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

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

1) fort s e i .xn (dual variable is A) d(9) r 1 If 5 f(p). as shown in Figure 1. For each infeasible sub-problem resulting from the nthsolution of the master problem. given the n* iteration of maintenance schedule. If all of operation sub-problems are feasible then their solution yield a set of dual multipliers from which a feasibility cut is constructed. Le. Select a system state cp. is the solution of feasibility check in its associated state space. then the fuel cost for period t.. Calculate (3) or (5) for the selected state. < f < $ 1. crew availability 2. xit or Nkt. If all sub-problems are feasible. 2. If one or more of sub-problems are infeasible.1065 maintenance schedule obtained from the solution of the maiiter problem. The process continues until a feasible solution is found whose cost is sufficiently close to lower bound. then an infeasibility cut is generated. The infeasibility cuts (4) will eliminate maintenance values. 4. - = (2) for ei 5 t 2 1. which are not possible to be scheduled.A Operation Sub-problems The operation cost is the direct cost associated with load supply. . since knowing which generator and transmissions are available during period t allows us to minimize the expected operation cost. +di.! - Nkt E(O. 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. The calculation of (3) and (5) involve the reliability evaluation of a composite system. Return to step 1 if the accuracy is unacceptable.. given the nthtrial maintenance schedule. ~ ( c p ) . 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. Before minimizing the operation cost. the cut is associated with a deterministic instead of probabilistic operation sub-problem. resources availability 3. desirable schedule 3.yand zkymay be interpreted as expected marginal costs associated with 1 MW decrease in the power capacity. depends on the utilization of available units to satisfy load constraints in each time period subject to maintaining reliability above a certain level. If one or more of operation sub-problems are infeasible then for each infeasible sub-problem an infeasibility cut is generated. 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. 3. At each iteration the solution of sub-problems generates dual multipliers. ‘The IMS must ensure that sufficient reserve exists to provide a secure supply while minimizing the cost of operation. Thus. we use simultaneous decomposition simulation for all generator and transmission states and intervals [12]. The cost cuts (6) will tend to increase lower bounds obtained from successive maintenance sub-problem solutions. The feasible cut is of the form Figure 1..I . we check the feasibility of the sub-problem as Min S. 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.. 4 and . etc. The procedure is as follows: 1. The multiplier z. 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. T. N n (dual variable is A’) where x*and Nnrepresent the trial solution of the master problem at iteration n. seasonal limitations 4. define load levels. N k ) f O r e . equipment availability... The infeasibility cut is SOLVE THE MAINTENANCE MASTER PROBLEM I ’FEASIBLE ~ 7 S. In order to allow a fast algorithm and efficient calculations. verify whether that specific configuration of generators and transmission lines is able to supply that specific load without violating system limits.. Le. or I > li. w. operating conditions. 3.. which measure the change in either production cost or reliability resulting from marginal changes in the maintenance schedule. Sf+ g+ r = d ( p ) g <g(q).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. Update the estimated production cost or load shedding expectation. The reliability level.T S f + g + r = d ( p ) +oN p~ The solution of the sub-problem is not complicated. trial solution.

