See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330589327

Reliability Assessment of Redundant Electrical Power Supply Systems using

Fault Tree Analysis, Reliability Block Diagram, and Monte Carlo Simulation
Methods

Conference Paper · October 2018

DOI: 10.1109/CISTEM.2018.8613431

CITATIONS READS

5 218

4 authors, including:

Djemai Merrouche Robertas Alzbutas

13 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   
Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuanian Energy Institute
118 PUBLICATIONS   518 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Artificial Intelligence View project

Design and Optimisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robertas Alzbutas on 24 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018
Reliability Assessment of Redundant Electrical Power
Supply Systems using Fault Tree Analysis, Reliability
Block Diagram, and Monte Carlo Simulation
Methods
Rabah Benabid Djemai Merrouche
Electrical Engineering DTN, CRNB
Department, CRNB A/O, Djelfa, Algeria
A/O, Djelfa, Algeria merrouche_dj@yahoo.com
rabah_benabid@yahoo.fr
Abstract—This paper deals with the reliability assessment of
electrical power supply systems under redundancy. For doing so,
three probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) methods are proposed
and developed namely fault tree analysis (FTA), reliability block
diagram (RBD), and Monte Carlo Simulation (MC) method. The
FTA method is performed using RiskSpectrumPSA® software
and the RBD and MC methods are coded using Matlab software.
The electrical power supply system reliability is analyzed and
enhanced considering various cases of redundancy. The FTA
method is based on qualitative and quantitative reliability
assessment. The quantitative assessment calculates the failure
probability of the top event, and the qualitative approach
determines the minimal cut sets (MCS). However, the RBD and
MC methods are proposed to compute the system failure
probability. The considered methods are applied on three case
studies and the obtained results are compared to each other. The
obtained results show that the three methods provide almost the
same results. Furthermore, the reliability of the electrical power
supply is clearly enhanced with the number of redundant
components.
Keywords—electrical power system reliability; probabilistic
safety assessment; fault tree analysis; reliability block diagram;
Monte Carlo simulation; Redundancy; RiskSpectrumPSA software;
minimal cut sets; qualitative and quantitative safety assessment.
I. INTRODUCTION
The electric energy is considered as the heart of the
industry development, the human’s life comfort and the
operation safety of industrial installations. This electric energy
must be reliable and must have the best quality in order to
fulfill the predefined industrial installations requirements.
Generally, the reliability of a system is defined as the
probability that this system can perform its intended function
for a specified interval under stated conditions. Therefore, the
electrical power supply system of an industrial installation
must be designed in a manner that provides a best quality and
reliability of electrical power. For this, some critical industries
need a high level of electrical power supply reliability and
don’t allow its loss. However, an unreliable electrical power
978-1-5386-4988-6/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Aissa Bourenane Robertas Alzbutas
DTN, CRNB Lithuanian Energy Institute
A/O, Djelfa, Algeria Kaunas University of
bourenane.aissa@gmail.com Technology
Kaunas, Lithuania
robertas.alzbutas@gmail.com
supply system can cause severe accidents [1]. Therefore, the
electric power supply reliability must be continuously
evaluated and assessed. This evaluation can be performed
during different lifetime stages of the installation (e.g. design,
construction, operation, aging, and/or decommissioning).
Various approaches for systems reliability assessment have
been proposed in the literature [2], where, the electrical power
supply reliability is usually performed using either the
deterministic or the probabilistic methods. The deterministic
assessment of electric power reliability is generally based on
N-1 and N-2 methods. The N-1 method considers the outage
of one electric component (e.g. transmission line, generator, or
transformer) and check if the electric parameters of power
system remain in the nominal interval of variation. The N-2
method considers the failure of an electric component and the
maintenance of another one.
The probabilistic assessment of power system is based on
the analysis of all possible events that may occur according to
their probabilities in order to compute the failure probability
of the overall system. The most popular methods used for
power system reliability assessment are: Fault Tree Analysis
(FTA), Reliability Block Diagram (RBD), Markov chain, and
Monte Carlo Simulation (MC).
The reliability evaluation of electrical systems using FTA
has been widely proposed [3-9]. In [6], the qualitative and
quantitative reliability assessment of an electrical power
supply system is presented using FTA and Minimal Cut Sets
(MCS). In [7, 8], the FTA is used to evaluate the power
system reliability at the load points. The quantitative and
quantitative FTA assessments were used to identify the most
important elements in the power system. In [9], the FTA
method is applied for customer reliability assessment of a
distribution power system.
Many practical uses can be highlighted for utilization of
RBD in reliability assessment. In [10], RBD and FTA methods
