Advanced Electric Motor Predictive 1

Advanced Electric Motor Predictive
Maintenance Project
Technical Report
10237086
10237086
Advanced Electric Motor Predictive
Maintenance Project
1008377
Final Report, May 2003
EPRI Project Manager

J. Stein
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10237086
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE
WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III)
THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
R & P Consulting, LLC
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow Way,
Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169, (925)
609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2003 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10237086
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
R & P Consulting, LLC.

59 Long Meadow Road
Royersford, PA 19468
Principal Investigator
R. Leonard
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Advanced Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance Project, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003.
1008377.
iii
10237086
10237086
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
EPRI sponsored the three-year Advanced Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance (AEMPM)
project in 2000 to increase the effectiveness of motor maintenance at a time when utilities were
in a state of declining motor knowledge due to downsizing and restructuring. The project
identified areas for improvement that were common to most utilities and selected appropriate
measures to address these concerns. Areas addressed include documenting motor knowledge,
increasing utility confidence in newer technologies and diagnostic devices, credible tracking of
maintenance program performance, and interpretation of motor predictive maintenance data at
the plant level. This approach resulted in guidelines, equipment evaluations and training,
decision logic trees, and a series of controlled motor tests—each structured to document motor
knowledge and increase the effective application of newer Predictive Maintenance (PdM) and
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) technologies.
Results & Findings

The purpose of the AEMPM project was to help utility participants become familiar with the
latest motor diagnostic equipment, while increasing their knowledge and understanding of
equipment functions and capabilities. This report documents the AEMPM project results. It
opens with discussions of PdM technologies, including insulation resistance, polarization index,
dc step voltage, winding resistance, motor current signature analysis, thermography, and
vibration testing. It continues with a focus on newer diagnostic equipment and on-line PdM
technologies—including infrared inspection, partial discharge testing, and dry ice cleaning. Also
included are decision logic trees for capacitance-to-ground testing, dissipation / power factor
testing, and bearing oil sample analysis testing along with a discussion of key PdM program
elements. The report concludes with an overview of PdM techniques for optimizing motor
performance, a utility view of lessons learned, and PdM case histories focusing on shredded
cable, loose bus bar, and pinched motor leads.
Challenges & Objectives

The specific goal of the AEMPM project was to provide utility PdM and RCM programs with
the information, tools, and technologies needed to raise their effectiveness and efficiency to the
next level. From a programmatic perspective, users must determine the most cost-effective
testing based on factors such as the type of equipment being monitored, size of the facility,
failure modes most commonly encountered, impact of removing a component or system from
service, staffing and available budget, and staff expertise. Traditional motor diagnostics have
been built around testing and analysis performed in the areas of vibration, lube oil,
thermography, and off-line electrical testing. Use of such technologies provides PdM
organizations with many tools for trending equipment health and troubleshooting equipment
problems. Most of these technologies are already imbedded in utility PdM programs. However,
v
10237086
utilities should consider infusing PdM programs with newer on-line technologies that—in
combination with vibration analysis, oil analysis, and thermography—can offer more accurate
and reliable results with much of the equipment left in service at the time of testing. Should a
fault be found or an anomaly be identified, traditional off-line testing can then be scheduled to
pinpoint the fault. In this manner, a PdM program strategy can be developed to provide a station
with the best possible comprehensive diagnostic package.
Applications, Values & Use

Numerous constraints are placed on PdM programs that require them to operate at higher levels
of efficiency and effectiveness with less resources and expertise. In order to accomplish this,
PdM programs may need to improve in areas such as: 1) training, 2) documentation of motor
problems and troubleshooting, 3) implementation of technological advances, 4) determining
limitations in diagnostic equipment and organization, and 5) correlation of PdM programs with
traditional testing. The strategy of the PdM organization should be to form a motor maintenance
program around equipment or component failures experienced at a specific site, while keeping in
mind corporate goals. The ability to understand equipment capacity for meeting emergent needs
can significantly benefit corporations, especially in a deregulated market.
EPRI Perspective
Given the decline in plant motor experience, the limitations of reorganization, and the need to
compete financially in a manner never before demanded, the AEMPM focus on enhancing PdM
and RCM programs and their associated tools has become increasingly important. The premise
of the new technologies is that on-line and off-line testing can complement each other to allow
maximum availability for key equipment, while elevating the level of reliability assurance
beyond what currently exists at most facilities. The potential impact of allowing key station
equipment to remain operable while undergoing assessment is one of the most significant
improvements that can be made by a PdM organization. EPRI supports the proper use of new on-
line technologies in conjunction with traditional methods to provide PdM organizations with the
most comprehensive diagnostic tools available to date.
Approach
Ten utilities participating in the AEMPM project were assessed for the following PdM program
elements: organization, communication, documentation, diagnostic techniques, training,
maintenance and repair, and progress indicators. Data obtained in the assessment provided
relative levels of PdM program strength and weakness in each area.
Keywords
Predictive Maintenance
Electric Motor Diagnostics
Electrical Testing
vi
10237086
ABSTRACT
The Advanced Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance (AEMPM) project report focuses on
increasing motor knowledge and providing the utility Predictive Maintenance (PdM) and
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) programs with information, tools, and technologies
needed to raise their effectiveness and efficiency in the neglected area of motor maintenance.
Ten utilities participated in the AEMPM project, which specifically focused on improvement in
the areas of documenting motor knowledge, increasing confidence in the newer technologies and
diagnostic devices, better tracking of maintenance program performance, and interpretation of
motor predictive maintenance data at the plant level.
The AEMPM Final Report documents the results of this undertaking, including a discussion of
foundation (IR, PI, DC step voltage, winding resistance, capacitance testing and dissipation
factor, motor current signature analysis, oil sampling and analysis, thermography, and vibration
testing) and new (on-line) PdM technologies, key PdM program elements, Decision Logic Trees,
new technologies diagnostic equipment (including vendors and training), information sharing,
details on dry ice cleaning, techniques for electric motors and motor bearing oil analysis and
cleanliness, optimizing motor performance, case histories, and lessons learned. Participating
AEMPM program utilities and diagnostic equipment vendors are also included in the program
discussions.
The report also includes a Controlled Motor Testing (CMT) section. The CMT project was
undertaken by the participating utilities to determine the effectiveness of the newer technologies
diagnostic equipment and software in identifying faults in electric motors and to learn more
about the application of partial discharge on 4kV motors. The CMT participants determined
which faults to be tested for then inserted the faults into various electric motors. The CMT
report discusses the inserted faults and compares on-line and off-line test results.
vii
10237086
10237086
CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Foundation Technologies ................................................................................................... 1-2
Limitations with Off-line Testing .......................................................................................... 1-3
Progression of Motor Maintenance and Diagnostics ........................................................... 1-5
Static Versus Dynamic Testing ........................................................................................... 1-7
2 ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................. 2-1

Predictive Maintenance Program Elements ........................................................................ 2-2
3 DECISION LOGIC TREES..................................................................................................3-11

Background .......................................................................................................................3-11
Decision Logic Tree Implementation..................................................................................3-12
Capacitance to Ground Testing .........................................................................................3-13
Dissipation / Power Factor Testing ....................................................................................3-15
Oil Sample Analysis Testing ..............................................................................................3-17
4 CONTROLLED MOTOR TESTING...................................................................................... 4-1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
CMT Summary ................................................................................................................... 4-1
Overview........................................................................................................................ 4-1
Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 4-2
Participation ................................................................................................................... 4-2
Utilities Involved: ....................................................................................................... 4-2
Vendors Involved: ..................................................................................................... 4-2
Participants Involved: ................................................................................................ 4-3
PSE&G Central Maintenance Facility Motor Shop..................................................... 4-3
Motor Nameplate Specifications ................................................................................ 4-4
ix
10237086
Motor 1 ................................................................................................................. 4-4
Motor 2 ................................................................................................................. 4-4
Motor 3 ................................................................................................................. 4-5
Motor 4 ................................................................................................................. 4-5
CMT Objectives ............................................................................................................. 4-6
Fault Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4-6
Equipment Used ............................................................................................................ 4-8
Partial Discharge Testing Equipment ........................................................................ 4-8
Testing Outline..............................................................................................................4-16
Motor Testing Day 1 .................................................................................................4-17
Motor 1: 460V, 150hp .........................................................................................4-17
Preparation..........................................................................................................4-17
Materials staged ..................................................................................................4-17
Test Sequence ....................................................................................................4-17
Motor 2: 2.3kV ....................................................................................................4-18
Preparation..........................................................................................................4-18
Materials Staged..................................................................................................4-18
Test Sequence ....................................................................................................4-18
Motor 3: 4kV, 300 hp ..........................................................................................4-19
Preparation..........................................................................................................4-19
Test Sequence ....................................................................................................4-19
Post Testing ........................................................................................................4-19
Motor 4: 4kV motor, 300 hp ................................................................................4-20
Preparation..........................................................................................................4-20
Test Sequence ....................................................................................................4-20
Post Testing ........................................................................................................4-20
Control Panel and Dynamometer ..................................................................................4-21
Motor Fault Summary ...................................................................................................4-23
Motor 1 (480V) Faults Induced: ................................................................................4-23
x
10237086
Motor 2 (2.3kV) Faults Induced: ...............................................................................4-23
Motor 3 (4kV) Faults Induced: ..................................................................................4-23
Motor 4 (4kV) Faults Induced: ..................................................................................4-24
Detailed Motor Testing Summary ......................................................................................4-24
Motor 1 Test Summary .................................................................................................4-24
On-line Testing.........................................................................................................4-24
High Resistance in Motor Leads Fault .................................................................4-24
Description: .........................................................................................................4-24
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-25
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-25
Low Resistance to Ground Fault..........................................................................4-26
Description: .........................................................................................................4-26
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-26
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-26
Turn-to-Turn Fault ...............................................................................................4-26
Description: .........................................................................................................4-26
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-27
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-27
Off-line Testing.........................................................................................................4-27
Turn-to-Turn Fault ...............................................................................................4-27
Description: .........................................................................................................4-27
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-27
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-28
Motor 2 Test Summary .................................................................................................4-28
On-line Testing.........................................................................................................4-29
Eccentric Air Gap Fault........................................................................................4-29
Description: .........................................................................................................4-29
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-29
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-30
Broken Rotor Bars Fault ......................................................................................4-30
Description: .........................................................................................................4-30
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-31
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-31
Contaminated End-Turn Windings (Dirty Motor) Fault .........................................4-31
xi
10237086
Description: .........................................................................................................4-31
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-31
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-31
Off-line Testing.........................................................................................................4-32
Contaminated End-Turn Windings (Dirty Motor) Fault .........................................4-32
Description: .........................................................................................................4-32
Results: ...............................................................................................................4-32
Conclusion:..........................................................................................................4-32
Motor 3 and 4 Partial Discharge Testing............................................................................4-32
Motor 3 PD Test Summary...........................................................................................4-33
Partial Discharge Testing ..............................................................................................4-34
Description: ..............................................................................................................4-34
Results: ....................................................................................................................4-35
Conclusion: ..............................................................................................................4-41
Motor 4 PD Test Summary ...........................................................................................4-42
Motor 4 Partial Discharge Testing .................................................................................4-43
Description: ..............................................................................................................4-43
Results: ....................................................................................................................4-43
Conclusion: ..............................................................................................................4-48
Motor 3 and 4 Diagnostics Testing ....................................................................................4-49
Motor Surge Sensitivity Testing ....................................................................................4-49
Description: ..............................................................................................................4-49
Results: ....................................................................................................................4-50
Surge Testing Conclusions: .....................................................................................4-51
CMT Concluding Summary................................................................................................4-51
CMT Conclusions ..............................................................................................................4-52
5 EQUIPMENT LENDING AND INFORMATION SHARING ................................................... 5-1

Vendor Training and Sharing.............................................................................................. 5-1
AEMPM Group Information Sharing ................................................................................... 5-4
6 GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

Dry Ice Cleaning................................................................................................................. 6-1
Lube Oil System Cleanliness In Motor Bearing Applications............................................... 6-2
Contamination Sources and Effects.................................................................................... 6-3
xii
10237086
Contamination Filtration and Removal ................................................................................ 6-3
7 OPTIMIZING MOTOR MAINTENANCE ............................................................................... 7-1
8 CASE HISTORIES............................................................................................................... 8-1

