Professional Documents
Culture Documents
with RES
25/05/11
Talk outline
Introduction to Reliability
25/05/11
What is Reliability ?
Basic Steps in System Reliability Analysis
Objective of the analysis
Performance function
Reliability Evaluation
Introduction to Reliability
25/05/11
What is Reliability?
Ability of a system to perform its intended function
Within a specified period of time
Under stated condition
100 MW
Load
100 MW
Load 100
MW
100 MW
System B
System A
Failure
Probability
0.01
100
0.1
25
Cost-Benefit Analysis
High reliability achieved with high cost
Is it worthwhile to have high reliability?
Source: http://www.eppo.go.th/power/ERI-study-E/ERI-EOCS-1-E.html
25/05/11
= failure rate
q
Basic Steps:
q
Down
= repair rate
25/05/11
Up
Performance Function
Reliability Evaluation
25/05/11
Output (MW)
Probability
100
0.85
50
0.14
0.01
Deterministic
Probabilistic
25/05/11
10
System load
Vary with time
Construct load distribution from history
25/05/11
11
Objective
Reliability is a measure of the ability of the power system to
deliver electricity to all points of utilization within accepted
standards and in the amount desired, for the period of time
intended, under the operating conditions intended.
RELIABILITY
Adequacy
Adequacy : relates to the existence of
sufficient facilities within the system
to satisfy the consumer load demand
at all times; taking into account
scheduled/ unscheduled outages
25/05/11
SECURITY
Security : ability of the electric
systems to respond to sudden
disturbances arising within that
system, such as electric short circuits
Distribution system
reliability
LEVEL
Local network
connected to end-users
Interest to find out the
reliability level at load
point
25/05/11
13
State
Selection
Operating Strategies
Load
Curtailment
No
Yes
Success
State
Failure State
Classification of
system states in the
whole state space
Evaluation
Success
States
Failed
States
Reliability
Indices
Calculation
State Space
25/05/11
14
Deterministic indexes
25/05/11
15
Probabilistic criteria
Loss of load expectation, for example, 1 day in 10 years
25/05/11
16
25/05/11
17
Classical
Approaches
demands
strict
mathematical analysis
25/05/11
Simulation
State selection as an
alternative to MCS (for ex.
PSO, GA, etc)
Pattern classification
techniques for state
evaluation as an aid to
MCS
18
system states are sampled based on their occurrence probability, and both success
and failure states sampled contribute to the estimation of reliability indices.
ability to model complex systems in more detail and accuracy than is possible in
analytical methods;
can not only calculate the expected value of reliability indices but also their
distributions
Even though the state is a repeated sample, is still count for index calculation
when MCS is used to deal with highly reliable systems, its efficiency may become
low since a large number of system states need to be sampled and evaluated. (e.g.
quite time-consuming)
25/05/11
19
25/05/11
20
2.
by random
sampling the states of all components and the load levels.
Characterize (or classify) the selected state, x, (success or failure)
through test function f(x) , by performing the adequacy analysis,
which usually involves optimal power flow (OPF) analysis.
3.
4.
25/05/11
21
Unit 23
(1400 MW)
BUS 18
Unit 24~29
(650 MW)
BUS 17
BUS 21
BUS 22
BUS 23
Unit 21
(1155 MW)
BUS 16
BUS 19
Unit 30~31
(2155 MW)
Unit 32
(1350 MW)
BUS 20
BUS 14
Synch.
Cond.
BUS 15
Unit 12~14
(3197MW)
Unit 15~19
(512 MW)
Unit 20 (1155
MW)
BUS 13
(slack bus)
BUS 24
BUS 11
BUS 12
138 kV
BUS 9
BUS 10
cable
BUS 6
BUS 4
BUS 5
BUS 8
cable
BUS 1
Unit 1~2
(220 MW)
Unit 3~4
(276 MW)
25/05/11
BUS 2
Unit 5~6
(220 MW)
Unit 7~8
(276 MW)
BUS 7
Unit 9~11
(3100 MW)
230 kV (dominated by
generation, 2721 MW)
Ckts are, fully available at all
times
Load buses are considered to
the fully correlated with the
total system load
230 kV
BUS 3
22
Load (pu)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
8736
Hours
25/05/11
Load
Prob.
