Maintenance Scheduling Of Generating Units In
Electric Power System
Dr M.F.Kotb, Lecturer of Electrical Engineering Department- College of Engineering-Al Mansoura University
Abstract--New method for solving the Maintenance Schedule
(MS) problem is proposed. Comparative study has been
introduced between the proposed method and the other heuristic
methods for MS) for electric generation units. The study was
implemented and tested on a model for MS problem. The new
model introduces the ratio between cost per reserve power as an
index to maximize the system’s net reserve with minimum cost.
Also, maximizing the net reserve , maximizing the system's net
reserve rate and minimizing the system's risk methods were
implemented and compared with the proposed method. All
methods are subjected to the following constraints: generator
unit maintenance duration, time constraint, crew availability,
lower reserve limit and lower reserve rate limit.
Keywords-Maintenance Scheduling ( MS ) , Optimization
,Levelized Reserve Capacity ( LRC ) , Levelized Reserve Rate (
LRR ) , Levelized Reserve Risk ( LRK ) and levelized Reserve
Capacity Cost ( LRCC ).
1. INTRODUCTION
In practice, the MS of power generating units attracts great
attention in planning, design of power systems and operation
management.
The Maintenance Scheduling (MS) 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 and a number of other constraints
are satisfied. Generating unit maintenance schedule should
consider generating unit and transmission forced and planned
outages. When network constraints are included, the problem
becomes considerably more complex and will be referred to as
the network constrained maintenance scheduling problem. In
the network constrained MS problem, the objective is to
minimize the total operating cost over the operational planning
period, subject to unit maintenance and operational
constraints [1].
Currently, the problems regarding mid-term operation and
planning, for example, generating unit maintenance
scheduling, are becoming the subject of importance [2,3].
Conventional generating unit maintenance scheduling is an
optimization problem deciding the maintenance time of
individual generating units under several constraints over a
given maintenance horizon. Numerous approaches have been
suggested for the past decades. Until the early 1990’s,
reliability evaluation of maintenance scheduling and least-cost
optimization algorithms had been one of the main interests to
the researchers. Since then, optimal scheduling algorithms
using mathematical models have been proposed . Recently,
several approaches for integrated maintenance scheduling
considering transmission network, fuel, and emission
constraints have been suggested [4]. In most of the previous
works, each generating unit is taken off-line for system-wide
1
978-1-4244-1933-3/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE 543
reliability or least-cost rather than for his own profitability [5].
Much interest has not been shown from the standpoint of each
Genco seeking only to maximize his profit.
The MS problem received considerable attention in the past.
Dopazo and Merril formulated the problem as a mixed integer
programming model (MIPM) . They used Galas’s implicit
enumeration algorithm to obtain the optimal solution.
Escudero et al., also formulated the MS problem as MIPM but
they considered a different objective function . They utilized a
combination of the implicit enumeration and branch-and-
bound techniques. Yamayee reviewed the literature and
concluded that the existing methods made a number of
assumptions and, in general, they solved only relatively small
problems. Yellen and Al-Khamis et al., demonstrated the use
of the decomposition approach for solving the MS problem.
Krady and Rayakovic, formulated a multi-objective mixed
integer programming model and used the branch-and-bound
approach for solving the model. In order to solve large
problems, Satoh and Nara, formulated the MS problem as a
mixed integer programming model and used the simulated
annealing approach . The above review reveals that the MS
problem is adequately formulated as an MIPM with different
or multiple objectives. The combinatorial nature of the MIPM
model makes it hard to solve using exact methods, such as
branch-and-bound, cutting planes or implicit enumeration. In
order to solve large-scale problems a heuristic approach seems
as a viable [6].
2. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULING PROBLEM
The MS problem is a minimization one that has two types of
decision variables; one is continuous and the other is integer.
The continuous variables are the generator output, while the
integer variables are the maintenance scheduling variables that
define the maintenance starting dates and the maintenance
duration for each unit. Solving an optimization problem that
contains such variables makes it extremely difficult if not
impossible to reach the global or the near global optimum
especially when the problem involves a number of
uncertainties. The maintenance scheduling problem has
uncertainties associated with it that include load forcast, fuel
price and labors fees, maintenance crew, amount of reserve
and purchased power from neighboring utilities, available
resources and maintenance crew availability [7]. Solving the
model of the MS problem by the existing techniques (8-12)
may give the solution for specified conditions of the power
system. If the system condition is changed, for example the
system load is increased, the optimal solution may become
unsuitable or inapplicable. To remedy this problem, the MS
model should incorporate the mentioned uncertainties. The
most used heuristic methods for MS optimization are the
Levelized Reserve method , Levelized Reserve Rate method
and Levelized Risk method. This paper introduces a new
method in addition to the three mentioned methods. A
comparison between all these methods was introduced. For
each of the three heuristic methods, the time sequence of a
