New Diagnostic Concepts For Better Asset Management

The Conference Value
New Diagnostic Concepts for Better

Asset Management
November 7 and 8 - 2002
Become Consciously Competent Asset Managers
Gather increased Consciousness of new ideas and
successful industry practices
Take home increased knowledge and new
Competencies that benefit myself and my organization
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Where Does Your Organization Fit?
CONSCIOUSNESS
LEVEL
High
Consciously
Incompetent
Consciously
Competent
Weve got Problems, but

we know what they are!
Were Very Good,

and We Know Why!
Unconsciously
Incompetent
Unconsciously
Competent
Were in Big Trouble and

we dont have a clue!
Prior managers left us an

Unappreciated Legacy!
Low
High
COMPETENCE LEVEL
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
The Need to Understand the

Probable Condition of
Operating Power Transformers
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Why is there a need?

Understanding the Probable Condition of an
asset provides an important frame-of-reference,
but understanding the potential IMPACT of an
assets condition fulfills a vital business need!
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
What is driving the need ?
Todays electric T&D company has two fundamental business

objectives: Improved Customer Service
Improved Competitive Position
Utility engineers and managers must find ways to leverage the
most out of existing equipment, while system margins are at
their lowest level, without increasing the risk of forced outage
Utility customers have a very low tolerance for loss of service
Power transformers are a concern because each one often
feeds a single large customer, or large numbers of customers,
and replacement involves a considerable amount of time and
expense
Risk-cost is today recognized as a real cost of doing business
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Understanding Probable Condition

of Power Transformers
Four Main Reasons why;
Optimize Operation of Equipment
Prioritizing Maintenance Spending
Assess and Mitigate Risk
Condition-Based Capital Reinvestment
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Probability
Risk Probability vs. Impact
High
Blue
Yellow
Red
Medium
Green
Blue
Yellow
Low
Green
Green
Blue
Low
Medium
High
Impact
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Failure Probability and condition

are connected, but..
Deterioration is caused by the effects of normal age,
service, and infrequent but very stressful abnormal
faults
This cumulative deterioration eventually leads to
failure
Regardless of equipment type, failure increases as a
unit grows older
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Failure Rate and Failure Probability

Not the same thing
Most power transformers fail in their middle age years,
even though the probability of failure is still moderately
low, because the bulk of these units are in this age
group.
In comparison, the actual number of units that fail at very
old age is small, due to the number of units remaining in
that age group, even though the probability of failure for
units of that age is very high
The key to understanding failure probability first starts
with determining equipment age distribution.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Example 1
Age Distribution for 1000 Unit System
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70
Number of
Units
100
150
200
300
150
80
20
% of
Population
10%
15%
20%
30%
15%
8%
2%
Number
Failed in Year
% Failed in
Age Group
0%
0.6%
0.5%
1.0%
1.3%
2.5%
5%
Average Age is 30.7 Years

Average Age at Failures is 27.6 Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
10
Example 1
350
6%
300
250
5%
4%
200
3%
150
2%
100
50
1%
Probability of
Failure
Units
Age Distribution and Failure Probability
Units
% Failure
0%
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11
Example 2
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70
Number of
Units
80
100
120
200
300
150
50
% of
Population
8%
10%
12%
20%
30%
15%
5%
Number
Failed in Year
% Failed in
Age Group
1.2%
0%
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.3%
2%

Average Age at Failures is 41 Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
12
Example 2
350
6%
300
250
5%
4%
200
3%
150
2%
100
50
1%
Probability of
Failure
Units
Units
% Failure
0%
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
13
Example 3
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70
Number of
Units
100
200
250
250
150
30
20
% of
Population
10%
20%
25%
25%
15%
3%
2%
Number
Failed in Year
% Failed in
Age Group
0%
0.5%
1.2%
0.8%
1.3%
3.3%
5%

Average Age at Failures is 29.5 Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
14
Example 3
300
6%
250
5%
200
4%
150
3%
100
2%
50
1%
0%
5
15
25
35
45
55
Probability of
Failure
Units
Units
% Failure
65
Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
15
Willis on Failure
Even best condition-assessment methods
cannot predict exactly the expected remaining
lifetime, other than in extreme cases where the
units failure is imminent.
In many such cases, monitoring and testing
can usually determine the unit is about to fail.
H. Lee Willis, IEEE Fellow
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
16
Condition Monitoring
Condition Assessement
detect fault
diagnosis
Is it
Normal?
Start
No
10%
Is it
Serious?
2%
No
Yes
90%
8%
Do
something
else
Do
Nothing
else
Broadband technique
applied routinely
Yes
Focused technique
applied as required
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
17
Probable Condition and Probable Failure

change with the ability to withstand stress
Time to failure can be predicted accurately only over
large populations
Past and present service conditions can be used to
narrow the expected uncertainty
Testing provides time to failure information only
when it reveals that a problem exists or failure is
imminent
The only way to assure accurate predictions of time to
failure is to periodically test units with increasing
frequency as they get older
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
18
Failure Model
Transformer aging = Reduction of Spare margin
Defect or Fault = Reduction of Spare margin
fault occurs
failure with fault
Strength
failure without fault
Spare
margin
Aging
without fault
Aging
with fault
Stress
new
AGE
11/12/2002
old
A Member of the
Group
19
Real-World Considerations
for Condition Evaluation
Most units are custom-designed to meet an individual utility
specification repetition is 1.4 units per design
Differences between local P.U.C. regulation and utility
investment practices have over the years resulted in major
differences in the normal loading policy between utilities
Deterioration of the insulation system is unit-specific, so
two units of the same design and chronological age can
have a totally different service age or residual life
expectancy.
No two operating environments are the same
Maintenance may be arbitrary and not always well
documented
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
20
Condition Evaluation Methods

General; Condition evaluation can be applied to a
population of units by using statistical methods, based on
historical failure modes, but this cannot identify the
condition or vulnerability of individual units.
Specific; There is no single scientific method available
to determine the condition or end-of-life of an operating
power transformer. Experienced engineers, chemists
and technicians are required to conduct analysis, tests,
visual inspections and review of historical data to help
form the decision.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
21
TACTICAL
SPECIFIC
GENERAL
EVALUATION
APPROACH
STRATEGIC
FAMILY
and
FAILURE
MODES
DATA MINING
INDIVIDUAL
THERMAL
and
DESIGN
ANALYSIS
POPULATION
! COMMUNITY
FAILURE
FAILURE
RATE
MODES
and
! SIX SIGMA
AGE
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
STATISTICAL
REFERENCE
DATA
DATA
REASONS
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
22
SPECIALIZED
GENERALIZED
CAPABILITY
UTILITY
INSURANCE
COMPANY
ENGINEERING MANUFACTURER
SERVICES
TYPE OF APPROACH
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
23
B AD
Y
ER H
V IG
H
IS
C O N D IT IO N
GOOD
LOW
H IG H
CRITICALITY (Transformer Priority -TPI)
Risk-Based Condition Ranking

more than Condition Evaluation
Condition (WCF) X Criticality (TPI) = Risk Perception
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
24
Risk and Condition Ranking

The combination of an individual units
Weighted Condition Factor and its
Transformer Priority Index
Used to make decisions about the extent to
which the unit should be operated and
maintained.
Ranking may be used to establish risk
associated with loading older units
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
25
TABLE 6
Weighted
Condition
Factor
(WCF)
Worst
Best
TRANSFORMER PRORITY INDEX

(TPI)
VITAL
1
2
3
CRITICAL
4 5
6
IMPORTANT
7 8 9 10
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Red
Yellow
Blue
Yellow
Green
Blue
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
26
Quant it y of t rans form e r s w ith a give n

crit icalit y
Distribution of the transformers' park on 01/01/2000 according to criticality
15
10
10- 15
5- 10
0- 5
0
0,3
Ge ne ral Te chnical
Condition
14,8
13,2
12,2
12,4
10
10,8
11,6
7,8
8,4
8,5
9,2
Global St rate gic Im pact
7,5
6,4
6,9
5,8
6
4,8
5,4
4,2
3,7
3,4
2,6
3
-5
Fig. 2.3: Example of GSI and GTC for a population of 900 transformers
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
27
Benchmarking Probable Condition or

Weighted Condition Factor
The process for benchmarking the probable condition of a
group or an individual unit, compared to other units on the
system, is often controlled by moving through three gates
or levels:
Level 1 Level 2
Level 3 -
Data and Design Analysis

Energized and De-Energized Testing
External and Internal Inspection
Condition evaluation method is analytical and subjective

based on quality and quantity of information, requiring the
results to be weighted depending on each of the factors
that have been selected.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
28
Possible Factors used in

Level 1 Condition Appraisal
Design - Manufacturer, Vintage, Winding Type, Materials, BIL, Short
Circuit, Oil Preservation, LTC, Bushings, Cooling Equipment
Operating Environment - System Impedance, Lightning Level,

Protection Scheme, Power Factor, Harmonics
Usage - Load and Overload History, Faults, Maintenance Practices

Historical Tests and Diagnostics - DGA, GOQ, Megger,
TTR, Furans, DP
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
29
Practical Application of the

Three-Level Condition Appraisal Process
Strategic Programs
Macro Approach
Level
Three
Level
Two
Level
One
Limited
Criteria
Transformer
Communities
Tactical Projects
Micro Approach
Internal
inspection
External
Inspection
Thermograph Utility
and External Preferred
range of
Inspection
testing
Limited
Criteria
Full Criteria
Transformer
Families
11/12/2002
Non-Critical
Units
Full Criteria
Vital and
Critical Units
A Member of the
Group
30
Will Condition Assessment Predict

Expected Lifetime or Failure ?
One hundred transformers judged to be in poor
condition will see far more failures in the next
twelve months that one hundred units that have
been assessed to be in very good condition.
Condition assessment is not a prediction of
expected lifetime. Instead, it can and should be
used to set priorities and general operating policy
H. Lee Willis, IEEE Fellow
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
31
RANKING
Based on Strategic Importance
In most cases, knowing the probable condition for an
individual unit does not in itself provide the basis for
making good strategic, maintenance or loading
decisions.
It is important to compare the units probable condition
or Weighted Condition Factor versus the Strategic
Importance or Criticality for future use of the unit on the
system.
The individual units Transformer Priority Index can be
calculated by scoring its status versus the TPI criteria
chosen by the utility asset management team
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
32
Transformer Priority Index-Factors Crucial for Future Use

Determined by the Utility Asset Management Team
Maintenance
Application (use)
Voltage Class
Size of Units
Type / Brand
Age / Vintage
Historical Problems
No Problems
Fault Levels
Ancillary Equipment
- Bushings
- Tap Changers
- Oil System
- Cooling System
Planning
Growth Areas
System Location
Capital budget
Spares / Risk
Load Limits
- High
- Low
Operations
Load Served
Contingency
Customer Contracts
System Impact
Risk
The above table provides lists of possible factors that are voted as most/least important by a cross-section of utility managers
and engineers.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
33
A Case for Real-World or

Condition-Based Loading Limits
Few utility planners today consider transformer
condition when setting transformers loading limits
Equipment Ranking is becoming a key element in
the utilitys overall O&M practices, and could offer
a practical method for setting upper loading limits
for individual transformers in the near future .
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
34
DEFINING OPERATIONAL MODES

AND THERMAL LIMITS
The required Service Conditions of transformers will
normally fit into one or more of the following loading
categories:
Normal Life Expectancy Loading - Continuous Load

Normal Life Expectancy Loading - Cyclical Load
Long-Time Emergency Loading
Short-time Emergency Loading
Planned Loading Beyond Nameplate - Normal Operation
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
35
Setting Policy Limits for Normal and

Contingent Operation
Typical Utility Loading Criteria and Thermal Limits
Normal Life
Expectancy
Planned
Loading Beyond
Nameplate
Long Term
Contingent
12 hour
Contingent
2 hour
Contingent
130C
140C
160C
180C
140C
150C
160C
180C
200C
Top Oil
Temperature
105C
110C
110C
110C
110C
Per Unit Load

Current
1.3pu
1.3pu 1.5pu
1.3 to
1.5pu
1.5
1.5
*.037%
*.037%
0.5 to
1.0%
1.0 to
2.0%
2.0 to 4.0%
Insulated
Conductor Hot
Temperature
Other Metallic
Hot Spot
Temperature
Limits
Loss Of
Insulation Life
Per Cycle
120C
*Based on 65,000 hour design life at constant load and ambient limits for 50% insulation tensile (not 200 DP).
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
36
Setting Peak Thermal Limits

with thermal model Calculations
To establish peak loading limits, it is necessary to calculate

whichever limit occurs first, based on the seasonally adjusted
loading cycle and ambient temperature.
The temperature calculations should also include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Top oil
Top duct oil
Bottom oil
Winding hot spot
Average oil rise
Average winding rise
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Winding hot spot gradient

Average winding gradient
Bushing gradient
Cable gradient
Tap changer contact gradient
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
37
Calculated Limits need also to include
Loss of insulation life in %

Bubble evolution probability
Regulation and voltage drop in %
Loading capability in peak output MVA and
per unit accounting for voltage regulation.
Current in amps accounting for voltage
regulation
Regulated and unregulated output voltage
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
38
Optimized NOT Maximized Loading Limits

at the Peak of the Load
Calculated thermal loading limits are then
calculated for normal loading, planned loading
above nameplate, long-time emergency and
short-time emergency cases.
In addition to thermal loading limits, upper loading
limits should then consider the probable condition
of the transformer and its ability to withstand the
additional stresses at the limits
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
39
Example Results for Ambient

and Daily Loading Cycles for 224 mva Unit
Peak of Cycle Operating Load Limits Based on Thermal Calculation
Operating
Mode
Ambient
Cycle
Load
Cycle
Max. Peak
Load MVA
Peak
Time Hr.
P.U. Peak
Rating
Hot Spot
Temperature
Top Oil
Temperature
Loss of Ins.
Life Per Cycle
Normal
Summer
S
Normal
Winter
W
Contingent
Summer
S
Contingent
Winter
W
252.0
314.7
272.1
349.4
16.00
08.00
17.00
08.00
1.125
1.405
1.215
1.560
119.8
120
130.2
139.4
101.6
94.2
109.6
109.5
0.023
0.018
0.037
0.050
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
40
ADJUSTING UPPER LOADING LIMITS

BASED ON UNIT RANKING
Condition Ranking method can be applied to the

calculated upper limit by setting a margin or service
factor applied to the appropriate Red, Yellow or Blue
condition ranking of the unit
The magnitude of these margins, or reliability factors,

will depend on the utilities level of Risk Sensitivity
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
41
Condition-Based Loading Capability

Margins Applied to Theoretical Peak Thermal Limits
Based on Condition Ranking Method
Group Blue units 0% margin on peak load limits
Group Yellow units 10% margin on peak load limits
Group Red units 20% margin on peak load limits
Load
Scale
MVA
Per Unit
of
Nameplate
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
1.55
1.44
1.33
1.22
1.11
1.00
0.88
Peak Operating Mode

Summer
Normal
(252 mva)
Blue
Yellow
Red
Summer
Contingent
(272 mva)
Blue
Yellow
Red
11/12/2002
Winter
Normal
(314 mva)
Blue
Yellow
Red
Winter
Contingent
(349 mva)
Blue
Yellow
Red
A Member of the
Group
42
THE NEED FOR REAL-WORLD

CONDITON-BASED LOADING
It is unrealistic to assume that upper loading limits
for units in operation a long period of time, or
those having seen frequent faults, should be set at
the same level as those set for new units.
Optimum loading of transformers must involve
more than setting limits that are based solely on
winding or oil temperatures calculated at varying
load and ambient cycles.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
43
TAKE-AWAY
When you cant spend a whole lot of money on new
equipment, What can be done with an aging infrastructure ?
Condition Ranking and Periodic Equipment Evaluation,
resulting in Action-Oriented Jeopardy Lists, will improve
Asset Management Effectiveness and Cut Failure Impact.
Consider and evaluate on-line monitoring for units with
Condition Ranking Yellow and Red.
Load Equipment Differently depending on the situation.
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
44

New Diagnostic Concepts For Better Asset Management

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

New Diagnostic Concepts For Better Asset Management

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Conference Value

New Diagnostic Concepts for Better

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Where Does Your Organization Fit?

Weve got Problems, but

Were Very Good,

Were in Big Trouble and

Prior managers left us an

The Need to Understand the

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Why is there a need?

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

What is driving the need ?

Todays electric T&D company has two fundamental business

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Understanding Probable Condition

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Risk Probability vs. Impact

Failure Probability and condition

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Failure Rate and Failure Probability

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70

Average Age is 30.7 Years

Age Distribution and Failure Probability

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70

Average Age is 36.9 Years

Age Distribution and Failure Probability

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

110 1120 2130 3140 4150 51 60 61-70

Average Age is 28.2 Years

Age Distribution and Failure Probability

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Probable Condition and Probable Failure

failure with fault

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Condition Evaluation Methods

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

CRITICALITY (Transformer Priority -TPI)

Risk-Based Condition Ranking

Risk and Condition Ranking

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

TRANSFORMER PRORITY INDEX

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Quant it y of t rans form e r s w ith a give n

Distribution of the transformers' park on 01/01/2000 according to criticality

Global St rate gic Im pact

Benchmarking Probable Condition or

Data and Design Analysis

Condition evaluation method is analytical and subjective

Possible Factors used in

Operating Environment - System Impedance, Lightning Level,

Usage - Load and Overload History, Faults, Maintenance Practices

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Practical Application of the

Will Condition Assessment Predict

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

Transformer Priority Index-Factors Crucial for Future Use

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW

A Case for Real-World or

UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW