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

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

.. verify whether that specific configuration of generators and transmission lines is able to supply that specific load without violating system limits. If one or more of operation sub-problems are infeasible then for each infeasible sub-problem an infeasibility cut is generated.. The cost cuts (6) will tend to increase lower bounds obtained from successive maintenance sub-problem solutions.. which measure the change in either production cost or reliability resulting from marginal changes in the maintenance schedule.1) fort s e i . xit or Nkt. Sf+ g+ r = d ( p ) g <g(q). then the fuel cost for period t. The process continues until a feasible solution is found whose cost is sufficiently close to lower bound. 2.. w.! - 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. since knowing which generator and transmissions are available during period t allows us to minimize the expected operation cost. depends on the utilization of available units to satisfy load constraints in each time period subject to maintaining reliability above a certain level. Update the estimated production cost or load shedding expectation. define load levels. Return to step 1 if the accuracy is unacceptable.yand zkymay be interpreted as expected marginal costs associated with 1 MW decrease in the power capacity. The feasible cut is of the form Figure 1.1065 maintenance schedule obtained from the solution of the maiiter problem. is the solution of feasibility check in its associated state space. 4. 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. resources availability 3. operating conditions. Calculate (3) or (5) for the selected state. Thus. If all of operation sub-problems are feasible then their solution yield a set of dual multipliers from which a feasibility cut is constructed. The infeasibility cut is SOLVE THE MAINTENANCE MASTER PROBLEM I ’FEASIBLE ~ 7 S. The calculation of (3) and (5) involve the reliability evaluation of a composite system. - = (2) for ei 5 t 2 1. < f < $ 1. 4 and . . given the n* iteration of maintenance schedule. 3. The infeasibility cuts (4) will eliminate maintenance values. If all sub-problems are feasible. crew availability 2. Le.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. For each infeasible sub-problem resulting from the nthsolution of the master problem. Le.A Operation Sub-problems The operation cost is the direct cost associated with load supply. desirable schedule 3. The procedure is as follows: 1. trial solution. At each iteration the solution of sub-problems generates dual multipliers. we check the feasibility of the sub-problem as Min S. seasonal limitations 4.I . given the nthtrial maintenance schedule. T. Select a system state cp. or I > li.. The reliability level. then an infeasibility cut is generated. Before minimizing the operation cost. N n (dual variable is A’) where x*and Nnrepresent the trial solution of the master problem at iteration n. which are not possible to be scheduled. In order to allow a fast algorithm and efficient calculations.T S f + g + r = d ( p ) +oN p~ The solution of the sub-problem is not complicated. we use simultaneous decomposition simulation for all generator and transmission states and intervals [12]. ~ ( c p ) .xn (dual variable is A) d(9) r 1 If 5 f(p). equipment availability. 3. the cut is associated with a deterministic instead of probabilistic operation sub-problem. 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. 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. N k ) f O r e . as shown in Figure 1. If one or more of sub-problems are infeasible.. +di. ‘The IMS must ensure that sufficient reserve exists to provide a secure supply while minimizing the cost of operation. 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. The multiplier z..

5 The solution of the maintenance master problem for the second iteration is: N.5 <Ai< 2*0..1125 0.6 < g.Cost ($/line) First.11 Nkt < '-k Nkt N k 0..5 -2*0..<2 x.= 0 I. is returned to the maintenance problem which is modified and solved again to determine a new trial maintenance plan. These bounds can be used as an effective convergence criterion.1066 Min Table 2.~.)+200*(1-~2)+ S.)+ 300*(2-N. written in terms of maintenance variable x.. N ~ fore. We assume the study period has only one time interval.u. The critical point in the decomposition is the modification of objective function based on the solution of operation sub-problem.=2 xI= 1 x. A.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.. 4 x..The primal solution for all state spaces of feasible sub-problem can be seen in Table 5. = 0..2 0.) < z N.= 0. + g.25 0. we check the feasibility of operation sub-problem given the first trial of maintenance schedule.. Table 5.95*0. Table 4.I 1 crew availability e Line Wline # of lines 1-2 2-3 1-3 (P.005 0.k cit (1 ..5 ij 2 .Nl. The infeasible cut is as follows: 0. 5 .2.285 0. For some cases the problem may not converge if the A is too small. Loads are assumed constant during the study period. Bus data g3 w =546. This constraint. These multipliers are used to form a linear constraint. = 0..+N.=O N. + d.=2 N. The smaller the A the larger the number of iteration. setting A to 1% is good enough.. since E{r]+r2+r3}>0.95*0. 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.<I x.NL2)+ 100*(1-x.+x2+x.The cost is set arbitrarily to w=1000 because the solution is infeasible.<2 N.x?)< 0. 100*(2.<2 N.045 0.85 The dual price of the operation sub-problem: generator: h. For convenience.=2 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 {0.5 0.U..<t<l. 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.95 I...5 p. A"'. 4.) +0.5 The solution is: N.095 0..)+ 300*(1.=l x. < t < s.< 1 x.i ) 3. Generator Data h i t I Min Canacitv IMax Caoacitv I Operation I Maint.025 E{r)=O...=l x. + r I =I -h.98*3* ( 0 .. From our experience.5* ( l .U.1 0. +h3+g3+ r?=I z .5 o<g. 1 where: n is the current number of iterations.95 The above LP solution is infeasible.. EXAMPLE We use a three-bus system as an example. all lines are assumed to be perfectly reliable.6 for s. +A2+ g2 + r2 = 3 n 100 200 300 Max Capacity/line (P. The generator.=O ~ 3 0 0 Then. 5 2 N.NIJ +0.5 The primal solution for all state spaces in the feasibility check are given in Table 4. 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..i 0 -2*0. The forced outrage rate (FOR) of each generator is given in Table 2.=O z=500 Given the trial maintenance schedule from iteration 2.5 0.5 0..9 I.5 (2.5.4225 which is less than ~ = 0 ..<o 05f. The problem is defined as: We are to perform maintenance on at least 2 lines and one generator within the study period.5 (0. known as Benders cut.5 < g . < 2. < 2*0.25 . . =O h. < 2.<l feasibility and infeasibility cuts from previous iterations Vl E 100 0. Feasible Sub-txoblem State Soaces I Table 1.=2 x. 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.T Yl+r2+r3 xg E 0.n Maint.=O N.98 power flow: hf.. and 3. zr ..1 0.85 + 0.= 0.T.Cost/Unit IFOR z t i.~ z + ) 0. The first state soace formulation of feasibility check is as follows N<N .+N. the feasibility check gives E{r}=0. we solve the initial maintenance master problem: Min z 200*(2-N2. in this sample study.9*2. The system reliability requirement ( E ) is 0.. line and load input data in per unit are given in Tables 1.= 1 x.

21-24 18-22. The coverage of area includes buses 1 through 10.E$ 22. Transmission limits also affect the maintenance schedule (Unit 2 starting on the week of maintenance.24 2 1.0 I 18-29 I 2 Coal 12000 760. the 12-week horizon is between 18-29. is considered. power flow in each line except for lines 1-3 and 11-14 is within limits for most periods. Table 9. indicating a shift from units that use inexpensive fuel to those with more expensive fuels and inefficient units.0 0.29 18. weeks up and down in Table I O refer to periods in which units are used for supplying the load.24.22 18.69147 In Case 0 with no network constraints. In the first iteration.22-29 22. Unit 5 is not used in all time periods.25-9. Table 8 shows the change in operating cost over the study period.5*(1-~2) The solution of the maintenance master problem for the third iteration is: Ni2=2 N2?=0 N.25-29 18-20.25-29 18-27 20-29 18. A three-month study period of summer weeks.N12)+200*(2-N23)+ 300*(2-N.)+546. Weeks on Maintenance 24.26-29 18-26.23 23. Table 6. 20 demand sides. Case 0 is converged in two iterations.21 27.29 .00/MBtu for Oil #2.19 26. and the scheduling of inefficient unit for on-line duty.23.19. This system is made o f 32 generating units. Overflow on Transmission Lines (12-week horizon.xi)+ 200*(1-~2)+ 100*(1-~. ~ = l % of load ) 5.27 20.Z/MBtu for coal and $2. at least 4 transmission lines in this area. $I.29 18. The average fuel price is $3. The corresponding line maintenance schedule and generator loading points of the weekly load are shown in Tables 10 and 11 respectively.24-29 I 20.0 Oil#6 Cases 1 and 2 study the effect of transmission limits on maintenance schedule.28 I buses 1-2 5-10 Weeks Up 18-23.29 23.. sub-problems are feasible and the final cost is given in Table 8. During the tkreemonth period.19.1067 The dual price of the operation subproblem is: generator: ngi= -9.24 28.5 ICg2 = -9 xg3 =0 power flow: nfi2=0 xns= 0 =fii= 0 The feasible cut for the second iteration is: z >100*(2.25. O&M Cost of Generating Unit (12-week horizon. &=I% of load ) 2 1 36. Some generation and transmis:..28 .3/MBtu for Oil #6. Details of transmission line characteristics can be found in [I 11.5*( 1-~.5*2.68846 36. Here.)+ 300*(1.9 18-29 0.25 27. In iteration two. Table 10). the problem is the classical unit maintenance scheduling. In Case 2.29 18. Generating Units Operating Cost Data O&M Cost I Maintenan<= Btu/kWh Fixed I Variable\ Window I D u r z a I 103$/Yr. Cases 1 and 2).28. weeks 18-29.24 Maintenance 4-9 6-10 2-4 5-10 4-9 3 -9 Weeks Down 28 23 29 19 18-21. 23 buses and 38 transmission lines.19 20. are expected to be maintained.=O ~ 5 4 25 6 We stop here since FW which means the cost is equal to the lower bound.)-9*2.8 18-29 10000 850. Generating Units Considered Table 7 gives the operating characteristics of the generating uni'ts in this area. For Case 0.0 I 5.19. In these tables.25. Table 7.21 23. (Unit 5 in Case 2. The maximum transmission flow over the three-month study period is shown in Table 9.26. the sub-problems are infeasible in all peiiods.25-29 18-22. Table 6 gives the generating units which are to be maintained.23-29 20-29 18. Case 1 does not impose any transmission limits.( (week) Oil #2 14500 I 6.=2 x!= I n2=l x.28.CASE STUDY We apply the proposed method to the IEEE-RTS [I I]. [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 8.22-29 I 18-22. The imposed transmission limits increase the cost of operation. $/kWNr. transmission limits are imposed on the optimization problem.19.ion facilities in a particular area need maintenance within the study period.

on Power System. M. units are loaded in decreasing order of operating costs. “Optimal Generating Unit Maintenance Scheduling for Multi-area System with Network Constraints. pp. additional complex constraints are imposed on the maintenance scheduling problem. Vol. Merrill. The units and lines maintenance schedule are shifted to lower peak loads.M. he is completing his Ph. No. J. AI-Khamis. which in turn affects the loading of unit 2. 7. K. Vol. Shahidehpour is a professor in the ECE Department and Dean of Graduate College at Illinois Institute of Technology. the cost can be reduced as seen in Table 14 and a better distribution of risk can be achieved. No. 5. 5 . 7. pp. 1975. 538-547. on Power Systems. Vol.” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems. 137-144. C. PAS-98. pp. A. Nov. “Transmission Constrained Maintenance Scheduling of Generating Units: A Stochastic Programming Approach. “A Technique for the automated Scheduling of the Maintenance of Generating Facilities. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents a decomposition approach based on the duality theory for generationitransmission maintenance scheduling with network constraints. on Man. No. ” IEEE Trans.69147 52-week 36.695-701. 1979.” Operation Research. No. Jan.R. 2. Z. at Illinois Institute of Technology. 6. 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.2. “Optimal Generator Maintenance Scheduling Using Integer Programming. Vol. 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. Lemonidis. 30743080./Oct. J. May 1966. .Vemuri. 8 J. 13 L. Dopazo. MacMillan.67934 I 4. E. Le. 665-671. pp. maintenance of unit 1 is shifted from weeks 23-24 to weeks 34-35. 9 M. in 1989 and MS from IIT in 1994. Vol. Christiaanse. With transmission limits. Vol. 1983. “A Decomposition Approach to Unit Maintenance Scheduling.D. “Decomposition Approach to Automated Generation /Transmission Expansion Planning. 12. 2047-2054. 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. Toyoda. PAS-94. Shahidehpour is a member of the Technical Committee of PICA and serves on the Board of Directors of HKN. V.S. 1. et al. “An Experimental Method of Determination of Optimal Maintenance Schedules in Power systems Using the Branch and Bound Techniques. and Cybernetics. No.C. 36 Table 14. H. Bloom.” IEEE Trans. No. Indonesia. Vol 10.” IEEE Trans. 7. REFERENCES 1. O&M Cost of Generating Unit Case I Cost (IO6$) 12-week I 36. No.H. No. S. “Generator Maintenance Scheduling via Successive Approximation Dynamic Programming. L. G. resulting in an increase in the overall cost of operation. 1972. Indonesia.F. 11. 1 6.427-436.Kimura. 1-2 and 1-5 affects the output of units. pp.L. Vol.M.. New York. Optimization Theory for Large Systems. pp. 1168-1 174. 726-733. 1. 14. 734-743. W. Jan. 1. “A Method for Planning Economic Unit Commitment and Maintenance of Thermal Power Systems.PAS-85. 2. pp.” IEEE Trans. IO. Morsztyn. No. 4 and 5 are shifted from weeks 27-28 to weeks 38-39. This in turn increases the unit operating cost affecting the loading of units as shown in Table 10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to appreciate the financial support provided by the Power Systems Laboratory at Illinois Institute of ’Technology. pp. 1991. he has been with The Ministry o f Research and Technology Republic of Indonesia. &=I% of load Table 13. “A New Approach to Reliability Evaluation of Interconnected Power Systems Including Planned Outage and Frequency Calculations. Also units 2. Quintana.L. PAS-91. 2057-2063.K. Using the proposed decomposition method. ~ = l % of load ) Maintenance 5. N. Vol.1068 In practice.M. L. Limiting lines 1-3. Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability Methods Subcommittee. Singh. May 1995. weeks 18-19 to 11-12. 31. Zurn. Dillon. on Power Apparatus and Systems. PAS-104. 38.5. ” IEEE Trans. No./Oct. Chen. With transmission limitations.12 1 3. H.H.T. on Power Systems. 1537-1545. Maintenance 4-9 3-9 2. Sept. Pereira et al. pp.F./Feb. and weeks 27-28 to 38-39 respectively. March/April 1975. on Power Apparatus and Systems. T. 1972. The extension of the generation maintenance scheduling to include transmission maintenance and network constraints is applicable to the problem of maintenance with probabilistic data. and the Agency for the Assessment & Application of Technology (BPPT). Vol. Marwali received his BS degrees in electrical engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology. “Solving an Electricity Generating Capacity Expansion Planning Problem by Generalized Benders Decomposition. 84100. L. Transmission Maintenance Schedule in Case 2 (52-week horizon. Vol.. 8. pp.. PAS-91. 1985. Egan.V.” IEEE Trans. 6. J. “IEEE Reliability Test System. Since units and lines are not forced to be maintained within 12 weeks. Lasdon. 1970. SMC-6.” IEEE Trans./Dec. No. on Power Apparatus and Systems. No. Garver. Generating Unit Maintenance in Case 2 (52-week horizon.” IEEE Trans. Since 1989. Hara. Honda. Sept. 3. May 1992. K. pp. pp. Palmer. Dr. “Adjusting Maintenance Schedules to Levelize Risk. Vol. Presently. T. Table 12.” IEEE Trans. 6. 11. 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. BIOGRAPHIES M. on Power Apparatus and Systems. on Power Apparatus and Systems.” IEEE Trans./Feb.” IEEE Trans. weeks 20-21 to 12-13. on Power Apparatus and Systems.39 11. on Power Apparatus and Systems. 1976. Aug. Yellen. PAS-94.H. S. Silva. Nov. May 1992. pp. Deng. Vol.