Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
688
where TSk is the switching time for switch k and N the set of
switches involved in switching actions.
For a parallel switching, the total switching time is the
longest one of all the switching times
TSp max(TS1 , TS2 , . . . , TSN )
Decision-making process
After a fault, the related fault information and system configuration data are collected and analysed to find the
location of the fault and to determine the affected area
and the available switches for the restoration. The load
flow analysis is performed after the reconfiguration, and
the optimal restoration sequence is determined based on
available restoration resources and customer reliability
requirements using the optimisation technique. The duration of decision-making (Td) depends on the software
used and the complexity of the failure.
2.3
Switching actions
(3)
2.1
(2)
Restoration models
Fig. 4
(5)
hj
Fig. 5 shows the multi-state model with hybrid (sequential/parallel) switching actions. The total restoration time
for load point j after failure event h for the hybrid switching
actions is
X
Thj Thi Thd Thr
TSk max{TS1 , TS2 , . . . , TSN }
k[Nhj
Switching sequence depends on the degree of system automation and available manpower for the manual switches. In
a deregulated power system, the reliability for a customer
also depends on its willingness to pay. Some customers
may want to pay more for a high reliability and others
may want to pay less for a low reliability. Customer
reliability requirements can also be incorporated in the
determination of the switching sequence. There may be
many restoration sequences after considering these
factors. Therefore the optimal switching sequence has to
be determined based on available switching resources and
customer reliability requirements. This will be discussed
in the following section.
3
From the above discussions, the determination of restoration times for different load points is a very complicated
procedure which includes the following steps:
1. to determine the affected area and load points,
2. to identify the repair sub-area, upstream sub-areas,
downstream sub-areas and the switches involved in each
sub-area,
3. to determine the optimal switching sequence for the restoration and
4. to calculate the restoration time for each load point based
on the optimal switching sequence and the processes
involved.
The procedure for determining the variable restoration
times of load points in the reliability evaluation of distribution systems can be illustrated using a small complex distribution system shown in Fig. 6.
Assume that disconnect switches S1 S11 are normally
closed, tie-switches K1 K3 are normally opened, S1 is an
automated switch and the remaining switches are manually
operated. Manpower can only be used to do parallel switching involving two switches in this example.
3.1
hj
(6)
Fig. 5
690
Interruption cost
1 min.
20 min
1.005
1.508
2.225
1.625
3.868
9.085
25.16
55.81
commercial
0.381
2.969
8.552
31.32
83.01
agricultural
0.060
0.343
0.649
2.064
residential
0.001
0.093
0.482
4.914
15.69
0.044
0.369
1.492
6.558
26.04
office
4.778
9.878
3.3
21.06
3.968
480 min.
industrial
68.83
8.240
4.120
119.2
Lj CDFj (dj )
(7)
j[U
240 min.
larger user
min COSTi
3.2
60 min.
(8)
(9)
(10)
692
Reliability indices
Uj
li Tji
(14)
i[M
rj
Uj
lj
(15)
(12)
Fig. 7
3.5
(11)
System studies
A computer program has been developed using the proposed technique. A modified distribution system connected
to Bus 6 of RBTS system [18] has been evaluated using the
program. The distribution system is shown in Fig. 7.
Three alternative supplies have been added to feeders F5,
F6 and F7, respectively. All the tie-switches (TS1 TS4) are
assumed to be normally opened and the others are normally
closed. The time for decision-making is assumed to be
0.2 h. Per unit cost for the 480th minute is used for the duration larger than 480 min. Three cases have been tested
using the developed technique and the results are presented
and discussed in this section.
