MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk-Based Optimization of Periodic Maintenance for Power Grid Equipment

2025· article· en· W4408897828 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Diago, Xavier Lebeuf, Toualith Jean-Marc Meango, Alain Côté, C. Rajotte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridPower gridComputer sciencePower (physics)Reliability engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintenance of electrical transmission equipment is key to ensure reliable power supply. Maintenance tasks are triggered by equipment failures (corrective maintenance), observed anomalies expected to lead to failures (condition-based maintenance), time (periodic preventive maintenance), or other factors. Periodic maintenance tasks are typically scheduled at fixed time intervals so degradation mechanisms can be detected and corrective measures applied as needed. Engineers generally choose these intervals based on their knowledge of failure mechanisms. In the context of electric power transmission systems, this should be a compromise considering at least equipment reliability, maintenance costs (for inspections, repairs, replacements and so forth), value of lost load (VoLL) and other risks inherent in power transmission (environmental, health, safety and so forth). Herein, an asset behaviour model, an event stochastic simulator, a power-flow simulator, and a risk model with a VoLL estimator are combined to quantify the total cost of periodic maintenance strategies. A blackbox optimization solver is then used to search for periodic maintenance strategies that minimize costs within specified constraints. As the event simulator uses a Monte Carlo method to output grid states where equipment fails according to preset statistical distributions, the problem is non-deterministic. However, timely and meaningful results can be obtained by adjusting the number of Monte Carlo cycles as well as the length of the timespan simulated and other parameters. This opens the way for multi-fidelity optimization, where these parameters are automatically adjusted during optimization. Ultimately, engineers may use this approach to select optimal periodic maintenance schedules that minimize the global risk for the system operator. The procedure is implemented with NOMAD (Nonlinear Optimization by Mesh Adaptive Direct Search), an open-source blackbox optimizer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Diagnostics and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207