preventive maintenance schedule for a given set of units over
one year will be generated such that the selected objective
function should be satisfied against many of the operating
constraints using Visual Basic Program
3. SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
The MS problem is subjected to some constraints as
following:
1-Time Constraint : Some generators can not be maintained
during certain time interval such as times of agricultural
irrigation and abundant rainfall
2- Maintenance Completion Constraint : This ensures that
once a generator unit is removed from the system for
maintenance, it completes the maintenance continuously
without interruption and within the planned horizon.
3- Crew constraint: It depends on the maintenance manpower
that is available and they specify that no two units can be
simultaneously maintained by the same crew
4- Number Of Maintenance Periods : If maintenance periods
of all generator units are equal or varied.
5-Minimum Reserve constraint : The required minimum
reserve to achieve adequate reliability
4. METHODS FOR MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULING
The implementation of the heuristic algorithms of
maintenance scheduling for electric generators is described in
this section. Reliability deterministic , random and economic
objective functions are formulated individually for each
method as following:
4.1. Levelized Reserve Capacity ( LRC) Objective
Function
The Levelized Reserve Capacity (LRC) method is a very
direct and intuitive method which draws up a maintenance
schedule by equalizing as far as possible the system net
reserve in the whole year, taking into account the generating
unit’s maintenance outages. The system’s net reserve when
unit maintenance outages are considered , is equal to system’s
installed capacity minus the maximum load and the
maintenance capacity during the period under examination.
The period of maintenance scheduling is considered one year.
The procedure is first of all to arrange the generating units of
maintenance in a certain order. Then starting from the lowest
load on the load curve ( maximum system net reserve), the
capacity of the equipment is sequentially added on the
predetermined load curve until all the equipment for
maintenance has been scheduled. The objective function is as
following :
∆Pi = ∆Pj iεt, j ε t , t= 1,2,……..,T (1)
Where
∆Pt :System’s net capacity reserve in any stage “t”
2
544
The indicated objective function is a deterministic reliability
function which maximizes the system’s net reserve
4.2. Levelized Reserve Rate ( LRR ) Objective
Function
The LRC method ignores that the required reserve capacity for
maintaining certain reliability should not be the same in the
low load subinterval as in high load subinterval. The Levelized
Reserve Rate (LRR) method uses the ratio of the net reserve
capacity in each subinterval “ ∆Pt “ over the maximum load in
the same subinterval “ Lt “ which is called (∆P *) .
∆Pi*=∆Pj * i ε t , j ε t, t= 1,2,…,T (2)
The (LRR) method is considered to overcome this problem
and achieve the objective function.
4.3. Levelized Reserve Risk ( LRK ) Objective
Function
Where previous objective functions neglect the randomness of
the available generating unit’s capacity, random objective
function is formulated to include generating unit’s random
Forced Outages into account using Levelized Risk ( LRK )
method .
The objective that the risk is made more or less the same
throughout the period under study is realized through
maintenance scheduling optimization. The Loss Of Load
Probability “ LOLP” probability reliability index is used to
evaluate the system risk :
LOLP i = LOLP j i ε t , j ε t , t= 1,2,……..,T (3)
LRK method has two main characteristics. The first is that the
influence of the random outages on the system’s reliability is
considered when dealing with generating unit maintenance.
The other is that the daily variations of load are considered
when dealing with the representative load in every
maintenance stage. The power generating unit’s effective load
carrying capacity “Ce” and the equivalent load “Le” are
calculated as following :
Ce= C - m ln ( p + q е (C/m) ) (4)
Le = Lm + m ln( ∑ е (Lj- Lm) / m Tp (5)
5. PROPOSED LEVELIZED RESERVE
CAPACITY COST ( LRCC ) ALGORITHM
This method is proposed to maximize the reserve power in
addition to minimize the total cost . To achieve these goals a
cost per unit reserve power index was introduced "∆Pt**"
when generating unit is planned for maintenance.
5.1. Cost / Reserve Power Index
For each period the reserve power and its total operating
cost are calculated taking into consideration the generation
outage units. The minimum ratio between the cost and the
corresponding determined reserve power is taken as an
index to obtain the minimum cost and maximum reserve
after maintaining the specified unit.
5.2. Objective Function
Where objective function would include the cost per reserve
power, the cost and system reserve should be determined The
system reserve is calculated as in LRC method (equals to
system’s installed capacity minus the maximum load and the
maintenance capacity during the period under
examination).The cost can be determined according to its cost
function. It includes fixed and variable costs. The variable cost Table ( 1 ) Generator units to be maintained
depends on the operation and maintenance cost. The cost
Unit Capacity Maint.
function can be expressed in two parts. The first part Number MW
FOR
Duration
a b C v
represents the sum of energy cost due to fuel during the
planning horizon “weeks”. The second is the sum of variable 1 400 0.04 6 130 7.5 0.0045 0.3
cost for each unit per MWh. The cost function can be 2 300 0.03 5 110 7.65 0.00465 0.4
expressed for a planning horizon “T in weeks”, number of 3 200 0.02 5 80 7.8 0.00462 0.2
units “I” considering each period one week (168 Hr’s) as
4 100 0.02 4 60 8.5 0.006 0.5
following :
∑168(a+biPit+citPit2)(1-Xit)+∑∑168PitVit(1-Xit) (12) 5 100 0.02 4 65 8.3 0.0061 0.5

While the economic Objective Function is as following:

∆Pi **=∆Pj** I ε t,jεt, t=1,2,….,T (13) Table ( 2 ) Load Data
Where
∆Pt** :System cost per reserve power "System Index" Duration Max. Load Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
Week ”MW” 1 2 3 4 5
Pit :Generator output ( MW ) of unit “i” in period “t”. 1 2000
a, b, c :Fuel cost coefficients 2 1920 N/A
I :Number of generating units 3 1800 N/A
Vi :Variable operation and maintenance cost. 4 1740
5 1640
Economic objective function is formulated to minimize the 6 1500 N/A
total generation operating cost over the operational planning 7 1580 N/A
period. The minimum value of the calculated Index would 8 1620
guarantee minimum cost for maximum possible reserve power. 9 1800 N/A
10 1900 N/A
The period of maintenance scheduling is considered one year. 11 1700
The procedure is to arrange the generating units of 12 1740 N/A
maintenance in a certain order. Then starting from the 13 1640 N/A
minimum cost per reserve power unit, the capacity of the 14 1600
15 1580
equipment is sequentially added on the predetermined load 16 1680
curve until all the equipment for maintenance has been 17 2100
scheduled. The flow diagram of the LRCC method is 18 1940 N/A
illustrated in Figure (1). 19 1700 N/A
20 1740 N/A
21 1690 N/A
6. APPLICATION 22 1480
The proposed LRCC method and the conventional methods 23 1520 N/A
(LRC, LRR and LRK) are tested to solve Maintenance 24 1620 N/A
25 1980
Scheduling problem for power system, 26 1900
6.1. Test System 27 2000
28 1720
The test system has installed capacity 2500 MW ,the planning 29 1660
horizon supposed 52 weeks in the presence of five generating 30 1600
31 1500 N/A
units which should be scheduled for maintenance. The data for 32 1620 N/A
the generating units to be scheduled for maintenance and the 33 1880
weekly peak load for the 52 weeks are listed in table 1 and 2 34 1910
respectively . Table 2 indicates the not applicable time (when 35 1660
36 1800
considered) for maintaining generators. 37 1640 N/A N/A
All methods were subjected to maintenance completion 38 1620 N/A N/A
constraint, 400 MW reserve power constraint, available time 39 1550 N/A
constraint, equal period constraint and time & equal period 40 1680 N/A
41 2050
constraint against the same peak loads (except LRK method 42 1940
which uses the corresponding effective load carrying capacity 43 1700 N/A
and the equivalent load) in 20 cases. The maintenance 44 1740 N/A
completion constraint is a common one in addition to the 45 1790
46 1430 N/A
mentioned constraints in all cases. Another three cases were 47 1550 N/A
introduced to indicate the effect of crew constraint, crew & 48 1620
time constraint and crew & equal period constraint on the 49 2100 N/A
proposed method LRCC for the same peak load for the 52 50 1960 N/A N/A
51 1680 N/A
weeks. 52 1790

3
545
6.2.Results
The detailed results are illustrated in attached Tables ( 3,4 ).
The tables includes the four methods in rows against the
subjected constraints in columns. The intersection between
these rows and columns indicates the minimum reserve rate,
total cost and the resulting maintenance schedule for the
planning horizon.
6.2.1. Constraints effect on all methods individually
The effect of all constraint against each method can be
obtained going through each method horizontally.
6.2.1.1. The Proposed levlized reserve capacity cost
( LRCC ) method application
1. Case 6 has nearly the same result as case 10 and an overlap
maintenance periods was selected which would requires two
maintenance groups at the same period. No great effect
occurred in Case 10 which has longer maintenance time
than Case 6 but its cost is less than Case 6 by 2.7%.
2. To ensure that one maintenance crew is required at any
period, the Crew constraints were applied for Cases 6,10 as
in Cases 7 , 11. It is found that no maintenance overlap was
selected at any period but the minimum reserve rate for Case
7 became less than Case 6 as in periods from 37 to 41 which
will lead to system risk but its cost is less than Case 6 by
0.16%.
3. Case 11 got some improvement than Case 10 where no
maintenance overlap while the minimum reserve rate has
not changed but the cost is slightly decreased by 0.02% .
Also Case 11 got lower cost than Case 6 by 2.8%. It can be
concluded that the equal maintenance periods with crew
constraint (Case 11) is the best solution between Cases
6,7,10,11 for LRCC method.
4. Also it can be observed that Case 8 and 12 is nearly the
same results but cost of Case 12 with time and equal
maintenance periods is lower than the cost of Case 8 with
time constraint by 2.7%. Both has an overlap maintenance
periods and the reserve rate is deteriorated specially at
period 49. The time constraint is the main cause of this
deterioration.
5. Applying the crew constraint as in Case 9, the overlapping
problem is solved but still the reserve rate problem exists.
6. Applying the minimum reserve constraint with 400 MW
value as in Case 13, it is found that generator unit 1 can not
be maintained while there will be an overlap maintenance
period and the cost is the highest of Cases 6 to 13 which
were applied to LRCC method. Reserve should be less than
400 MW
6.2.1.2. Levelized reserve capacity ( LRC ) method
application :
1. Observing Cases 1, 3, 4 and 5, it can be noticed that some
of maintenance periods were selected while it has large loads
than which were not selected. The worst Case were Case 3
( period 17 ) and Case 5 ( period 49 ) where the system was
constrained by time availability which leads to low reserve
rate and high system risk .
2. To solve this problem reserve power constraint was
implemented as in Case 2 but, it can be observed that
generator unit 1 can not be maintained if minimum reserve
power limit is 400 MW and its cost will be increased than all
4
546
Cases for this method ( 1.8% than Case 1 , 2.4 % than Case 3,
4.7 % than Case 4 and 5.2 % than Case 5).
6.2.1.3. Levlized reserve rate ( LRR ) method application :
1. The selected maintenance periods in Cases 14 (completion
constraint ) and 16 (completion & minimum reserve
constraint) are nearly the same but unit 1 can not be
maintained in Case 15 in which the reserve requirement
could not be satisfied because of the minimum reserve
constraint. Also the cost in Case 15 will be increased than
Case 14 by 2.1%.
2. The reserve is deteriorated in Case 16 than Cases 14 and 15
because of the time limits in addition to completion
constraints. The worst reserve value is in period 49 in which
has no reserve. Also there would be an overlap in periods
from “ 28 to 32 “ which requires two crews to perform the
maintenance.
3. Case 17 (equal periods & completion constraint) has a
maintenance overlap that requires two crews during periods
"19 to 24 " and its cost will be lower than Cases 14 and 15.
4. Applying the time and equal period’s constraints “Case 18“,
it will lead to nearly to the same schedule as in Case 16 but
with lower cost by 0.5 % where the number of maintenance
periods are increased.
6.2.1.4. Levlized reserve risk ( LRK ) method
application :
1. The selected maintenance periods in Cases 19 (completion
constraint) and 27 (completion & minimum reserve
constraints) nearly are the same. Case 23 has higher
minimum reserve rate (2.1% ) and higher cost (0.03 % )
than Case 19.
2. Most maintenance periods of Case 20 (time & completion
constraint) is the same as Case 21 (time & completion &
equal period constraints) with the same reserve rate but its
cost is higher by 2.4%. Also it can be observed that the
reserve rate of both Cases 20 and 21 is less than Case 19 by
6.5 % and Case 23 by 8.6 %. Case 21 has overlap periods
which needs two maintenance crews.
3. Case 22 (equal period & completion constraints) has the
largest reserve rate of all cases applied to this method and its
cost has the lower cost than Cases 19,23 and 20 but it has an
overlap periods which needs two maintenance crews.
4. It can be concluded that Case 21 with available time, equal
periods and completion constraint has the lower cost but
with the lower minimum reserve rate between all constraints
applied to LRK method.
6.2.2. Comparison Between All Methods
The effect of each constraint on all methods can be obtained
going through each constraint vertically.
1. Applying the completion constraint Cases 1,6, 14 and 19, it
can be found that LRK method has the higher reserve rate(2
% higher than LRC, LRR and LRCC), the lower risk in
addition to lower cost ( 1.3 % less than LRC , 1 % less than
LRR and 1.04 % less than LRCC ) than all methods.
2. Applying the time constraint in Cases 3 , 8 , 16 and 20 , it
can be observed that LRC , LRCC and LRR methods have
lower reserve rate values ( the reserve is zero in one period
for the three methods ) while it is higher in LRK. So the
risk is lower in LRK method and its cost is the lower value
( 0.9 % lower than LRC , 1 % lower than LRR and LRCC ).
3. Applying the equal maintenance constraint in Cases 4 , 10 ,
17 and 22 , it can be found that LRK method has the higher
reserve rate (0.9 % higher than LRC and LRR and 3.3 %
higher than LRCC), the lower risk in addition to lower cost
( nearly 0.5 % lower than LRC, LRR and LRCC ).
4. Applying the minimum reserve constraint in Cases 2, 13, 15
and 23, it can be observed that minimum reserve should be
less than 400 MW to enable maintaining unit 1.Also, LRK
method has the higher reserve rate (2.4 % higher than LRC
and LRR and LRCC), the lower risk in addition to lower
cost( nearly 3 % lower than LRC, LRR and 2.2 % LRCC ).
5. Although the minimum reserve rate for the three methods
LRC, LRR and LRCC are the same in most Cases but the
reserve rate is slightly improved along the maintenance
periods in LRCC method than LRC and LRR methods
7. CONCLUSION
network constraints”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
13 (3) (1998) 1063.
[9] M.K.C. Marwali, “Transmission and generation
maintenance scheduling with different time scales in power
systems”, Illinois Institute of Technology,1997.
[10] M.Y. El-Sharkh, R. Yasser, A.A. El-Keib, ”Optimal
maintenance scheduling for power generation systems”, a
literature review Maintenance and Reliability Conference.
Proceedings MARCON ’98, vol. 1, 1998,pp. 20.01_/20.10.
[11] C.E. Lin, C.J. Huang, C.L. Huang, S.Y. Lee, ” An
optimal generator maintenance approach using fuzzy dynamic
programming”, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, 92 SM 401-0
PWRS, Seattle, July 1992.
[12] S.J. Huang, “Maintenance scheduling of generating units
by genetic-enhanced fuzzy systems”, International
Conference on Intelligent System Application to Power
System, Seoul, 1997, pp. 541_/545

A new search algorithm “ LRCC “ has been developed for

scheduling electrical generating units maintenance. The
algorithm was implemented and tested on power system
problem . Comparison between the proposed and the other
heuristic methods for MS for electric generation units has been
introduced. It was found that the reserve rate is slightly
improved by this method than LRC and LRR but LRK method
has the best reserve improvement (lowest Risk ) in addition to
the lowest cost. The reserve rate and risk would be
deteriorated if there are time limits. If minimum reserve value
is required under the time limitation, one unit can not be
maintained.

8. REFERENCES
[1] M.K.C. Marwali, S.M. Shahidehpour, “A probabilistic
approach to generation maintenance scheduler with network
constraints”, Electrical Power &Energy Systems, accepted 11
May 1999,.
[2] Leou RC. “A flexible unit maintenance scheduling
considering uncertainties”. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2001;
16(3): 552-9
[3] Shahidehpour M , Marwali M. “maintenance scheduling in
restructured power systems”, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2000.
[4] Marwali MKC, Shahidehpour SM. ”Long–term
transmission and generation maintenance scheduling with
network fuel and emission constraints”, IEEE Trans Power
Syst 1999; 14(3):1160-5.
[5] Jin-Ho Kima, Jong-Bae Parkb, Jong-Keun Parkc, Yeung-
Han Chund, “Generating unit maintenance scheduling under
competitive market environments “ , Electrical Power and
Energy Systems 27 ( 2005).
[6] Ibrahim El-Amin, Salih Duffuaa, Mohammed Abbas, ”A
Tabu search algorithm for maintenance scheduling of
generating units”, Electric Power System Research 54 (2000)
page 91-99 .
[7] M.Y. El-Sharkh a, A.A. El-Keib b,*, H. Chen, “ A fuzzy
evolutionary programming-based solution methodology for
security-constrained generation maintenance scheduling “,
Electric Power System Research 67 (2003) page 67-72
[8] M.K.C. Marwali, S.M. Shahidehpour, “Integrated
generation and transmission maintenance scheduling with

5
547
 Levelized Reserve Capacity Cost

Read Generators rating “ Pj “, Max. Load per stage “ PL “, Installed

Capacity “P”, Number of total stages under study, Number of maintenance
stages for each generator .

Arrange Generators units to be maintained

according to highest rating

Compute the total Generation cost of the system at each stage during the planned period if gen unit is maintained
2
∑ ∑ 168 ( ai + bi Pit + cit Pit ) ( I - Xit ) + ∑ ∑ 168 Pit Vit ( 1 – Xit )

Calculate the reserve for each generator at each stage during the planned period if gen unit is
maintained. Reserve = P- { ( Pj + PL ) +P outage }

Compute the cost per each reserve power for each generator at
each stage if gen unit is maintained.