5.1
Case 1
Case 2
l, f/yr
U, hr/yr
EENS, MW h/yr
ECOST, $/yr
point
1
0.338
1.02
0.181526
274.65
0.351
1.03
0.185586
278.75
0.348
1.06
0.187275
284.83
0.338
0.99
0.179834
271.03
0.348
1.01
0.217667
325.86
0.338
1.01
0.218659
331.32
0.377
1.07
0.177419
261.71
0.381
1.11
0.184203
275.83
0.381
1.06
0.188429
277.70
10
0.368
0.98
0.162749
236.188
11
0.377
1.11
0.200041
300.15
12
0.368
1.03
0.213159
315.01
13
0.377
1.04
0.215574
316.56
14
0.251
0.92
0.430894
4151.70
15
0.245
1.07
1.753551
12157.61
16
0.249
1.28
1.159691
7938.73
17
0.251
1.62
0.759097
7412.70
18
1.179
6.78
1.124482
1805.68
19
1.179
6.78
1.225475
1967.86
20
1.179
6.78
1.695195
783.65
21
1.179
6.78
1.784666
825.01
22
1.179
6.78
1.40306
2253.02
23
1.207
7.03
1.166577
1877.53
24
1.214
7.00
2.13888
999.84
25
1.179
10.86
1.68809
2874.67
26
1.207
11.12
3.147112
1407.34
27
1.179
10.86
1.721765
2932.01
28
1.610
5.53
0.859362
1228.08
29
1.610
5.53
0.876505
1252.58
30
1.610
5.53
1.383053
675.96
31
1.831
7.56
1.175035
1766.44
32
1.868
7.9
1.523903
726.09
33
1.831
7.56
1.198476
1801.68
34
1.831
7.56
1.891096
903.48
35
1.831
7.56
1.990906
951.16
36
1.812
7.39
1.148729
1721.58
37
1.847
7.71
1.487196
709.64
38
1.812
7.39
2.092698
1001.23
39
1.812
7.39
1.171645
1755.92
40
1.812
7.39
2.259759
1081.15
SAIFI,
SAIDI,
f/yr
h/yr
ASAI
EENS
ECOST
42.76902
68711.93
system
0.783
3.59
0.99959
F1
0.344
1.02
0.999884
1.170547
1766.44
F2
0.375
1.06
0.999879
1.341574
1983.14
F3
0.250
1.26
0.999856
4.103233
31660.75
F4
1.185
7.73
0.999118
F5
1.831
7.56
0.999137
7.779416
6148.85
F6
1.610
5.53
0.999369
3.11892
3156.62
F7
1.813
7.39
0.999156
8.160027
6269.52
17.0953
17726.62
693
SAIFI,
SAIDI,
f/yr
h/yr
ASAI
EENS
ECOST
49.07815
75176.36
system
0.783
4.09
0.999533
F1
0.344
1.14
0.99987
1.315964
1981.27
F2
0.375
1.19
0.999864
1.523688
2252.19
F3
0.250
1.26
0.999856
4.103233
31660.75
F4
1.185
7.73
0.999118
F5
1.831
9.52
0.998913
9.779212
7764.69
F6
1.610
10.33
0.998821
5.825443
6552.37
F7
1.813
8.56
0.999023
9.435306
7238.47
17.0953
17726.62
SAIFI,
SAIDI,
f/yr
h/yr
ASAI
EENS
ECOST
scheme A
0.783
scheme B
0.783
4.09
0.999533
49.07815
75176.36
4.09
0.999533
51.01041
76122.39
SAIFI,
SAIDI,
f/yr
h/yr
ASAI
EENS
ECOST
0.946006
1381.235
F2
1.076547
1544.629
F3
0.25017
F4
F5
7.358561
6403.147
F6
1.61
0.999207
3.917544
4213.801
F7
7.514689
6269.516
5.3
1.026012 0.999883
3.301755 24718.12
14.80847
17278.01
Case 3
Fig. 8
694
Conclusions
61808.46
F1
6.946
References
1 Aoki, K., Nara, K., Itoh, M., Satoh, T., and Kuwabara, H.: A new
algorithm for service restoration in distribution systems, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 1994, 4, (3), pp. 1832 1839
2 Toune, S., Fudo, H., Genji, T., Fukuyama, Y., and Nakanishi, Y.:
Comparative study of modern heuristic algorithms to service
restoration in distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
2002, 17, (1), pp. 173181
3 Huang, C.M.: Multiobjective service restoration of distribution
systems using fuzzy cause effect networks, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2003, 18, (2), pp. 867 874
4 Ucak, C., and Pahwa, A.: An analytical approach for step-by-step
restoration of distribution systems following extended outages,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1994, 9, (3), pp. 1717 1723
5 Billinton, R., and Allan, R.N.: Reliability evaluation of power
systems (Plenum Press, New York, 1995, 2nd edn.)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 4, July 2007
695