Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
• The development of the techniques to model and evaluate the
reliability of the distribution systems, have not received the
attention that for the case of the generation. ¿?
• Failures in generation can have very large consequences.
• Faults in Distribution have localized effects.
• However, the analysis of the failure statistics of the consumers
of the electricity companies show that the distribution system is
the one that contributes most to the unavailability of customer
service.
AVERAGE ANNUAL
AVAILABILITY BY CONSUMER
SYSTEM min %
Generation / Transmission 0,50 0,52
132 Kv 2,30 2,38
66 y 33 Kv 8,00 8,26
11 y 6.6 Kv 58,80 60,74
Low voltage 11,50 11,88
Descon. Scheduled 15,70 16,22
TOTAL 96,80 100,00
2
• The above statistics indicate the need to develop adequate
methods to evaluate the reliability of distribution systems.
• Being the problems associated with reliability, fully
recognized, many companies in the world, have adopted
reliability assessment as a routine work, allowing them to
improve their levels.
• In the case of RADIAL SYSTEMS the evaluation methodology
was explained previously. It consists of the network reduction
technique through the parallel series elements. Therefore, the
three basic parameters of reliability, to be evaluated are those
indicated in the following sheet.
• Other indicators are defined, which allow measuring and
projecting the operation of the system, or parts of the system.
3
•AVERAGE SPEED OF FAULTS : s i
i
iri
Us
•AVERAGE DURATION OF DISCONNECTION : rs i
s i
i
4
CONSUMER-ORIENTED INDICES
5
• In the following expressions, i, Ni, Ui means the failure rate,
the number of consumers at the load point i and the annual
disconnection duration.
SAIFI iNi
SAIDI UiNi
Ni Ni
CAIFI
N i i
ENSM Cm Ui
Ni
7
Example 7.1: Consider the portion of a distribution system with six
load points. The number of consumers, the connected average
demand and the effects of the interruptions are indicated in the
tables. Evaluate the reliability of this system.
Point of
Ni La (Kw) EFFECTS OF THE INTERRUPTION
loading
1 1.000 5.000 consumers Duration of
Affected Cut load
2 800 3.600 CASE Disconnected interruption
point Lc (Kw)
3 600 2.800 Nc (hours)
4 800 3.400 2 800 3.600 3
1
5 500 2.400 3 600 2.800 3
6 300 1.800 2 6 300 1.800 2
Total 4.000 19.000 3 3 600 2.800 1
5 500 2.400 1,5
4
6 300 1.800 1,5
TOTAL 3.100 15.200
8
3100
SAIFI 0.775 inte./Consumer
4000
3100
CAIFI 1.41 int/cons. afect.
2200
800 3 600 3 300 2 600 1 500 1.5 300 1.5
SAIDI
4000
6600
SAIDI 1.65 hours/consumers
4000
6600
CAIDI 2.13 hours/consumer interruption
3100
4000 8760 6600
ASAI 0.999812
4000 8760
31900
ENSM 7.98 kWh/consumer
4000
PREDICTION::
10
Example 7.2: Consider the system shown in the figure and the
data in the table, determine the corresponding indices.
A B C
L1 L2 L3
11
r U
LOAD POINT i Ni Ui Ni Li*Ui
f/year hour h./year
L1 0,20 6,0 1,2 40 240 1.200,00
L2 0,30 5,7 1,7 45 255 1.190,00
L3 0,45 6,4 2,9 45 290 1.160,00
130 785 3.550,00
Notice how in a radial system, the farthest loading point has the worst
indices.
12
Example 7.3: Evaluates the reliability indicators for the system shown
in the figure and the data in the table.
2 km 3 km 1 km
3 km 2 km 1 km
L1 L2 L3
250 100 50
r
ELEMENT f/km-year H
Primary feeder 0,10 3,00
Branch 0 , 2 5 1,00
Manual switching time 0,50
13
r U
ELEMENT/PTO. LOAD A B C A B C A B C
Main Feeder
Section 2 Km 0,20 0,20 0,20 3 3 3 0,60 0,60 0,60
Section 3 Km 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,5 3 3 0,15 0,90 0,90
Section 1 Km 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,5 0,5 3 0,05 0,05 0,30
Side
A 0,75 1 0,75
B 0,50 1 0,50
C 0,25 1 0,25
EQUIVALENT 1,35 1,10 0,85 1,15 1,86 2,41 1,55 2,05 2,05
14
Example 7.4: Consider the same system as in Example 7.3, but with
alternating power, as shown in the figure. The average value for the
transfer is 1 hour.
N/A
2 km 3 km 1 km
3 km 2 km 1 km
L1 L2 L3
250 100 50
15
r U
ELEMENT / PTO. LOAD A B C A B C A B C
Main Feeder
Section 2 Km 0,20 0,20 0,20 3 1 1 0,60 0,20 0,20
Section 3 Km 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,5 3 1 0,15 0,90 0,30
Section 1 Km 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,5 0,5 3 0,05 0,05 0,30
Side
A 0,75 1 0,75
B 0,50 1 0,50
C 0,25 1 0,25
EQUIVALENT 1,35 1,10 0,85 1,15 1,50 1,24 1,55 1,65 1,05
16
Example 7.5: Consider the same system as in Example 7.4, but with
alternating power, as shown in the figure. The average value for the
transfer is 1 hour and the transfer probability is 0.5.
r U
ELEMENT / PTO. LOAD A B C A B C A B C
Main Feeder
Section 2 Km 0,20 0,20 0,20 3 2 2 0,60 0,40 0,40
Section3 Km 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,5 3 2 0,15 0,90 0,60
Section 1 Km 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,5 0,5 3 0,05 0,05 0,30
Lateral
A 0,75 1 0,75
B 0,50 1 0,50
C 0,25 1 0,25
EQUIVALENT 1,35 1,10 0,85 1,15 1,68 1,82 1,55 1,85 1,55
17
PARALLEL NETWORKS
Us r1r2
rs
fs r1 r2
1 2 (r1 r2 )
s 1 2 (r1 r2 )
1 1r1 2r2
Us srs 1 2r1r2
18
• The network reduction technique creates a sequence of
equivalent components combining components in series
and in parallel until they reach the point of loading.
• Example 7.6: Consider the system of the figure and the
data of the table. Determine reliability indicators. It is
assumed that protective equipment and buses are 100%
reliable. 3
7 9
5 1 6
8 10
4
r
COMPONENT f/year hours
1 0,50 10
2 0,50 10
3 0,01 100
4 0,01 100
19
EQUIVALENT SERIES
r U
f/year hours hours/year
0,51 11,76 6
PARALLEL EQUIVALENT
r U
f/year hours hours/year
0,0006986 5,88 0,00410959
20
Example 7.7: Consider the same system as in Example 7.6 and use the
Failure Modes technique to evaluate reliability.
EVENTS OF FAILURE r U
(Overlapping outputs) f/year hours hours/year
1y2 0,0005708 5 0,002854
1y4 0,0000628 9,09 0,000571
2y3 0,0000628 9,09 0,000571
3y4 0,0000023 50 0,000114
TOTAL 0,0006986 5,88 0,004110
21
r U
f/year hours hours/year
0,030699 3,065596 0,094110
22
EFFECT OF PROGRAMMED MAINTENANCE :
When a component is in forced output, no maintenance should
be done. But when a scheduled maintenance component is in
place, the redundant element may have a forced output. The
overlap of these last two events causes, in the previous
example, loss of continuity of service at the point of loading.
For a system of two elements in parallel with speeds of
transition towards maintenance ”1 and ”2; And average
maintenance times expected r1” and r2”, The following
expressions allow to evaluate and r equivalent due to the
forced output of a component superimposed on the output by
maintenance.
mL
"
1 2r2
" "
21r1
" "
23
1 2r2
" " "
r1r2 2 1r1
" " "
r2r1
"
rmL
mL
"
r1 r2
"
mL
"
r2 r1
"
Example 7.9: Consider the system and data of Example 7.6 and 7.8.
Maintenance data are listed in the table. Determine total l, r, and U
of the system.
24