http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Cross-border transmission line losses calculation using adaptive Monte–Carlo method

Cross-border transmission line losses calculation using adaptive Monte–Carlo method

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
$19.95
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Science, Measurement & Technology — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

This study deals with calculation of transmission line losses. Having in mind that this type of losses, besides the line load and the other external input quantities such as atmospheric conditions, strongly depends on measurement uncertainty as well, the issue can be considered through finding the most convenient approach in calculation of measurement uncertainty. In this respect, two approaches (methods) are the most common: traditional method based on the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) and the adaptive Monte–Carlo method (AMC). The study reveals the main disadvantages of the GUM, which is so far considered as a most accurate method. The observed drawbacks of the GUM can be successfully overcome by using of the AMC method. The comparison between the methods is performed on 110kV cross-border transmission line from Croatian Transmission System Operator Ltd. The results show the great difference in the estimated variances, i.e. GUM variances are significantly overestimated what results in incorrect transmission losses allocation procedure with respect to its final financial effect. The study confirms that the AMC method is likely to be more practically suitable method for transmission line resistance and losses calculation.

References

    1. 1)
      • 1. ‘European network of transmission system operators for electricity’. Available at https://www.entsoe.eu/Pages/default.aspx, accessed April 2016.
    2. 2)
      • 2. ENTSO-E: ‘ENTSO-E Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2015’ (2015).
    3. 3)
      • 3. Basil, M., Papadopoulos, C., Sutherland, D., et al: ‘Application of probabilistic uncertainty methods (Monte- Carlo simulation) in flow measurement uncertainty estimation’. Flow Measurement 2001 – Int. Conf. Application, 2001, pp. 121.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Solaguren-Beascoa Fernández, M., Alegre Calderón, J.M., Bravo Díez, P.M.: ‘Implementation in MATLAB of the adaptive Monte Carlo method for the evaluation of measurement uncertainties’, Accredit. Qual. Assur., 2009, 14, (2), pp. 95106.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Cox, M.G., Siebert, B.R.L.: ‘The use of a Monte Carlo method for evaluating uncertainty and expanded uncertainty’, Metrologia, 2006, 43, pp. S178S188.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Ferrero, A., Salicone, S.: ‘Fully comprehensive mathematical approach to the expression of uncertainty in measurement’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2006, 55, (3), pp. 706712.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Giordani, A., Mari, L.: ‘Measurement, models, and uncertainty’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2012, 61, (8), pp. 21442152.
    8. 8)
      • 8. JCGM 100:2008: ‘Evaluation of measurement data—guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement’ (2008).
    9. 9)
      • 9. Esward, T.J., de Ginestous, A., Harris, P.M., et al: ‘A Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation implemented on a distributed computing system’, Metrologia, 2007, 44, (5), pp. 319326.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, P., González-Aguilera, D., Hernández-López, D., et al: ‘Accuracy assessment of airborne laser scanner dataset by means of parametric and non-parametric statistical methods’, IET Sci. Meas. Technol., 2015, 9, (4), pp. 505513.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Couto, P.R.G., Damasceno, J.C., Oliveira, S.P.: ‘Monte Carlo simulations applied to uncertainty in measurement’. in Prof. Wai Kin (Victor), Chan (Ed.): ‘Theory and Applications of Monte Carlo Simulations’ (InTech, 2013, 1st edn.), pp. 2751.
    12. 12)
      • 12. Hall, B.D.: ‘Notes on complex measurement uncertainty – Part 2’ (2010), 2012.
    13. 13)
      • 13. Pavese, F.: ‘On the degree of objectivity of uncertainty evaluation in metrology and testing’, Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed., 2009, 42, (9), pp. 12971303.
    14. 14)
      • 14. Chen, H.-C., Wu, P.-C., Huang, J.-Y., et al: ‘Uncertainty analysis for measurement of measurand’, Measurement, 2010, 43, (9), pp. 12501254.
    15. 15)
      • 15. Ferrero, A., Salicone, S.: ‘Uncertainty: only one mathematical approach to its evaluation and expression?’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2012, 61, (8), pp. 21672178.
    16. 16)
      • 16. Tokarska, M.: ‘Evaluation of measurement uncertainty of fabric surface resistance implied by the van der pauw equation’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2014, 63, (6), pp. 15931599.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Vilbaste, M., Slavin, G., Saks, O., et al: ‘Can coverage factor 2 be interpreted as an equivalent to 95% coverage level in uncertainty estimation? Two case studies’, Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed., 2010, 43, (3), pp. 392399.
    18. 18)
      • 18. JCGM: ‘Evaluation of measurement data – supplement 1 to the ‘guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement– propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method’ (2008).
    19. 19)
      • 19. Hall, B.D.: ‘Evaluating methods of calculating measurement uncertainty’, Metrologia, 2008, 45, (2), pp. L5L8.
    20. 20)
      • 20. Wang, C.M., Iyer, H.K.: ‘On non-linear estimation of a measurand’, Metrologia, 2012, 49, pp. 2026.
    21. 21)
      • 21. Harris, P., Matthews, C.E., Cox, M.G., et al: ‘Summarizing the output of a Monte Carlo’, Metrologia, 2014, 51, pp. 243252.
    22. 22)
      • 22. Harris, P.M., Cox, M.G.: ‘On a Monte Carlo method for measurement uncertainty evaluation and its implementation’, Metrologia, 2014, 51, pp. S176S182.
    23. 23)
      • 23. Bich, W.: ‘From errors to probability density functions. Evolution of the concept of measurement uncertainty’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2012, 61, (8), pp. 21532159.
    24. 24)
      • 24. Bich, W.: ‘Uncertainty evaluation by means of a Monte Carlo approach’. BIPM Workshop 2 on CCRI, 2008.
    25. 25)
      • 25. Cox, M.G., Harris, P.M.: ‘Software specifications for uncertainty evaluation’ (2006).
    26. 26)
      • 26. Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L., Ribeiro, A.S., Almeida, M.d.C.: ‘Evaluation of uncertainties in measurements’ (2011).
    27. 27)
      • 27. Dobrić, G., Žarković, M., Šošić, D.: ‘Fuzzy-based Monte Carlo simulation for harmonic load flow in distribution networks’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, 9, (3), pp. 267275.
    28. 28)
      • 28. Azpurua, M., Tremola, C., Paez, E.: ‘Comparison of the GUM and Monte Carlo methods for the uncertainty estimation in electromagnetic compatibility testing’, Prog. Electromagn. Res., 2011, 34, (September), pp. 125144.
    29. 29)
      • 29. Wübbeler, G., Harris, P.M., Cox, M.G., et al: ‘A two-stage procedure for determining the number of trials in the application of a Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation’, Metrologia, 2010, 47, (3), pp. 317324.
    30. 30)
      • 30. Hall, B.D.: ‘Expanded uncertainty regions for complex quantities’, Metrologia, 2013, 50, (5), pp. 490498.
    31. 31)
      • 31. JCGM: ‘JCGM 102: 2011 evaluation of measurement data – supplement 2 to the ‘guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement’ – extension to any number of output quantities’ (2011).
    32. 32)
      • 32. Nachtigalová, I., Suchánek, M.: ‘Measurement uncertainty evaluation using Monte Carlo method'no date, 0, pp. 17.
    33. 33)
      • 33. Modrić, Ž., Kovač, Z., Fekete, K.: ‘Determination of energy interchanged on the tie lines—some practical issues’, J. Energy Power Eng., 2014, 8, pp. 948956.
    34. 34)
      • 34. Landes&Gyr AG: ‘High precision metering ZMQ202/ZFQ202 user manual’ (2005).
    35. 35)
      • 35. Ramboz, J.D., Petersons, O.: ‘A calibration service for currentTransformers’ (NIST Special Publication 250-36, 1991).
    36. 36)
      • 36. Ferrero, A., Prioli, M., Salicone, S.: ‘The construction of joint possibility distributions of random contributions to uncertainty’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2014, 63, (1), pp. 8088.
    37. 37)
      • 37. Mathworks: ‘dfittool’. Available at http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/dfittool.html, accessed June2016.
    38. 38)
      • 38. Vardi, M.Y.: ‘Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs’. 26th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, 1985. 1985, pp. 327338.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-smt.2016.0367
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-smt.2016.0367
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address