Start with Gen Unit J=1

Stage number I=1

Select the minimum cost / reserve power and take it as

Index to define the maintenance stage

Apply Constraints

Yes
I=I+ is I < Number
of stages

NO

Yes
J= is J < Number
of Gen. Units

NO

Print all maintenance stages for all Gen. units

End

Figure ( 1 ) Levelized Reserve Capacity Cost (LRCC) method

6
548
 Table (3 ) – System Generation Scheduling Results Using all Methods

The Constraints Completion Min. Reserve Available Equal Periods Time &
The Item of & Completion Time & & Completion Equal Periods
Method Comparison Completion & Completion
Case No. Case 6 Case 13 Case 8 Case 10 Case 12
Min. Reserve rate 17.3 % 19 % 0% 17.3 % 0%
Proposed Cost (unit cost) 1,216,375,015 1,231,436,631 1,214,230,773 1,183,164,107 1,181,019,864
Unit 1 43-44-45-46-47-48 Can not be maintained 46-47-48-49-50-51 43-44-45-46-47-48 46-47-48-49-50-51
Method- Maint. Unit 2 20-21-22-23-24 43-44-45-46-47 20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24
LRCC Schedule Unit 3 4-5-6-7-8 20-21-22-23-24 4-5-6-7-8 3-4-5-6-7-8 3-4-5-6-7-8
Periods Unit 4 5-6-7-8 21-22-23-24 5-6-7-8 4-5-6-7-8-9 3-4-5-6-7-8
Unit 5 29-30-31-32 45-46-47-48 29-30-31-32 28-29-30-31-32-33 28-29-30-31-32-33
Case No. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Min. Reserve rate 17.3 % 19 % 0% 17.3 % 0%
Cost (unit cost) 1,219,891,396 1,241,392,954 1,212,216,940 1,182,851,598 1,177,278,780
LRC Unit 1 43-44-45-46-47-48 Can not be maintained 12-13-14-15-16-17 43-44-45-46-47-48 46-47-48-49-50-51
Maint. Unit 2 20-21-22-23-24 44-45-46-47-48 44-45-46-47-48 19-20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24
Schedule Unit 3 4-5-6-7-8 20-21-22-23-24 22-23-24-25-26 3-4-5-6-7-8 3-4-5-6-7-8
Periods Unit 4 29-30-31-32 5-6-7-8 5-6-7-8 28-29-30-31-32-33 28-29-30-31-32-33
Unit 5 37-38-39-40 29-30-31-32 29-30-31-32 35-36-37-38-39-40 14-15-16-17-18-19
Case No. Case 14 Case 15 Case 16 Case 17 Case 18
Min. Reserve Rate 17.3 % 19 % 0% 14.9 % 0%
Cost (unit cost) 1,215,663,722 1,241,392,954 1,214,039,656 1,183,671,877 1,180,511,026
Unit 1 43-44-45-46-47-48 Can not be maintained 46-47-48-49-50-51 43-44-45-46-47-48 46-47-48-49-50-51
LRR Maint. Unit 2 20-21-22-23-24 44-45-46-47-48 20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24
Schedule Unit 3 4-5-6-7-8 20-21-22-23-24 4-5-6-7-8 19-20-21-22-23-24 3-4-5-6-7-8
Periods Unit 4 29-30-31-32 5-6-7-8 29-30-31-32 4-5-6-7-8-9 28-29-30-31-32-33
Unit 5 37-38-39-40 29-30-31-32 29-30-31-32 28-29-30-31-32-33 28-29-30-31-32-33`
Case No. Case 19 Case 23 Case 20 Case 22 Case 21
Min. Reserve Rate 19.3 % 21.4 % 12.8 % 18.2 % 12.8 %
Cost 1,203,651,779 1,204,038,980 1,201,695,334 1,177,857,845 1,173,875,335
LRK Unit 1 21-22-23-24-25-26 21-22-23-24-25-26 25-26-27-28-29-30 21-22-23-24-25-26 25-26-27-28-29-30
Maint. Unit 2 6-7-8-9-10 6-7-8-9-10 31-32-33-34-35 5-6-7-8-9-10 31-32-33-34-35-36
Schedule Unit 3 30-31-32-33-34 30-31-32-33-34 6-7-8-9-10 5-6-7-8-9-10 5-6-7-8-9-10
Periods Unit 4 2-3-4-5 2-3-4-5 2-3-4-5 30-31-32-33-34-35 2-3-4-5-6-7
Unit 5 39-40-41-42 42-43-44-45 18-19-20-21 18-19-20-21-22-23 18-19-20-21-22-23

Table( 4)-System Generation Scheduling Results Using LRCC Method Under special constraints

The Constraints Crew Crew and Time Crew and Equal

The Method Item of Comparison Period
Case No. Case 7 Case 9 Case 11
Min. Reserve Rate 12.2 % 0% 17. 3 %
Cost 1,214,474,306 1,209,744,568 1,182,850,115
Proposed Method- Unit 1 43-44-45-46-47-48 46-47-48-49-50-51 43-44-45-46-47-48
LRCC Maint. Unit 2 20-21-22-23-24 20-21-22-23-24 19-20-21-22-23-24
Schedule Unit 3 37-38-39-40-41 4-5-6-7-8 3-4-5-6-7-8
Periods Unit 4 29-30-31-32 39-40-41-42 35-36-38-39-40
Unit 5 5-6-7-8 29-30-31-32 28-29-30-31-32-33

7
549