BY DON O.
KOVAL, XINLIE ZHANG,
JOHN PROPST, TIMOTHY COYLE,
ROBERT ARNO, & ROBERT S. HALE, JR.
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S
T
HE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
power reliability enhancement program
sponsored a survey effort to determine the
various reliability/availability (R/A) analy-
sis software tools available for utility, commercial, and in-
dustrial electrical and mechanical R/A analysis. The
research quickly indicated that many users were utilizing a
wide variety of analysis tools and techniques with differ-
ent results. Many reliability models calculate only the re-
liability of load points within an industrial and
commercial power system and fail to address the key indi-
ces required by industry, namely, reliability and annual
down time at of load points and the frequency and dura-
tion of load point interruptions. Although many users
were using different analysis techniques, the only recom-
32 mended methodology presented in IEEE Standard 493,
1077-2618/03/$17.00©2003 IEEE
The IEEE Gold Book, since 1980 was the “series and par-
allel” reliability methodology and the “minimal cut-set
method” that estimated the frequency and duration of
load point interruptions.
The different reliability approaches identified include:
n zone branch
n reliability block diagram
n event tree
n Monte Carlo
n Boolean algebra
n failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA)
n cut set
n spreadsheet methodology.
Some of these analytical approaches will be analyzed by
the Reliability Analysis Technique Working Group of The
IEEE Gold Book in the future to determine the accuracy of
their results and how closely they can verify operational
anomalies. For example, many methodologies fail to ac-
count for the open- and short-circuit failure modes of elec-
trical equipment that have a significant impact on system
reliability indices. Other methodologies fail to account for
the complex switching activities within a power system
that are required to restore the network configuration from
a failed state to an operational state. Several key reliability
indices for industrial and commercial customers are a
knowledge of the reliability and the frequency and dura-
tion of load point interruptions within their electrical
power system networks at their facilities.
A reliable equipment data source is key to an accurate
analysis. Data sources, such as The IEEE Gold Book and the
Power Reliability Enhancement Program (PREP) data-
base, provide the user with the necessary data parameters
to evaluate the reliability of industrial and commercial
power system network configurations. These two equip-
ment reliability data sources are based on extensive sur-
veys over many years. An accurate understanding of com-
ponent reliability and maintenance actions will provide
the necessary availability indices for your reliability anal-
ysis approach.
The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network
A standard network was required to enable comparisons
between different methodologies. After considerable ex-
amination of actual industrial and commercial power sys-
tem network configurations, the single-line diagram of
The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network was defined by the
Reliability Analysis Technique Working Group of The
IEEE Gold Book (Fig. 1). The equipment reliability data
corresponding to each labeled component of the network is
defined in Table 1.
The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network is a dual utility
source system with standby generation similar in

(2 of 4 Required)
600 V
3 3 3 3
1,500 kW 1,500 kW 1,500 kW 1,500 kW

1 Utility 6 6 6 6 1 Utility
1 mi 15 kV 300 ft 300 ft 300 ft 300 ft 15 kV

I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

2,000 2,000 2,000
2 8 8 8 8 2
4 4

5 5
Generator Bus
2 22 2
300 ft 4,000 8 4,000 8 300 ft

3,000 kVA 3,000 kVA

7 7
26 6 6 26
1,000 ft 300 ft 300 ft
1,000 ft
4,000 9 4,000 8 4,000 8 4,000 9
8

600 V Main Bus A Main Bus B 600 V

4,000
10 10
400 11 1,600 9 800 9 800 9 1,600 9 400 11

15 15
800 ft 16 15 16 16
1,000 ft
400 13 2,000 ft 1000 ft 2,000 ft 1,000 ft

Lighting 800 Mech Bus A 800 12

Mech Bus B
400 13

Noncritical
13 13 13 13 13 13

A Cooling Air Pump Pump Air Cooling B

Tower Handler Handler Tower

Single line diagram of The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network. 33

 TABLE 1. EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY DATA FOR THE IEEE GOLD BOOK STANDARD NETWORK CONFIGURATION

Ref Prep Inherent MTTR Failure Rate Calculated

Item Description
# Item # Reliability (hr) (failure/yr) Reliability
Single circuit utility supply, 1.78 failures/unit years,
1 NA 0.999705 1.32 1.956
A = 0.999705, [1] p. 107

2 Cable arial, ≤ 15 kV, per mi 32 0.99999022 1.82 0.047170

2A Cable arial, ≤ 15 kV, 300 ft 32 1.82 0.002680 0.999999443

Diesel engine generator, packaged, stand-by,

3 98 0.99974231 18.28 0.123500
1,500 kW

4 Manual disconnect switch 187 0.9999998 1 0.001740

5 Fuse, 15 kV 117 0.99995363 4 0.101540

Cable below ground in conduit, ≤ 600 V,

6 47 0.99999743 11.22 0.002010
per 1,000 ft

6A Cable below ground in conduit, ≤ 600 V, 300 ft 11.22 0.000603 0.999999228

7 Transformer, liquid, nonforced air, 3,000 kVA 208 0.99999937 5 0.001110

Circuit breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally open,

8 68 0.99999874 2 0.005530
> 600 A
Circuit breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally open,
8A 68 2 0.002765 0.999999369
> 600 A
Circuit breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally closed,
9 69 0.99999989 0.5 0.001850
> 600 A
Circuit Breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally closed,
9A 69 0.5 0.000925 0.999999947
> 600 A
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

10 Switchgear, bare bus, 600 V 191 0.9999921 7.29 0.009490

Circuit breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally closed,

11 67 0.99999986 6 0.000210
< 600 A
Circuit breaker, 600 V, drawout, normally closed,
11A 67 6 0.000105 0.999999928
< 600 A
Circuit. breaker, 600-V, normally closed, > 600 A,
12 63 0.99998948 9.6 0.009600
[1], p. 40
Circuit breaker, 600 V, normally closed, > 600 A,
12A 63 9.6 0.004800 0.999994740
[1], p. 40
Circuit breaker, three-phase fixed, normally
13 61 0.99999656 5.8 0.005200
closed, ≤ 600 A
Circuit breaker, three-phase fixed, normally
13A 61 5.8 0.002600 0.999998279
closed, ≤ 600 A, [1], p. 40
Circuit breaker, three-phase fixed, normally open,
14 62 0.99998532 37.5 0.003430
> 600 A
Circuit beaker, three-phase fixed, normally open,
14A 62 37.5 0.001715 0.999992658
> 600 A
Cable, above ground, no conduit, ≤ 600 V,
15 20 0.99999997 2.5 0.000120
per 1,000 ft
Cable, above ground, no conduit, ≤ 600 V,
15A 20 2.5 0.000096 0.999999973
per 1,000 ft
Cable, above ground, trays, ≤ 600 V, per 1000 ft,
16 0.99999831 10.5 0.001410
[1], p. 105
Cable, above ground, trays, ≤ 600 V, per 1,000 ft,
10.5 0.002820 0.999996620
[1], p. 105

22 Switchgear, Insulated bus, ≤ 600 V 0.99999953 2.4 0.001700 0.999999534

26 Bus duct, [1], p. 206, per circuit ft 0.99999982 12.9 0.000125 0.999815959
34
configuration to many mission-critical n Automatic source transfer at main
electric systems serving both military switchgear.
and commercial facilities. The service A RELIABLE n Automatic source transfer at me-
transformers supply a double-ended
4,000-A, 600-V bus that we refer to as
EQUIPMENT chanical switchgear.

the main switchgear. This bus serves the DATA SOURCE IS Discussion of Three Reliability
critical load through uninterruptable Models and Their Methodologies
power supply (UPS) systems connected KEY TO AN
to circuits A and B. The downstream Spreadsheet Reliability Model
UPS system and critical distribution ACCURATE Spreadsheet reliability, which is very
have not been modeled at this time. Me- similar to zone branch methodology, is
chanical equipment is served from the ANALYSIS. a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The
800-A, 600-V, double-ended bus sup- model is based on the fact that electrical
plied from the main switchgear. The net- systems are created using groups of elec-
work is supplied by two independent 15-kV primary trical components connected either in series or parallel
distribution feeders. There are four diesel engine genera- between various types of protective devices, such as fuses
tors at the facility, where two out of four generators are re- or circuit breakers. To use the model, an electric system is
quired to meet the network load demands at all times. The divided into zones, representing the collection of electric
reliability indices of the load points shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., components connected between protective devices. For
outputs A, B1, B2, C, D, E1, and E2) will be evaluated by each zone, the model provides a means for entering the
the three analytical methodologies. The following reliabil- quantity and type of electrical components, such as ca-
ity indices will be evaluated: bles, breakers, or switches that are in each zone. The
n frequency of load point interruptions (interruptions model of 70 zones is 230 columns wide by 286 rows tall.
per year) Details of the model are presented in [1]. An overall pic-
n annual duration of load point interruptions (hours ture of the layout of the spreadsheet mode is shown in Fig.
per year) 2, showing the relative positions of the various major ar-
n average duration of load point interruptions (hours eas of the model.
per interruption) Zones in the spreadsheet methodology are defined as a
n reliability level of power supply to the load point. segment of a power distribution system in which a fault at

I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

There are many assumptions necessary to complete the any location within the segment or zone would have the
reliability analysis of a network by any methodology, and common impact of causing the first upstream protective
these assumptions must be defined in order for their results device to isolate the system.
to be meaningfully compared. The following assumptions
are to be used by any reliability methodology applied to
The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network:
n Actual cable lengths are indicated on the drawings;
modify the failure rate accordingly. For example, ca- (k)
(d)
ble failure rate per rated length x% of actual cable (b) (g)
length indicated on the drawing.
n “M” denotes manual operation and is allocated 15
min for activation.
n Two out of four generators are required. (i) (j)
n The UPSs are fully redundant. (c) (e) (h)
n The power distribution unit (PDU) transformers are
fully redundant.
n Terminations, while normal for all systems, are not
included on the drawings. For this analysis, termina- (f) (l)
tions or splices are not included in the reliability cal- (a)
culations.
n For breaker failure modes, assume 50% open and
50% shorted. 2
Fundamental assumptions necessary to follow the anal- Spreadsheet reliability model layout. (a) RAM Table master.
ysis are stated below. Greater detail on the development of
the standard system configuration and the basis for the se- (b) RAM Table for Zones 1-35. (c) RAM Table for Zones 36-37.
lection of component indices can be found in [2]. (d) Quantity input for Zones 1-35. (e) Quantity input for Zones
n Utility services and switchgear are sized to carry the 36-70. (f) Zone Table for configuration. (g) Zone Calc Table
entire load from a single source (2N). for zone results. (h) Point Calc Tables for point results. (i) Unit
n Two out of four generators are required to carry the
Impact Table for financial impact. (j) Consequence Table for
load (N+2).
n Manual switching operations require 15 min. model results. (k) Model component summary. (l) Miscella-
n Automatic starting and parallel of generators. neous point and configuration calculations. 35
 When defining the configuration of Minimal Cut-Set Reliability
a system, a zone can be configured either Analysis Methodology
in series with the point immediately A STANDARD Minimal cut-set methodology is unique
above it, or a zone can be configured in
parallel with the two points immedi-
NETWORK WAS among these in that it has not seen wide-
spread implementation in commercial
ately above it. The model determines DEFINED BY THE reliability analysis software. We have
the failure and repair rates of all compo- been asked to use it by clients on the basis
nents within a zone, without taking RELIABILITY that it is the “Gold Book Method,” not-
into consideration that the zone is con- withstanding that, while The IEEE Gold
nected to any other portion of the sys- ANALYSIS Book admittedly devotes significant
tem. The model then determines the space only to this method, it does not ex-
failure rate and repair rate for all the TECHNIQUE clusively endorse it, and we have had to
points in the system by taking into con-
sideration the configuration of all the WORKING implement semiautomated spread-
sheet-based routines to perform the cal-
zones. The model includes a matrix
called the Zone Table, in which the con-
GROUP culations. All calculations for this article
have been implemented using Microsoft
figuration and interconnections be- Excel in lieu of software specifically de-
tween the zones are entered. In signed for reliability analysis. Reliability
developing the output portion of the model, another ma- indices consisting of failure rate, failure duration, and in-
trix table, the Unit Impact Table, allows the entry of vari- herent availability are calculated for the points labeled as
ous connected process units or loads and the impact that output on the one-line diagram.
each point has on the unit or load. The Point Calc Table is Minimal cut-set methodology is based on the following
the location where all of the calculated results pertaining basic theory: a cut set is a set of components that, if re-
to each individual point are assembled. moved or “cut” out of the system, interrupts the availabil-
ity of power to the load. A minimal cut set is a cut set
GO Software Tool having no other cut set as a subset. The failure rate of the
The reliability analysis center (RAC) has utilized the GO system to any load point is the sum of the failure rates of all
software tool to analyze the mechanical fuel oil system for the minimal cut sets to that load point. The failure dura-
the remote delivery facility (RDF). GO is a computerized tion is the average of the failure durations of the individual
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

tool that calculates system reliability and/or availability, cut sets weighted by their failure rates.
utilizing Boolean algebra for electric or mechanical sys-
tems based on the reliability and/or availability of indi- λ SYSTEM = λ CS , 1 + λ CS , 2 + λ CS , 3 +K+λ CS , n .
vidual components, how those components are intercon-
nected, and performance criteria for the system based on (1)
mission requirements. GO can be used as a design tool for
most systems by trying a number of different system con-
rSYSTEM =
figurations, and by computing the system reliability/avail-
ability for each, the design engineer can find a minimum λ CS , 1 rCS , 1 + λ CS , 2 rCS , 2 + λ CS , 3 rCS , 3 +K+λ CS , n rCS , n
cost method to achieve the desired reliability/availability. ,
λ CS , 1 + λ CS , 2 + λ CS , 3 +K+λ CS , n
The basic building block of a GO model is the node.
Nodes can be either logical or physical, depending on their
model function. All nodes have exactly one output. Physi- (2)
cal nodes correspond to actual pieces of equipment and where
n r = failure duration in hours
have a reliability associated with them. They have either
n rCS = failure duration of a cut set
zero or one input signal(s); that is, they may or may not be
n λ = failure rate in failures per year
dependent on prior equipment for successful operation.
n λCS = failure rate of a cut set.
Logical nodes correspond to interconnections within the
system or represent constraints imposed by mission re- Within an individual cut set, the reliability indices of
quirements. Logical nodes have multiple inputs, and im- the individual components are used to calculate the indi-
plement either the logical AND, OR, or M-out-of-N ces of the cut set through the standard equations for the
combination of probabilities in series and parallel combi-
operation. The Boolean algebra diagram of the network is
nations. The failure rates of series components or paths are
shown in Fig. 3. added, and failure duration is calculated on the same
The Boolean algebra approach uses component avail- weighted basis, as described above for the system. Indices
ability information and a user defined model of the equip- for cut sets consisting of parallel components or paths are
ment or system to solve an expression to approximate the calculated as follows. These equations are taken from [1]
availability of the system’s output. The model is based on and are simplifications of more complex expressions
the physical connections of the equipment and the way cer- based on the assumption that the mean time to repair
tain components interact; for example, all components in a (MTTR) in hours is small compared to the mean time be-
single line are required to be powered down during main- tween failures (MTBF) in years, i.e., that inherent avail-
36 tenance on that line. ability is high.
 Utility

Cable
15 kV

Disc SW

Fuse

Cable
300 ft

Xformer

Bus
DVCT

Breaker
50%

and
1
and
1
o or

I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

s

Breaker

Cable

1
Breaker

1
al

216
Pump Pump

Mechanical Bus Mechanical Bus

E1 E2
3
Boolean algebra diagram of the network. 37
 For a second order cut set (two parallel paths):
Step Description

λ CS = λ 1 λ 2 ( r1 + r2 ) 1 Start A
(3)
2 Replace A 1
r1 r2 B
rCS = .
( r1 + r2 ) 3 Replace B 1
C D
(4)
For a third order cut set (three parallel paths): 4 Replace C 1
2 D
λ CS = λ 1 λ 2 λ 3 (r1 r2 + r2 r3 + r3 r1 ) 3 D
E D
(5)
5 Replace D 1
r1 r2 r3 2 4 F
rCS = .
(r1 r2 + r2 r3 + r3 r1 ) 3
E
4
4
F
F
(6) 6 Replace E 1
In most industrial power systems, at least one first order 2 4 F
cut set exists (typically the failure of the last bus supplying 3 4 F
a single radial feeder to a load). Therefore, the lower order
5 G 4 F
cut sets dominate the results, and it is seldom necessary to
calculate cut sets of higher than third order [1]. 7 Replace F 1
Cut sets were developed by the “top down” method of 2 4 6
generation [4]. Logic diagrams were developed from the 2 4 7
single-line diagram in which an outage at the bus of inter- 3 4 6
est is represented by a true condition at the output of the 3 4 7
last logic gate. The failure states of the individual compo-
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

5 G 4 6
5 G 4 7
Util Gen Util 8 Replace G 1
1 Bus 2
Fail 6 Fail 5 2 4 6
Fail 4
2 4 7
Tie Tie 3 4 6
FDR FDR 3 4 7
Fail 7 Fail 8 5 6 4 6
5 8 4 6
5 6 4 7
F G 5 8 4 7

9 Eliminate Duplicates 1
2 4 6
Bus D The E Bus
A Breaker B 2 4 7
Fault 1 Fail 3 Fault 2 3 4 6
3 4 7
5 4 6
5 8 4 6
C 6 4 7
5
5 8 4 7

10 Eliminate Supersets 1
B
2 4 6
2 4 7
3 4 6
A 3 4 7
5 4 6
Main Bus A 5 8 4 7
Outage
16 4 5
38 Logic diagram for outage of main bus A. Development of cut sets for outage of main bus A.
nents are the initial inputs to the logic The calculated inherent availabilities
gates. To simplify the representation of are high, in excess of “five nines,” for the
the system, all paths between two buses ASSUMPTIONS main and generator buses and slightly
that consist only of series elements are
first combined into a single failure event
MUST BE less than that for the mechanical and
noncritical buses. In our experience,
using (1) and (2) before creating the logic DEFINED IN these values are typical of those obtained
diagram. Each failure event is assigned a by other methods for systems of similar
number and each logic gate a letter. ORDER FOR configuration. Detailed comparison and
Working from the output back to the in- discussion of the results of the different
put, each gate is replaced by the logical THEIR RESULTS methods is anticipated as a future paper
permutation of its inputs. prior to incorporating that analysis into
n An OR gate is replaced by a verti-
TO BE The IEEE Gold Book.
cal arrangement of the inputs, in-
creasing the number of cut sets. MEANINGFULLY Comparison of Results
n An AND gate is replaced by a hori-
COMPARED The availability indices at each output lo-
zontal arrangement of the inputs, cation within The IEEE Gold Book Stan-
increasing the order of the cut set. dard Network calculated by the various
Figs. 4 and 5 show the logic diagram methodologies were in close agreement.
and cut-set development for an outage at main switchgear The differences are dependent upon the unique characteris-
bus A, respectively. tics of each model (e.g., in minimal cut set, the number of
cut sets considered). Similar comparison of the other reli-
Results ability indices, i.e., failure rate, failure duration, and down-
Calculated reliability indices for the selected output buses are time, can be made. The major difference between the
shown in Tables 2-4 for each reliability methodology. The de- minimal cut set and the spreadsheet methodologies are the
tailed calculation of these indices, as well as the calculation of indices at the mechanical switchgear buses A and B that
the indices for the defined events, are found in [2]-[4]. were attributed to internal model assumptions on handling

I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

TABLE 2. CALCULATED RELIABILITY INDICES AT OUTPUT BUSES—SPREADSHEET RELIABILITY MODEL

Failure Rate Failure Duration Inherent

Output Location Downtime (h/yr)
(per yr) (h) Availability
Main switchgear bus A 0.015135 5.069684 0.076730 0.999991241
Main switchgear bus B 0.015135 5.069684 0.076730 0.999991241
Generation bus 0.015530 2.043786 0.031740 0.999996377
Mechanical switchgear bus A 0.044785 5.019912 0.224817 0.999974337
Mechanical switchgear bus B 0.044785 5.019912 0.224817 0.999974337
Lighting bus 0.020536 5.247354 0.107760 0.999987699

TABLE 3. CALCULATED RELIABILITY INDICES AT OUTPUT BUSES—GO RELIABILITY METHODOLOGY

Failure Rate Failure Duration

Output Location Downtime (h/yr) Inherent Availability
(per yr) (h)
Main switchgear bus A 0.015135 5.075996 0.076825 0.999991230
Main switchgear bus B 0.015135 5.075996 0.076825 0.999991230
Generation bus 0.015530 2.087057 0.032412 0.999996300
Mechanical switchgear bus A 0.023841 4.188664 0.099864 0.999988600
Mechanical switchgear bus B 0.023841 4.188664 0.099864 0.999988600
Lighting bus 0.020536 5.251052 0.107836 0.999987690
Nonrcritical bus 0.020536 5.255317 0.107923 0.999987680
39
 TABLE 4. CALCULATED RELIABILITY INDICES AT OUTPUT BUSES—MINIMAL CUT SET RELIABILITY METHODOLOGY

Failure Rate Failure Duration Downtime

Output Location Inherent Availability
(per yr) (h) (h/yr)
Main switchgear bus A 0.017895 4.595114 0.082230 0.999990613
Main switchgear bus B 0.017895 4.595114 0.082230 0.999990613
Generation bus 0.015530 2.043786 0.031740 0.999996377
Mechanical switchgear bus A 0.023841 9.484818 0.226132 0.999974186
Mechanical switchgear bus B 0.023841 9.484818 0.226132 0.999974186
Lighting bus 0.020696 4.743891 0.098180 0.999988792
Noncritical bus 0.012315 7.387812 0.090981 0.999989614

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF AVAILABILITY INDICES GENERATED BY THE DIFFERENT MODELS

Spreadsheet Reliability GO Reliability Minimal Cut-Set Reliability

Output Location
Model Methodology Methodology
Main switchgear bus A 0.999991241 0.999991230 0.999990613
Main switchgear bus B 0.999991241 0.999991230 0.999990613
Generation bus 0.999996377 0.999996300 0.999996377
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S

Mechanical switchgear bus A 0.999974337 0.999988600 0.999974186

Mechanical switchgear bus B 0.999974337 0.999988600 0.999974186
Lighting bus 0.999987699 0.999987690 0.999988792
Noncritical bus 0.999986036 0.999987680 0.999989614

redundant paths and common mode failures that were not
considered at the time of publication of the papers.
Conclusion
It is very difficult to compare reliability models unless the
network configuration, equipment reliability parameters,
network operating configurations, switching, and network
reconfiguration procedures are standardized. This article
has presented the basic single-line diagram and equipment
reliability data for The IEEE Gold Book Standard Network
configuration. Future papers evaluating load point reli-
ability indices by different reliability methodologies will
be presented by the Reliability Analysis Working Group
of The IEEE Gold Book.
The spreadsheet reliability model was created to run
on an IBM-compatible PC using Microsoft Excel Version
5.0 spreadsheet program. Accompanying text files are in
Microsoft Word for Windows Version 6.0. The model
spreadsheets and text files are copyright-reserved free
programs. You may use, copy, and distribute this soft-
ware free of charge under the conditions supplied with
40 the software.
One of the primary advantages of the spreadsheet reli-
ability model is that its zone methodology accounts for the
isolation and protection characteristics of network protec-
tive devices. One of the limitations of the model at this
stage of its development is that it cannot account for the
complex network switching and restoration procedures
necessary to restore a faulted network to a normal operating
configuration. Later additions will accommodate complex
switching activities between the zones similar to the zone-
branch methodology.
Application of the minimal cut-set methodology to The
IEEE Gold Book Standard Network results in calculated
values of inherent availability that appear reasonable based
on past experience with the results of other methods ap-
plied to similar systems. Minimal cut set methodology can
be implemented with simple spreadsheet calculations. For
simple systems, such as The IEEE Gold Book Standard Net-
work (which is reasonably representative of many mis-
sion-critical installations), this provides an alternative to
commercial analysis software.
To provide availability analysis of the fuel oil system re-
quires a well-defined model of the facility. The compo-
nents of the model must include an accurate representation
of the system configuration, operational characteristics,
and user requirements. These components translate into a
single-line drawing, theory of operation, and functional re-
quirements of all loads, critical and noncritical.
The Boolean algebra utilized in the GO methodology
approach uses component availability information and a
user-defined model of the equipment or system to solve an
expression to approximate the availability of system’s out-
put. The model is based on the physical connections of the
equipment and the way certain components interact; for
example, all components in a single line are required to be
powered down during maintenance on that line.
A reliable data source is key to an accurate analysis.
Data sources, such as The IEEE Gold Book and the PREP
database, provide the user with the necessary data pa-
rameters to perform an analysis. An accurate under-
standing of component reliability and maintenance
actions will provide the necessary availability numeric
for the analysis approach.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Zhenfu Dong, a power
system graduate student at the University of Alberta, for
validating the reliability indices generated by the minimal
cut set and reliability spreadsheet methodologies.
References
[1] Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems (The
IEEE Gold Book), IEEE 493-1997.
[2] D.O. Koval, Z. Zhang, and J. Propst, “Spreadsheet reliability model
applied to Gold Book Standard Network,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE In-
dustry and Commercial Power Systems Tech. Conf., 2002, pp. 66-72.
[3] T. Coyle, R.G. Arno, and P.S. Hale, Jr., “Application of the minimal
cut set reliability analysis methodology to the Gold Book Standard
Network,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE Industry and Commercial Power Sys-
tems Tech. Conf., 2002, pp. 82-93.
[4] T. Coyle, R.G. Arno, and P.S. Hale, Jr., “Go reliability methodology
applied to Gold Book Standard Network,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE In-
dustry and Commercial Power Systems Tech. Conf., 2002, pp 73-81.
[5] P.S. Hale, Jr., R.G. Arno, and D.O. Koval “Analysis techniques for
electrical and mechanical power systems,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE In-
dustry and Commercial Power Systems Tech. Conf., 2001, pp. 61-65.
[6] J. Propst. (2000). Reliability Software and Documentation, Reliabil-
ity Model Spreadsheet Software. Equilon Enterprises, LLC. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.ieee-pcic.org
[7] J.E. Propst, “Calculating electrical risk and reliability,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Applicat., vol. 31, pp. 1197-1205, Sept./Oct. 1995.
[8] D.O. Koval, “Zone-branch reliability methodology for analyzing in-
dustrial power systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 36, pp.
1212-1219, Sept./Oct., 2000.
[9] W.H. Dickinson, P.E. Gannon, C.R. Heising, A.D. Patton, and D.W.
McWilliams, “Fundamentals of reliability techniques as applied to
industrial power systems,” Conf. Rec. IEEE Industry and Commer-
cial Power Systems Tech. Conf., 1971, pp. 10-31.
[10] C. Singh and R. Billinton, System Reliability Modeling and Evalua-
tion. London, UK: Hutchinson, 1977.
[11] J.R. Dunki-Jacoabs, “An argument and procedure for conceptual
power system design studies,” in Conf. Rec. 39th Annu. Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Conf., 1993, pp. 1-10.
[12] D.J. Smith, Reliability Maintainability and Risk. London, UK:
Butterworth, 1993.
I EEE I NDUSTRY A PPLI CA TI ONS MA GA ZI NE • JA N|FEB 2003 • WWW.I EEE.ORG/I A S
[13] R. Billinton, R.N. Allan, and L. Salvaderi, Applied Reliability As-
sessment in Electric Power Systems. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press,
1991.
[14] D.O. Koval, “Zone branch reliability methodology for analysing
industrial power systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 36, pp.
1212-1218, Sept./Oct. 2000.
Don O. Koval (donkoval@shaw.ca) and Xinlie Zhang are with
the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. John
Propst is with Equilon Enterprises LLC in Houston, Texas,
USA. Timothy Coyle is with Ellerbe Becket, Inc., in Minneapo-
lis, Minnesota, USA. Robert G. Arno is with Reliability Analy-
sis Center in Rome, New York, USA. Peyton S. Hale, Jr., is with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This article first appeared in
its original form at the 2002 IEEE/IAS Industrial and Com-
mercial Power Systems Technical Conference.
41