Está en la página 1de 6

I E E E Transactions o n Power Systems, Vol. 13, No.

3, Auguslt 1998


M.K.C. Marwali
S.M. Shahidehpour
Department of Electr ical and Computer Engineering
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, Illinois 606 16
Abstract- Most unit maintenance scheduling packages consider
preventive maintenance schedule of generating units over a on(: or
two year operational planning period in order to minimize the t3tal
operating cost while satisfying system energy requirements and
maintenance constraints. In a global maintenance scheduiing
problem, we propose to consider transmission line maintenance
scheduling and line capacity limits along with generation and line
outages. The inclusion of transmission and network constraint:; in
generating unit maintenance will increase the complexity of the
problem, so we propose
to decompose
the global
generator/transmission scheduling problem into a master problem
and sub-problems using Benders decomposition. In the first stage, a
master problem is solved to determine a solution for maintenance
schedule decision variables. In the second stage, sub-problems are
solved to minimize operating costs while satisfying the network
constraints. Benders cuts based on the solution of the sub-problem
are introduced to the master problem for improving the existing
solution. The iterative procedure continues until an optimal or near
optimal solution is found.
Keywords: Generation maintenance scheduling, transmission
maintenance scheduling, Benders decomposition.

Additional competition and growing complexity in power
generating systems, as well as a need for high service reliability and
low production costs, are provoking additional interests in automatic
scheduling techniques for maintenance of generators, transmission
and related equipment, capable of providing least cost maintenance
In earlier works of thermal generator maintenance scheduling, most
techniques were based on heuristic approaches. These approaches
consider generating unit separately in selecting its optimal outage
interval subject to constraints and an objective criterion for
equalizing or leveling reserves throughout the planning interval [I],
minimizing expected total production costs [6, IO] or leveling the
risk of failure to meet demand [2]. An example of an heuristic
approach would be to schedule one unit at a time beginning with the
largest and ending with the smallest. Most methods, mainly those
based on heuristics, represent only the generation system and do not
take into account the networks constraint effects on generation and
transmission maintenance. Recently [I 31 represented transmission
constraints, but did not recognize interconnection failures and
maintenance, [ 141 recognized the composite generation and
transmission reliability but did not consider transmission
Because of the discrete nature of maintenance schedu,ing,
mathematical programming approaches have fallen into two b-oad
categories: integer programming (branch and bound) [4-51 and
dynamic programming [3]. More recently, Benders decomposition
has been applied to decompose the problem into a master problem
and a series of sub-problems. The coordination of master and :SubPE-185-PWRS-I 6-09-1997 A paper recommended and approved by
the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems. Manuscript submitted May 27, 1997; made available for
printing September 30, 1997.

problems results in the solution of generator maintenance scheduling
as reported in [10,14].
This paper extends the Benders decomposition to include
transmission maintenance and network constraints in the
maintenance scheduling problem. The network is modeled as a
probabilistic problem to include the effect of generation and
transmission outages. Section 2 describes the formulation of
maintenance scheduling with network constraints. Section 3
describes the approach of the maintenance problem using Benders
decomposition. The network model used in the proposed method,
the maintenance sub-problem and operation sub-problem are also
discussed in section 3. A detailed example and the result of the
application of the proposed method to IEEE-RTS [1 I] are presented
in sections 4 and 5.

The maintenance scheduling problem is to determine the period for
which generating units of an electric power utility should be taken
off line for planned preventive maintenance over the course of a one
or two year planning horizon in order to minimize the total
operating cost while system energy, reliability requirements and a
number of other constraints are satisfied.
Generating units are distributed in different regions and
interconnected by transmission lines. This may lead to different
composite reliability levels for a given amount of maintenance
capacity outage. Furthermore, generating unit maintenance should
consider transmission forced and planned outages. When
transmission maintenance and other network constraints are
included, the problem becomes considerably more complex and will
be referred to as an integrated maintenance scheduler (IMS) which
represents a network constrained generation and transmission
maintenance scheduling problem. The methodology for the solution
of this problem is discussed in this paper.
In general there are two approaches which can be employed to
achieve one or more aspects of generation maintenance. These
approaches are fictitious cost and maintenance window. Due to
difficulties in obtaining “field proven” maintenance costs, fictitious
costs are often used to penalize deviations from an ideal
maintenance schedule representing the preferred schedule from the
power plant point of view. In maintenance window, the preferred
schedule is represented by time interval (windows) and the objective
is to minimize the real maintenance cost instead of fictitious cost. In
this paper, we use maintenance window approach.
In order to design an IMS for a practically implementable schedule,
numerous and complex constraints which limit the choice of
scheduling times are incorporated into the solution method. The
constraints which are independent of each other at each time period
are categorized as decoupling constraints and those which are
dependent of each other across the time period are categorized as
coupling constraints.
2.A. Coupling Constraints
The first IMS requirement is that units and lines be overhauled
regularly. This is necessary to keep their efficiency at a reasonable
level, keep the incidence of forced outages low, and prolong the life
of units and lines. This procedure is incorporated periodically by
specifying minimax times that a generating unit may run without

0885-8950/98/$10.00 0 1997 I E E E

i t vt E vector of the demand in every bus at time t node-branch incidence matrix probabilistic vector that defines the state of the system acceptable level of expected energy not served The unknown variables x j t and N k f in ( 1 ) are restricted to integer values.+d. one for each time period t. l. the set of constraints may be formed as Omk(’k ekstsi.ek) and their latest period of maintenance (e. Constraints (iii)-(vii) may be seen as a probabilistic problem. Constraints (iii)-(vi) represent peak load balance. T maintenance constraints: =1 for t < ei or t 2 I. This constraint specifies the minimum number of units necessary to produce a certain amount of energy or to avoid spillage in a hydro plant. Mathematically. In the case of crew constraint. The objective of ( 1 ) is to minimize total maintenance and production costs over the operational planning period. desirable schedule. The set of operation sub-problems are then solved using the fixed . On the other hand constraints (i)-(ii) may be seen as a deterministic problem. the set of constraints be formed as follows: Nli+N2/+N3/ =3 or Nli+N2r+N3t = 0 If we consider that in each maintenance area we have limited resources and crew. f o r t s e i . since there is no constraint across time periods. The production cost itself is a probabilistic optimization which takes into account the derated capacity of each generating unit. 2. generating and line capacity limits. We use transportation model to represent system operation limits. one can determine additional constraints in (1) namely the energy production constraint. in the vector form is N unit maintenance status. If we consider. the INS can be formulated as follows: I Mn t i. N ~ ) for 1 crew availability 2. + d k (ii) system constraints: { E Cr. 2 and 3 are to be maintained simultaneously. is solved to generate a trial solution for maintenance schedule decision variables. ~ ~ be the amount of resource m available in area A for each time t and c m k would be a percentage of this resource required per-line for maintenance of line k. The problem is decomposed into a master problem and operation sub-problems. This constraint can be constructed using hydrothermal simulation program I1 41. 3. is specified. SOLUTION METHODOLOGY We employ the Benders decomposition.k {cjt(l-xifj+chf (Nk .B. These constraints also can be applied to generation maintenance. and other operational constraints such as generation and transmission capacity limits in each state. The unit and the line must be available both before their earliest period of maintenance (e.’ values of constraint (i). the second is transmission line maintenance cost. For this case.s6 ). Once xit or Nkt variables are fixed. Its optimal value is a lower bound on the optimal value of original problem. The master problem. z ~ would . which is an integer programming problem. for example that lines 1. Therefore (1) corresponds to a mixed-integer programming problem. of the system. . The number of crews in each type required at each stage of overhaul of each machine. ~ .1} Nk - N& Nkt = N k ~k~ + di < si + d. The first term of the objective function (1) is the maintenance cost of generators. In hydro plants. or line maintenance..1064 The time required for overhaul is generally known.. the corresponding zt would be the number of maintenance crews in area A and a would be a percentage of this crew required per-line for maintenance of lines k. Problem (1) has a natural structure that enables it to be decomposed into a maintenance master problem which is a deterministic integer problem and a set of operation sub-problems which are probabilistic linear programs. resources availability > ~ i+dk . and the third is the energy production cost. the network can be modeled as either the transportation model or a linearized power flow model. Set of constraints (ii) consists of crew and resource availability. peak load balance equation. Decoupling Constraints Network constraints in each time period are considered as decoupling constraints. or t for Yk E ( o . seasonal limitation. In order to avoid over-optimistic planning.N k t .. and hence the number of weeks that a machine is “down” is predetermined. This master problem is a relaxation of the original problem in that it contains only a subset of constraints. ] i E I ~ ~ c j t ~ j t / S. operational constraints are not completely decoupled since the hydrothermal schedule usually is based on chronological simulation of the generation system.. the resulting operation subproblem can be treated as a set of independent sub-problems. 0 if unit is off-line for maintenance maximum number of lines in right-of-away k time period in which maintenance of generating unit i start earliest period for maintenance of generating unit i to begin latest period for maintenance of generating unit i to begin duration of maintenance for generating unit i time period in which maintenance of line k start earliest period for maintenance of line k to begin latest period for maintenance of line k to begin duration of maintenance for line k vector of dummy generators which corresponds to energy not served at time period t maximum line flow capacity in matrix term active power flow in vector term maximum generation capacity in vector term vector of (git) power generation for each unit at time t power generation of unit I at time t - Nkt) Zmt In the case of resource constraints. Constraints (i) represent the maintenance window stated in terms of the start of maintenance variables (s. The available crews can be split into geographical and organizational types. Furthermore. and other constraints such as environmental and fuel constraints. Xit =o for si < t xit E XIt for ei 5 t 5 ii {0.’ and l. cp. seasonal limitations 4. on the other hand.g. The seasonal limitation can be incorporated into e. desirable schedule d S p (vii) (1) expected value transmission maintenance cost per-line in right-away k at time t generation maintenance cost for unit i at time t generation cost of unit i at time t number of lines available in right-of-way k at time t . giI has continuous value. generation and transmission outages should also be taken into account (composite reliability evaluation). Constraint (vii) represents the reliability requirement which takes into account all states of the system. 3. only a limited number of machines may be serviced at once due to limited manpower. lk ‘+dk’). (9 < t 5 “i. . It is assumed here that there is little flexibility in manpower usage that varies the time required for maintenance.

The procedure is as follows: 1. Calculate (3) or (5) for the selected state. Return to step 1 if the accuracy is unacceptable. 3. 1 may be interpreted as the marginal The multiplier decrease in energy not supplied with a 1 MW increase in either generators or transmission lines available capacity. Thus..T S f + g + r = d ( p ) +oN p~ The solution of the sub-problem is not complicated.. The infeasibility cut is SOLVE THE MAINTENANCE MASTER PROBLEM I ’FEASIBLE ~ 7 S. +di. or I > li. trial solution. The feasible cut is of the form Figure 1. N k ) f O r e . At each iteration the solution of sub-problems generates dual multipliers. Maintenance Scheduling Decomposition The initial maintenance master problem is formulated as follow: z Min maintenance constraints X-t =1 Xit Xit for si 5 t 5 si + di =o E {0.1065 maintenance schedule obtained from the solution of the maiiter problem. 4 and . Le. the generation cost in period t can be expressed as SET UP INITIAL MAINTENANCE MASTER PROBLEM 4 The sub-problems may be infeasible due to the fact that the reliability constraints cannot be met.. which are not possible to be scheduled. Before minimizing the operation cost. If one or more of sub-problems are infeasible.. - = (2) for ei 5 t 2 1.A Operation Sub-problems The operation cost is the direct cost associated with load supply. desirable schedule 3. The process continues until a feasible solution is found whose cost is sufficiently close to lower bound. ~ ( c p ) . If all of operation sub-problems are feasible then their solution yield a set of dual multipliers from which a feasibility cut is constructed. 4. seasonal limitations 4.. 2.B Maintenance Master Problem The maintenance master problem is the minimization of maintenance cost subject to maintenance constraints as well as feasibility and infeasibility cuts from the operation sub-problems. etc. < f < $ 1.. The cost cuts (6) will tend to increase lower bounds obtained from successive maintenance sub-problem solutions. then the fuel cost for period t. The calculation of (3) and (5) involve the reliability evaluation of a composite system. If all sub-problems are feasible.1) fort s e i . If one or more of operation sub-problems are infeasible then for each infeasible sub-problem an infeasibility cut is generated. Sf+ g+ r = d ( p ) g <g(q). resources availability 3.! - Nkt E(O. which measure the change in either production cost or reliability resulting from marginal changes in the maintenance schedule. For each infeasible sub-problem resulting from the nthsolution of the master problem. the cut is associated with a deterministic instead of probabilistic operation sub-problem. Select a system state cp. xit or Nkt. then an infeasibility cut is generated. The infeasibility cuts (4) will eliminate maintenance values.xn (dual variable is A) d(9) r 1 If 5 f(p). depends on the utilization of available units to satisfy load constraints in each time period subject to maintaining reliability above a certain level. define load levels. we use simultaneous decomposition simulation for all generator and transmission states and intervals [12]. given the n* iteration of maintenance schedule.I . T. In order to allow a fast algorithm and efficient calculations. Le. The multiplier z. operating conditions.. is the solution of feasibility check in its associated state space. ‘The IMS must ensure that sufficient reserve exists to provide a secure supply while minimizing the cost of operation. N n (dual variable is A’) where x*and Nnrepresent the trial solution of the master problem at iteration n. These dual multipliers are used to form one or more constraints (known as cuts) which are added to the master problem for the next iteration. verify whether that specific configuration of generators and transmission lines is able to supply that specific load without violating system limits. 3. we check the feasibility of the sub-problem as Min S. . The reliability level.yand zkymay be interpreted as expected marginal costs associated with 1 MW decrease in the power capacity. equipment availability. as shown in Figure 1. Update the estimated production cost or load shedding expectation.. crew availability 2. given the nthtrial maintenance schedule. w. Nkt < ‘k Nkt where w: is the expected fuel cost for period t associated with the n* for t < e i or t > l i + d i for si Nk < t 5 4 + d. since knowing which generator and transmissions are available during period t allows us to minimize the expected operation cost.

285 0. These multipliers are used to form a linear constraint.~ z + ) 0.. 1 where: n is the current number of iterations. The infeasible cut is as follows: 0. The critical point in the decomposition is the modification of objective function based on the solution of operation sub-problem.x?)< 0.5.=O N. Generator Data h i t I Min Canacitv IMax Caoacitv I Operation I Maint.n Maint.u. = 0. seasonal iimitations 4 desirable schedule 2 resources availability N~~ E(o. Feasibility Check State Spaces There is a trade-off between A and number of iteration.005 0.4 2 2 2 f o r t S e i or t 2 l i + d i - if all subproblems are feasible then the feasibilty cut is: (7) if one or more subproblems are infeasible then the infeasiblity cut is: infeasible subproblem Min S. < 2.Nl..T. For convenience.95*0.=O N. + d.= 0.i ) 3.=O z=500 Given the trial maintenance schedule from iteration 2.25 0. 5 2 N.= 0 I. The problem is defined as: We are to perform maintenance on at least 2 lines and one generator within the study period. These bounds can be used as an effective convergence criterion. < 2*0.Xjt) + c i t ( z k - Nki)] 11 maintenance constraints : for t < ei or t t li + di for si < t < si + di Xjt = 1 Xit = 0 zit E for ei 5 t 5 li {0.NIJ +0.98*3* ( 0 .< 1 x.)+ 300*(2-N.= 1 x.Cost ($/line) First. zr ... EXAMPLE We use a three-bus system as an example.<2 N. we solve the initial maintenance master problem: Min z 200*(2-N2.~.5 (0.. +h3+g3+ r?=I z .2 0. line and load input data in per unit are given in Tables 1. Loads are assumed constant during the study period.095 0.95 I. + g. is returned to the maintenance problem which is modified and solved again to determine a new trial maintenance plan.) +0. < t < s.= 0.=l x. An are multiplier vectors at the nth iteration The important feature of the Bender decomposition is the availability of upper and lower bounds to the optimal solution at each iteration.2.<I x.=2 N. N ~ fore.85 + 0.1 0.. The forced outrage rate (FOR) of each generator is given in Table 2.The primal solution for all state spaces of feasible sub-problem can be seen in Table 5. all lines are assumed to be perfectly reliable..+x2+x.<2 N.+N.U.95*0.5 The solution is: N.5 -2*0.11 Nkt < '-k Nkt N k 0.=O ~ 3 0 0 Then.6 for s.i 0 -2*0..1 0.<l feasibility and infeasibility cuts from previous iterations Vl E 100 0. we check the feasibility of operation sub-problem given the first trial of maintenance schedule.9 I. 100*(2...5* ( l . This constraint.The cost is set arbitrarily to w=1000 because the solution is infeasible.T Yl+r2+r3 xg E 0.5 (2.=2 N. 5 .4225 which is less than ~ = 0 .. setting A to 1% is good enough.. The first state soace formulation of feasibility check is as follows N<N ..)+200*(1-~2)+ S. A.=2 x.5 o<g. The smaller the A the larger the number of iteration. The convergence criterion is 2(W-Z) (8) (W+Z) Load balance at bus 1 Load balance at bus 2 Load balance at bus 3 Generator 1 limit Generator 2 limit Generator 3 limit Line 1-2 flow limit Line 1-3 flow limit Line 2-3 flow limit -&-A.<2 x. =O h.5 The solution of the maintenance master problem for the second iteration is: N. A"'.. For some cases the problem may not converge if the A is too small.25 .95 The above LP solution is infeasible. the feasibility check gives E{r}=0...1125 0.5 0.NL2)+ 100*(1-x.045 0.5 p. 4. + r I =I -h.5 0.1066 Min Table 2.025 E{r)=O. known as Benders cut. The system reliability requirement ( E ) is 0. Feasible Sub-txoblem State Soaces I Table 1. Table 5.=l x.. in this sample study.) < z N.I 1 crew availability e Line Wline # of lines 1-2 2-3 1-3 (P.5 < g .)+ 300*(1. Table 4.k cit (1 .5 The primal solution for all state spaces in the feasibility check are given in Table 4. and 3. = 0. Associated with the solution of the operation sub-problem is a set of dual multipliers which measure changes in system operating costs caused by marginal changes in the trial maintenance.. The generator..5 ij 2 . 4 x. 0.5 <Ai< 2*0. We assume the study period has only one time interval..98 power flow: hf.+N. Bus data g3 w =546..Cost/Unit IFOR z t i.9*2. < 2.. . From our experience.85 The dual price of the operation sub-problem: generator: h.<t<l.6 < g. written in terms of maintenance variable x.5 0.<o 05f.U... +A2+ g2 + r2 = 3 n 100 200 300 Max Capacity/line (P. since E{r]+r2+r3}>0..=2 xI= 1 x.

and the scheduling of inefficient unit for on-line duty. Table 8 shows the change in operating cost over the study period. The average fuel price is $3.19 26. Table 6 gives the generating units which are to be maintained.)+ 300*(1. Table 6. Table 9.25-29 18-22. Details of transmission line characteristics can be found in [I 11.21 23.29 23.25-9. $I. For Case 0.19.9 18-29 0.29 18.25-29 18-27 20-29 18.26..Z/MBtu for coal and $2.28 I buses 1-2 5-10 Weeks Up 18-23. Cases 1 and 2). Unit 5 is not used in all time periods.23 23. In these tables. at least 4 transmission lines in this area.25-29 18-20. power flow in each line except for lines 1-3 and 11-14 is within limits for most periods.24.( (week) Oil #2 14500 I 6. indicating a shift from units that use inexpensive fuel to those with more expensive fuels and inefficient units.21 27. The maximum transmission flow over the three-month study period is shown in Table 9.22-29 I 18-22. During the tkreemonth period.68846 36.19. Generating Units Operating Cost Data O&M Cost I Maintenan<= Btu/kWh Fixed I Variable\ Window I D u r z a I 103$/Yr..0 0.28. O&M Cost of Generating Unit (12-week horizon.)-9*2. The corresponding line maintenance schedule and generator loading points of the weekly load are shown in Tables 10 and 11 respectively.3/MBtu for Oil #6.24 2 1. The imposed transmission limits increase the cost of operation.21-24 18-22. transmission limits are imposed on the optimization problem.29 18.23.xi)+ 200*(1-~2)+ 100*(1-~.)+546.23-29 20-29 18.28 . the problem is the classical unit maintenance scheduling.69147 In Case 0 with no network constraints. Case 0 is converged in two iterations. sub-problems are feasible and the final cost is given in Table 8.24-29 I 20.N12)+200*(2-N23)+ 300*(2-N.CASE STUDY We apply the proposed method to the IEEE-RTS [I I]. the sub-problems are infeasible in all peiiods. Weeks on Maintenance 24. (Unit 5 in Case 2. A three-month study period of summer weeks.=2 x!= I n2=l x. is considered. [r Size 1 Fuel I Heat Ratel 1 MW I 1 I 20 76 100 1 I I I 1 I I I Case I I 1 I Ia I I O Unit l l 1 1 5 1 I l l 1 34 2 5 Table 8.ion facilities in a particular area need maintenance within the study period. 23 buses and 38 transmission lines.=O ~ 5 4 25 6 We stop here since FW which means the cost is equal to the lower bound.E$ 22.19.24 Maintenance 4-9 6-10 2-4 5-10 4-9 3 -9 Weeks Down 28 23 29 19 18-21.22 18.8 18-29 10000 850.5*2. In the first iteration. weeks up and down in Table I O refer to periods in which units are used for supplying the load. This system is made o f 32 generating units. Here. Some generation and transmis:. Case 1 does not impose any transmission limits.28. Table 7.1067 The dual price of the operation subproblem is: generator: ngi= -9. Overflow on Transmission Lines (12-week horizon.26-29 18-26.19 20. 20 demand sides.0 I 5.00/MBtu for Oil #2.19.29 18. Transmission limits also affect the maintenance schedule (Unit 2 starting on the week of maintenance. weeks 18-29.25. the 12-week horizon is between 18-29.5 ICg2 = -9 xg3 =0 power flow: nfi2=0 xns= 0 =fii= 0 The feasible cut for the second iteration is: z >100*(2.24 28. In Case 2.0 Oil#6 Cases 1 and 2 study the effect of transmission limits on maintenance schedule.29 .5*( 1-~.27 20. In iteration two. Generating Units Considered Table 7 gives the operating characteristics of the generating uni'ts in this area.22-29 22.5*(1-~2) The solution of the maintenance master problem for the third iteration is: Ni2=2 N2?=0 N. The coverage of area includes buses 1 through 10. &=I% of load ) 2 1 36.25 27. are expected to be maintained. ~ = l % of load ) 5.0 I 18-29 I 2 Coal 12000 760. $/kWNr.25. Table 10).

1972. weeks 20-21 to 12-13. 2. which in turn affects the loading of unit 2./Oct. Bloom. Palmer. on Power Systems. 7.F.H. units are loaded in decreasing order of operating costs./Feb. May 1966. 5. Pereira et al. No. Shahidehpour is a professor in the ECE Department and Dean of Graduate College at Illinois Institute of Technology. Aug.1068 In practice. The units and lines maintenance schedule are shifted to lower peak loads. Shahidehpour is a member of the Technical Committee of PICA and serves on the Board of Directors of HKN. ” IEEE Trans. No. Honda. No. 30743080.K. Vol. Vol. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to appreciate the financial support provided by the Power Systems Laboratory at Illinois Institute of ’Technology.” IEEE Trans. 6. Table 12.” IEEE Trans. Vol. “Solving an Electricity Generating Capacity Expansion Planning Problem by Generalized Benders Decomposition. and the Agency for the Assessment & Application of Technology (BPPT). ~ = l % of load ) Maintenance 5.67934 I 4. REFERENCES 1. 2047-2054.Kimura.L. on Power System. 38. on Power Apparatus and Systems.695-701. 1985. 8 J.H. 1991.M. “IEEE Reliability Test System. The extension of the generation maintenance scheduling to include transmission maintenance and network constraints is applicable to the problem of maintenance with probabilistic data.” IEEE Trans. 12. PAS-104. Vol. 9 M. E. March/April 1975. Dopazo. “Generator Maintenance Scheduling via Successive Approximation Dynamic Programming. S. 1 6. on Power Systems. SMC-6. 31. 84100. May 1992. PAS-91. Vol. Jan.39 11. No. 1975.5. pp./Oct. Generating Unit Maintenance in Case 2 (52-week horizon. PAS-94. and weeks 27-28 to 38-39 respectively. on Power Apparatus and Systems. PAS-94. 7. Vol. at Illinois Institute of Technology. May 1995. T. Dr. in 1989 and MS from IIT in 1994. S. W. pp. Morsztyn. Vol. K. &=I% of load Table 13. PAS-98. 1979.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. Singh. and Cybernetics. on Power Apparatus and Systems. No. With transmission limits. “A Technique for the automated Scheduling of the Maintenance of Generating Facilities.” IEEE Trans. et al. No. K. Chen. 1168-1 174. O&M Cost of Generating Unit Case I Cost (IO6$) 12-week I 36.” Operation Research. No. 11. additional complex constraints are imposed on the maintenance scheduling problem. 11.M.PAS-85. Zurn. pp. Vol 10. No. AI-Khamis. 2. Also units 2. Nov. 13 L. Egan. A. T.V. pp.” IEEE Trans. Since 1989. 538-547. IO. Vol.427-436. Toyoda. L. loading of all units is affected and the inefficient unit 5 has to be brought on-line for weeks 23 and 24 to supply generation deficit. Z. G. J. 1. 1537-1545. No. Vol. New York. 7. J. 8. Transmission Maintenance Schedule in Case 2 (52-week horizon. J. on Power Systems. Lemonidis. 5 . 3.S. Dillon. Presently. Vol. Merrill.M.C. No. “A Method for Planning Economic Unit Commitment and Maintenance of Thermal Power Systems. Limiting lines 1-3. he is completing his Ph.R. H. on Power Apparatus and Systems. 6.” IEEE Trans.. pp. 36 Table 14. “An Experimental Method of Determination of Optimal Maintenance Schedules in Power systems Using the Branch and Bound Techniques. 1. MacMillan. Jan. This in turn increases the unit operating cost affecting the loading of units as shown in Table 10. pp.” IEEE Trans. With transmission limitations. available units in one time period may become less attractive as compared to those in some other time periods when availability is even more crucial. “Adjusting Maintenance Schedules to Levelize Risk. 665-671. 734-743. 1983. L.D. resulting in an increase in the overall cost of operation.T. H. V.. on Power Apparatus and Systems. Deng. 1976. Nov. Silva.. pp. Sept. Yellen. he has been with The Ministry o f Research and Technology Republic of Indonesia. Lasdon. ” IEEE Trans. May 1992.12 1 3. N. weeks 18-19 to 11-12. 1972. pp. “Decomposition Approach to Automated Generation /Transmission Expansion Planning. pp. Indonesia. 1-2 and 1-5 affects the output of units. Hara. “Transmission Constrained Maintenance Scheduling of Generating Units: A Stochastic Programming Approach. The test system was applied over a year-long horizon of 52 weeks Tables 12 and 13 show the maintenance schedule for generating units and transmission lines respectively. on Power Apparatus and Systems. Optimization Theory for Large Systems. Using the proposed decomposition method. pp.L./Dec. 14. on Power Apparatus and Systems.69147 52-week 36. 6. Christiaanse. . BIOGRAPHIES M. the cost can be reduced as seen in Table 14 and a better distribution of risk can be achieved. on Man. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents a decomposition approach based on the duality theory for generationitransmission maintenance scheduling with network constraints. Garver. pp. 137-144. Quintana. Since units and lines are not forced to be maintained within 12 weeks. Marwali received his BS degrees in electrical engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology.H./Feb. pp. 1. 726-733. Le. Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability Methods Subcommittee.Vemuri. “A New Approach to Reliability Evaluation of Interconnected Power Systems Including Planned Outage and Frequency Calculations. No. pp. 2057-2063.” IEEE Trans. L. maintenance of unit 1 is shifted from weeks 23-24 to weeks 34-35. The test results demonstrate that the limits on transmission line capacity affect the loading of units and increase the generation by expensive and inefficient units. Maintenance 4-9 3-9 2. 4 and 5 are shifted from weeks 27-28 to weeks 38-39. No.2.F. PAS-91. M. “A Decomposition Approach to Unit Maintenance Scheduling. C. “Optimal Generator Maintenance Scheduling Using Integer Programming. 1970. Vol. “Optimal Generating Unit Maintenance Scheduling for Multi-area System with Network Constraints. Sept. Indonesia. Vol.