Skip to main content

Methods for Prognosis and Optimization of Energy Plants Efficiency in Starting Step of Life Cycle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Reliability Analysis and its Applications

Abstract

The probability that an energy system will successfully enter into operation and perform the required function of the criteria within the allowed tolerances for a given period of time and given environmental conditions (working temperature, pressure, humidity, permissible vibrations, noise and shock, changes in operating parameters of labor, etc.) represents its effectiveness. The effectiveness indicator is characterized by a unit (unit parameter) or several effectiveness properties (complex parameter), such as: reliability (the ability of system to maintain continuous working ability within the limits of allowed deviations during the calendar period of time, quantified through indicators: probability of operation without cancellation, medium time in work, intensity of cancellation and cancellation rate), maintenance convenience (ability to prevent and detect cancellation and damage, to restore working ability and correctness through technical service and technical repairs, quantified through: probability of renewal for the given calendar period of time, medium recovery time and the intensity of renewal), durability (the system’s ability to maintain its working ability from the very beginning of its application or exploitation until the transition to limit states in which certain stop is possible in the realization of certain activities for technical service maintenance and repairs, defined through indicators: medium resource, gamma-percentage resource, medium expiration date, gamma-percentage life), stability (the system’s ability to continuously maintain hot reserves, storage and/or transport). Optimal management of complex technical systems must be based on the assessment and complex optimization of the reliability indicators, depending on how they are provided and the hierarchical level of detailing, as well as the current phase of the life cycle. For these reasons, the optimization process includes the basic structural, parametric and constructive solutions related to the technical system itself through the change of its most important characteristics: efficiency (mostly energy), maneuverability, reliability and economic effectiveness in general. The set of goals of optimization is concluded in the overall choice of reliability indicators and possible ways to secure them, and given the already established rules regarding the higher hierarchical level of the system. Creating effectiveness is closely related to the concrete energy system, its behavior at a certain time and the environment in which it works (the power system as a higher hierarchical system). For this realization, it is necessary to provide the appropriate backgrounds, first of all the database, then to define based on the function of the goal and the available database of the interconnection and the relationship between the individual elements of the system. Within this chapter, appropriate methods will be provided for prognosis and optimizing the effectiveness based on the quality of design, production and testing, assembly and trial release, exploitation, development of procedures for prognosis of the complex systems behavior based on the characteristics of certain constituent elements of the system and the possible impact of human factors and environment itself on the system. Starting from the initial stage of development, design and conquering the production of certain types of thermal energy equipment in the goal of fulfilling all requirements without limitations, if it is based on its purpose, a multivariate assembly is set up before the designer, with the need to optimize according to certain already adopted algorithms. The goal is to create such a facility that has a satisfactory structure in terms of reliability indicators, with minimal costs of maintenance during the projected working life. Defining the plant that best meets the set requirements related to reliability and the process of exploitation and maintenance itself must be the result of the implemented optimization process (in this case, on the basis of the selected minimum investment criterion). The sum consumption of all devices that ensure the normal operation of the thermal power plant is called own consumption. General consumption consists of all other devices that do not have a direct impact on the technological process at the plant. Preserving the continuity in supplying of own power consumption is essential for safe operation under normal operating conditions, in the case of short-term transitions, as well as in starting and normal stopping, it is particularly important in case of stopping in case of disorder or failure of the system. With the growing unit block strength, there is also the growth of unit power of electric motors with their own consumption, and therefore requirements related to the power supply. The basic problem is to achieve safe power supply in a variety of drive operation situations, with fewer short-circuit currents and the voltage drop when starting large synchronous motors. The solution is achieved by the proper choice of the transformer of own consumption and voltage level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Milovanović NZ (2003) Optimization of power plant reliability. University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Banja Luka, Banja Luka, 323 pp

    Google Scholar 

  2. Papić RLj, Milovanović NZ (2007) Maintenance and reliability of technical systems, DQM monograph library Quality and reliability in practice, Book 3, Prijevor, 501 p

    Google Scholar 

  3. Milovanović NZ, Papić RLJ, Dumonjić-Milovanović RS, Milašinović NA, Knežević MD (2017) Sustainable energy planning: technologies and energy efficiency, DQM monograph library Quality and reliability in practice, Book 9, Prijevor, 779 pp

    Google Scholar 

  4. Milovanović NZ (2011) Monographs: “energy and process plants” tom 1: thermal power plants—theoretical foundations. University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Banja Luka, Banja Luka, 431 pp

    Google Scholar 

  5. Milovanović NZ (2011) Monographs: “energy and process plants” tom 2: thermal power plants—technological systems, design and construction, exploitation and maintenance. University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Banja Luka, Banja Luka, 842 pp

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dueck G, Scheuer T (1990) Threshold accepting: a general purpose optimization algorithm appearing superior to simulated annealing. J Comput Phys 90:161–175

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Rechenberg I (1965) Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Royal Aircraft Establishment. Library translation No. 1122, Farnborough, Hants., UK

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbour, ISBN 10: 0-262-58111-6

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Colorni A (1996) The ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 26(1):29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moscato P (1989) Report No. 826 (C3P). Caltech concurrent computation program, Pasadena, CA, USA, pp 158–179

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pareto V (1896) Cours d’economie politique professe a l’universite de Lausanne, vol 1, 2, F. Rouge, Laussanne, 97 pp

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35(4):417–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang D (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Laarhoven P, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11(1):199–227

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(3):233–247

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Boender CGE, De Graan JG, Lootsma FA (1989) Multicriteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets Syst 29(2):133–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Feng DZ, Chen LL, Jiang MX (2005) Vendor Selection in supply chain system: an approach using fuzzy decision and AHP. In: Proceedings of ICSSSM’05 services systems and services management, pp 721–725

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29(8):826–835

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chamodrakas I, Batis D, Martakos D (2010) Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisfying and fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 37:490–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Onut S, Kara SS, Isik E (2009) Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Exp Syst Appl 36(2):3887–3895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Krajnc D, Glavič P (2005) A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development resources. Conserv Recycl, Elsivier, Amsterdam, pp 189–208

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sirikrai SB, Tang JCS (2006) Industrial competitiveness analysis: using the analytic hierarchy process. J High Technol Manage Res 17:71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nagesha N, Balachandra P (2006) Barriers to energy efficiency in small industry clusters: multi-criteria-based prioritization using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy 31:1969–1983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2007) Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol Ind 7:565–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ugwu OO, Haupt TC (2007) Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability-a South African construction industry perspective. Build Environ 42(2):665–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tseng ML, Lin YH, Chiu ASF (2009) Fuzzy AHP based study of cleaner production implementation in Taiwan. PWB manufacturer. J Clean Prod 17(14):1249–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2009) Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 37(3):778–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perez-Vega S, Peter S, Salmeron-Ochoa I, Nieva-de la Hidalga A, Sharratt PN (2011) Analytical hierarchy processes (AHP) for the selection of solvents in early stages of pharmaceutical process development. Process Saf Environ Prot 89:261–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsu CW, Hu AH, Chiou CY, Chen TC (2011) Using the FDM and ANP to construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12891–12899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bottero M, Comino E, Riggio V (2011) Application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environ Model Softw 26:1211–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hobbs BF, Meier PM (1994) Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE Trans Power Syst 9(4):1811–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang J, Poh K, Ang B (1995) Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 20(9):843–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Landhelma R, Salminen P, Hokkanen J (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 26(6):595–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Afgan NH, Carvalho MG (2002) Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy 27:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cormico C, Dicorato M, Minoia A, Trovato M (2003) A regional energy planning methodology including renewable energy sources environmental constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 7:99–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(377):365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roh S (2012) The pre-positioning of humanitarian aid: the warehouse location problem. A thesis submitted in fulfilment for the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cardiff University, Transport and Shipping Research Group, Logistics and Operations Management Section of Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, 373 pp

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roh SY, Jang HM, Han CH (2013) Warehouse location decision factors in humanitarian relief logistics. Asian J Shipping Logistics 29(1):103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roh S, Pettit S, Harris I, Beresford A (2015) The pre-positioning of warehouses at regional and local levels for a humanitarian relief organization. Int J Prod Econ 170(Part B):616–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Agyei W (2015) Project planning and scheduling using PERT and CPM techniques with linear programming: case study. Int J Sci Technol Res 4(8):222–227

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sharma JK (2007) Operations research; theory and application, 3rd edn. Macmillan India Ltd., pp 525–557

    Google Scholar 

  43. Soroush HM (1994) The most critical path in a PERT Network. J Oper Res 45(3):286–300

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Hajdu M (2015) Point-to-point versus traditional precedence relations for modeling activity overlapping. Proc Eng 123:208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Francis A, Miresco ET (2010) Dynamic production-based relationships between activities for construction project planning. In: The international conference on computing in civil and building engineering, Nottingham, United Kingdom, June 30–July 2

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hajdu M (2015) One relation to rule them all: the point-to-point precedence relation that substitutes the existing ones, In: 5th international/11th construction specialty conference, Vancouver, Canada, June 8–10

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tangen S (2005) Demystifying performance and productivity. Int J Prod Perform Manage 54(1):34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Aruldoss M, Travis ML, Venkatesan VP (2014) A survey on recent research in business intelligence. J Enterp Manage 27(6):831–866

    Google Scholar 

  49. Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, Venkatesan VP (2013) A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. Am J Inf Syst 1(1):31–43

    Google Scholar 

  50. Milovanovic Z (2000) Modified method for reliability evaluation of condensation thermal electric power plant (in Serbian), Ph.D. thesis, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Banja Luka, Banja Luka

    Google Scholar 

  51. Soliman SA, Mantawy A-AH (2012) Modern optimization techniques with applications in electric power systems. Springer, New York, p 414

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Corne DW, Knowles JD, Oates MJ (2000) The Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of the parallel problem solving from nature VI conference, Springer, Berlin, pp 839–848

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Sumathi S, Surekha P (2010) Computational intelligence paradigms: theory and applications using MATLAB. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, 821 pp

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zhao B, Guo CX, Cao YJ (2005) A multiagent-based particle swarm optimization approach for optimal reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(2):1070–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Haykin S (81998) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation, 2nd Edn. Prentice Hall, 842 pp

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rao SS (2009) Engineering optimization—theory and practice, 4th edn. Wiley Inc, New Jersey, p 813

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Mučibabić DS (1995) Multicriteria aspects of decision making in conflict situations (in Serbian), Ph.D. thesis, FON, Beograd, 213 p

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mučibabić DS (1997) Multicriteria approach to solving real conflict situations. Math Moravica 1(1):73–85

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. N. Milovanović .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Milovanović, Z.N., Papić, L.R., Janičić Milovanović, V.Z., Milovanović, S.Z., Dumonjić-Milovanović, S.R., Branković, D.L. (2020). Methods for Prognosis and Optimization of Energy Plants Efficiency in Starting Step of Life Cycle. In: Ram, M., Pham, H. (eds) Advances in Reliability Analysis and its Applications. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31375-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31375-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31374-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31375-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics