A Framework for Reliability Assessment in Expansion Planning of Power Distribution Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it