Power shortage is a severe problem in developing countries that are rolling to blackout, but today smart grids have the scope to avoid entire blackouts by transforming them into brownouts. A brownout is an under-voltage condition where the AC supply drops below the nominal value (120 V or 220 V) by about 10%. In a power system network, power shortages or disturbances can occur at any time, and the reliability margin analysis is essential to maintain the stability of the system. Transmission reliability margin (TRM) is a margin that keeps the network secure during any occurrence of disturbance. This paper presents a new approach to compute TRM in the case of brownout. The detailed assessment of TRM largely depends on the estimation of the available transfer power (ATC). In this method, the ATC of the system is calculated considering the effect of alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) reactive power (Q) flow (DCQF). The entire procedure is carried out for the multi-transaction IEEE-6 bus system, and the results are compared to the current efficiency justification method. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed technique is an effective alternative for calculating the TRM and is valid compared to the existing technique.
Citation: Awatif Nadia, Md. Sanwar Hossain, Md. Mehedi Hasan, Sinthia Afrin, Md Shafiullah, Md. Biplob Hossain, Khondoker Ziaul Islam. Determination of transmission reliability margin for brownout[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(5): 1009-1026. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021046
[1] | Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . On Balancing between Optimal and Proportional categorical predictions. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(1): 129-137. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.129 |
[2] | Dongyang Yang, Wei Xu . Statistical modeling on human microbiome sequencing data. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2019, 4(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2019001 |
[3] | Wenxue Huang, Xiaofeng Li, Yuanyi Pan . Increase statistical reliability without losing predictive power by merging classes and adding variables. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 341-348. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016014 |
[4] | Jianguo Dai, Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . A category-based probabilistic approach to feature selection. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 14-21. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017020 |
[5] | Amanda Working, Mohammed Alqawba, Norou Diawara, Ling Li . TIME DEPENDENT ATTRIBUTE-LEVEL BEST WORST DISCRETE CHOICE MODELLING. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 55-72. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2018010 |
[6] | Xiaoxiao Yuan, Jing Liu, Xingxing Hao . A moving block sequence-based evolutionary algorithm for resource investment project scheduling problems. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 39-58. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017007 |
[7] | Yaguang Huangfu, Guanqing Liang, Jiannong Cao . MatrixMap: Programming abstraction and implementation of matrix computation for big data analytics. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 349-376. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016015 |
[8] | Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong . An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006 |
[9] | Wenxue Huang, Qitian Qiu . Forward Supervised Discretization for Multivariate with Categorical Responses. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 217-225. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016005 |
[10] | Yiwen Tao, Zhenqiang Zhang, Bengbeng Wang, Jingli Ren . Motality prediction of ICU rheumatic heart disease with imbalanced data based on machine learning. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2024, 8(0): 43-64. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2024003 |
Power shortage is a severe problem in developing countries that are rolling to blackout, but today smart grids have the scope to avoid entire blackouts by transforming them into brownouts. A brownout is an under-voltage condition where the AC supply drops below the nominal value (120 V or 220 V) by about 10%. In a power system network, power shortages or disturbances can occur at any time, and the reliability margin analysis is essential to maintain the stability of the system. Transmission reliability margin (TRM) is a margin that keeps the network secure during any occurrence of disturbance. This paper presents a new approach to compute TRM in the case of brownout. The detailed assessment of TRM largely depends on the estimation of the available transfer power (ATC). In this method, the ATC of the system is calculated considering the effect of alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) reactive power (Q) flow (DCQF). The entire procedure is carried out for the multi-transaction IEEE-6 bus system, and the results are compared to the current efficiency justification method. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed technique is an effective alternative for calculating the TRM and is valid compared to the existing technique.
Multi-nominal data are common in scientific and engineering research such as biomedical research, customer behavior analysis, network analysis, search engine marketing optimization, web mining etc. When the response variable has more than two levels, the principle of mode-based or distribution-based proportional prediction can be used to construct nonparametric nominal association measure. For example, Goodman and Kruskal [3,4] and others proposed some local-to-global association measures towards optimal predictions. Both Monte Carlo and discrete Markov chain methods are conceptually based on the proportional associations. The association matrix, association vector and association measure were proposed by the thought of proportional associations in [9]. If there is no ordering to the response variable's categories, or the ordering is not of interest, they will be regarded as nominal in the proportional prediction model and the other association statistics.
But in reality, different categories in the same response variable often are of different values, sometimes much different. When selecting a model or selecting explanatory variables, we want to choose the ones that can enhance the total revenue, not just the accuracy rate. Similarly, when the explanatory variables with cost weight vector, they should be considered in the model too. The association measure in [9],
To implement the previous adjustments, we need the following assumptions:
It needs to be addressed that the second assumption is probably not always the case. The law of large number suggests that the larger the sample size is, the closer the expected value of a distribution is to the real value. The study of this subject has been conducted for hundreds of years including how large the sample size is enough to simulate the real distribution. Yet it is not the major subject of this article. The purpose of this assumption is nothing but a simplification to a more complicated discussion.
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the adjustment to the association measure when the response variable has a revenue weight; section 3 considers the case where both the explanatory and the response variable have weights; how the adjusted measure changes the existing feature selection framework is presented in section 4. Conclusion and future works will be briefly discussed in the last section.
Let's first recall the association matrix
γs,t(Y|X)=E(p(Y=s|X)p(Y=t|X))p(Y=s)=α∑i=1p(X=i|Y=s)p(Y=t|X=i);s,t=1,2,..,βτY|X=ωY|X−Ep(Y)1−Ep(Y)ωY|X=EX(EY(p(Y|X)))=β∑s=1α∑i=1p(Y=s|X=i)2p(X=i)=β∑s=1γssp(Y=s) | (1) |
Our discussion begins with only one response variable with revenue weight and one explanatory variable without cost weight. Let
Definition 2.1.
ˆωY|X=β∑s=1α∑i=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rsp(X=i)=β∑s=1γssp(Y=s)rsrs>0,s=1,2,3...,β | (2) |
Please note that
It is easy to see that
Example.Consider a simulated data motivated by a real situation. Suppose that variable
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
Let us first consider the association matrix
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
Please note that
The correct prediction contingency tables of
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
The total number of the correct predictions by
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
Given that
In summary, it is possible for an explanatory variable
Let us further discuss the case with cost weight vector in predictors in addition to the revenue weight vector in the dependent variable. The goal is to find a predictor with bigger profit in total. We hence define the new association measure as in 3.
Definition 3.1.
ˉωY|X=α∑i=1β∑s=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rscip(X=i) | (3) |
Example. We first continue the example in the previous section with new cost weight vectors for
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
By
We then investigate how the change of cost weight affect the result. Suppose the new weight vectors are:
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
Hence
By the updated association defined in the previous section, we present the feature selection result in this section to a given data set
At first, consider a synthetic data set simulating the contribution factors to the sales of certain commodity. In general, lots of factors could contribute differently to the commodity sales: age, career, time, income, personal preference, credit, etc. Each factor could have different cost vectors, each class in a variable could have different cost as well. For example, collecting income information might be more difficult than to know the customer's career; determining a dinner waitress' purchase preference is easier than that of a high income lawyer. Therefore we just assume that there are four potential predictors,
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
The first variable to be selected is
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |
As we can see, all
In summary, the updated association with cost and revenue vector not only changes the feature selection result by different profit expectations, it also reflects a practical reality that collecting information for more variables costs more thus reduces the overall profit, meaning more variables is not necessarily better on a Return-Over-Invest basis.
We propose a new metrics,
The presented framework can also be applied to high dimensional cases as in national survey, misclassification costs, association matrix and association vector [9]. It should be more helpful to identify the predictors' quality with various response variables.
Given the distinct character of this new statistics, we believe it brings us more opportunities to further studies of finding the better decision for categorical data. We are currently investigating the asymptotic properties of the proposed measures and it also can be extended to symmetrical situation. Of course, the synthetical nature of the experiments in this article brings also the question of how it affects a real data set/application. It is also arguable that the improvements introduced by the new measures probably come from the randomness. Thus we can use
[1] |
Billinton R (1994) Evaluation of reliability worth in an electric power system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 46: 15-23. doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(94)90044-2
![]() |
[2] | Bazovsky I (2004) Reliability Theory and Practice. Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA. |
[3] | Sun X, Chen J, Zhu Q, et al. (2016) Assessment of transmission reliability margin using stochastic response surface method. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). |
[4] |
Zhang J, Dobson I, Alvarado FL (2004) Quantifying transmission reliability margin. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 26: 697-702. doi: 10.1016/S0142-0615(04)00071-7
![]() |
[5] |
Rodrigues AB, Silva MG Da (2011) Chronological simulation for transmission reliability margin evaluation with time-varying loads. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 33: 1054-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.01.024
![]() |
[6] |
Othman MM bin, Mohamed A, Hussain A (2008) Determination of transmission reliability margin using parametric bootstrap technique. IEEE Trans Power Syst 23: 1689-1700. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2008.2004734
![]() |
[7] |
Zaini RH, Othman MM bin, Musirin I, et al. (2010) Determination of transmission reliability margin considering uncertainties of system operating condition and transmission line outage. Eur Trans Electr Power 21: 380-397. doi: 10.1002/etep.448
![]() |
[8] |
Li D, Chen Y, Lu W, et al. (2011) Stochastic response surface method for reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated non-normal variables. Comput Geotech 38: 58-68. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.10.006
![]() |
[9] | Nadia A, Chowdhury AH (2019) Transmission reliability margin calculation by modified DC load flow method. International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE). |
[10] | Othman MM bin, Mohamed A, Hussain A (2006) Determination of available transfer capability incorporating transmission reliability margin. IEEE International Power and Energy Conference. |
[11] | Khatavkar V, Swathi D, Mayadeo H, et al. (2018) Short-term estimation of transmission reliability margin using artificial neural networks. In International Proceedings on Advances in Soft Computing, Intelligent Systems and Applications, Springer, Singapore. |
[12] |
Nadia A, Chowdhury AH, Mahfuj E, et al. (2020) Determination of transmission reliability margin using AC load flow. AIMS Energy 8: 701-720. doi: 10.3934/energy.2020.4.701
![]() |
[13] |
Ou Y, Singh C (2002) Assessment of available transfer capability and margins. IEEE Trans Power Syst 17: 463-468. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2002.1007919
![]() |
[14] | Ian D, Greene S, Rajaraman R, et al. (2001) Electric power transfer capability: concepts, applications, sensitivity, and uncertainty. PSERC: 01-34. |
[15] | Sharma AK, Kumar J (2011) ACPTDF for Multi-transactions and ATC determination in deregulated markets. Inter J Electr Comput Eng (IJECE) 1: 71-84. |
[16] | Manjusha S, Rao JS (2015) Determination of ATC for single and multiple transactions in restructured power systems. Int J Electr Electr Eng, 2. |
[17] | Kumar A, Kumar M (2013) Available transfer capability determination using power transfer distribution factors. Int J Emerging Electr Power Syst 3: 1171-1176. |
[18] |
Duong TL, Nguyen TT, Nguyen NA, et al. (2020) Available transfer capability determination for the electricity market using cuckoo search algorithm. Eng Technol Appl Sci Res10: 5340-5345. doi: 10.48084/etasr.3338
![]() |
[19] |
Chen H, Fang X, Zhang R, et al. (2017) Available transfer capability evaluation in a deregulated electricity market considering correlated wind power. IET Gener, Trans Distrib 12: 53-61. doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2016.1883
![]() |
[20] |
Ahmad AS, Adamu SS, Buhari M (2019) Available transfer capability enhancement with FACTS using hybrid PI-PSO. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 27: 2881-2897. doi: 10.3906/elk-1812-54
![]() |
[21] |
Mohammed OO, Mustafa MW, Mohammed DSS, et al. (2019) Available transfer capability calculation methods: A comprehensive review. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 29: 1-24. doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.2846
![]() |
[22] | Grijalva S, Sauer PW (1999) Reactive power considerations in linear ATC computation. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. HICSS-32. |
[23] |
Gao Y, Li G, Zhou M (2009) Available transfer capability evaluation based on sensitivity analysis. IFAC Proceedings Vol 42: 62-67. doi: 10.3182/20090705-4-SF-2005.00013
![]() |
[24] |
Christie RD, Wollenberg BF, Wangensteen I (2000) Transmission management in the deregulated environment. Proceedings IEEE 88: 170-195. doi: 10.1109/5.823997
![]() |
[25] | Beagam KSH, Jayashree R, Khan MA (2017) A new DC power flow model for Q flow analysis for use in reactive power market. Eng Sci Technol, Int J 20: 721-729. |
[26] |
Greene S, Dobson I, Alvarado FL (2002) Sensitivity of transfer capability margins with a fast formula. IEEE Trans Power Syst 17: 34-40. doi: 10.1109/59.982190
![]() |
[27] | Nadia A, Chowdhury AH (2019) Correlation between transmission reliability margin and standard deviation of uncertainty. 5th International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE). |
[28] | Lane JE, Zulim D (2011) Equipment and methods for emergency lighting that provides brownout detection and protection. ABL IP Holding LLC, U.S. Patent 7,863,832. |
[29] | Basina DR, Kumar S, Padhi S, et al. (2020) Brownout based blackout avoidance strategies in smart grids. IEEE Trans Sustainable Comput. |
[30] |
Zhang Y, Wang L, Xiang Y, et al. (2015) Power system reliability evaluation with SCADA cybersecurity considerations. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 6: 1707-1721. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2015.2396994
![]() |
[31] |
Nadia A, Hossain MS, Hasan MM, et al. (2021) Quantifying TRM by modified DCQ load flow method. Eur J Electr Eng 23: 157-163. doi: 10.18280/ejee.230210
![]() |
[32] | Hossain MS, Rahman MF (2020) Hybrid solar PV/Biomass powered energy efficient remote cellular base stations. Int J Renewable Energy Res 10: 329-342. |
[33] |
Jahid A, Hossain MS, Monju MKH, et al. (2020) Techno-Economic and energy efficiency analysis of optimal power supply solutions for green cellular base stations. IEEE Access 8: 43776-43795. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973130
![]() |
[34] |
Hossain MS, Jahid A, Islam KZ, et al. (2020) Solar PV and biomass resources-based sustainable energy supply for Off-Grid cellular base stations. IEEE Access 8: 53817-53840. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2978121
![]() |
[35] |
Hossain MS, Jahid A, Islam KZ, et al. (2020) Multi-Objective optimum design of hybrid renewable energy system for sustainable energy supply to a green cellular networks. Sustainability 12: 3536. doi: 10.3390/su12093536
![]() |
[36] |
Abunima H, Teh J, Lai CM, et al. (2018) A systematic review of reliability studies on composite power systems: a coherent taxonomy motivation, open challenges, recommendations, and new research directions. Energies 11: 2417. doi: 10.3390/en11092417
![]() |
[37] | Paveethra SR, Kalavalli C, Vijayalakshmi S, et al. (2020) Evaluation of voltage stability of transmission line with contingency analysis. Int J Sci Technol Res 9: 1-4. |
[38] |
Li X, Jiang T, Liu G, et al. (2020) Bootstrap-based confidence interval estimation for thermal security region of bulk power grid. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 115: 105498. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105498
![]() |
[39] |
Adusumilli BS, Kumar BK (2018) Modified affine arithmetic based continuation power flow analysis for voltage stability assessment under uncertainty. IET Gener, Trans Distrib 12: 4225-4232. doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.5479
![]() |
[40] |
Lee Y, Song H (2019) A reactive power compensation strategy for voltage stability challenges in the Korean power system with dynamic loads. Sustainability 11: 326. doi: 10.3390/su11020326
![]() |
[41] |
Teh J, Lai CM, Cheng YH (2017) Impact of the real-time thermal loading on the bulk electric system reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 66: 1110-1119. doi: 10.1109/TR.2017.2740158
![]() |
[42] |
Teh J (2018) Uncertainty analysis of transmission line end-of-life failure model for bulk electric system reliability studies. IEEE Trans Reliab 67: 1261-1268. doi: 10.1109/TR.2018.2837114
![]() |
[43] |
Teh J, Lai CM (2019) Reliability impacts of the dynamic thermal rating system on smart grids considering wireless communications. IEEE Access 7: 41625-41635. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2907980
![]() |
[44] |
Teh J, Lai CM (2019) Reliability impacts of the dynamic thermal rating and battery energy storage systems on wind-integrated power networks. Sustainable Energy, Grids Networks 20: 100268. doi: 10.1016/j.segan.2019.100268
![]() |
[45] |
Metwaly MK, Teh J (2020) Probabilistic peak demand matching by battery energy storage alongside dynamic thermal ratings and demand response for enhanced network reliability. IEEE Access 8: 181547-181559. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3024846
![]() |
[46] |
Teh J, Lai CM, Cheng YH (2018) Improving the penetration of wind power with dynamic thermal rating system, static VAR compensator and multi-objective genetic algorithm. Energies 11: 815. doi: 10.3390/en11040815
![]() |
[47] |
Metwaly MK, Teh J (2020) Optimum network ageing and battery sizing for improved wind penetration and reliability. IEEE Access 8: 118603-118611. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005676
![]() |
[48] |
Hossain MS, Rahman M, Sarker MT, et al. (2019) A smart IoT based system for monitoring and controlling the sub-station equipment. Internet of Things 7: 100085. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2019.100085
![]() |
[49] | Jahid A, Islam KZ, Hossain S, et al. (2019) Performance evaluation of cloud radio access network with hybrid power supplies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Industry 4.0 (STI). |
[50] |
Haque ME, Asikuzzaman M, Khan IU, et al. (2020) Comparative study of IoT-based topology maintenance protocol in a wireless sensor network for structural health monitoring. Remote Sensing 12: 2358. doi: 10.3390/rs12152358
![]() |
[51] |
Sauer PW (1997) Technical challenges of computing available transfer capability (ATC) in electric power systems. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 5: 589-593. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.1997.663220
![]() |
[52] |
Sauer PW (1998) Alternatives for calculating transmission reliability margin (TRM) in available transfer capability (ATC). In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 3: 89. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.1998.656069
![]() |
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |