Recently, there has been a focus on natural and man-made disasters with a high-impact low-frequency (HILF) property in electric power systems. A power system must be built with “resilience” or the ability to withstand, adapt and recover from disasters. The resilience metrics (RMs) are tools to measure the resilience level of a power system, normally employed for resilience cost–benefit in planning and operation. While numerous RMs have been presented in the power system literature; there is still a lack of comprehensive framework regarding the different types of the RMs in the electric power system, and existing frameworks have essential shortcomings. In this paper, after an extensive overview of the literature, a conceptual framework is suggested to identify the key variables, factors and ideas of RMs in power systems and define their relationships. The proposed framework is compared with the existing ones, and existing power system RMs are also allocated to the framework’s groups to validate the inclusivity and usefulness of the proposed framework, as a tool for academic and industrial researchers to choose the most appropriate RM in different power system problems and pinpoint the potential need for the future metrics.
In a power system, voltage stability margin improvement can be done by regulating generators voltages, transformers tap settings and capacitors/reactors rated reactive powers (susceptances). In this paper, one of these methods which we name "reactive power rescheduling with generator ranking" is considered. In this method, using "ranking coefficients", the generators are divided into "important" and "less-important" ones and then, voltage stability margin is improved by increasing and decreasing reactive power generation at the important and less-important generators, respectively. These ranking coefficients are obtained using "modal analysis". In this paper, the method's performance for another type of ranking coefficients (which presents ranking coefficient for "all" generators) and using IEEE 30 bus test system is analyzed. The simulation results show that in this method, voltage stability margin is considerably improved and, also, the system active loss and the system operating cost are increased.
The electric power system is one of the most important critical infrastructures of a country. Recently, the number of natural and man-made disasters is increased, which can impose extensive damages and costs to the power system. A resilient power system can withstand against, adapt to and recover from these disasters. Power system resilience is quantified by mathematical tools which are called "resilience metrics". Currently, a lot of resilience metrics are proposed in the power system literature. In this paper, based on the extensive research in the critical infrastructure resilience literature which specifically concentrates on the "area-based" resilience metrics, a new area-based resilience metric is proposed which can measure the power system resilience considering the government policymaker criteria, which are rarely noticed before. The proposed and conventional area-based resilience metrics are evaluated based on the real data from the 2012 Superstorm Sandy in the USA, which led to significant damage to the power distribution system. The simulation results show that the proposed area-based resilience metric is very simple, can successfully address actual power system performance curves and is more meaningful and tangible than the conventional area-based metrics for the government policymaker. The proposed area-based resilience metric has also a general form and can be used for other critical infrastructures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.