1 s2.0 S2314717216301052 Main

+Model
JESIT-135; No. of Pages 17 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Transfer function based performance assessment of power

distribution facilities: A case study of distribution transformers
Chidozie Chukwuemeka Nwobi-Okoye
Chukwumeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University (Formerly Anambra State University), Anambra State, Nigeria
Received 24 September 2016; received in revised form 6 November 2016; accepted 6 December 2016
Abstract
This research reports on the application of transfer function in performance assessment of power distribution facilities of utility
companies: Shell and PHCN. It involves taking input-output data from transformers over a 1-year period and developing transfer
functions of the bimonthly transformation processes for the period. The results indicate that the distribution facility of Shell had
higher coefficients of performance (COP) than PHCN facilities. The average efficiencies of Shell’s distribution facility were well
within 90–98 percent recommended by the IEC while that of PHCN’s facility were below. Generally, there were correlation between
coefficient of performance and efficiency, but in some cases a high efficiency corresponded to low COP, a paradox confirming the
superiority of COP as a metric for performance assessment.
© 2016 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords: Transfer function; Transformer; Electricity power distribution; Performance indicators; Modelling
1. Introduction
A cardinal objective of the relentless pursuit for improved environment is the efficient utilization of natural resources
for power generation, as well as development of efficient power conversion and distribution systems. Thus, the effective
measurement of efficiency and performance of power generation, conversion or distribution systems is very necessary.
Effective and accurate determination and modelling of the efficiency of power generation and distribution facilities
helps to evaluate the performance of the facilities, diagnos fault and aids preventive maintenance (Nwobi-Okoye and
Igboanugo, 2012, 2015). According to Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2012), the five (5) Ms of production namely:
men, machines, material, method and money, could all be used at the same time in performance assessment of electrical
power facilities. If all the five (5) Ms are involved performance assessment, they termed it the Macro level analysis and
evaluations. Alternatively, when the performance assessment took into consideration one of the five (5) Ms they termed
it micro level performance assessment. Macro level performance assessment methods include, Data Envelopment
E-mail addresses: cc.nwobiokoye@coou.edu.ng, chidozien@yahoo.com

Peer review under the responsibility of Electronics Research Institute (ERI).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesit.2016.12.001
2314-7172/© 2016 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Transfer function based performance assessment of
power distribution facilities: A case study of distribution transformers. J. Electr. Syst. Inform. Technol. (2017),
+Model
2 C.C. Nwobi-Okoye / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Nomenclature
Symbols
at Error term/white noise
ACF Auto correlation function
B Backshift operator
b Transfer function lag
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion
CCF Cross correlation function
DF Degree of freedom
d Number of differencing
E Energy
g The steady state gain
H Coefficient of input variable of differential equation
h ACF/PACF lag
I Current
k Lag variable
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
MAE Mean Absolute Error
MaxAPE Maximum Absolute Percentage Error
MaxAE Maximum Absolute Error
MW Megawatts
P Power
p Order of autoregressive operator
PACF Partial Auto Correlation Function
q Order of moving average operator
r Order of the output series
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
S Sample standard deviation
s Order of the input series
t Time
TF Transfer function
V Voltage
v(B) Transfer function
Xt Process input at time t
xt Differenced input series
X̂t Input forecast
Yt Process output at time t
Ŷt Output forecast
yt Differenced output series
αt Prewhitened input series
βt Pretreated output series
γ Cross correlation function
χ Covariance function
υk Impulse response weight at lag k
θ Autoregressive operator
ϕ Autoregressive operator
Coefficient of output variable of differential equation
ω Coefficient of difference equation input variable
δ Coefficient of difference equation output variable
σ Population standard deviation
+Model
C.C. Nwobi-Okoye / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3
ρ Auto correlation function

μ Mean
η Efficiency
∇ Difference operator
ξ Difference equation variable for output
Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) (Jha and Shrestha,
2006; Atmaca and Basar, 2012). On the other hand, techniques that belong to micro level performance assessment
methods include Reliability analysis, Energy/Power Input-Output Methods etc. (El Khashab and Al Ghamedi, 2015;
Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012, 2015; Ray, 2007; Fink and Beaty, 2006; Petkov, 1996; Tang and Hui, 2001).
Modelling performance through reliability analysis is very important in preventive maintenance of power distribution
facilities. Adoghe et al. (2013) and Yssaada et al. (2014) modelled the performance of some electrical power distribution
zones in Nigeria and Algeria respectively using Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) method. The presented method
is able to deal with uncertain outage parameters and maximized the possibility of reliability improvement and loss
reduction.
The performance assessment of hydropower plants in Nepal was carried out with data envelopment analysis (DEA)
by Jha and Shrestha (2006) and Jha et al. (2007). According to Berg (2010), DEA involves a holistic measure of the
efficiency of Utilities where the input components would include man-hours, losses, capital (lines and transformers
only), and goods and services. The output variables would include number of customers, energy delivered, length of
lines, and degree of coastal exposure. DEA was used by Liu et al. (2010) for efficiency assessment of major thermal
power plants in Taiwan. The results they obtained showed that all power plants they studied achieved acceptable overall
operational efficiencies between 2004–2006 which was the study period. From their findings also, the combined cycle
power plants were the most efficient among all plants. DEA was used by Sözen et al. (2010) to conduct efficiency
analyses of some government owned thermal power plants used for electricity generation in Turkey. Two efficiency
indexes were used in the research and they were: operational and environmental performance.
According to Zhou et al. (2008), prior to 1990, the use of DEA in electricity industry mainly focused on electricity
generation plants. Since the earlier 1990s, DEA has gradually become a popular benchmarking tool for studying the
efficiency of electricity distribution utilities. Zhou et al. (2008) pointed out that the study by Weyman-Jones (1991), in
which the technical efficiency of the UK electricity distribution industry was studied, is probably the first publication
in this line.
Giannakis et al. (2005) calculated the technical efficiency of the electricity distribution utilities in the UK between
1991/92 and 1998/99 using Data Envelopment Analysis technique in their findings they showed that cost efficiency
does not necessarily correlate with high quality service. Growitsch et al. (2009) used stochastic frontier analysis
(SFA) method for efficiency analysis of electricity distribution networks from seven European countries the result they
obtained showed that that introducing the quality dimension into the analysis affects estimated efficiency significantly,
especially that smaller utilities’ efficiency seems to decrease.
Atmaca and Basar (2012) used the multi-criteria decision making technique of Analytic Network Process (ANP),
a multi-criteria evaluations of six different energy plants were performed with respect to the major criteria such as
technology and sustainability, economical suitability, life quality and socio-economic impacts.
The macro level performance assessment largely depends on the performance at the micro level. Micro level
performance relies heavily on the efficiency and reliability of the transformers, conductors etc. Efficiency has been an
important benchmark used by regulators in assessing the performance of power generation and distribution companies
(electricity utilities), and highly efficient electricity utilities are often rewarded with incentives to further boost their
performance (Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012; Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2015; Growitsch et al., 2009).
Normally, the electrical engineer determines the efficiency of a distribution facility like the transformer through the
following equation (Ray, 2007; Fink and Beaty, 2006):
η = Vout Iout t/Vin Iin t (1)
η = Eout /Ein = Pout /Pin (2)
+Model
Variability in Power Input (MWH) Variability in Power Output (MWH)
Input Process Output

Xt-b (Transformers, Relays & Switches) Yt
Fig. 1. Schematic of the input-output relationship of a power distribution system.
It has been established that this method of measuring the efficiency of systems is statistically defective (Nwobi-
Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012; Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2015; Nwobi-Okoye et al., 2016; Nwobi-Okoye and Okiy,
2016). This is because energy input to the power distribution facility is stochastic and the corresponding energy output
of the process is equally stochastic as shown in Fig. 1. This makes the determination of the relationship between input
and output quite complex.
In view of the above fact, Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2012, 2015) developed a superior, statistically robust and
highly innovative technique based on transfer function in the performance assessment of power generation systems.
Transfer function modelling is often used to measure transient input-output relationship of non equilibrium systems
(Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012, 2015). Box and Jenkins carried out the seminal work on transfer function
modelling and analysis (Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012, 2015; Box et al., 2008; Lai, 1979). Lai (1979) stated that
transfer function is frequently used to determine the causal relationship between two variables. Generally, a transfer
function relates two variables in a process; one of these is the cause (forcing function or input variable) and the other
is the effect (response or output variable) (Igboanugo and Nwobi-Okoye, 2011b).
The literature is replete with the application of Box-Jenkins transfer function model in various fields such as: physical
science, economics, management, engineering, education, computer science, sociology, biology etc (Okiy et al., 2015;
Box et al., 2008; DeLurgio, 1998). Some application of transfer function in production include the work of Webb
and Hardt (1991) who developed a transfer function modelling for quality control of sheet metal forming process.
Also, Fearn and Maris (1991) developed a model based on Box-Jenkins methodology for the feedback control of the
addition of gluten during the milling of flour. Gluten, an animal protein, is a very essential constituent of flour and
determines to a large extent its quality. Box et al. (2008) applied transfer function models to the monitoring and control
of the production of carbon IV oxide in a gas furnace. Similar applications are used in industry in the monitoring of
the production of chemicals. Schwartz and Rivera (2010) applied Box-Jenkins transfer function modelling to solving
problems of production inventory management. Disney and Towill (2002), Schwartz et al. (2005) applied transfer
function modelling to supply chain management problems.
In economic and social science applications, transfer functions could be used to predict unemployment as demon-
strated by Edlund and Karlsson (1993). For applications in prediction of prices, the works of Adebiyi et al. (2014),
Nogales and Conejo (2006), Zareipour et al. (2006), García-Martos et al. (2007) are very good examples. Preciado
et al. (2006) applied transfer function modelling in agricultural economics, specifically they used the model to obtain
a census of fish catches and efforts of their fleets which are considered suitable for the elaboration of representative
indices of catch rate (catch per unit effort). As a matter of fact, most applications of transfer functions in economic
sciences involve the determination of the causal relationship between one economic variable and another. In another
economic science application, the relationship between United States Tax Reform Act and its magnitude on business
failures was extensively studied by Choudhury (2007) using Box-Jenkins intervention analysis model. Further appli-
cations of Box-Jenkins transfer function model in economics, finance and business could be found in Cooray (2006),
Berument et al. (2006), Enders (1995), DeLurgio (1998), Limanond et al. (2011), Forst (2011) etc.
Furthermore, transfer functions could be used to model response of citizen to the enactment of certain laws. The
effects of such laws normally called interventions have been widely studied using time series analysis by employing
Box-Jenkins transfer function model. In a typical such case, Wilson et al. (2007) investigated whether a law in New
Zealand making all indoor workplaces including bars and restaurants smoke free which became operational in New
Zealand in December 2004 increased calls to the Quitline Service. The result they obtained show that the new national
smokefree law increased quitting-related behaviour. In environmental management, Box-Jenkins transfer function
modelling was used by Issarayangyun and Greaves (2006) as a tool to assess the relative importance of travel speed
+Model
(which is known as a proxy for traffic conditions) and meteorological conditions on Fine airborne particulate matter
(PM) exposure level. This is a typical application of transfer function modelling to pollution control and environmental
management. Bruun et al. (2012) showed examples of how the Box-Jenkins transfer function models can be utilised in
environmental and marine systems with simulated case studies. Valipour (2012) used Box-Jenkins model to estimate
reference potential evapotranspiration at a climate station in Iran.
In the life sciences, Box-Jenkins transfer function models are sometimes used to predict the effects of drugs on
microbes and the body, as well as biochemical responses of the body. For some applications of Box-Jenkins model to
life sciences, Aldeyab et al. (2012) used a multivariate autoregressive integrated moving average (MARIMA) model
was built to relate antibiotic use to ESB-producing bacteria incidence rates and resistance patterns over a 5 year period
(January 2005–December 2009). The study according to the authors highlights the value of time-series analysis in
designing efficient antibiotic stewardship. Chance et al. (1985) developed the concept of transfer function for organ
performance prediction which relates work output to biochemical input for skeletal and cardiac muscle under steady-
state exercise conditions. They used the model to predict the degree to which metabolic homeostasis is effective, and
also showed that poorly controlled metabolic states can readily be identified and used in the diagnosis and therapy
of metabolic disease in the organs of neonates and adults. Zhang et al. (1998) used Box-Jenkins transfer function to
model dynamic cerebral autoregulation in humans.
In applications in Engineering, Box-Jenkins transfer function model has been used to forecast wind power generation
(Foley et al., 2012). According to Su et al. (2014), forecasting the wind speed is indispensible in wind-related engineering
studies and is it is absolutely necessary in the management of wind farms, hence they successfully developed a hybrid
technique based on autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model and Kalman filter for forecasting the
daily mean wind speed in western China. Li et al. (2014) used transfer function model to forecast the power output of
a grid connected to a photovoltaic system. Pardo et al. (2002) in their paper developed a transfer function intervention
model for forecasting daily electricity load from cooling and heating degree–days in Spain. The result they obtained
showed the influence of weather and seasonality and demonstrated that it is significant even when the autoregressive
effects and the dynamic specification of the temperature are taken into account. These examples are some of the
numerous applications of Box-Jenkins method in Engineering.
As the literature shows above, the basic application of transfer function is in forecasting and intervention analysis.
Box-Jenkins transfer function model has widespread use because of its superiority to regression analysis in forecasting
and modelling of dynamic systems (Kinney, 1978; Lai, 1979; Box et al., 2008; Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012,
2015). Nwobi-Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2012, 2015) and Nwobi-Okoye et al. (2016) applied transfer function
to performance evaluation, a marked departure from forecasting and intervention analysis, which are the prevalent
applications. This research differs from others in that it marks the application of Box-Jenkins transfer function modelling
to performance modelling of power systems as exemplified by distribution transformers; A Follow-up research to
performance assessment applications stated previously. The aim of this research therefore is to develop a statistically
sound metric analogous to the six sigma concept in measuring the operations efficiency of power distribution systems
using transfer function modelling. The hubs of the investigation are some power distribution facilities of Power Holding
Company of Nigeria (PHCN) PLC, Anambra State, Nigeria and Independent Power Project (IPP) Distribution Facility
of Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (Shell’s IPP). Transfer function approach was used to appraise
the efficiency and performance of some distribution facilities PHCN and Shell’s IPP.
2. Theoretical background
In its simplest form, the mathematical representation of a linear transfer function is (Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo,
2012, 2015; Box et al., 2008):
Y ∞ = gX (3)
where Y∞ is the steady state output

g is the steady state gain
X is the steady state input
+Model
Discrete models, the subject of the case study, are often represented by difference equations such as Eq. (4) (Box
et al., 2008).
Yt = δ−1 (B) ω (B) Xt−b (4)
The ratio δ−1 (B) ω (B) in Eq. (4) is called the transfer function of the system.
The transfer function could be related to the impulse response weights, υ, as shown in Eq. (5).
Yt = v0 Xt + v1 Xt−1 + v2 Xt−2 + . . . (5)
Writing Eq. (5) in operator B format, Eq. (6) is obtained.
Yt = (v0 + v1 B + v2 B2 + . . .)Xt (6)
Yt = v (B) Xt (7)
The series Yt and Xt are modelled as an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) process (Nwobi-
Okoye and Igboanugo, 2015). Hence on further analysis the details of which could be obtained in (Nwobi-Okoye and
Igboanugo, 2015), Eq. (8) is obtained.
vk σα
γαβ (k) = (8)
σβ
Eq. (8) is an expression showing that the impulse response weight, υj is related to the cross-correlation between the
pre-whitened series αt and βt .
Furthermore, transfer function modelling comprises of three stages namely: identification, estimation and diagnosis
(Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012; Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2015; Box et al., 2008; Lai, 1979; Igboanugo and
Nwobi-Okoye, 2011a,b).
3. Methodology
The data used were a 1-year daily input-output data which was got from some power distribution facilities of PHCN
and Shell’s IPP. The transfer function modelling of the electric power distribution process was done with the obtained
data.
The model shown in Eq. (4) is a discrete transfer function model which is the most suitable for the current case
study according to the works of Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2012, 2015). Incorporating the noise term to the model
shown in Eq. (4), Eq. (9) is obtained:
Yt = δ−1 (B) ω (B) Xt−b + Nt (9)
The transfer function modelling procedure consists of the following steps:
1. Plot the gathered input/output data.

2. Achieve level and variance stationarity of Yt and Xt .
3. Fit a univariate model to xt to estimate αt .
4. Fit a univariate model to yt as a benchmark and possible Nt .
5. Use pre-whitened model of ␣t and pre-treat yt to get βt .
6. Calculate CCF(k) of βt αt-k to identify r,s and b.
7. Examine CCFs for r,s and b.
8. Estimate the transfer function (TF) using Yt and Xt .
9. Use the residual of the TF to identify Nt .
4. Results
The graphs of the input and output series for the months 1–2 of PHCN in the year 2012 are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
+Model
Fig. 2. Input series for months 1–2 (2012).
Fig. 3. Output series for months 1–2 (2012).
4.1. Analysis of input series
The input series showed evidence of stationarity which meant that it did not require differencing. Further evidence
from the ACF and PACF in Figs. 4 and 5 shows that auto regression one (AR (1)) model is the appropriate model to
use.
The formula for AR (1) models (Box et al., 2008; DeLurgio, 1998; Shumway and Stoffer, 2006) is given by Eq.
(10):
Xt = θ0 + ϕ1 Xt−1 + et (10)
But for AR (1) models, the following applies:
ACF (1) = ϕ1 = 0.888 (11)
θ0 = (1 − ϕ1 )μ (12)
θ0 = (1 − 0.888) 9.06 (13)
θ0 = 1.015 (14)
Fitting the coefficients θ0 and ϕ1 into the formula for AR (1) models, Eq. (15) is obtained.
Xt = 1.015 + 0.888Xt−1 + et (15)
+Model
Fig. 4. Input series ACF.
Fig. 5. Input series PACF.
But
et = α t (16)
In forecasting form Eq. (15) is transformed to Eq. (17):
X̂t = 1.015 + 0.888Xt−1 (17)
4.2. Analysis of output series
The input series showed evidence of stationarity which meant that it did not require differencing. Further evidence
from the ACF and PACF in Figs. 6 and 7 shows that auto regression one (AR (1)) model is the appropriate model to
use.
The formula for AR (1) models (Box et al., 2008; DeLurgio, 1998; Shumway and Stoffer, 2006) is given by Eq.
(18):
Yt = θ0 + ϕ1 Yt−1 + et (18)
+Model
Fig. 6. Output series ACF.
Fig. 7. Output series PACF.
But for AR (1) models, the following applies:

ACF (1) = ϕ1 = 0.884 (19)
θ0 = (1 − ϕ1 )μ (20)
θ0 = (1 − 0.884) 7.76 (21)
θ0 = 0.900 (22)
Fitting the coefficients θ0 and ϕ1 into the formula for AR (1) models, Eq. (23) is obtained.
Yt = 0.900 + 0.884Yt−1 + et (23)
But
et = βt (24)
+Model
Fig. 8. CCF of the pre-whitened series.
Table 1
Model Statistics 1–2.
Model Number of predictors Model fit statistics Ljung-box Q(18) Number of outliers
Stationary R-squared Statistics DF Sig.
Transfer function model 1 0.992 14.483 17 0.561 0
Eq. (23) is shown in forecasting form as Eq. (25):
Ŷt = 0.900 + 0.884Yt−1 (25)
The CCF between βt and αt is shown in Fig. 8. It has one significant CCF at lag zero (0). Evidence from the CCF
supports the following transfer function model:
yt = ω0 xt + Nt (26)
As evidenced by the Ljung-Box statistics shown in Table 1 and analysis of the residuals, the noise term Nt was
disregarded to obtain Eq. (27).
yt = ω0 xt (27)
As shown by Box et al. (2008) and DeLurgio (1998),
v0 = ω0 (28)
But
γαβ (0) Sβ
v0 = (29)
Sα
γαβ (0) is the cross correlation between α and β at lag zero (0).
But
X t − μ x = xt (30)
+Model
Table 2
Model fit 1–2.
Fit statistic Value
Stationary R-squared 0.992

R-squared 0.992
RMSE 0.191
MAPE 2.052
MaxAPE 25.153
MAE 0.114
MaxAE 0.953
Normalized BIC −3.103
And
Y t − μy = y t (31)
Substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (27), Eq. (32) is obtained.
Y t = μ y + ω0 xt (32)
In forecasting form Eq. (32) is transformed to Eq. (33).
Ŷt = μy + ω0 xt (33)
The model fit and statistics are good as shown for months 1–2 in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
For months 1–2 operations of the power station we obtained:
γαβ (0) = 0.976
Sβ = 0.96
Sα = 1.09
Hence,
0.976 × 0.96
v0 =
1.09
v0 = 0.857
ω0 = 0.857
HencefromEq.(27)
yt = 0.857xt
Since ω0 = 0.857 for the months 1–2 operation of the transformer, the transfer function obtained is:
Ŷt = μy + 0.857xt (34)
For further confirmation of the strength of the result of the transfer function model other ARIMA model where
used to build the transfer function model and compare the result. Hence, a thorough and very detailed analysis and
Examination of the results shown in Tables 3 and 4 shows that Model 1,0,0 has the least MAPE and the highest value
of R-squared. This is an indication that Model 1,0,0 is the best. Furthermore as shown in Table 4, the relatively low
value of Ljung Box Statistics (14.483) with high significance value is an indication of the goodness of the model.
It is noteworthy that as corroborated by literature (Valipour, 2015) higher values of p and q in the ARIMA model
used in this study gave generally slightly better results without differencing than the model prescribed by the ACF and
PACF in Figs. 4–7. The best result obtained, having tested different higher models up to p and q values of 5, occurred
at ARIMA (4, 0, 4). When ARIMA (4, 0, 4) was used, the MAPE obtained was 1.943 and the R2 value was 0.993.
+Model
Table 3
Summary of extensive analysis of the results of the transfer function modelling for months 1–2.
Statistics ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA ARIMA
(1,0,0) (0,1,0) (1,1,0) (1,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,2,0) (1,2,1) (0,2,1)
R-squared 0.992 0.221 0.276 0.319 0.284 0.711 0.716 −0.517 0.130 0.030
MAPE 2.052 5.119 4.793 4.942 4.813 3.408 3.280 7.083 5.095 5.211
Table 4
Summary of Ljung Box diagnostics test of the transfer function modelling for months 1–2.
Model Ljung-box Q(18)
Statistics DF Sig.
ARIMA(1,0,0) model 14.483 17 0.561

ARIMA (0,1,0) model 17.215 18 0.508
ARIMA (1,1,0) model 18.210 17 0.376
ARIMA(1,1,1) model 12.450 16 0.712
ARIMA(0,1,1) model 16.884 17 0.462
ARIMA(0,0,1) model 13.190 17 0.934
ARIMA(1,0,1) model 14.398 16 0.845
ARIMA(1,2,0) model 31.539 17 0.017
ARIMA (1,2,1) model 20.109 16 0.215
ARIMA (0,2,1) model 21.184 17 0.218
Fig. 9. Residual plot of ACF and PACF vs lag for months 1–2 (ARIMA 1,0,0).
The difference between the MAPE and R2 values for ARIMA (1, 0, 0) and ARIMA (4, 0, 4) was very small. Since the
present application was not for forecasting, and the R2 values of the models were almost the same, for parsimonious
reasons ARIMA (1, 0, 0) prescribed by the graphs of the ACF and PACF was preferred for the analysis.
The residual plot of the ACF and PACF shown in Fig. 9 shows there is no significant ACF/PACF and the plots have
no pattern. These are confirmations that the residuals are white noise.
+Model
Table 5
Transfer function models of the PHCN’s power distribution transformers.
Months Transfer function model (v(B)) Transfer function model (v(B))
(132 kVA–11 kVA transformer) (132 kVA–33 kVA transformer)
1–2 Ŷt = μy + 0.857xt Ŷt = μy + 0.862xt

3–4 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.859xt Ŷt = μy + 0.876xt
5–6 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.851xt Ŷt = μy + 0.881xt
7–8 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.864xt Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.869xt
9–10 Ŷt = μy + 0.871xt Ŷt = μy + 0.859xt
11–12 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.869xt Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.891xt
Table 6
Transfer function models of the Shell’s power distribution transformer.
Months Transfer function model (v(B)) (132 kVA–11 kVA transformer)
1–2 Ŷt = μy + 0.67xt

3–4 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 1.065xt
5–6 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 1.041xt
7–8 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 1.081xt
9–10 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 0.978xt
11–12 Ŷt = Yt−1 + 1.022xt
Table 7
Energy transformed vs coefficient of performance of the Shell’s low voltage transformer.
Years Coefficient of performance ω0
1–2 0.670
3–4 1.065
5–6 1.041
7–8 1.081
9–10 0.978
11–12 1.022
Table 8
Energy transformed vs coefficient of performance of the Phcn’s low voltage transformer.
Years Coefficient of performance ω0 Coefficient of performance ω0
(132 kVA–11 kVA transformer) (132 kVA–33 kVA transformer)
1–2 0.857 0.862

3–4 0.859 0.876
5–6 0.851 0.881
7–8 0.864 0.869
9–10 0.871 0.859
11–12 0.869 0.891
Tables 5 and 6 show the transfer function models for the twelve-month operation of the transformers.
Table 7 depicts the total monthly energy distributed together with the corresponding coefficient of performance of
the Power Station computed on monthly basis.
Tables 7 and 8 shows the coefficients of performance for the distribution transformers studied. From Table 7,
the value of ω0 in the months 1–2 was 0.670 while the value was 1.065 in the months 3–4. This indicates that the
performance of the system was more effective in the months 3–4 than in the months 1–2. The lower energy output in
the months was partly because operations efficiency was poorer in those months when compared to the months 3–4.
As shown in Fig. 10, most of the efficiency values of the low voltage transformer from Shell measured over a 122-
days period is well within the range of 90–98 percent value specified by the IEC for typical low voltage transformers
+Model
Fig. 10. Efficiencies of the low voltage transformer from Shell.
Fig. 11. Efficiencies of the low voltage transformer from PHCN.
(IEC, 2007). Similarly, most of the efficiency values of the low voltage transformer from PHCN measured over a
122-days period as shown in Fig. 11 is well below the range of 90–98 percent value specified by the IEC for typical
low voltage transformers (IEC, 2007).
5. Discussion
As Figs. 2 and 3 shows, in a power distribution system the input and output are stochastic in nature as earlier clarified.
The power distribution system which is the subject of this study is a single-input-single-output-system (SISO). As stated
by Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2015), the practical implication of Eq. (32) is that given some autonomous value μy
for every unit increase in xt , the output Yt changes by ω0 which is the coefficient of performance.
Furthermore, a very crucial consequence of the findings is that the average efficiency over a given time interval, i.e.
interval 1, could be higher in value than in another interval, i.e. interval 2, and yet the COP in the first interval could
be lower in value than in the second interval. This is in complete agreement with the findings of Nwobi-Okoye and
Igboanugo (2015).
Consider Figs. 12 and 13 which show the variations of efficiency over two periods for two transformers. Fig. 12
is for Shell’s transformer in months 1–2, while Fig. 13 is for PHCN’s transformer in months 1–2. Table 9 shows the
mean efficiency at each time interval and their associated coefficients of performance. The implication of this is that a
unit input power supplied to the transformer will change the output power by 0.67 MW in period 1 and by 0.87 MW
in period 2.
Primarily using the efficiency as the metric, the system managers would assume that period 1 was better than period
2, but in actual fact the reverse is the case. As stated by Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2015), the primary reason for
+Model
Fig. 12. Daily efficiency measurements in period 1 (Months 1–2 for Shell’s transformer).
Fig. 13. Daily efficiency measurements in period 2 (Months 1–2 for 132 kVA/11 kVA PHCN’s transformer).
Table 9
Efficiency vs coefficient of performance for two transformers.
Period Average efficiency (%) COP
1 93.79 0.670
2 85.61 0.857
performance assessment is to improve performance. Thus, better metric for performance assessment/appraisal would
help to improve system performance. Suffice it to say that to achieve higher COP, it is very necessary that the managers
need to appraise or adjust one or all of manpower, machine, money, method and material as the case may be (2015).
Generally, the major benefits of this method as stated by Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo (2015) are:
(a) Greater accuracy in efficiency measurement over a given period.

(b) Statistically robust efficiency measurements.
(c) Better plant fault diagnosis and superior aid to predictive and preventive maintenance.
Generally, Shell’s distribution transformer had higher coefficient of performance and average efficiency than PHCN’s
distribution transformers.
This case study is another practical application of theoretical proposal by Igboanugo and Nwobi-Okoye (2011c).
In two former applications a hydro power generation and gas power generation systems were analysed (Nwobi-Okoye
+Model
and Igboanugo, 2012, 2015). In the present case a power distribution system component was analysed. The coefficient
of performance is a superior metric for measuring the maintenance effectiveness and operations efficiency of systems
(Nwobi-Okoye and Igboanugo, 2012, 2015; Nwobi-Okoye et al., 2016; Nwobi-Okoye and Okiy, 2016). Operating a
facility at a very high coefficient of performance ensures long life span for the components of the distribution system,
as well as aids in conservation of energy and protection of the environment.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this research has further elucidated the superiority of coefficient of performance (COP) as a superior
metric for evaluating performance over and above efficiency. Also, values of COP obtained from transfer function
modelling are more accurate and statistically robust than equivalent model obtained from regression analysis. In
continuation, COP is found to be a more accurate performance measure for power distribution systems as exemplified
by distribution transformers. Furthermore, coefficient of performance (COP) could be a more accurate measure of
how effective electrical power distribution systems satisfy consumers. Thus with high coefficient of performance it
is assumed that electrical power is delivered very satisfactorily to consumers, on the other hand lower coefficient of
performance presupposes that the quality of electrical power delivered to consumers is low.
References
Adebiyi, A.A., Adewumi, A.O., Ayo, C.K., 2014. Comparison of ARIMA and artificial neural networks models for stock price prediction. J. Appl.
Math.
Adoghe, A.U., Awosope, C.O.A., Ekeh, J.C., 2013. Asset maintenance planning in electric power distribution network using statistical analysis of
outage data. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 47 (2013), 424–435.
Aldeyab, M.A., Harbarth, S., Vernaz, N., Kearney, M.P., Scott, M.G., Darwish Elhajji, F.W., Aldiab, M.A., McElnay, J.C., 2012. The impact
of antibiotic use on the incidence and resistance pattern of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in primary and secondary
healthcare settings. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 74 (1), 171–179.
Atmaca, E., Basar, H.B., 2012. Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using Analytic Network Process (ANP). Energy 44 (1), 555–563.
Berg, S., 2010. Water utility benchmarking: measurement, methodology, and performance incentives. Int. Water Assoc.
Berument, H., Ceylan, N.B., Gozpinar, E., 2006. Performance of soccer on the stock market: evidence from turkey. Soc. Sci. J. 43 (2006), 695–699.
Box, G.E.P., Jenkins, G.M., Reinsel, G.C., 2008. Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, USA.
Bruun, J., Somerfield, P., Allen, J.I., 2012. Applications of Box-Jenkins Transfer Function Methods to Identify Seasonal and Longer Term Trends
in Marine Time Series. ICES CM, 22.
Chance, B., Leigh Jr., J.S., Clark, B.J., Maris, J., Kent, J., Nioka, S., Smith, D., 1985. Control of oxidative metabolism and oxygen delivery in human
skeletal muscle: a steady-state analysis of the work/energy cost transfer function. PNAS 82 (24), 8384–8388.
Choudhury, A.H., 2007. Intervention impact of tax reform act on the business failure process. Acad. Account. Financ. Stud. J. 11 (3), 57–68.
Cooray, T., 2006. Analysis and evaluation of econometric time series models: dynamic transfer function approach. Proceeding of the 62th Annual
Session of the SLAAS, p. 96.
DeLurgio, S.A., 1998. Forecasting Principles and Applications, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Disney, S.M., Towill, D.R., 2002. A discrete transfer function model to determine the dynamic stability of a vendor managed inventory supply
chain? Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (1), 179–204.
Edlund, P., Karlsson, S., 1993. Int. J. Forecast. 9 (1), 61–76.
Enders, W., 1995. Applied Econometric Time Series. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
El Khashab, H., Al Ghamedi, M., 2015. Comparison between hybrid renewable energy systems in Saudi Arabia. J. Elect. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2 (1),
111–119.
Fearn, T., Maris, P.I., 1991. An application of Box-Jenkins methodology to the control of gluten addition in a flour mill. Appl. Stat. 40, 477–484.
Fink, D.G., Beaty, H.W., 2006. Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 15th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Foley, A.M., Leahy, P.G., Marvuglia, A., McKeogh, E.J., 2012. Current methods and advances in forecasting of wind power generation. Renew.
Energy 37 (1), 1–8.
Forst, F.G., 2011. Forecasting restaurant sales using multiple regression and Box-Jenkins analysis? J. Appl. Bus. Res. 8 (2), 15–19.
García-Martos, C., Rodriguez, J., Sanchez, M.J., 2007. Mixed models for short-run forecasting of electricity prices: application for the Spanish
market. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (2).
Giannakis, D., Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2005. Benchmarking and incentive regulation of quality of service: an application to the UK electricity
distribution networks. Energy Policy 33 (2005), 2256–2271.
Growitsch, C., Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M.G., 2009. Quality of service effciency, and scale in network industries: an analysis of European electricity
distribution. Appl. Econ. 44 (20), 2555–2570.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007. Efficient Electrical Energy Transmission and Distribution. IEC Newsletter. International Elec-
trotechnical Commission.
Igboanugo, A.C., Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., 2011a. Production process capability measurement and quality control using transfer functions. J. Niger.
Assoc. Math. Phys. 19 (1), 453–464.
+Model
Igboanugo, A.C., Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., 2011b. Optimisation of transfer function models using genetic algorithms. J. Niger. Assoc. Math. Phys. 19
(1), 439–452.
Igboanugo, A.C., Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., 2011c. Transfer function modelling as a tool for solving manufacturing system dysfunction. Proceedings of
NIIE 2011 Conference, August 4–6, 22–32.
Issarayangyun, T., Greaves, S., 2006. Analysis of minute-by-minute pollution exposure inside a car—a time-series modelling approach. CAITR.
Jha, D.K., Shrestha, R., 2006. Measuring efficiency of hydropower plants in Nepal using data envelopment analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21
(4), 1502–1511.
Jha, D.K., Yorino, N., Zoka, Y., 2007. A modified DEA model for benchmarking of hydropower plants. Power tech. 2007 IEEE Lausanne, July 1–5,
1374–1379.
Kinney, W.R., 1978. ARIMA and regression in analytical review: an empirical test. Account. Rev. 53 (1), 48–60.
Lai, P., 1979. Transfer Function Modelling Relationship between Time Series Variables. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography (CATMOG),
London School of Economics, No. 22 (1979).
Li, Y., Su, Y., Shu, L., 2014. An ARMAX model for forecasting the power output of a grid connected photovoltaic system. Renew. Energy 66,
78–89.
Limanond, T., Jomnonkwao, S., Srikaew, A., 2011. Projection of future transport energy demand of Thailand? Energy Policy 39 (5), 2754–2763.
Liu, C.H., Lin, S.J., Lewis, C., 2010. Evaluation of thermal power plant operational performance in Taiwan by data envelopment analysis. Energy
Policy 38 (2), 1049–1058.
Nogales, F.J., Conejo, A.J., 2006. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57 (4), 350–356.
Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Igboanugo, A.C., 2012. Performance evaluation of hydropower generation system using transfer function modelling. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 43 (1), 245–254.
Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Igboanugo, A.C., 2015. Performance appraisal of gas based electric power generation system using transfer function modelling.
Ain Shams Eng. J. 6 (2015), 541–551.
Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Okiy, S., Igboanugo, A.C., 2016. Performance evaluation of multi-input-single-output (MISO) production process using transfer
function and fuzzy logic: case study of a brewery. Ain Shams Eng. J. 7, 1001–1010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.07.008.
Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Okiy, S., 2016. Performance assessment of multi-input-single-output (MISO) production process using transfer function and
fuzzy logic: case study of soap production. Cog. Eng., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1257082.
Okiy, S., Nwobi-Okoye, C.C., Igboanugo, A.C., 2015. Transfer function modelling: a literature survey research journal of applied sciences. Eng.
Technol. 11 (11), 1265–1279.
Pardo, A., Meneu, V., Valor, E., 2002. Temperature and seasonality influences on Spanish electricity load? Energy Econ. 24 (1), 55–70.
Petkov, R., 1996. Optimum design of a high-power, high-frequency transformer. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 11 (1), 33–42.
Preciado, I., Punzon, A., Gallego, J.L., Vila, Y., 2006. Using time series methods for completing fisheries historical series. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr.
22 (1–4), 83–90.
Ray, S., 2007. Electrical power systems: concepts theory and practice. PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
Schwartz, J.D., Rivera, D.E., 2010. A process control approach to tactical inventory management in production-inventory systems. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 125 (1), 111–124.
Schwartz, J.D., Rivera, D.E., Kempf, K.G., 2005. Towards control-relevant forecasting in supply chain management. In: American Control Conference
June 8–10, 2005, Portland, OR, USA.
Shumway, R.H., Stoffer, D.S., 2006. Time Series Analysis and Its Applications in R. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street,
New York, NY 10013 USA.
Sözen, A., Alp, İ., Özdemir, A., 2010. Assessment of operational and environmental performance of the thermal power plants in Turkey by using
data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38 (10), 6194–6203.
Su, Z., Wang, J., Lu, H., Zhao, G., 2014. A new hybrid model optimized by an intelligent optimization algorithm for wind speed forecasting. Energy
Convers. Manage. 85, 443–452.
Tang, S.C., Hui, S.Y., 2001. A low-profile low-power converter with coreless PCB isolation transformer. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 16 (3),
311–315.
Valipour, M., 2015. Long term runoff study using SARIMA and ARIMA models in the United States. Meteorol. Appl. 22 (3), 592–598.
Valipour, M., 2012. Ability of box-jenkins models to estimate of reference potential evapotranspiration (a case study: Mehrabad Synoptic Station,
Tehran, Iran). IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 1 (2012), 1–11.
Webb, R.D., Hardt, D.E., 1991. Transfer function description of sheet metal forming for process control. Trans. ASME 113, 44–52.
Weyman-Jones, T.G., 1991. Productive efficiency in a regulated industry: the area electricity boards of England and Wales. Energy Econ. 13,
116–122.
Wilson, N., Sertsou, G., Edwards, R., Thomson, G., Grigg, M., Li, J., 2007. A new national smokefree law increased calls to a national quitline.
BMC Public Health 7, 75.
Yssaada, B., Khiatb, M., Chaker, A., 2014. Reliability centered maintenance optimization for power distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 55 (2014), 108–115.
Zareipour, H., Canizares, C.A., Bhattacharya, K., Thomson, J., 2006. Application of Public-Domain Market Information to Forecast Ontario’s
Wholesale Electricity Prices. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
Zhang, R., Zuckerman, J.H., Giller, C.A., Levine, B.D., 1998. Transfer function analysis of dynamic cerebral autoregulation in humans. Am. J.
Physiol. Heart. Circ. Physiol. 274 (1), H233–H241.
Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Poh, K.L., 2008. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189 (2008),
1–18.

1 s2.0 S2314717216301052 Main

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 s2.0 S2314717216301052 Main

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

+Model

JESIT-135; No. of Pages 17 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transfer function based performance assessment of power

E-mail addresses: cc.nwobiokoye@coou.edu.ng, chidozien@yahoo.com

ρ Auto correlation function

Variability in Power Input (MWH) Variability in Power Output (MWH)

Input Process Output

Fig. 1. Schematic of the input-output relationship of a power distribution system.

where Y∞ is the steady state output

Yt = δ−1 (B) ω (B) Xt−b (4)

Yt = v0 Xt + v1 Xt−1 + v2 Xt−2 + . . . (5)

Writing Eq. (5) in operator B format, Eq. (6) is obtained.

Yt = (v0 + v1 B + v2 B2 + . . .)Xt (6)

Yt = δ−1 (B) ω (B) Xt−b + Nt (9)

The transfer function modelling procedure consists of the following steps:

1. Plot the gathered input/output data.

Fig. 2. Input series for months 1–2 (2012).

Fig. 3. Output series for months 1–2 (2012).

4.1. Analysis of input series

Fig. 4. Input series ACF.

Fig. 5. Input series PACF.

4.2. Analysis of output series

Fig. 6. Output series ACF.

Fig. 7. Output series PACF.

But for AR (1) models, the following applies:

Fig. 8. CCF of the pre-whitened series.

Stationary R-squared Statistics DF Sig.

Transfer function model 1 0.992 14.483 17 0.561 0

Eq. (23) is shown in forecasting form as Eq. (25):

Ŷt = 0.900 + 0.884Yt−1 (25)

As shown by Box et al. (2008) and DeLurgio (1998),

Stationary R-squared 0.992

ARIMA(1,0,0) model 14.483 17 0.561

1–2 Ŷt = μy + 0.857xt Ŷt = μy + 0.862xt

1–2 Ŷt = μy + 0.67xt

1–2 0.857 0.862

Fig. 10. Efficiencies of the low voltage transformer from Shell.

Fig. 11. Efficiencies of the low voltage transformer from PHCN.

(a) Greater accuracy in efficiency measurement over a given period.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi