they
would be willing to pay to avoid having the interruption(s), or
conversely what amount they would be willing to accept for having
to experience the outage (willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-
accept theories). This is based on the theory that incremental
willingness to pay (accept) gives the corresponding marginal
increments (decrements) in service reliability.
51
3. The third and final approach is that of indirect worth evaluation,
where customers' responses to indirect questions are used to derive a
monetary figure. This approach includes the respondents' selection
of interruptible/curtailable options, their predictions of what
preparatory actions they might take in the event of recurring
interruptions, their ranking of a set of reliability/rate alternatives and
selecting an option most suitable for their needs, etc. This approach
has been used in major Canadian surveys, and has also been used by
many utilities and governmental agencies to estimate the costs of
interruptions.
52
Utilization of the gathered interruption cost estimates in a practical planning
context could involve converting the gathered data into a functional
representation or cost model. The traditional cost model is known as a
composite customer damage function (CCDF), which defines the overall
average costs of interruptions as a function of the interruption duration in a
given service area that was used in the surveys. Since the customers are
asked to provide their best estimates of monetary losses for selected outage
scenarios, the interruption cost data collected using the survey method are
duration specific. These data can be used to create customer damage
functions (CDFs) for specific customer classes (sectors). The average
sector costs associated with each studied interruption scenario are used to
create sector customer damage functions (SCDFs) which are then (usually)
weighted using their respective energy consumptions to create a CCDF for
the entire studied area.
53
54
55
56
Probabilistic, as opposed to deterministic, indices are more popular in
reliability evaluation of electric power systems.

Fundamental reliability indices are those of probability, frequency and
duration of failures, regardless of whether the system study is at HLI,
HLII or HLIII system levels.

There should be some conformity between the reliability of various parts
of the power system. It is pointless to reinforce quite arbitrarily a strong
part of the system where weak areas still exist. Consequently, a balance is
required between generation, transmission and distribution - this does not
mean that the reliability of each should be equal. The reliability of
different zones will, in general, be different since HLII failures can cause
widespread outages whereas distribution failures are very localized.
Concluding Remarks
57
There should be some benefit gained by an improvement in reliability,
i.e., the incremental or marginal investment cost should be related to
the customers incremental or marginal valuation of the improved
reliability. Reliability cost Vs reliability worth (benefit) evaluation can
enable utilities to make objective decisions about investments and
maintenance for enhancing supply reliability.

Probabilistic methods are as important and critical today as they were a
few decades ago, particularly in the light of increased pressure for
economic justifications and the need to manage our assets effectively,
efficiently and reliably.
Concluding Remarks
58
2. Generation System Reliability Assessment
The determination of the required amount of system generating capacity
to ensure an adequate supply is an important aspect of power system
planning and operation.
The total problem can be divided into two conceptually different areas
designated as static and operating capacity requirements.
The static capacity area relates to the long-term evaluation of this
overall system requirement.
The operating capacity area relates to the short-term evaluation of the
actual capacity required to meet a given load level.
59
Generation System Reliability Assessment
The Static requirement can be considered as the installed capacity that
must be planned and constructed in advance of the system
requirements.
The static reserve must be sufficient to provide for
- the overhaul of generating equipment,
- outages that are not planned or scheduled, and
- load growth requirements in excess of the estimated values.
60
Generating capacity reliability is defined in terms of the adequacy of
the installed generating capacity to meet the system load demand.
Outages of generating units and/or load in excess of the estimates could
result in loss of load, i.e., the available capacity (installed capacity -
capacity on outage) being inadequate to supply the load. In general, this
condition requires emergency assistance from neighboring systems and
emergency operating measures such as system voltage reduction and
voluntary load curtailment. Depending on the shortage of the available
capacity, load shedding may be initiated as the final measure after the
emergency actions. The conventional definition of loss of load
includes all events resulting in negative capacity margin or the available
capacity being less than the load.
61
The basic methodology for evaluating generating system reliability is
to develop probability models for capacity on outage and for load
demand, and calculate the probability of loss of load by a convolution
of the two models. This calculation can be repeated for all the periods
(e.g., weeks) in a year considering the changes in the load demand,
planned outages of units, and any unit additions or retirements, etc. The
methods available to compute generating system reliability indices are
described in this module.
62
Generating unit parameters
Generating unit means all equipment up to the high voltage terminals
of the generator transformer and the station service transformers.
Forced outage means the occurrence of a component failure or other
condition which requires that the generating unit be removed from
service immediately or up to and including the very next weekend.
The basic generating unit parameter used in static capacity evaluation is
the probability of finding the unit on forced outage at some distant time
in the future. This probability is defined as the unit unavailability, and
historically in power system applications is known as the unit forced
outage rate (FOR). It is strictly speaking not a rate in modern reliability
terms, since it is a ratio of two time values.
Generating unit Modeling
63
Unit availability is defined as the probability of finding the unit in the
operating (up) state at any future time.
expected failure rate (f/yr)
expected repair rate (rep/yr)
m mean time to failure = MTTF = 1/
r mean time to repair = MTTR = 1/
m + r mean time between failures = MTBF = 1/f
f cycle frequency = 1/T
T cycle time = 1/f
64
The concepts of availability and unavailability as illustrated in the
above equations are associated with the simple 2-state model shown in
Figure 2.1.
This model is directly applicable to a base load generating unit which is
either operating or forced out of service. Scheduled outages must be
considered separately.

Up
Down

Figure 2.1 Two state model of unit
65
In practice, however, generating units are complex pieces of machinery
and in addition to complete failures experience partial failures where they
continue to operate but at reduced capacity levels. A 3- or even multi-
state model is therefore required to more accurately represent the
generating capacity model, as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 State space diagram of component with partial output state
Full
output
0
Partial
output
1
Failed
2
66
The purpose of the capacity model is to recognize the probabilistic
nature of available generation capacity. The analytical generation
model is generally in the form of discrete levels of capacity available
(or unavailable) and their respective probabilities. This type of model is
sufficient to calculate reliability indices in terms of probability,
expected days (hours) of loss of load, and expected unserved
(unsupplied) energy. There are many ways of creating and
manipulating this capacity outage probability table (COPT), but the
essential objectives and outcomes are the same.
As the name suggests, the COPT is a simple array of capacity levels
together with their probabilities. The basic assumptions for the capacity
model are as follows:
67
Generating capacity out of service due to forced outages is
multinomially distributed with outage probabilities as parameters. The
total number of available (or unavailable) capacity states in an N-unit
system is 2
N
. For example, a 3-unit system (each unit can exist in 2
states) will have 2
3
= 8 states of available capacity (see Figure 2.3).
1. Each generating unit exists in one of two states, operating (up) or
non-operating (down). Multi-state models can also be used to
represent units having derated states.
2. The failure performance of a unit is independent of the operating
level, the system load and the outage pattern of other units, etc.
68
- A up, B up, C up
- A up, B up, C down
- A up, B down, C up
- A down, B up, C up
- A down, B down, C up
- A down, B up, C down
- A up, B down, C down
- A down, B down, C down
69
Figure 2.3 State space diagram for three component system
1U
2U
3U
1
3 2 4
6 5 7
8
1D
2U
3U
1U
2D
3U
1U
2U
3D
1D
2D
3U
1U
2D
3D
1D
2U
3D
1D
2D
3D
70
The basic statistic used in developing the capacity model is the
probability of a generating unit being on forced outage, i.e. the forced
outage rate. If all the units in the system are identical, the COPT can be
easily obtained using the Binomial distribution.
where
A = unit availability
U = unit unavailability
n = number of identical units
r = number of units in the failed state, and
P
r
= probability of r units in the down state.
P
r
=
n
C
r
U
r
A
n-r
71
Let there be 4 identical generating units, 25 MW, 1% FOR each.
Then
Similarly, the probability of exactly one unit being in the failed state
Thus,
P
0
= probability that zero units are in the failed state (i.e., all the 4 are up)
Example 2.1:
=
4
C
0
.(0.01)
0
.(0.99)
4-0
= 0.994 = 0.960596.
P
1
=
4
C
1
.(0.01)
1
.(0.99)
4-1
= 0.0388119
(A + U)
4
= A
4
+ 4A
3
U + 6A
2
U
2
+ 4AU
3
+ U
4

= P
0
+P
1
+ P
2
+ P
3
+ P
4
= 1.000000
72
The COPT can also be developed using cumulative probability, i.e., the
probability of finding a quantity of capacity on outage equal to or greater
than the indicated amount.
e.g., cumulative probability of > 0 MW capacity on outage is unity.
The cumulative probability values decrease as the capacity on outage
increases. Although this is not completely true for the individual COPT,
the same general trend is followed.
STATE
(i)
Capacity
IN
(MW)
Capacity
OUT
(MW)
State
Probability
(p
i
)
Cumulative
Probability
(P
i
)
No. of
UNITS
DOWN
1 100 0 0.960596 1.000 NONE
2 75 25 0.0388119 0.0394038 1
3 50 50 0.000588 0.0005919 2
4 25 75 0.0000039 0.00000391 3
5 0 100 1x10
-8
1x10
-8
ALL
= 1.000
73
Theoretically, the COPT incorporates all the system capacity. The table
can, however, be truncated by omitting all capacity outages for which
the cumulative probability is less than a specified value, e.g., 10
-8
. This
also results in a considerable saving in computer time as the table is
truncated progressively with each unit addition.
Alternatively, table rounding approach can be used by rounding the
table to discrete levels after combining. The capacity rounding
increment used depends upon the accuracy desired. The final rounded
table contains capacity outage magnitudes that are multiples of the
rounding increment. The number of capacity levels decreases as the
rounding increment increases, with a corresponding decrease in
accuracy.
74
It is extremely unlikely, however, that all the units in a practical system
will be identical, and therefore the Binomial distribution has limited
application. The units can be combined, however, using basic
probability concepts and this approach can be extended to a simple but
powerful recursive technique in which the units are added sequentially
to produce the final model.
Example 2.2: Consider a 4-generating unit system with an installed
capacity of 100 MW consisting of one 40 MW, 4% FOR unit and three
20 MW, 4% FOR units. Obtain the capacity model in the form of a
COPT.
Solution: First combine the three 20 MW units (identical) using
binomial concepts (Table A). Then obtain the COPT for the 40 MW unit
(Table B).
Units are non-identical
75
i
Capacity
IN
(MW)
Capacity
OUT
(MW)
Probability
(p
i
)
1 60 0 3C
0
x 0.96
3
x 0.04
0
= 0.884736
2 40 20 3C
1
x 0.96
2
x 0.04
1
= 0.110592
3 20 40 3C
2
x 0.96
1
x 0.04
2
= 0.004608
4 0 60 3C
3
x 0.96
0
x 0.04
3
= 0.000064
State
Capacity
IN
Capacity
OUT
Probability
1 40 0 0.96
2 0 40 0.04
= 1.000
Table A
Table B
76
Now we need to combine Tables A and B, i.e., each row of Table A must
be combined with each row of Table B separately, and all identical states
combined together.

Rule used: If 2 events are independent, the probability of occurrence of
one is not affected by the probability of occurrence of the other, i.e.,
P(A B) = P(A). P(B)
e.g., combining state 1 of Table A with state 2 of Table B
capacity in = 60 + 0 = 60 MW
capacity out = 0 + 40 = 40 MW
state probability = 0.884736 x 0.04 = 0.0353894

We thus get a total of 4 states (Table A) times 2 states (Table B) = 8
states, which can further be reduced by combining the ones with
identical capacity available (or unavailable).
77
STATE
Capacity
IN
Capacity
OUT
How
obtained?
Probability
a 100 0 1(A), 1(B) 0.8493465
b 60 40 1(A), 2(B) 0.0353894
c 80 20 2(A), 1(B) 0.1061683
d 40 60 2(A), 2(B) 0.0044236
e 60 40 3(A), 1(B) 0.0044236
f 20 80 3(A), 2(B) 0.0001843
g 40 60 4(A), 1(B) 0.0000614
h 0 100 4(A), 2(B) 0.0000025
= 1.00
STATE
Capacity
IN
Capacity
OUT
How
obtained?
Probability
(state)
Cumulative
Prob.
(i) 100 0 a 0.8493465 1.00
(ii) 80 20 c 0.1061683 0.1506534
(iii) 60 40 b + e 0.039813 0.0444851
(iv) 40 60 d + g 0.004485 0.004672
(v) 20 80 f 0.0001843 0.0001868
(vi) 0 100 h 0.0000025 0.0000025
Table C
Table D
78
The capacity model can be created using a simple algorithm which can
also be used to remove a unit from the model. This approach can also be
used for a multi-state unit, i.e., a unit which can exist in one or more
derated (partial output) states as well as in the fully up and fully down
states. The algorithm is illustrated first using the 2-state units, and is then
extended using the multi-state unit representations.

Case 1: 2-State Unit Representation
The cumulative probability of a particular capacity outage state of X
MW, after a unit of capacity C MW and forced outage rate U is added, is
given by
P(X) = (1 - U).P(X) + (U).P(X - C)
= (A).P(X) + (U).P(X - C)
Recursive Algorithm for COPT
79
P(X) = cumulative probability of capacity outage state of X MW
before a unit is added
P(X) = cumulative probability of capacity outage state of X MW after
a unit is added, and
A and U are the availability and unavailability of the unit being added.
The above expression is initialized by setting
P(X) = 1.0 for X s 0, and
P(X) = 0.0 otherwise.
where
80
The algorithm is illustrated using the 100 MW system with the
following data:
three 20 MW units, = 0.4 f/yr, = 9.6 rep/yr each,
and one 40 MW unit with = 0.4 f/yr and = 9.6 rep/yr.
Consider also that the 20 MW units are loaded first followed by the 40
MW unit.
Solution:
Given = 0.4 failures/yr, and = 9.6 repairs/yr.
Therefore
Example 2.3:
81
Step 1:
Add the first unit. Values of X are 0 and 20 MW.
P(0) = (0.96).(1.0) + (0.04).(1.0) = 1.00
P(20) = (0.96).(0.0) + (0.04).(1.0) = 0.04

Step 2:
Add the 2nd unit. Values of X: 0, 20 and 40 MW.
P(0) = (0.96).(1.0) + (0.04).(1.0) = 1.00
P(20) = (0.96).(0.04) + (0.04).(1.0) = 0.0784
P(40) = (0.96).(0.0) + (0.04).(0.04) = 0.0016
The system COPT is created sequentially as follows:
82
Step 3:
Add the 3rd unit. Values of X: 0, 20, 40 and 60 MW.
P(0) = (0.96).(1.0) + (0.04).(1.0) = 1.00
P(20) = (0.96).(0.0784) + (0.04).(1.0) = 0.115264
P(40) = (0.96).(0.0016) + (0.04).(0.0784) = 0.004672
P(60) = (0.96).(0.0) + (0.04).(0.0016) = 0.000064
83
Step 4:
Add the 4th unit. Values of X: 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 & 100 MW.
P(0) = (0.96)(1.0) + (0.04)(1.0) = 1.00
P(20) = (0.96)(0.115264) + (0.04)(1.0) = 0.1506534
P(40) = (0.96)(0.004672) + (0.04)(1.0) = 0.00444851
P(60) = (0.96)(0.000064) + (0.04)(0.115264)
= 0.0046718
P(80) = (0.96)(0.0) + (0.04)(0.004672) = 0.0001868
P(100) = (0.96)(0.0) + (0.04)(0.000064) = 0.0000025
It must be emphasized that for step number n, results from step (n-1)
only are utilized (other than the initial conditions, if need be) - results
prior to step (n-1) are of no consequence.
84
Exercise 2.1:
A generating system consists of 3 generating units - two 3 MW, 2%
FOR and one 5 MW, 2% FOR. Obtain the system COPT using the
recursive algorithm.
85
Case 2: Multi-state unit representation
The equation for 2-state representation can be modified to include
multi-state unit representations.

P X p
i
P X C
i
i
n
( ) .
'
( ) =
=
1
where:
n is the no. of states of unit being added
C
i
is the capacity outage (MW) of state i for the unit being added, and
p
i
is the probability of existence of the unit state i.
Note that for n = 2, the above equation reduces to the form for 2-state
representation.
86
Example 2.3 Revisited:
Consider that in the system of Example 2.3, the 4th unit (40 MW) exists
in 3 states as follows:
state
(i)
capacity out
C
i
(MW)
state probability
(p
i
)
1
2
3
0
20
40
0.95
0.04
0.01
Solution:
Since units 1, 2 and 3 (the 20 MW units) are still 2-state units, the
capacity models for steps 1, 2 and 3 will remain the same as before.
Step 4, however, will be different due to the unit 4 which is a multi-state
unit.
87
Step 4: Add unit 4. X = 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 MW.
P(0) = (0.95)(1.0) + (0.04)(1.0) + (0.01)(1.0) = 1.0
P(20) = (0.95)(0.115264) + (0.04)(1.0) + (0.01)(1.0) = 0.1595008
P(40) = (0.95)(0.004672) + (0.04)(0.115264) + (0.01)(1.0) = 0.0190489
P(60) = (0.95)(0.000064) + (0.04)(0.004672) + (0.01)(0.115264)
= 0.0014003
P(80) = (0.95)(0.0) + (0.04)(0.000064) + (0.01)(0.004672) = 0.0000492
P(100) = (0.95)(0.0) + (0.04)(0.0) + (0.01)(0.000064) = 0.0000006
88
Exercise 2.2:
Obtain the COPT using the recursive algorithm for the following
system:
Unit A: 10 MW, 8% FOR, 2-state
Unit B: 20 MW, 8% FOR, 2-state
Unit C: 30 MW, 8% FOR, 2-state
Unit D: 40 MW, exists in 3 states, with full forced outage rate of 8%,
and 50% derated capacity state has a probability of 0.06.
89
The resultant model is known as the load duration curve (LDC) when
the individual hourly load values are used, and in this case the area under
the curve represents the energy required in the given period. This,
however, is not the case with the DPLVC.
Typical shapes of a LDC and DPLVC are shown in Figure 2.4 - both
indicate the probability that a particular load level will be exceeded.
The generation system model described in the previous chapter can be
convolved with an appropriate load model to produce a system risk
index.
In order to convolve the capacity model with the load model, we need to
identify the various kinds of load models that can be used. The simplest
load model is where each day is represented by its daily peak load. The
individual daily peak loads can be arranged in descending order to form a
cumulative load model known as the daily peak load variation curve
(DPLVC).
90
Figure 2.4 Typical shapes of a DPLVC and a LDC
time, p.u.
LDC
DPLVC
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
l
o
a
d

l
e
v
e
l

91
In the analytical approach, the applicable system COPT is combined
with the system load characteristic to give an expected risk of loss of
load. The units are in days if the DPLVC is used, and in hours if the
LDC is used. Prior to combining the COPT it should be realized that
there is a difference between the terms capacity outage and loss of
load.
The term capacity outage indicates loss of generation which may or
may not result in a loss of load. This condition depends upon the
generating capacity reserve margin and the system load level.
A loss of load will occur only when the capability of the generating
capacity remaining in service is exceeded by the system load level.
92
The loss of load expectation (LOLE) index, using the daily peak loads, is
the expected number of days in the specified period in which the daily
peak load will exceed the available capacity.
LOLE =
days/period.........................................(2.1)
where:
C
i
= available capacity on day i,
L
i
= forecast peak load on day i, and
P
i
(C
i
-L
i
) = probability of loss of load on day i.
(The last value is directly obtained from the cumulative COPT.)
93
Example 2.4:
Consider the generation system data and the 365-day load data shown below.
Unit no. capacity
(MW)
failure rate
(f/day)
repair rate
(rep/day)
1 25 0.01 0.49
2 25 0.01 0.49
3 50 0.01 0.49
Table 2.2: Load data
daily peak load
(MW)
57 52 46 41 34
no. of occurrences 12 83 107 116 47
Table 2.1: System data
94
The cumulative COPT for the system is shown below.
Table 2.3
state (i) capacity out
(MW)
cumulative
probability
1 0 1.00000
2 25 0.058808
3 50 0.020392
4 75 0.000792
5 100 0.000008
95
Using Eqn 2.1, in conjunction with the COPT and load data, the LOLE is
obtained as follows:

LOLE = 12P(100-57) + 83P(100-52) + 107P(100-46) + 116P(100-41) +
47P(100-34)
LOLE = 12(0.020392) + 83(0.020392) + 107(0.0007920) + 116(0.000792)
+ 47(0.000792)
LOLE = 2.15108 days/year
96
The same LOLE index can also be obtained using the DPLVC. Figure
2.5 below shows a typical system load-capacity relationship where the
load model is shown as a continuous curve for a period of 365 days.
It can be seen from Figure 2.5 that any capacity outage less than the
reserve will not contribute to the system LOLE.
Outages of capacity in excess of the reserve will result in varying
numbers of time units during which loss of load would occur. Expressed
mathematically, the contribution to the system LOLE made by capacity
outage O
k
is p
k
t
k
time units, where p
k
is the individual probability of the
capacity outage O
k
. The total LOLE for the study interval is given by
Eqn 2.2.
97
Figure 2.5 Relationship between load, capacity and reserve
Time load exceeds the indicated value
D
a
i
l
y

p
e
a
k

l
o
a
d

(
M
W
)

O
k
Reserve
Installed capacity (MW)
0
t
k
365
98
where P
k
is the cumulative outage prob. for capacity state O
k
.
If the load characteristic in Figure 2.4 is the LDC, the value of LOLE
will be in hours/period; for a DPLVC it will be in days/period.
The period of study could be a week, a month or a year. The simplest
application is the use of the curve on a yearly basis. If no generating unit
maintenance were performed, the COPT would be valid for the entire
period.
Alternatively, the system LOLE can be obtained using the cumulative
probability values from the COPT, as given by Eqn 2.3.
LOLE = time units..........................................................(2.2)
LOLE = time units................................................(2.3)
99
Example 2.5:
The application of Eqns 2.2 and 2.3 can be illustrated by a simple
numerical example.
Consider a system containing five 40 MW units each with a FOR of 1%.
The COPT of this system is shown in Table 2.4.
In the above COPT, binomial distribution concepts have been used and
probability values below 10
-6
have been neglected.
Table 2.4
Capacity out of
service (MW)
Individual
probability
Cumulative
probability
0 0.950991 1.000000
40 0.048029 0.049009
80 0.000971 0.000980
120 0.000009 0.000009
E1.000000
100
Let the system load model be represented by the annual DPLVC shown
in Figure 2.6 - the curve is assumed to be linear for simplicity. In actual
practice, however, the curve will be non-linear but the concept is still
applicable.
The 100% point on the abscissa corresponds to 365 days, while that on
the ordinate corresponds to the system forecast peak (160 MW in this
case).
Figure 2.6 DPLVC for the Example System
100
40
100
0
D
a
i
l
y

p
e
a
k

l
o
a
d

(
%
)

Percentage of days the daily peak load
exceeded the indicated value
101
The LOLE can be evaluated using Eqn 2.2 (individual probabilities) or
Eqn 2.3 (cumulative probabilities) - both the methods are illustrated here.
The time periods t
k
are calculated using the equation of the straight line
DPLVC, and are shown in Figure 2.7. The LOLE calculations using Eqn
2.2 are shown in Table 2.5.
Figure 2.7 Time periods during which loss of load occurs
D
a
i
l
y

p
e
a
k

l
o
a
d

(
M
W
)

160
120
80
64
0
Installed capacity = 200 MW
O
2
= 40MW O
3
= 80MW
t
3
=T
3
= 41.7%
T
4
= 41.7%
t
4
= 83.4%
Time (%)
O
4
= 120MW
64
100
102
Table 2.5 LOLE using individual probabilities
capacity out
of service
(MW)
capacity in
service
(MW)
individual
probability
(p
k
)
total time
(t
k
) (%)
LOLE (p
k
t
k
)
(%)
0 200 0.950991 0 0
40 160 0.048029 0 0
80 120 0.000971 41.7 0.040491
120 80 0.000009 83.4 0.000751
E1.00000 E0.04124
The LOLE is 0.0412413% of the time base units, i.e.,
LOLE = 0.0412413(365/100) = 0.150410 days/yr
If the cumulative probability values are used, the time quantities used are
the interval or increases in curtailed time represented by T
k
in Figure 2.7.
The calculations are shown in Table 2.6.
103
Table 2.6 LOLE using cumulative probabilities
System LOLE = 0.0412414% (365/100)
= 0.15041 d/yr
capacity out
of service
(MW)
capacity in
service
(MW)
cumulative
prob. (P
k
)
time
interval T
k

(%)
LOLE (P
k
T
k
)
(%)
0 200 1.000000 0 0
40 160 0.049009 0 0
80 120 0.000980 41.7 0.040866
120 80 0.000009 41.7 0.000375
E0.04124
104
If, however, it is assumed that instead of the load pattern being given by
the DPLVC or the LDC, it is constant throughout the time period
considered, then the system LOLE can be directly obtained as the
cumulative probability of the first negative margin, i.e., of the first load
loss state.
For instance, if the peak load in the example system described above is
assumed to be constant at 160 MW for the year, then
LOLE = Cum. Prob. of capacity out > 40 MW
= (0.000980) (time period)
= (0.000980) (365) = 0.357755 days/yr
105
Note that this value is significantly higher than the 0.15041 days/yr
obtained using the DPLVC - hence it provides a pessimistic appraisal of
the system performance. While the load in general is not expected to
remain constant over a given time period, for planning purposes a single
load level may be adequate in order to evaluate alternative capacity
reinforcement/expansion proposals.
106
Exercise 2.3
A generating system contains 120 MW capacity in six 20 MW units
which are connected through step-up station transformers to a high
voltage load bus, as shown in Figure 2.8. The generators have =3
failures/yr, and =97 repairs/yr each, whereas the transformers have
=0.1 failures/yr and =19.9 repairs/yr each.
For an annual forecast peak load of 95 MW, evaluate
- the system LOLE at the load bus, given that the annual DPLVC is a
straight line from the 100% to the 70% points.
[Ans.: 3.322 days/yr]
107
Figure 2.8 Single line diagram of Exercise 2.3
LOAD
Generating bus
1 2 3 4 5 6
108
It was stated earlier that deterministic risk criteria such as percentage
reserve and loss of largest unit do not define consistently the true risk
in the system, whereas probabilistic criteria consider the actual influencing
factors that govern system behaviour, unlike the deterministic ones. An
example will help to illustrate this aspect.
+ system 1, twenty-four 10 MW, 1% FOR units

+ system 2, twelve 20 MW, 1% FOR units

+ system 3, twelve 20 MW, 3% FOR units

+ system 4, twenty-two 10 MW, 1% FOR units
Example 2.6:
Consider the following four systems:
109
All 4 systems are very similar but not identical. In each system, the units
are identical and therefore the COPT can be constructed using the
binomial distribution. The results are shown below in Tables 2.7 to 2.10
(arrays truncated to a cumulative probability of 10
-6
).
Table 2.7 Capacity Outage Probability Table for System 1
System 1 Capacity (MW) Probability
Out I n I ndividual Cumulative
0 240 0.785678 1.000000
10 230 0.190467 0.214322
20 220 0.022125 0.023855
30 210 0.001639 0.001730
40 200 0.000087 0.000091
50 190 0.000004 0.000004
110
0 240 0.886384 1.000000
20 220 0.107441 0.113616
40 200 0.005969 0.006175
60 180 0.000201 0.000206
80 160 0.000005 0.000005
0 240 0.693841 1.000000
20 220 0.257509 0.306159
40 200 0.043803 0.048650
60 180 0.004516 0.004847
80 160 0.000314 0.000331
100 140 0.000016 0.000017
120 120 0.000001 0.000001
111
The load level or demand on the system is assumed to be constant.

If the risk in the system is defined as the probability of not meeting the
load, then the true risk in the system is given by the value of cumulative
probability corresponding to the outage state one level below that which
satisfies the load on the system.
0 220 0.801631 1.000000
10 210 0.178140 0.198369
20 200 0.018894 0.020229
30 190 0.001272 0.001335
40 180 0.000061 0.000063
50 170 0.000002 0.000002
112
The two deterministic criteria can now be compared with this
probabilistic risk.
(a) Percentage Reserve Margin
Assume that the expected load demands in systems 1, 2, 3 and 4 are 200,
200, 200 and 183 MW respectively. The installed capacity in each
system is such that there is a 20% reserve margin, i.e., a constant for
all 4 systems. The probabilistic (true) risks in the 4 systems are (from
the above four tables):
risk in system 1 = 0.000004



113
It can be seen that the true risk in system 3 is 1000 times greater than that
in system 1. A detailed analysis of the 4 systems will show that the
variation in true risk depends on forced outage rates, number of units and
load demand.

The percentage reserve method cannot account for these factors and
therefore, although using a constant risk criterion, does not provide
consistent risk assessment of the system.
(b) Largest Unit Reserve

Assume now that the expected load demands in systems 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
230, 220, 220 and 210 MW respectively. The installed capacity in all
four cases is such that the reserve is equal to the largest unit which again
is a constant for all four systems. In this case the true (probabilistic) risks
in the systems are:
114



The variation in risk is much smaller in this case, which gives some
credence to the criterion. The risk merit order has changed from 3 -2 - 4
- 1 (percentage reserve criterion) to 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 (largest unit reserve
criterion).
It can clearly be concluded from the above comparisons that the use of
deterministic or rule-of-thumb criteria can lead to very divergent
probabilistic risks even for systems that are very similar. The
deterministic criteria are therefore inconsistent, unreliable and subjective
methods for reserve margin planning.
115
In the previous sections of this chapter it has been assumed that the actual
peak load will differ from the forecast value with zero probability. This is
extremely unlikely in actual practice as the forecast is normally predicted
on past experience.

If it can be realized that some uncertainty can exist, it can be described by
a probability distribution whose parameters (mean, standard deviation,
etc.) can be determined from past experience, future load modeling and
possible subjective evaluation.

The uncertainty in load forecasting can be included in the risk
computations by dividing the load forecast probability distribution into
class intervals, the number of which depends upon the accuracy desired.
The area of each class interval represents the probability that the load is
the class interval mid-value.
116
The LOLE is computed for each load represented by the class interval,
and multiplied by the probability that that load exists. The sum of these
products represents the LOLE for the forecast load. The calculated risk
level increases as the forecast load uncertainty increases.
It is extremely difficult to obtain sufficient historical data to determine
the probability distribution describing the load forecast uncertainty
(LFU). Published data, however, has suggested that the uncertainty can
be reasonably described by a Gaussian (Normal) distribution.

The distribution mean is the forecast peak load.

The distribution can be divided into a discrete number of class intervals.
The load representing the class interval mid-point is assigned the
designated probability for that class interval. This is shown in Figure 2.9,
where the LFU distribution is divided into seven steps.
117
The probability values of the seven load levels are presented in Table
2.11. It has been found that there is very little difference in the
calculations between representing the distribution by 7 steps or 49 steps.
The error is, however, dependent on the capacity levels for the system.
A similar approach can be used to represent an unsymmetrical
distribution, if required.
Table 2.11 Probability values for seven-step LFU distribution
no. of standard deviations
from the mean
associated probability
3 0.006
2 0.061
1 0.242
0 0.382
118
Figure 2.9 Seven-step Gaussian distribution for LFU
Probability given by indicated area
No. of standard deviations
from the mean
Mean = forecast load (MW)
0.006 0.006
0.061 0.061
0.242 0.242
0.382
-3 -2 +3 +2 -1 +1
0
119
Consider a generating system consisting of twelve 5 MW, 1% FOR
units. The COPT is shown in Table 2.12 (probability values less than
10e-08 have been neglected). The forecast peak load is 50 MW, with
uncertainty LFU assumed to be normally distributed using a seven-step
approximation (Figure 2.9). The standard deviation (SD) is 2% of the
forecast peak load. The monthly LDC is represented by a straight line at
a load factor of 70% (minimum per unit load = two times per unit load
factor minus one = 0.40). The LOLE calculations are shown in Table
2.13.
Example 2.7:
Note that if there were no uncertainty in the forecast load, the system
risk level would be 0.02523965 hrs/month. With LFU included, the new
risk is 0.07839425 hrs/month.
120
It can therefore be inferred that LFU is an extremely important
parameter and in the light of the financial, societal and environmental
uncertainties which electric power utilities face, it may be the single
most important parameter in operating capacity reliability evaluation.
Table 2.12 COPT for Example System
capacity on outage
(MW)
cumulative probability
0 1.00000000
5 0.11361513
10 0.00617454
15 0.00020562
20 0.00000464
25 0.00000007
121
Period = 1 month = 30 days = 720 hours
Forecast load = mean = 50 MW
Standard deviation (SD) = 2% = (50) (0.02) = 1 MW
Table 2.13 LOLE results using LFU
(1)
no. of SD
from the
mean
(2)
load
(MW)
(3)
probab.
of the
load in
col. (2)
(4)
LOLE
for the load
in col. (2)
(hrs/month)
(5)
weighted
LOLE
=(3) x (4)
(hrs/month)
-3 47 0.006 0.011101 0.000067
-2 48 0.061 0.016010 0.000977
-1 49 0.242 0.020719 0.005014
0 50 0.382 0.025239 0.009667
+1 51 0.242 0.170028 0.041147
+2 52 0.061 0.309247 0.018864
+3 53 0.006 0.443213
E
0.002659
0.078394
122
Consider the four 25 MW, 1% FOR unit system with an annual constant
forecast peak load of 80 MW as its DPLVC. The load forecast
uncertainty (LFU) distribution is shown below in Figure 2.10. Determine
the system LOLE.
Exercise 2.4:
Answer:
12.257467 days/yr
Figure 2.10
X X X
p
(
x
)

Deviation from forecast (MW)
-10 0 +10
0.15 0.10
0.75
x
123
Exercise 2.5:
Consider that a generating system consists of five units as follows:
Three 40 MW, 0.5% FOR units, one 50 MW, 2% FOR unit and one 60
MW, 2% FOR unit.
The annual DPLVC is a straight line between the 100% and the 40%
points. For a system forecast peak load of 200 MW, and using the LFU
distribution shown below in Figure 2.11, determine the system risk
(LOLE). Answer:
3.56591 days/yr
Figure 2.11
X X X
p
(
x
)

Deviation from forecast (MW)
-10 0 +10
0.2 0.2
0.6
x
124
Concluding Remarks
The applications of basic probability concepts to generating capacity
reliability assessment and their use in generation planning for the long
term have been illustrated.
The LOLE technique is the most widely used probabilistic technique at
the present time. This index, however, has received some criticism in the
past on the grounds that it does not recognize the difference between a
small capacity shortage and a large one, i.e., it is simply concerned with
loss of load. All shortages are therefore treated equally in the LOLE
method.
It is, however, possible to produce many additional indices such as the
expected capacity shortage (if a shortage occurs), the expected number of
days that specified shortages occur, etc.
It is mainly a question of deciding what expectation indices are required,
and then proceeding to calculate them. The derived values are expected
values (long run average) and should not be expected to occur every year.
125
Concluding Remarks
The indices should also not be considered as absolute measures of
capacity adequacy, since they do not
- describe the frequency and duration of inadequacies
- include operating considerations such as spinning reserve
requirements, dynamic and transient system disturbances, etc.
Indices such as LOLE and LOEE are simply indications of static
capacity adequacy which respond to the basic elements that influence
the performance of the given system.
Inclusion of maintenance, load forecast uncertainty, etc. make the
derived indices sensitive to these parameters and therefore a more
overall appealing index, but still does not make the index an absolute
measure of generating system reliability.
126

DR Lalit Goel: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

DR Lalit Goel: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

by

Interruption duration r = [hours/interruption]

You might also like