Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Diagnostic Concepts For Better Asset Management
New Diagnostic Concepts For Better Asset Management
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
CONSCIOUSNESS
LEVEL
High
Consciously
Incompetent
Consciously
Competent
Unconsciously
Incompetent
Unconsciously
Competent
Low
High
COMPETENCE LEVEL
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Probability
High
Blue
Yellow
Red
Medium
Green
Blue
Yellow
Low
Green
Green
Blue
Low
Medium
High
Impact
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
Example 1
Age Distribution for 1000 Unit System
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
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%
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
Units
% Failure
0%
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
Years
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
11
Example 2
Age Distribution for 1000 Unit System
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
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%
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
Age Distribution for 1000 Unit System
With 1% Failure
Age Group
Years
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%
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
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
Yes
Focused technique
applied as required
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
17
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
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
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
20
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
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
22
SPECIALIZED
GENERALIZED
CAPABILITY
UTILITY
INSURANCE
COMPANY
ENGINEERING MANUFACTURER
SERVICES
TYPE OF APPROACH
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
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
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
24
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
25
TABLE 6
Weighted
Condition
Factor
(WCF)
Worst
Best
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
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
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
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
27
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
28
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
29
Level
Three
Level
Two
Level
One
Limited
Criteria
Transformer
Communities
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
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
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
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
32
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
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
34
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
35
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
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).
UNDERSTANDING "CONDITION" - DJW
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
36
Top oil
Top duct oil
Bottom oil
Winding hot spot
Average oil rise
Average winding rise
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
37
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
38
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
39
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
11/12/2002
A Member of the
Group
41
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
(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
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