Anda di halaman 1dari 6

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO.

2, MAY 2004

763

A Comparison of Four-State Generating Unit Reliability Models for Peaking Units


Roy Billinton, Life Fellow, IEEE, and Jingdong Ge
AbstractA peaking unit is different from a base load unit in that it resides most of the time in the available but not operating (ABNO) state. The conventional unit unavailability index is the forced outage rate (FOR) and is based on a two-state model. This model is not suitable for intermittent operating unit representation and results in an unreasonably high unavailability index estimate for a peaking unit. Three four-state models, which recognize the intermittent operating characteristics of a peaking unit, are introduced and compared in this paper. Index TermsGenerating units, peaking units, reliability models, unavailability indices.
Fig. 1. Two-state model.

I. INTRODUCTION

generating unit is usually modeled by a series of states in which the generating unit can reside. The unit can transit from one state to another in accordance with certain actions. These states and the possible transitions mimic the operating behavior of a generating unit. The resulting model is used to incorporate generating unit unavailability in power system reliability evaluation. In North America, comprehensive generating unit outage databases are maintained by the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) and the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). The CEA Equipment Reliability Information System (ERIS) [1] and the NERC Generating Availability Data System (GADS) contain a wealth of important information. The NERC-GADS is based on [2]. The basic model for a generating unit is a two-state representation in which the unit resides either in the Up (operating) state or in the Down (forced outage) state as shown in Fig. 1. The FOR is defined as the ratio of the total forced outage time to the total forced outage time plus the total operating time [1]. The two-state model is a reasonable representation for a base load unit. Peaking units normally operate for relatively short periods of time. In order to recognize this behavior, the basic two-state model was extended to a four-state representation and the IEEE four-state model was developed in 1972 [3]. This model and other two four-state models, which include some extra transitions in the IEEE four-state model, are introduced and compared in this paper. There are several indexes in use to describe the unavailability of a peaking unit. These indexes are based on the IEEE four-state model and include the utilization forced outage
Manuscript received April 30, 2003. R. Billinton is with the Power System Research Group, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A9, Canada (e-mail: roy_billinton@ engr.usask.ca). J. Ge is with the Grid Development Department, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Regina, SK S4P 0S1, Canada (e-mail: jge@saskpower.com). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821613

probability (UFOP) [1] (ERIS), the derating adjusted utilization forced outage probability (DAUFOP) [4] (Ontario Hydro) and the equivalent forced outage rate when demanded (EFORd) [5] (PJM Interconnection). The EFORd has also been included in recent GADS reports [6]. The ERIS gas turbine database is utilized to calculate the relevant unit unavailability indexes based on the different models. This database includes all of the units state residence times and the transitions from state to state. Five years of operation and outage data for 83 units are utilized in the analysis. II. DERATED OPERATION AND OPERATING FACTOR These two concepts are directly related to unit unavailability index evaluation. The definitions of these two concepts are introduced in this section, and utilized in Section III for index evaluations. A. Derated Operation Derating is a reduction in the capacity of a generating unit due to equipment failure. In these conditions, a generating unit cannot provide its maximum continuous rating (MCR) [1]. Partial shortfalls in unit capacity arise due to equipment limitations within the unit. These shortfalls can be modeled by a series of derated states [7]. It is more usual, however, to aggregate these into the conventional two-state model. In order to recognize the effect of derating on the generating unit unavailability index, the operating time in the derated state is adjusted to provide an energy equivalent time in the full forced outage state. Table I gives the CEA state and time codes. at a derated level Consider a unit operating for a time of its MCR. The adjusted outage time adj is calculated as in (1) adj (1)

0885-8950/04$20.00 2004 IEEE

764

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 2, MAY 2004

In the CEA ERIS, the modified forced outage time is denoted adj represents the adjusted forced by the adj subscript. adj is determined in the derated operating time. same manner. B. Operating Factor Generating units are traditionally divided into groups based on their capacities for unit unavailability study. In the case of a peaking unit, the operating factor is a more important characteris defined istic than the unit capacity. The operating factor [1] as Total Operating Time Unit Hours where Total Operating Time Unit Hours ABNO ABNO ABNO (2)

TABLE I GENERATING UNIT STATE AND TIME CODES

TABLE II GROUP INFORMATION FOR THE 83 UNITS

Significant differences in the operating factors of the 83 units were found on reviewing the CEA ERIS database. The unit operating factors ranged from 0.1% to 33.5%. The 83 units were divided into four subgroups using the operating factors. Each group contains an approximately equal number of units. The group information is given in Table II. III. MODEL INTRODUCTIONS Three four-state models are illustrated in this section and the related indexes are calculated using the CEA ERIS database. A. IEEE Four-State Model and Indexes As noted earlier, an IEEE Task Force developed a four-state model in 1972 in order to recognize the peaking unit characteristics [3]. This model is shown in Fig. 2. The parameters used in Fig. 2 are D average in-service time per occasion of demand; T average reserve shutdown time between periods of need; r average repair time per forced outage occurrence; m average in-service time between occasions of forced outage when needed; probability of a starting failure resulting in inability to serve load during all or part of a demand period. The reserve shutdown state in the four-state model corresponds to the ABNO condition in the CEA ERIS. The in-service state represents the operating condition. The forced out state is divided into two segments. One is a state in which the unit is forced out but not needed by the system and the other is a state in which the unit is forced out and needed by the system. One problem that exists with the four-state model is that in most data reporting systems, such as the CEA ERIS, the DOWN time (forced out time) cannot be readily separated into the two required segments because it is very difficult to record when the unit is Needed and Not Needed. The

Fig. 2.

IEEE four-state model.

demand factor [3]

given by (3) was introduced to facilitate this

(3) where is the probability of being in state 1 and is the probability of being in state 3. The forced out needed time can be obtained by multiplying the total DOWN time by the demand factor . The Markov approach is used to evaluate the demand factor. In order to use the Markov approach, the unit behavior should have two characteristics, lack of memory, and be stationary [8]. These conditions are normally assumed to apply to generating units. A detailed discussion of the Markov approach is given

BILLINTON AND GE: A COMPARISON OF FOUR-STATE GENERATING UNIT RELIABILITY MODELS FOR PEAKING UNITS

765

in [8]. The frequency balance equations [8] for the four-state model shown in Fig. 1 are as follows:

TABLE III PARAMETER ESTIMATION

(4)

The objective in solving these equations is to find the demand in factor using the operating parameters r, m, T, D, and Fig. 2. The first step is to estimate these parameters from the raw data. This can be done using the equations given in Table III. All of the data on the right-hand side of the equations in Table III can be obtained from the available CEA ERIS dataand state 3 base directly. The probabilities for state 1 can be obtained by solving (4) as shown in (5) and (6) (5) (6) where M is a function of following equation: , , , , , and it is given by the

The demand factor (5) and (6)

is given by (7) using

and

from

(7) A new unit unavailability index was developed based on the four-state model [3]. In the CEA protocol, this index is designated as the utilization forced outage probability (UFOP). The UFOP is the probability of a generating unit not being available when needed, and it is given by (8) forced outage time forced outage time total operating time (8)

ability index in this case is known as the derating adjusted utilization forced outage probability (DAUFOP). The development of DAUFOP is shown in an Ontario Hydro research report [4]. The DAUFOP is the probability of a generating unit (including derated states) not being available when needed. It is the ratio of the equivalent forced outage time, when the unit is needed, to the equivalent operating time, when the unit is needed, plus the equivalent forced outage time, when the unit is needed. Using the CEA ERIS state duration codes, the DAUFOP is given by (10) shown at the bottom of the page. The demand factor in (9) and (10) has the same definition as in (3). It should be noted that the difference between UFOP and DAUFOP is significant if the forced derating time is large. The NERC GADS has recently introduced a similar statistic EFORd based on an approach used by the PJM Interconnection [5]. It is expressed by (11) as shown at the bottom of the page. The GADS follows IEEE Standard 762 [2]. Utilizing standard 762 duration codes, (11) becomes (12) EFORd FOH FOH EFDH SH (12)

Using the CEA ERIS state duration codes, the UFOP is given by (9)

(9) Derated states can be incorporated into the unit unavailability index using the concept of adjusted time. The modified unavail-

where SH is service hours, FOH is forced outage hours, and EFDH is the equivalent forced derating hours. A detailed comparison between the definitions and indexes used in the CEA-ERIS and the NERC-GADS data reporting systems is given in [9]. In the GADS reporting system, the EFDH is not recorded separately as equivalent forced derating service hours (EFDSH) and equivalent reserve shutdown forced derating hours (ERSFDH). is introduced [10] in order to divide A partial outage factor EFDH into EFDSH and ERSFDH and is defined as EFDSH EFDH EFDSH EFDSH ERSFDH (13)

(10)

EFORd

forced outage hours service hours

equivalent forced derated hours forced outage hours

(11)

766

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 2, MAY 2004

The factor cannot be obtained directly from the GADS database and is estimated using (14) Service Hours Service Hours+Reserve Shutdown Hours (14)

TABLE IV BASIC INDEXES AND PARAMETERS

The ratio of service hours to service hours plus reserve shutdown hours is an approximation for . The EFORd using obtained from (14) is therefore also an approximation of the original definition. The EFDSH and ERSFDH values could be calculated if GADS received information on all of the reserve shutdown (RS) events. GADS and PJM have traditionally not estimate is rerequired this information and, therefore, the quired. Table IV shows the basic indexes for each of the four unit groups in Table II and for the total unit set. B. Modified Four-State Model There are two inherent assumptions in the IEEE four-state model. These are as follows. The duty cycles are the same for the available states (between the in-service state and the reserve shutdown state) and the unavailable states (between the forced out needed state and the forced out but not needed state). There is no failure rate from the reserve shutdown state to the forced out but not needed state. The first assumption is straightforward because the load requirement rather than the generating unit itself determines the duty cycles. For the second assumption, in the review of the data from the ERIS database, it was found that there is a large number of transitions from the ABNO state (reserve shutdown state) to the forced outage state, in addition to start failures. This transition is neglected in the IEEE four-state model. A modified four-state model was developed by adding this transition to the original model. The modified model shown in Fig. 3 is a more realistic representation of actual peaking unit operation. The parameters in Fig. 3 are the same as those in Fig. 2 with the addition of ABNO ABNO ABNO Number of Forced Outages from the ABNO State The demand factor is different from that determined for the basic IEEE four-state model when the failure rate from the reserve shutdown state to the forced outage but not needed state is included. The frequency balance equations in this case are given in (15). The basic equation for the new demand factor is shown in (16) together with a modified form using a ratio factor . The formula to obtain is given by (17)

Fig. 3. Modified four-state model.

Equations (9) and (10) can still be used to calculate the UFOP and DAUFOP, respectively, for the modified model. The demand factor now is given by (16). The unavailability indexes calculated using the modified four-state model are shown in Table V. C. Extended Four-State Model It can be seen by comparing Tables IV and V that significant differences exist for the same unit unavailability index due to the different models. These differences are caused by the assumptions inherent in the models. It is therefore important to review all of the assumptions in the previous models. The modified four-state model is an extension of the IEEE four-state model in which the failure rate from the reserve shutdown state to the forced out but not needed state is included. There is a further assumption that should be examined. The repair rates from the forced out needed state to the in-service state and from the forced out but not needed state to the reserve shutdown state are identical in the two introduced four-state models. This assumption should be reconsidered as there is no evidence in the CEA ERIS database to support this assumption. The generating unit repair time will be influenced by the load requirements, the available capacity in the system, and the nature of the repairs. If the system is short of capacity, the repair time may be reduced. If the system reserve capacity is large, the repair time may be lengthened. It is obvious that the unit is needed more by the system when it is in the forced out needed state than in the forced out but not needed state. It is therefore more likely that the repair time for a unit in the forced out needed state will be shorter than that in the forced out but not needed

(15)

(16) (17)

BILLINTON AND GE: A COMPARISON OF FOUR-STATE GENERATING UNIT RELIABILITY MODELS FOR PEAKING UNITS

767

TABLE V MODIFIED MODEL INDEXES AND PARAMETERS

state. An extended four-state model was developed considering different repair rates from the different forced outage states. Fig. 4 shows an extended four-state model in which the repair rates are different. The frequency balance equations for the extended four-state model are as follows:

Fig. 4. Extended four-state model. TABLE VI EXTENDED MODEL INDEXES AND PARAMETERS

(18)

where is the average repair time per forced outage but not needed occurrence and the repair time is the average repair time per forced outage needed occurrence. The parameters , , , and can be estimated using the equations in Table III and n is the same as that in the modified four-state model. Paand can be estimated using the CEA ERIS datarameters base directly. Equation (18) contains four unknown parameters , , , and . These parameters can be obtained as functions of , , , , , , and . can be therefore determined as The ratio factor (19) , the demand factor can be obtained using Based on this (16). The UFOP and DAUFOP indexes can be obtained using this demand factor based on (9) and (10). The UFOP and DAUFOP indexes based on the extended four-state model using the unit groups are shown in Table VI. IV. MODELS AND INDEXES COMPARISON Three different four-state models are presented to represent peaking units. They are designated as the IEEE four-state model, the modified four-state model, and the extended four-state model. A simple breakdown of the basic difference in these models is as follows. The duty cycles for the available states and the unavailable states are identical for all three models. The failure rate from the reserve shutdown state is neglected in the IEEE four-state model but considered in the other two models. The repair rates from the forced out needed state and the forced out not needed state are different in the extended four-state model but are assumed to be identical in the other two models.

TABLE VII INDEX COMPARISONS OF THE THREE FOUR-STATE MODELS

The peaking unit unavailability indexes UFOP and DAUFOP for the unit groups are compared in Table VII based on the different models. Where A denotes the IEEE four-state model, B denotes the modified four-state model, and C denotes the extended four-state model. It can be seen that the UFOP or DAUFOP index values for the IEEE four-state model are the highest for all of the groups compared to those from the other two models. The indexes obtained using the extended four-state model are the smallest. The indexes from the modified four-state model lie between these two values. The reasons for this can be explained as follows. The modified four-state model is a basic extension of the IEEE four-state model. The difference between these two models is the inclusion in the modified model of the transition (failure) rate from the reserve shutdown state. The introduction of this failure rate increases the forced out but not needed time and decreases the forced out needed time. Unit unavailability indexes such as UFOP and DAUFOP decrease. This model is therefore closer to actual peaking unit operation than the IEEE four-state model. The indexes based on the modified four-state model are therefore more meaningful than those based on the IEEE four-state model. The transition (repair) rates from the two different down states are assumed to be the same in both the IEEE four-state model and the modified four-state model. These rates are

768

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 2, MAY 2004

different in the extended four-state model. It was found that the repair time in the forced out needed state is much shorter than that in the forced out but not needed state. The shorter repair time in the forced out needed state leads to a reduced residence time (state 3) probability. The UFOP and DAUFOP indexes in the extended four-state decrease due to the decrease in model. V. CONCLUSION The basic two-state model, the IEEE four-state model, the modified four-state model, and the extended four-state model are discussed in this paper. The two-state model is normally used for a base load unit and it is not a good representation for a peaking unit operation. The FOR for a peaking unit based on the two-state model is usually unreasonably high and is not a practical unavailability index. The generating unit reliability models presented are based on the existing data reporting system. The detailed examination of the gas turbine unit operating and outage data provided by the CEA indicates a large number of transitions from the reserve shutdown state to the forced out but not needed state and that the transition (repair) rates from the two different forced outage states have quite different values. The first observation leads to the development of the modified four-state model. The extended four-state model was developed in order to recognize both observations. The extended four-state model is a straightforward modification of the IEEE four-state model. The unit unavailability indexes can be estimated using the extended four-state model without any change in the existing CEA ERIS generating unit operating and outage data reporting system. The peaking unit unavailability indexes of UFOP and DAUFOP obtained using the extended four-state model involve fewer data assumptions and provide practical and realistic unit reliability indicators. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the Canadian Electricity Association for providing the required data.

REFERENCES
[1] Canadian Electricity Association Equipment Reliability Information System, 2000 Generation Equipment Status Annual Report, Rep., Montreal, QC, Canada, 2001. [2] IEEE Standard Definitions for Use in Reporting Electrical Generating Unit Reliability, Availability, and Productivity, May 20, 1987. [3] IEEE Task Group on Peaking Service Units, A four-state model for estimation of outage risk for units in peaking service, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-91, pp. 618627, Mar./Apr. 1972. [4] N. Ramani, Modeling of Thermal Units for Peaking and Cycling Operation, Reliability and Statistics Section, Operations Research Department, Rep. B1-469-K, Jan. 1982. [5] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Reliability Assurance Agreement Among Load Serving Entities in the PJM Control Area, Sept. 19, 2000. [6] Generating Availability Data System, Generating Unit Statistical Brochure 19951999, Oct. 2000. [7] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems , 2nd ed. New York: Plenum, 1996. , Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems: Concepts and [8] Techniques, 2nd ed. New York: Plenum, 1992. [9] R. Billinton and J. Ge, A comparison of North American generating unit outage parameters and unavailability indices, in Proc. IEEE Can. Conf. Elect. Comput. Eng., May 2002, pp. 6671. [10] M. P. Bhavaraju, J. A. Hynds, and G. A. Nunan, A method for estimating equivalent forced outage rates of multistate peaking units, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-97, pp. 20672075, Nov./Dec. 1978.

Roy Billinton (SM73F78LF01) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, and Ph.D and D.Sc. degrees from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. He is the author of papers on power systgem analysis, stability, economic system operation and reliability. Dr. Billinton is a Fellow of EIC, Canadian Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society of Canada.

Jingdong Ge, received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Xian Jiaotang University in 1991. He received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering in 2002. After graduation, he was an Electrical Engineer with the China State Power South Company before joining the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, as a graduate student in September 2002. He was also with the Saskatchewan Power Corporation in the Grid Development Department.