A Framework for Reliability Assessment in Expansion Planning of Power Distribution Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a framework that uses analytical assessment of reliability to guide the expansion planning of power distribution systems (PDS) considering reliability criteria. The framework allows the estimation of reliability indices with and without the execution of expansion projects, thus supporting the decision-making process on investments in expansion projects. In the analytical assessment of reliability, failure rates of zones and restoration times are calculated from past data of interruptions in the primary distribution network. In addition, the estimated reliability indices are adjusted to historical values through failure rates proportionate to the length of each zone. To test and validate the proposed framework, it was applied to the distribution network at bus 5 of the Roy Billinton Test System (RBTS) and also to a real distribution feeder located in Brazil. The results indicated that the proposed framework can help define the most attractive investments leading to improvements in reliability indices and reduction in unsupplied energy. The estimation of reliability indices and energy not supplied, considered the following expansion alternatives: (i) the installation of normally-closed sectionalizing switches, (ii) the installation of normally-open switches with interconnection to adjacent feeders, (iii) the automation of switches, and (iv) the reconductoring of zones of the primary distribution network. Nevertheless, the proposed framework allows the inclusion of other expansion alternatives. Finally, the proposed framework proved to be handy and useful for real-life applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".