Optimal Decision Making in Electrical Systems Using an Asset Risk Management Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a methodology for optimal decision making for electrical systems is addressed. This methodology seeks to identify and to prioritize the replacement and maintenance of a power asset fleet optimizing the return of investment. It fulfills this objective by considering the risk index, the replacement and maintenance costs, and the company revenue. The risk index is estimated and predicted for each asset using both its condition records and by evaluating the consequence of its failure. The condition is quantified as the probability of failure of the asset, and the consequence is determined by the impact of the asset failure on the whole system. Failure probability is estimated using the health index as scoring of asset condition. The consequence is evaluated considering a failure impact on the objectives of reliability (energy not supplied -ENS), environment, legality, and finance using Monte Carlo simulations for an assumed period of planning. Finally, the methodology was implemented in an open-source library called PywerAPM for assessing optimal decisions, where the proposed mathematical optimization problem is solved. As a benchmark, the power transformer fleet of the New England IEEE 39 Bus System was used. Condition records were provided by a local utility to compute the health index of each transformer. Subsequently, a Monte Carlo contingency simulation was performed to estimate the energy not supplied for a period of analysis of 10 years. As a result, the fleet is ranked according to risk index, and the optimal replacement and maintenance are estimated for the entire fleet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".