• 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

1
• 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.

2
•AVERAGE SPEED OF FAULTS : s   i
i
 iri
Us
•AVERAGE DURATION OF DISCONNECTION : rs   i
s  i
i

•ANNUAL AVERAGE DISCONNECTION DURATION : Us   i ri

i

3
 CONSUMER-ORIENTED INDICES

• System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI): Is

defined as the average number of interruptions per consumer served
per unit of time. (Fc in the CIER Handbook, 1988).
• System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI):Is defined
as the average duration of interruption per consumer served per unit
of time (Tc in the CIER Manual, 1988).
• Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index (CAIFI): Is
defined as the average number of interruptions per affected
consumer.
• Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI): Is
defined as the average duration of interruption per interrupted
consumer (Dc in the CIER Manual, 1998).
• Average Service Availability (Unavailability) Index (ASAI, ASUI)

4
• 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

Total of affected consumers

CAIDI   UiNi
ASAI   (Ni x8760)   UiNi
  iNi  (Ni x8760)
ASUI  1 ASAI
5
 ORIENTED INDEXES TO LOAD AND ENERGY

One of the important parameters required in the evaluation of the

indexes is the average demand at each load point. The average
demand, Cm, is given by:
Being fc Load factor y Dmax the maximum demand.
Total energy
Cm   f c x D max
time
• Energy Index Not supplied (ENS): Defined as Total Energy not
supplied by the system.
ENS   Cm  Ui
• Average Energy Not Supported (ENSM):

ENSM   Cm  Ui
 Ni
6
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

Affected consumers = 800+600+300+500 = 2.200

7
 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

ASUI  1 0.999812  0.000188

8
ENS  3600x3  2800x3  1800x2  2800x1  2400x1.5  1800x1.5

ENS  31900 Kwh

31900
ENSM   7.98 kWh/consumer
4000

PREDICTION::

Through the application of the concepts developed, it is

possible to carry out the corresponding studies, in order
to determine the future operation, after having introduced
some improvement in the system. In this way, the same
indicators can be obtained, which allows to know the
variations of the indicators.

9
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

LINE  r LOAD Number Average load

f/year hours POINT Consumi. Kw
A 0,20 6 L1 200 1.000
B 0,10 5 L2 150 700
C 0,15 8 L3 100 400
450 2.100

10
  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

SAIFI SAIDI CAIDI ASAI ASUI ENS ENSM

int/consu h/cons h/int-con Kwh/año Kwh/cons
0,289 1,744 6,038 0,999801 0,000199 3.550,00 7,89

Notice how in a radial system, the farthest loading point has the worst
indices.

11
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

12
  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

CONSUMERS 250 100 50 400

i Ni 337,5 110 42,5 490
Ui Ni 387,5 205 102,5 695
SAIFI 1,23
SAIDI 1,74
CAIDI 1,42
ASAI 0,999802
ASUI 0,000198

13
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

14
  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

CONSUMERS 250 100 50 400

i Ni 337,5 110 42,5 490
Ui Ni 387,5 165 52,5 605
SAIFI 1,23
SAIDI 1,51
CAIDI 1,23
ASAI 0,999827
ASUI 0,000173

15
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

CONSUMERS 250 100 50 400

i Ni 337,5 110 42,5 490
Ui Ni 387,5 185 77,5 650
SAIFI 1,23
SAIDI 1,63
CAIDI 1,33
ASAI 0,999814
ASUI 0,000186

16
 PARALLEL NETWORKS

•To solve this type of system, the approximate methodology developed

in section 3: the network reduction technique can be applied. For two
elements in parallel, the expressions to be used are:

Us r1r2
rs  
fs r1  r2
1 2 (r1  r2 )
s   1 2 (r1  r2 )
1  1r1   2r2
Us   srs  1 2r1r2

17
• 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
18
 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

This methodology does not readily identify the effects of critical

areas or components, especially when the amount of reduction is
increased.
However the method is useful if no further refinements are
required, such as the inclusion of the effect of different failure
modes.

19
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

Example 7.8: Consider the effect of the bars (elements 5 and 6)

of the system of Example 7.6.

Component  (f/year) r(hours)

5 0.01 5
6 0.02 2

20
  r U
f/year hours hours/year
0,030699 3,065596 0,094110

Other events can be included:

• Effect of scheduled maintenance: when in maintenance a
redundant component fails.
• Effect of adverse temporal.

21
 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
" "
 21r1
" "

22
 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.

Components ”(Outings / year) r”(hours)

1y2 4 8.2
3y4 2 8

23