are developed for reliability analysis of a fire pump. Likewise,
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018
the availability assessment of a reverse osmosis plant using
FTA and RBD is presented in [11].
The Markov chain is also used for reliability evaluation of
electrical systems. In [12], the protective relays reliability is
evaluated using Markov chain. Furthermore, an improved
reliability model based on Markov model capable of
modelling two or more backup protective devices operating in
parallel is presented in [13]. The Failure Mode and Event
Analysis (FMEA) is proposed in [14] for reliability centred
maintenance method used for maintenance optimization. In
addition, the reliability centred maintenance optimization for
power distribution systems using analysis of failure modes
effects and critically (FMECA), is proposed in [15].
Similarly, the MC method is also used for reliability
assessment of electrical power system [16]. In [17], a
sequential MC is proposed for composite power system
reliability analysis considering time varying loads. In [18], A
Dynamic FTA based on MC in probabilistic safety assessment
is presented. In [19], a MC approach is proposed for reliability
worth evaluation of a complex radial distribution system.
This paper deals with the reliability assessment of
electrical power supply systems; considering the impact of the
redundancy. For doing so, three probabilistic safety analysis
(PSA) methods are used namely the FTA, the RBD, and the
Monte Carlo Simulation. The qualitative and quantitative
assessment based on FTA method is performed using
RiskSpectrumPSA® software and the RBD and Monte Carlo
Simulation methods are coded using Matlab software. The
reliability of electrical power supply system is analyzed and
improved considering various cases of redundancy. This paper
is organized as follows. Section 2 presents an overview on the
proposed reliability assessment methods. The reliability
modeling simulation and the obtained results are presented in
section 3. The gained conclusions are presented in section 4.
II. SAFETY AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
The main purpose of the reliability engineer is to define
potential failures and propose technical solutions to prevent
these failures [20-22]. In this paper, the reliability assessment
of electrical power supply systems is performed using FTA,
RBD and Monte Carlo Simulation (MC) methods considering
the redundancy. An overview of these proposed methods is
proposed as follows:
A. Fault tree analysis method
The FTA method is used to evaluate the causes and their
combinations that lead to the system failure [20-23]. It is a
deductive method which is based on the definition of the top
event that represents the undesired event and deducts the
various events connected via logic gates that lead to the top
event [22, 23]. The types of events that could be used in the
FTA are presented as follows [22, 23]:
• Basic event: It is an independent event that can’t be
developed further.
• Intermediate event: It is an event caused by two or
more events connected by a logic gate.
• House event: It is a basic event that has a Boolean
value 1 or 0. It is used to change the fault tree structure.
• Transfer event: It is used to transfer the fault tree to
another one.
In RiskSpectrumPSA® software, a reliability model must
be associated with each basic event in the fault tree. Table I,
presents the main reliability models available in the software
[22]. As presented above, the FTA method can be performed
using either qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation. The
qualitative evaluation is mainly based on the identification of
MCS. This last is the minimal events combination sets that
lead to the top event as presented in (1) [22, 23].
I J
G = ¦ B j (1)
i =1 j =1
Where, G is the top event probability, Bj is the basic event
j, J is the number of basic events in a particular MCS, and I is
the number of MCS.
However, the quantitative analysis of FTA is based on the
top event probability computation based on the Boolean
algebra reduction method. It is based also on the calculation of
the components importance indices. According to qualitative
and quantitative analysis of FTA; the critical components of
the system could be defined in order to increase their
reliability using the appropriate techniques such as: test
interval optimization, application of redundancy and diversity
principles, and so on. The main steps of fault tree analysis are
summarized in the following points [23]:
1) Identification of the FTA objectives: The main
objectives of the FTA analysis can be as follows:
a) Reliability comparison of various system design,
b) System reliability evaluation,
c) Identification of the most important components,
2) Definition of the top event,
3) Construction of the fault tree,
4) Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the fault
tree,
5) Interpretation of the obtained results.
B. Reliability block diagram (RBD)
This method is based on the graphical representation of the
systems components as blocks. The blocks within the RBD are
linked depending on their effects on the system [23]. Each
block is represented by the reliability (or the unreliability) of
its appropriate component. The system reliability RS of series
and parallel connected blocks are presented as follows:
1) Series connected blocks
The system reliability RS of series connected blocks
presented in the fig. 1.a) is computed as follows:
N
RS = ∏ RI (2)
I =1
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018

TABLE I. RELIABILITY MODELS OF RISKSPECTRUMPSA SOFTWARE.

Reliability Definition Mean Unavailability (Qmean)
model
Monitored and This model represents
repairable the repairable
Q = λ (λ + μ )
component components.

Periodically This reliability model

tested represents the
component components that are ¬ (
Q = 1 − ª 1 − e − λTI ) ( λTI )º¼
tested each (TI)
Probability and Represents the
constant components that change
unavailability their state. It models the Q=q
failure probability per
demand q.
Fixed mission This model uses a
time constant unavailable
Q = 1 − e − λTM Fig. 1. RBD a) series connected components, b) parallel connected
model for a fixed
components
mission time TM
Non-Repairable This model is used for
Q ( t ) = 1 − e−λt
component non repairable N
1
component Qs =
N
¦x
i =1
i (8)

Where,  and  are the failure and the repair rates respectively.
Where, N is the number of the Monte Carlo samples.
2) Parallel connected blocks
The system reliability RS of parallel connected blocks
presented in the fig. 1.b) is computed as follows: D. Reliability modeling of redundant components
The redundancy is the most widely used technique for
N systems reliability enhancement. It has two main types:
RS = 1 − ∏ (1 − RI ) (3) namely the parallel redundancy and the standby redundancy.
I =1 The first one consists of two components connected in parallel
for a system that requires one component only [20]. Therefore,
C. Monte Carlo Simulation (MC) the switch between the two components is no used. However,
The MC method is based on stochastic simulation using the standby redundancy is consists of two independent
random numbers. Applications of Monte Carlo techniques can components one is operating and the other is in standby mode
be found in many fields such as complex mathematical [20]. If the main component fails, the standby one connects to
calculations, stochastic process simulation, medical statistics, the system via a switch. According to the modeling of this
engineering system analysis, and reliability evaluation [16]. switch, the standby redundancy is modeled considering perfect
Considering the following exponential distribution of the and imperfect switching [20].
failure probability: In this paper, the redundant components are modeled as
− λ ti standby redundancy, where the switch is supposed to has
Qi = 1 − e (4)
100% successful switching and a reliability of normal
The sampling value of the state duration ti is calculated operating Rs.
from (4) as follows:
1 III. MODELING, SIMULATION AND RESULTS
ti = − ln Qi (5)
λi A. Description of the electrical test systems
In the MC, the unavailability Qi of component i is a
In order to investigate the reliability modeling principle of the
random number uniformly distributed between [0, 1]. The
state of the component xi is calculated according to its mission electrical power supply system considering the standby
time (TM) as follows: redundancy and their impacts on its reliability; the following
three case studies that represent different power supply
xi=0, if ti<TM (6) systems of an electric motor are proposed and analyzed using
xi=1, if ti>TM (7) the FTA , the RBD, and the MC methods. Table II presents the
electrical components reliability data used in this paper. These
The estimation of the system unavailability is calculated as data are proposed to perform the reliability assessment and do
follows [16]: not represent the real probabilities of real components.
The electrical components are modeled using a fixed
mission time of one year.
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018

Fig. 2. The three case studies a) case study n°1, case study n°2, case study
n°3.

TABLE II. USED RELIABILITY DATA OF ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS

Electrical Failure rate Reliability R(t) Unreliability Q(t)
Components () (one year) (one year)
Utility 1E-6 0.9913 0.0087
Circuit breaker 1E-5 0.9161 0.0839
Bus 1E-6 0.9913 0.0087
Transformer 1E-4 0.4164 0.5836
ATS1/ATS2 [10] 9.83E-6 0.9175 0.0825
EE1/EE2 1E-4 0.4164 0.5836
Motor [10] 2.86E-6 0.9753 0.0247
1) Case study N° 1
Figure 2.a) presents the case study n° 1. From this figure it
can be seen that the electrical motor Mtr1 is supplied from the
utility via the transformer T1. The system has one utility, two
buses, three circuit breakers and one electric motor.
2) Case study N°2
The case study n° 2 is presented in fig. 2.b). In this case;
the electric motor Mtr1 has one normal power supply and one Fig. 3. FTA implemented in RiskSpectrumPSA software. a) case study n°1,
standby power supply. During normal operation, the motor b) case study n°2, c) case study n°3.
Mtr1 is supplied from the utility via the transformer T1. If the
utility is lost, the electric supply of the motor is switched to
the Electrical Emergency 1 (EE1) via the automatic transfer B. Fault tree analysis (FTA)
switch ATS1. The ATS1 is supposed to has 100% successful The top event of the all fault trees is defined as “Mtr1 not
switching and a probability of failure during operation. The rotating”. The qualitative and quantitative assessments of the
system has one utility, two buses, three circuit breakers, one FTA for the three case studies are performed using
automatic transfer switch, one standby power supply, and one RiskSpectrumPSA software.
electric motor.
1) Case study N°1
3) Case study N°3 Figure 3.a) presents the FTA of case study n°1. From this
The case study n°3 is presented in fig. 2.c). The electric figure, it is clear that the FTA has eight basic events which is
motor Mtr1 has one normal power supply and two standby the same number of the electrical components. These basic
power supplies. During normal operation, the motor is events are connected with OR gate; since the electrical
supplied from the utility via the transformer T1. If the utility is components are connected in series. This means that, if one
lost; the electric supply of the motor is switched to EE1 via component fails, the motor Mtr1 will stop.
ATS1. If EE1 fails, the electric supply of the motor is
Table III, presents the quantitative and qualitative
switched to the Electrical Emergency 2 (EE2) via the
assessment results of FTA. The quantitative calculation
Automatic Transfer Switch ATS2. The ATS1 and ATS2 are
provides the failure probability value which is Q=6.958E-1.
supposed to have 100% successful switching and a probability
However, the qualitative assessment of FTA is based on the
of failure during operation. In this case, the system has one
calculation of the MCS. From table III, it can be seen that the
utility, two buses, three circuit breakers, two automatic
FTA has eight MCS and each MCS has one component only.
transfer switches ATS1 and ATS2, two standby power
This is due to the fact that the eight electric components are
supplies EE1 et EE2, and one electric motor.
connected in series and the failure of one component leads to
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018