5 .5 The solution is: N. known as Benders cut.n Maint.. Bus data g3 w =546. 4 x.= 1 x.=O z=500 Given the trial maintenance schedule from iteration 2.Cost ($/line) First.5 0. in this sample study.9 I. < 2*0.5 The primal solution for all state spaces in the feasibility check are given in Table 4.. we solve the initial maintenance master problem: Min z 200*(2-N2.25 0.x?)< 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.1 0.=O N.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. < 2.5 (0.<o 05f.5* ( l .The cost is set arbitrarily to w=1000 because the solution is infeasible. Feasible Sub-txoblem State Soaces I Table 1.<t<l.~. 100*(2.= 0.=l x.+N.11 Nkt < '-k Nkt N k 0..T.T Yl+r2+r3 xg E 0..u.) +0.98*3* ( 0 .Cost/Unit IFOR z t i.5 ij 2 . The system reliability requirement ( E ) is 0.095 0.. zr . The smaller the A the larger the number of iteration. + g.9*2..<2 x.. These multipliers are used to form a linear constraint.5 p.5 -2*0.5 The solution of the maintenance master problem for the second iteration is: N.285 0.5 o<g. The forced outrage rate (FOR) of each generator is given in Table 2.NIJ +0.2 0..= 0 I..95 I. The critical point in the decomposition is the modification of objective function based on the solution of operation sub-problem. The generator.. Feasibility Check State Spaces There is a trade-off between A and number of iteration.Nl. all lines are assumed to be perfectly reliable.)+ 300*(1.5 <Ai< 2*0. The first state soace formulation of feasibility check is as follows N<N . written in terms of maintenance variable x.6 < g.)+200*(1-~2)+ S. 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. 4...< 1 x. A.=O N.=2 N.1 0.<l feasibility and infeasibility cuts from previous iterations Vl E 100 0.6 for s.i 0 -2*0.. Loads are assumed constant during the study period.85 + 0.98 power flow: hf. =O h.)+ 300*(2-N. 0. line and load input data in per unit are given in Tables 1. EXAMPLE We use a three-bus system as an example.The primal solution for all state spaces of feasible sub-problem can be seen in Table 5.+x2+x. The problem is defined as: We are to perform maintenance on at least 2 lines and one generator within the study period.. + d.i ) 3.. is returned to the maintenance problem which is modified and solved again to determine a new trial maintenance plan. We assume the study period has only one time interval.045 0.1125 0. since E{r]+r2+r3}>0.I 1 crew availability e Line Wline # of lines 1-2 2-3 1-3 (P.95*0..<2 N. = 0.5 (2.005 0. we check the feasibility of operation sub-problem given the first trial of maintenance schedule.95*0. These bounds can be used as an effective convergence criterion.=2 xI= 1 x. and 3...85 The dual price of the operation sub-problem: generator: h. = 0. . < t < s.. Generator Data h i t I Min Canacitv IMax Caoacitv I Operation I Maint.=O ~ 3 0 0 Then. From our experience. +A2+ g2 + r2 = 3 n 100 200 300 Max Capacity/line (P.025 E{r)=O. Table 5.25 . The infeasible cut is as follows: 0.95 The above LP solution is infeasible.. For convenience. 5 2 N.5. A"'. Table 4. +h3+g3+ r?=I z .) < z N.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. 1 where: n is the current number of iterations. seasonal iimitations 4 desirable schedule 2 resources availability N~~ E(o.5 0.1066 Min Table 2.=2 x.k cit (1 ..U.=2 N. For some cases the problem may not converge if the A is too small.~ z + ) 0. This constraint. + r I =I -h. 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 N.. < 2.5 0.+N.2.NL2)+ 100*(1-x.. setting A to 1% is good enough. the feasibility check gives E{r}=0.U.5 < g ..<I x.. N ~ fore.= 0.4225 which is less than ~ = 0 .

indicating a shift from units that use inexpensive fuel to those with more expensive fuels and inefficient units.21-24 18-22.21 27.25-29 18-27 20-29 18. sub-problems are feasible and the final cost is given in Table 8.19 20.28 .28. Case 0 is converged in two iterations.00/MBtu for Oil #2.5*(1-~2) The solution of the maintenance master problem for the third iteration is: Ni2=2 N2?=0 N.21 23. Some generation and transmis:. Here. In the first iteration.23. [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. Table 6 gives the generating units which are to be maintained.25 27. Details of transmission line characteristics can be found in [I 11.29 23.27 20.Z/MBtu for coal and $2. $I. During the tkreemonth period.25. In iteration two. Table 8 shows the change in operating cost over the study period.0 I 18-29 I 2 Coal 12000 760. are expected to be maintained.22-29 22.26. Table 10). Generating Units Operating Cost Data O&M Cost I Maintenan<= Btu/kWh Fixed I Variable\ Window I D u r z a I 103$/Yr. In these tables. The average fuel price is $3.28.1067 The dual price of the operation subproblem is: generator: ngi= -9. the 12-week horizon is between 18-29.19.)+546. Cases 1 and 2).N12)+200*(2-N23)+ 300*(2-N. and the scheduling of inefficient unit for on-line duty.3/MBtu for Oil #6.. &=I% of load ) 2 1 36.8 18-29 10000 850. This system is made o f 32 generating units. For Case 0. weeks up and down in Table I O refer to periods in which units are used for supplying the load.22 18. A three-month study period of summer weeks. Unit 5 is not used in all time periods.24-29 I 20.24 2 1.E$ 22.29 18.19.5*( 1-~.( (week) Oil #2 14500 I 6. Overflow on Transmission Lines (12-week horizon. In Case 2.25-29 18-22.22-29 I 18-22.9 18-29 0.24 28. transmission limits are imposed on the optimization problem.69147 In Case 0 with no network constraints.23 23.25. $/kWNr.26-29 18-26.)+ 300*(1.=O ~ 5 4 25 6 We stop here since FW which means the cost is equal to the lower bound.29 18. the sub-problems are infeasible in all peiiods.CASE STUDY We apply the proposed method to the IEEE-RTS [I I].29 .23-29 20-29 18.68846 36.0 0. Table 7.0 I 5. The maximum transmission flow over the three-month study period is shown in Table 9. is considered.25-9. Generating Units Considered Table 7 gives the operating characteristics of the generating uni'ts in this area. (Unit 5 in Case 2. O&M Cost of Generating Unit (12-week horizon.19. 23 buses and 38 transmission lines.ion facilities in a particular area need maintenance within the study period.29 18.5 ICg2 = -9 xg3 =0 power flow: nfi2=0 xns= 0 =fii= 0 The feasible cut for the second iteration is: z >100*(2. The corresponding line maintenance schedule and generator loading points of the weekly load are shown in Tables 10 and 11 respectively.0 Oil#6 Cases 1 and 2 study the effect of transmission limits on maintenance schedule. 20 demand sides.19. The coverage of area includes buses 1 through 10. Weeks on Maintenance 24. Table 9.=2 x!= I n2=l x.28 I buses 1-2 5-10 Weeks Up 18-23.5*2.xi)+ 200*(1-~2)+ 100*(1-~. Transmission limits also affect the maintenance schedule (Unit 2 starting on the week of maintenance. weeks 18-29. power flow in each line except for lines 1-3 and 11-14 is within limits for most periods.19 26.)-9*2.24 Maintenance 4-9 6-10 2-4 5-10 4-9 3 -9 Weeks Down 28 23 29 19 18-21.25-29 18-20.24. ~ = l % of load ) 5. Table 6. The imposed transmission limits increase the cost of operation. the problem is the classical unit maintenance scheduling.. Case 1 does not impose any transmission limits. at least 4 transmission lines in this area.

. 1983.D.M. No. “Optimal Generator Maintenance Scheduling Using Integer Programming.39 11. 2057-2063. J.2.” Operation Research. 538-547. 1970. 14. Aug. Garver. A. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents a decomposition approach based on the duality theory for generationitransmission maintenance scheduling with network constraints. on Power Apparatus and Systems.69147 52-week 36. Indonesia.Vemuri. 1979.M. Vol. No.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans.5.695-701. Pereira et al. “IEEE Reliability Test System.L. “Solving an Electricity Generating Capacity Expansion Planning Problem by Generalized Benders Decomposition. Bloom.T. PAS-104. and the Agency for the Assessment & Application of Technology (BPPT).H. 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. 5. 30743080. The extension of the generation maintenance scheduling to include transmission maintenance and network constraints is applicable to the problem of maintenance with probabilistic data. 3. 2047-2054. Nov. 11. Chen. on Power Apparatus and Systems. 1972.” IEEE Trans. Zurn. REFERENCES 1.67934 I 4. Vol. C. 7. 665-671.. Transmission Maintenance Schedule in Case 2 (52-week horizon./Oct. 11. Egan. Deng.1068 In practice.H. Hara. Shahidehpour is a member of the Technical Committee of PICA and serves on the Board of Directors of HKN.” IEEE Trans. Sept. March/April 1975. on Power Systems. V. No.” IEEE Trans. PAS-94. 1975. 1976. pp. pp. Vol.H. pp. 1168-1 174. on Power Apparatus and Systems. 726-733. Vol 10.” IEEE Trans. “A New Approach to Reliability Evaluation of Interconnected Power Systems Including Planned Outage and Frequency Calculations. 6. on Power Apparatus and Systems. the cost can be reduced as seen in Table 14 and a better distribution of risk can be achieved. and Cybernetics. May 1966. on Power Apparatus and Systems. Vol.12 1 3. No. The units and lines maintenance schedule are shifted to lower peak loads. S. T.R. “A Method for Planning Economic Unit Commitment and Maintenance of Thermal Power Systems. May 1995. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to appreciate the financial support provided by the Power Systems Laboratory at Illinois Institute of ’Technology. “Generator Maintenance Scheduling via Successive Approximation Dynamic Programming. SMC-6. PAS-91. Vol. Using the proposed decomposition method. pp. on Power Systems. on Power Systems. May 1992. weeks 20-21 to 12-13. additional complex constraints are imposed on the maintenance scheduling problem. “An Experimental Method of Determination of Optimal Maintenance Schedules in Power systems Using the Branch and Bound Techniques. Honda. 13 L. Silva. With transmission limitations. 6. Since units and lines are not forced to be maintained within 12 weeks. ” IEEE Trans. Maintenance 4-9 3-9 2. N.C. 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. Dillon. S. 8.” IEEE Trans. K. ~ = l % of load ) Maintenance 5. Vol.” IEEE Trans. O&M Cost of Generating Unit Case I Cost (IO6$) 12-week I 36. 8 J. Singh. pp. Dopazo. 31. weeks 18-19 to 11-12. 6. Lemonidis. 2. J. With transmission limits. pp. G. 38. at Illinois Institute of Technology. Vol./Dec. he is completing his Ph. in 1989 and MS from IIT in 1994. Christiaanse. AI-Khamis. pp. No. 5 . resulting in an increase in the overall cost of operation. Yellen. 1. No. Vol. E. May 1992.M. Shahidehpour is a professor in the ECE Department and Dean of Graduate College at Illinois Institute of Technology. pp. maintenance of unit 1 is shifted from weeks 23-24 to weeks 34-35. “Decomposition Approach to Automated Generation /Transmission Expansion Planning. Vol. W. J. Dr.Kimura. Jan. 1985. Since 1989. Indonesia. he has been with The Ministry o f Research and Technology Republic of Indonesia. “A Decomposition Approach to Unit Maintenance Scheduling. on Power Apparatus and Systems. pp. Limiting lines 1-3. Vol./Feb. 1 6. Quintana. PAS-91. No. 1991. “A Technique for the automated Scheduling of the Maintenance of Generating Facilities. “Adjusting Maintenance Schedules to Levelize Risk.S. &=I% of load Table 13. Palmer. pp. Table 12. Marwali received his BS degrees in electrical engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology. Toyoda. 7. 1537-1545. Vol.F. . L. H. No. 1-2 and 1-5 affects the output of units.K. 84100. No. pp. “Transmission Constrained Maintenance Scheduling of Generating Units: A Stochastic Programming Approach. 7. Jan. T. Optimization Theory for Large Systems. 1972. et al. 9 M. which in turn affects the loading of unit 2. ” IEEE Trans.PAS-85. 12. 4 and 5 are shifted from weeks 27-28 to weeks 38-39. Le. M.” IEEE Trans. PAS-94. 1. Also units 2. K. Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability Methods Subcommittee.L. Nov./Oct. Sept. Vol. on Power System. New York. Lasdon. and weeks 27-28 to 38-39 respectively. L. pp.V.427-436. Z. 1. H. pp. on Man. No.. L.” IEEE Trans. PAS-98. IO. Merrill. 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. “Optimal Generating Unit Maintenance Scheduling for Multi-area System with Network Constraints.F. No. Generating Unit Maintenance in Case 2 (52-week horizon. Presently. 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. MacMillan. on Power Apparatus and Systems. 36 Table 14. No./Feb. BIOGRAPHIES M. Morsztyn. units are loaded in decreasing order of operating costs. 734-743. 137-144. 2. This in turn increases the unit operating cost affecting the loading of units as shown in Table 10.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful