IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v233y2019i2p118-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk analysis in low-voltage distribution systems

Author

Listed:
  • Mostafa Aliyari
  • Yonas Z Ayele
  • Abbas Barabadi
  • Enrique Lopez Droguett

Abstract

Electric power distribution is a complex network involving technical challenges from a wide range of sources, a considerable degree of risk and substantial financial resources. Design and maintenance strategies must take account of the risk of failure of distribution components, that is, both the probability of failure and its consequences have to be considered. Historical failure and repair data are essential inputs for risk analysis, since they reflect the actual operational conditions that the system and its components have experienced. Failure and repair data analysis generally aims at decreasing the risk of failure, by providing essential information for maintenance and logistic planning to reduce the probability, as well as the consequence, of failure. Hence, when maintaining and designing distribution networks, it is imperative to identify and quantify all risks – direct financial, health, safety and environmental, and reputation – using the field failure and repair data. However, in the majority of the available literature regarding the failure and repair data analysis of distribution networks, especially the low-voltage distribution, the set of risk analysis principles is not integrated or in some cases is not detailed. The purpose of this article is to propose a methodology for identifying a suitable failure analysis tool for low-voltage distribution by integrating a set of risk analysis principles, as well as the reliability and maintainability estimation. The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by a real case study via an evaluation of the power outages data.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostafa Aliyari & Yonas Z Ayele & Abbas Barabadi & Enrique Lopez Droguett, 2019. "Risk analysis in low-voltage distribution systems," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 118-138, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:233:y:2019:i:2:p:118-138
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X18759806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X18759806
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X18759806?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine E. Althaus, 2005. "A Disciplinary Perspective on the Epistemological Status of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 567-588, June.
    2. Røed, Willy & Mosleh, Ali & Vinnem, Jan Erik & Aven, Terje, 2009. "On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 445-455.
    3. Harry Otway & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1992. "Expert Judgment in Risk Analysis and Management: Process, Context, and Pitfalls," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 83-93, March.
    4. Barabadi, Abbas & Barabady, Javad & Markeset, Tore, 2014. "Application of reliability models with covariates in spare part prediction and optimization – A case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-7.
    5. Barabadi, Abbas & Tobias Gudmestad, Ove & Barabady, Javad, 2015. "RAMS data collection under Arctic conditions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 92-99.
    6. Louit, D.M. & Pascual, R. & Jardine, A.K.S., 2009. "A practical procedure for the selection of time-to-failure models based on the assessment of trends in maintenance data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(10), pages 1618-1628.
    7. Stephanie E. Chang & Timothy McDaniels & Jana Fox & Rajan Dhariwal & Holly Longstaff, 2014. "Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 416-434, March.
    8. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    9. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    10. Mojgan Aalipour & Yonas Zewdu Ayele & Abbas Barabadi, 2016. "Human reliability assessment (HRA) in maintenance of production process: a case study," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 7(2), pages 229-238, June.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    2. Rezgar Zaki & Abbas Barabadi & Javad Barabady & Ali Nouri Qarahasanlou, 2022. "Observed and unobserved heterogeneity in failure data analysis," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(1), pages 194-207, February.
    3. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    4. Garmabaki, A.H.S. & Ahmadi, Alireza & Block, Jan & Pham, Hoang & Kumar, Uday, 2016. "A reliability decision framework for multiple repairable units," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 78-88.
    5. Rajkumar Bhimgonda Patil & Basavraj S Kothavale & Laxman Yadu Waghmode, 2019. "Selection of time-to-failure model for computerized numerical control turning center based on the assessment of trends in maintenance data," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 105-117, April.
    6. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    8. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    10. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    11. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    12. Naseri, Masoud & Baraldi, Piero & Compare, Michele & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Availability assessment of oil and gas processing plants operating under dynamic Arctic weather conditions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 66-82.
    13. Zygimantas Meskauskas & Egidijus Kazanavicius, 2022. "About the New Methodology and XAI-Based Software Toolkit for Risk Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    14. Tom McLeod Logan & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema & Roger Flage, 2022. "Risk science offers an integrated approach to resilience," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 741-748, September.
    15. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    16. Ali N Qarahasanlou & Abbas Barabadi & Yonas Z Ayele, 2018. "Production performance analysis during operation phase: A case study," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(6), pages 559-575, December.
    17. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Bayesian analysis: Critical issues related to its scope and boundaries in a risk context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    19. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:233:y:2019:i:2:p:118-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.