the failure of the overall system. This means that each TABLE IV. TOP EVENT PROBABILITY AND MCS OF CASE STUDY N°2
component represents a minimal cut set. Furthermore, we can Top event failure probability Q=4.987E-1
see that the failure of the transformer T1 contributes by ID Probability % Event1 Event2
83.87% to the top event. This is due that the T1 has the 1 3.405E-01 68.28 EE1-TO T1-TO
minimum reliability value in the system (see table II). 2 8.387E-02 16.82 CB3-TO
3 8.251E-02 16.54 ATS1-TO
2) Case study N°2 4 4.894E-02 9.81 CB2-TO EE1-TO
The corresponding FTA of the case study n°2 is presented 5 4.894E-02 9.81 CB-TO EE1-TO
in fig. 3.b). This FTA is more complicated compared to the 6 2.474E-02 4.96 MTR1-TO
7 8.722E-03 1.75 BUS2-TO
case study n°1. It has three stages, ten basic events and two
8 5.090E-03 1.02 EE1-TO UTI-TO
intermediate events. Table IV, presents the quantitative and 9 5,09E-03 01,02 EE2-TO MAINBUS-TO
qualitative assessment results of FTA. The quantitative
assessment of FTA gives that the failure probability of the top TABLE V. TOP EVENT PROBABILITY AND MCSOF CASE STUDY N°3
event is Q=4.987E-1. Compared with the case study n°1, it is
concluded that the failure probability of the top event is Top event probability Q=3.932E-1
ID Probability % Event1 Event2 Event3
reduced with 28.33%. This is due to the installation of the
1 1,99E-01 50,54 EE1-TO EE2-TO T1-TO
standby power supply EE1. 2 8,39E-02 21,33 CB3-TO
Furthermore, the system has nine MCS as presented in 3 8,25E-02 20,98 ATS2-TO
4 4,81E-02 12,24 ATS1-TO EE2-TO
table IV. From the MCS, we can remark that the simultaneous
5 2,86E-02 07,26 CB2-TO EE1-TO EE2-TO
failure of EE1and T1 have the great contribution to the top 6 2,86E-02 07,26 CB1-TO EE1-TO EE2-TO
event with 68.28%. This is due that the two basic events EE1- 7 2,47E-02 06,29 MTR1-TO
TO and T1-TO have the lowest reliability values in the 8 8,72E-03 02,22 BUS2-TO
system. 9 2,97E-03 00,76 EE1-TO EE2-TO UTI-TO
10 2,97E-03 00,76 EE1-TO EE2-TO MAINBUS-TO
3) Case study N°3
Figure 3.c) presents the FTA of case study N°3. This FTA
1) Case study N°1
is more complicated compared to the case studies N°1 and
The RBD of the case study n°1 is presented in fig.4.a). As
N°2. It has five stages, twelve basic events, and two
showed in this figure; the RBD has eight blocks connected in
intermediate events. Table V, presents the quantitative and
series, where each block represents a component. Based on
qualitative assessment results of FTA. From this table, the
(2), the obtained system reliability and failure probabilities are
failure probability of the top event is Q=3.932E-1. This last is
presented as follows:
reduced with 43.49% compared to the case study n°1 and with
21.16% compared to the case study n°2. This remarkable
improvement in system reliability is due to the two standby RS 1 = RUtility × RMainBus × RCB1 × RT 1 × RCB 2 × RBus 2 × RCB 3 × RMtr1
power supplies namely EE1 and EE2. From the MCS, we can
see that the simultaneously failure of the two standby power RS 1 = 0.9913 × 0.9913 × 0.9161× 0.4164 × 0.9161 × 0.9913
supplies EE1, EE2 and T1 have the great contribution to the
top event with 50.54%. This MCS has three components × 0.9161× 0.9753 = 0.3041
which have the lowest reliability value in the system (see table
II). Therefore, the failure probability is calculated as follows:

C. Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) QS1 = (1 − RS 1 ) = (1 − 0.3041) = 0.6959

The RBDs of the three case studies are presented in fig. 4.
The system reliability and failure probabilities are calculated The comparison of the failure probabilities obtained by the
using (2) and (3). The RBD results obtained for the three cases RBD and the FTA methods of the case study n° 1
studies are presented as follows: demonstrates that both methods get almost the same results.
2) Case study N°2
TABLE III. TOP EVENT PROBABILITY AND MCS OF CASE STUDY N°1 As stated above, this case study has one normal electrical
Top event failure probability Q=6.958E-1 power supply represented by the utility and one standby power
ID Probability % Event1 supply represented by the EE1. If the utility is lost; the power
1 5.836E-01 83.87 T1-TO supply of the Motor is switched to EE1 via the ATS1. The
2 8.387E-02 12.05 CB1-TO obtained system reliability and failure probabilities are
3 8.387E-02 12.05 CB3-TO presented as follows:
4 8.387E-02 12.05 CB2-TO
5 2.474E-02 3.56 MTR1-TO
6 8.722E-03 1.25 MAINBUS-TO R1 = RUtility × RMainBus × RCB1 × RT 1 × RCB 2
7 8.722E-03 1.25 BUS2-TO
= 0.9913 × 0.9913 × 0.9161× 0.4164 × 0.9161
8 8.722E-03 1.25 UTI-TO
= 0.3434
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018

0.9 Case study N°1

Case study N°2
Case study N°3
0.8

0.7

0.6

Reliability
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Number of samples
Fig. 4. RBD for the three case studies. a) case study n°1, b) case study n°2, c)
case study n°3. Fig. 5. Monte Carlo simulation results of the three cases studies.

The comparison of the failure probabilities obtained by the

RS 2 = ª¬1 − (1 − R1 )(1 − REE1 ) º¼ × RATS 1 × RBus 2 × RCB 3 × RMtr1
= ª¬1 − (1 − 0.3434 )(1 − 0.4164 )º¼ × 0.9175 × 0.9913
× 0.9161× 0.9753
= 0.5012
Therefore, the failure probability is calculated as follows:
QS 2 = 1 − RS 2 = 1 − 0.5012 = 0.4988
The comparison of the failure probabilities obtained by the
RBD and the FTA methods shows that both methods provide
almost the same results.
3) Case study N°3
This case study has one normal electrical power supply
represented by the utility and two standby power supplies EE1
and EE2. If the utility is lost, the power supply of the Motor is
switched to EE1via the ATS1. Similarly, If EE1 fails; the
electrical power supply of the motor is switched to EE2. Based
on (2) and (3), the obtained reliability and failure probabilities
are presented as follows:
RBD and the FTA of the case study n°3 indicates that both
methods provide almost the same results.
D. Monte Carlo Simulation (MC)
Figure 5 presents the MC results for the three case studies.
The number of MC samples is chosen 5000. The obtained
reliability of the three case studies is 0.3031, 0.5016, and
0.6062 respectively. Therefore, the reliability of the system is
increased proportionally with the number of redundant
components. By comparing the obtained MC results and those
obtained by the FTA and RBD methods, we can conclude that
the obtained results are almost the same.
E. Results interpretation and analysis
In this paper, the electrical power supply reliability
considering standby redundancy is modeled and evaluated
using three methods namely, FTA, RBD, and MC methods.
The detailed modeling for each case study is presented. In
order to validate the proposed methods, their obtained results
are compared. The comparison shows that the three methods
provide almost the same results for the three case studies (see
table VI, fig.6 and fig.7).

R1 = RUtility × RMainBus × RCB1 × RT 1 × RCB 2 = 0.3434 TABLE VI. RESULTS COMPARAISON OF THE THREE METHODS.
Case FTA RBD MC
R2 = RATS 2 × RBus 2 × RCB 3 × RMtr1 # Failure Failure Relative Failure Relative
probability probability error (%) probability error (%)
= 0.9175 × 0.9913 × 0.9161 × 0.9753 1 0.6958 0.6959 0.0144 0.6969 0.1581
= 0.8126 2 0.4987 0.4988 0.0201 0.4984 0,0602
3 0.3932 0.3932 0 0.3938 0.1526

( ( )
RS 3 = 1 − 1 − (1 − (1 − R1 )(1 − REE1 ) ) × RATS 1 × (1 − REE 2 ) × R2 )
(
§ 1 − 1 − (1 − (1 − 0.3434 )(1 − 0.4164 ) ) × 0.9175
=¨
) ·¸ × 0.8126
¨ × (1 − 0.4164 ) ¸
© ¹
= 0.6068

Therefore, the failure probability is calculated as follows:

