Defining a new index to compare the resilience of different structures of an electrical energy network

Abstract

The issue of resilience in electrical distribution systems has been proposed increasingly with the frequent occurrence of natural disasters in recent years and the imposition of high costs due to widespread power outages. To date, various resilience indices have been proposed, some of which have been improved upon over time by extensive research, leading to more comprehensive indices. However, a standard index has not yet been approved and presented in this regard by international committees, despite the efforts made. The issue of resilience in electrical networks was examined by curve analysis index in more detail compared to other proposed indices, although it is not yet complete and should be investigated from various aspects and its shortcomings be eliminated. The present study aims to evaluate some fundamental obstacles in the "curve analysis" index and correct it in a new index called "Combining Investment and Reform" (CIR) index. Two issues of "costs in terms of investment and repairs imposed by the event" and "need to separate critical and non-critical loads" are considered simultaneously in the proposed index. Finally, the capabilities of the proposed index are evaluated and compared in a sample electrical network in the face of events with different intensities.

Multi-Indicator Fused Resilience Assessment of Power Grids Considering Wind-Photovoltaic Output Uncertainty during Typhoon Disasters

“…Regarding the existing studies on the resilience assessment, most of them put forward or employ a single resilience indicator to assess resilience of power grids in the face of natural disasters, which has certain limitations [37]. For instance, using the resilience trapezoidal area as a single resilience indicator makes it difficult to distinguish the impact of load loss time and degree, resulting in the same results on resilience indicators for short-term but large-loss scenarios and long-term but small-loss scenarios [38]. On the other hand, few studies employ the multidimensional resilience assessment framework [39], and the associated indicators often lack intuitiveness.…”