Load
Prob.
Load
Prob.
1681.5
0.08333
2109.0
0.04167
2679.0
0.04167
1710.0
0.08333
2365.5
0.04167
2707.5
0.04167
1795.5
0.08333
2451.0
0.04167
2736.0
0.12500
1909.5
0.04167
2593.5
0.04167
2821.5
0.04167
2080.5
0.04167
2650.5
0.04167
2850.0
0.08333
23
MCS-LSSVM: Flowchart
Testing patterns obtained
by random states
sampling (MCS
computation-step 1)
Input/output training
data set obtained by
MCS procedure
Identify most
relevant input
variables
Classifier accuracy
assessment and
calculate reliability
indices by analyzing
only failure states
classified by LSSVM
# Naran M. Pindoriya, Panida Jirutitijaroen, Dipti Srinivasan, and Chanan Singh, Composite reliability
evaluation using MCS and least squares support vector classifier, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Feb.
2011 (Accepted and available for early access).
25/05/11
24
Introduction to SVM
SVM provides an approach to the two-category (operating or
failed) classification problem with clear connections to the
underlying statistical learning theory
Let, the problem of separating the set of training
vectors (N data points) belongs to two separate
classes:
D=
{ ( x , y ) ,..., ( x
1
with a hyperplane:
, y N ) , x n , y { 1,1}
H : y = w
xb = 0
Linear
separation
25/05/11
Optimization problem:
1
Min wT w , s.t. yi ( w
x b ) 1
w ,b 2
1
i j yi y j 1( 4xi 2) 4( x3j )
2 ij
(
k xi , x j
25/05/11
26
LSSVM
In contrast to the standard SVM,
the LSSVM uses a least squares cost function and involves
equality constraints instead of inequalities in the problem
formulation.
As a result, the solution is obtained by solving a set of
linear equations instead of QP and hence, LSSVM can
reduce the computational complexity.
Kernel functions
25/05/11
27
Success state
Success state
1500
1150
800
450
Failure state
Failure state
25/05/11
200
400
600
800
1000
Unavailable Generation Capacity (MW)
1200
2000
1500
1000
500
300
600
900
1200
Unavailable Generation Capacity (MW)
1500
28
Algorithm
runs until coefficient of
0.5
250
0.4
200
LOLP/Coefficient of variation
LOLP
Coeff. of variation
EPNS
0.3
150
0.2
100
0.1
50
100
200
300 400
500 600
Number of iterations
700
800
0
900
EPNS(MW)
MCS
(benchmark)
Linear kernel
RBF kernel
# success states
24269
23967
24269
# failure states
2285
2587
2285
Sensitivity (%)
NA
98.76
100
Specificity (%)
NA
100
100
g-mean (%)
NA
99.38
100
Error
(%)
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
Total
Comp.
time
(sec)
0.08609
--
174.05
--
603
Linear
kernel
0.08609
0.000
174.05
0.000
70
RBF
kernel
0.08609
0.000
174.05
0.000
64
MCS
(benchmark)
# Naran M. Pindoriya, Panida Jirutitijaroen,
Dipti Srinivasan, and Chanan Singh, Composite
reliability evaluation using MCS and least
squares support vector classifier, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Feb. 2011
(Accepted and available for early access).
MCSLSSVM
EPNS (MW)
200
100
Coefficient of variation
0.05
EPNS(MW)
LOLP
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
500
1000
3000
3500
0
4000
500
1000
3000
3500
4000
1600
1600
Generation reserve (MW)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
1400
1200
1000
800
600
200
400
600
800
1000 1200
Unavailable generation capacity (MW)
1400
400
200
400
600
800
1000 1200
Unavailable generation capacity (MW)
1400
MCS-LSSVM
Linear
kernel
RBF
kernel
# success states
84079
83119
83487
# failure states
2430
3391
3023
Sensitivity (%)
NA
98.86
99.29
Specificity (%)
NA
100
99.60
g-mean (%)
NA
99.43
99.44
25/05/11
Comp.
time
(sec)
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
0.02811
--
156.76
--
2639
Linear
kernel
0.02811
0.00
156.76
0.00
100
RBF
kernel
0.02800
-0.4032
155.18
-1.010
99
MCS
(benchmark)
MCSLSSVM
EPNS (MW)
33
x 10
120
1
0.9
80
1.5
60
40
0.5
20
5000
10000
No. of samples
15000
Coefficient of variation ( )
100
EPNS(MW)
LOLP
2.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2000 4000
2400
success state
2200
failure state
2000
2000
1500
1000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
500
500
1000
Unavailable generation capacity (MW)
1500
LOLP = 0.0015
EPNS = 98.54 MW
400
500
1000
Unavailable generation capacity (MW)
1500
MCS (Benchmark)
2000
1500
1000
500
MCS-LSSVM
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400
Unavailable generation capacity (MW)
LOLP
EPNS (MW)
Kernel
type
# Success
states
# Failure
stats
Sensitivity
(%)
Specificity
(%)
g-mean
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
LSSVM+
OPF
time (sec)
[A]
Lin. kernel
RBF kernel
Poly. kernel
295890
295702
296175
1249
1437
964
99.71
99.65
99.81
99.75
100
100
99.73
99.83
99.91
0.001343
0.001346
0.001346
-0.25
0.00
0.00
120.768
120.516
120.516
0.21
0.00
0.00
26.35
33.25
20.74
1600
1800
Total
(MCS for
tra. patt.
=350.8+A)
377.15
384.05
371.54
LOLP
Linear
kernel
RBF kernel
Polynomial
kernel
# success states
305362
303581
304520
304790
# failure states
400
1242
1468
972
Sensitivity (%)
NA
99.72
99.65
99.81
Specificity (%)
NA
99.60
99.88
100
g-mean (%)
NA
99.66
99.76
99.90
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
Esti.
index
Error
(%)
Com.
time (sec)
[A]
0.00131
--
126.41
--
21080
NA
Lin. kernel
0.00130
-0.400
126.86
0.355
26.02
376.75
RBF kernel
0.00131
-0.125
126.53
0.1026
33.33
383.79
Poly. kernel
0.00131
0.000
126.41
0.000
20.74
371.97
MCS
(benchmark)
MCSLSSVM
EPNS (MW)
MCS-LSSVM
MCS
(benchmark)
Total [MCS
for tra. patt.
(=350.8) +A]
Composite Reliability
Indices Comparison
Concluding Remarks
LSSVM classifier takes the equality constraints in place of
the inequality counterparts with SVM, and the solution
follows from solving a set of linear equations, instead of
quadratic optimization problem for SVM.
Because the LSSVM is fast and effective nonlinear
classifier in compare to ANN classifiers, it has used to preclassify the entire system operating states into success or
failure, so then only failure states are fully evaluated for
adequacy analysis to calculate composite reliability
indices.
MCS LSSVM allows to avoid the adequacy analysis of
success states (which are usually much greater than the
number of failure states in power systems) and hence it
provides significant reductions in the computational cost
required while evaluating composite reliability.
25/05/11
38
Case Studies
25/05/11
39
Objective
Reliability analysis of power system including RES,
with an emphasis of bus loads and intermittent
behavior of RES such as wind and solar power
q
Zhen Shu and Panida Jirutitijaroen, Latin Hypercube Sampling Techniques for Power Systems Reliability
Analysis With Renewable Energy Sources, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Jan. 2011 (Accepted and
available for early access).
25/05/11
40
41
Questions ???
25/05/11
42