QS 3 = 1- RS 3 = 1 − 0.6068 = 0.3932 Fig. 6. Illsutration of the obtained results for the three case studies.
 CISTEM’18 - Algiers, Algeria, October 29-31, 2018
Fig. 7. Relative error of RBD and MC results with respect to the FTA result.
The calculated relative error (RE) of RBD and MC results
with respect to the FTA results shows that the MC method
represents the higher RE value. This RE value can be reduced
by increasing the number of samples. Furthermore, the
obtained results show clearly that the reliability of the system
is increased proportionally with the number of redundant
components. However, the cost and the common cause
failures (CCF) probability will be increased also with the
number of redundant components. Therefore, in practice, the
compromise between the reliability and the cost must be
satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper deals with the reliability assessment of electric
power supply systems using FTA, RBD and MC methods. The
FTA method is performed using professional
RiskSpectrumPSA software and the RBD and the MC
methods are coded using Matlab software. The quantitative
evaluation of FTA provides the failure probability of the top
event. However, its qualitative assessment is based on the
calculation of MCS. The RBD and MC methods ensure the
quantitative reliability assessment by computing the failure
probability of the system. The three methods provide almost
the same failure probability of the system; which validate the
proposed reliability modeling. The application of standby
redundancy for power supply reliability is well investigated in
this paper. The obtained results show that the system
reliability is improved proportionally with the number of
standby components. However, the increase of cost and CCF
probability with the number of redundant components must be
considered. The complexity of the FTA and RBD methods can
be increased with the size of the studied system. The MC
method is suitable for the complex systems but requires large
number of samples to converge. More investigations can be
performed for deep reliability analysis such as: importance
factors calculation, aging impact and so on.
References
[1] Ajit Kumar Verma, Srividya Ajit and Durga Rao Karanki, Reliability
and Safety Engineering, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010.
[2] Mangey Ram, “On system reliability approaches: a breif survey”, Int. J
Syst Assr Eng Manag, 4(2):101-117, 2013.
[3] Abdelkader Abdelmoumene, Hamid Bentarzi, Mahfoud Chafai, and
Abderrahmane Ouadi, “Reliability assessment and improved of digital
View publication stats
protective relays”, Int. J Syst Assr Eng Manag, DOI 10.1007/s13198-
014-0300-z, 2014.
[4] J. Jaise, N.B. Ajay Kumar, N. Siva Shanmugam, K.
Sankaranarayanasamy, and T. Ramesh, “Power system: a reliability
assessment using FTA”, Int. J Syst Assr Eng Manag, 4(1):78-85, 2013.
[5] Santosh B. Rane, and Yahya A. M. Narval“Reliability assessment and
improvement of air circuit breaker (ACB) mechanism by indentifying
and eliminating the root causes”, Int. J Syst Assr Eng Manag ,7(1):305-
321, 2015.
[6] R. Benabid, Safety Assessment of Electrical Power Supply Systems
Using Fault Tree Analysis Method, IEEE 4th International Conference
on Electrical Engineering – ICEE'2015, December 13th to 15th, 2015,
Boumerdes, Algeria.
[7] Andrija Volkanovski, Impact of offsite power system reliability on
nuclear power plant safety, PhD Thesis, University of LJUBLJANA,
2008.
[8] Andrija Volkanovski, Marko Cepin, and Borut Mavko, Application of
the fault tree analysis for assessment of power system reliability,
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol.94, N 6, 2009, pp. 1116-
1127.
[9] F. Abdul Rahman, A. Varuttamaseni, M. Kimtner-Meyer, and J.C. Lee,
Application of fault tree analysis for customer reliability assessment of a
distribution power system, Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
Vol.111, N 6, 2013, pp. 76-85.
[10] Michael Anthony, Robert Anro, Neal Dowling and Robert Schuerger,
Reliability Analysis for Power to Fire Pump Using Fault Tree and RBD,
IEEE Transaction on industry Applications, Vol. 49 NO. 2, March/April
2013.
[11] K. Bourouni, Availability assessment of reverse osmosis plant:
comparaison beteween reliability block diagram and fault tree analysis
methods, Desalination 31 (213) 66-76.
[12] K. Mazlumi, and H. A. Abyaneh, Relay coordination and protection
failure effcets on reliability indices in an interconnected sub-
transmission system, Electrical power systems research 79(2009), 1011-
1017.
[13] P.M. Anderson G.M. Chintaluri S.M. Magbuhat R.F. Ghajar, An
Imprloved Reliability Model for Redundant Protective Systems -
Markov Models, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2,
May 1997.
[14] B. Yssaad and A. Abene, Rational reliability centred maintenance
optimization for power distribution systems, Electrical power and
energy systems, 73 (2015) 350-360.
[15] B. Yssaad, M. Khiat, A. Chaker, Reliability centred maintenance
optimization for power distribution systems, Electrical power and
energy systems, 55 (2014) 108-115.
[16] R. Billinton and Wenyuan Li, Reliability assessment of electric power
systems using Monte Carlo Methods, Springer Science+Business Media
New York 1994.
[17] A. Sankarakrishnan, and R. Billinton, Sequential Monte Carlo
Simulation For Composite Power System Reliability Analysis With
Time Varying Loads, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 10,
No. 3, August 1995.
[18] K. Durga Rao, et al., Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo
simulation in probabilistic safety assessment, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety 94 (2009) 872–883.
[19] Lalit Geol, and Yan Ou, Radial distribution system reliability worth
evaluation utilizing the Monte Carlo simulation technique, Computers
and electrical engineering 27 (2001) 273-285.
[20] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability evaluation of engineering
systems concepts and techniques, Springer Science+Business Media
New York 1992.
[21] IEEE standard 3006.5TM-2014, Recommended practice for the use of
probability methods for conducting a reliability analysis of industrial
and commercial power systems, IEEE, 2014.
[22] Risk Spectrum professional user manual, Relcon AB.
Marko Cepin, Assessment of Power System Reliability Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011.