Case History – Shredded Cable ......................................................................................... 8-1
Case History – Loose Bus Bar............................................................................................ 8-2
Case History - Pinched Motor Leads .................................................................................. 8-3
9 LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................................................... 9-1

Comments on the Project ................................................................................................... 9-1
General.......................................................................................................................... 9-1
Decision Logic Trees and Guidelines ............................................................................. 9-1
Training ......................................................................................................................... 9-1
Partial Discharge ........................................................................................................... 9-2
Controlled Motor Testing................................................................................................ 9-2
xiii
10237086
10237086
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Predictive Maintenance Program (PdM) Diagram ................................................. 2-3

Figure 2-2 Assessment Spider Chart ..................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 3-1 Capacitance to Ground Testing Logic Diagram ....................................................3-13
Figure 3-2 Dissipation/Power Factor Testing Logic Diagram .................................................3-15
Figure 4-1 Baker On-line Test Device .................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-2 PdMA EMAX On-Line Test Device.......................................................................4-10
Figure 4-3 Framatome EMPATH On-Line Test Device..........................................................4-11
Figure 4-4 Baker AWA Off-Line Test Device .........................................................................4-12
Figure 4-5 PdMA MCE Off-Line Test Device .........................................................................4-13
Figure 4-6 BJM All-Test Pro Off-Line Test Device BJM All-Test III (Foreground). All-Test
Pro (rear)........................................................................................................................4-14
Figure 4-7 IRIS TGA-B Lite Partial Discharge Test Device....................................................4-15
Figure 4-8 ADWEL PDA Premium Discharge Test Device ....................................................4-16
Figure 4-9 Control Panel .......................................................................................................4-22
Figure 4-10 Dynamometer ....................................................................................................4-23
Figure 4-11 Motor 1 Testing Layout ......................................................................................4-25
Figure 4-12 Motor 2 Test Setup ............................................................................................4-29
Figure 4-13 Broken Rotor Bars (Typical) ...............................................................................4-30
Figure 4-14 Motor PD Testing ...............................................................................................4-34
Figure 4-15 Thermal Aging In 4 kV Motor..............................................................................4-35
Figure 4-16 Phase Group 3 and 2 Coil Insulation Voids ........................................................4-40
Figure 4-17 Phase 2 and Phase 3 Coil Insulation Voids ........................................................4-41
Figure 4-18 Motor 4 Ground Wall Void Holes and End Windings Contamination...................4-43
Figure 4-19 Phase Group 1 and Phase Group 3 Coil Dissection Points .................................4-48
Figure 8-1 Limestone Mill B Diagnostic Test Data .................................................................. 8-2
Figure 8-2 Motor Resistive Imbalance Test Data.................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8-3 Nine Mile Point 1 Condensate Pump Motor Baker AWA Test Results ................... 8-4
xv
10237086
10237086
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Assessment Work Sheet ......................................................................................... 2-8

Table 3-1 Oil Sample Analysis Testing and Fault Table ........................................................3-18
Table 4-1 Controlled Motor Testing Schedule .......................................................................4-21
Table 4-2 PD Results at 50% Ambient ..................................................................................4-36
Table 4-3 PD Results at 100% Ambient ................................................................................4-37
Table 4-4 PD Results at 100% Elevated Stator Temperature................................................4-38
Table 4-5 PD Results at 50% Elevated Stator Temperature..................................................4-38
Table 4-6 PD Testing of Individual Coils................................................................................4-40
Table 4-7 Test Results at 50% Load at Ambient ...................................................................4-44
Table 4-8 Test Results at 100% Load at Ambient .................................................................4-45
Table 4-9 Test Results at 100% Load at Elevated Stator Temperature .................................4-46
Table 4-10 Testing Results at 50% at Elevated Stator Temperature .....................................4-47
xvii
10237086
10237086
1
BACKGROUND
Twelve utilities have participated in the Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance (EMPM) project
that began in 1994. That program emphasized application and collection of vibration data, oil
sampling, thermography, motor current signature analysis, and off-line electrical tests. The
participating utilities realized up to eleven (11) times their Return On Investment (ROI), with an
average of over 5.5. 1
As a result of this project, Electric Motor Predictive Guidelines (EPRI TR-108773-V1) were
published in 1997. These guidelines contain specific procedures for electrical testing, bearing oil
sampling, infrared thermography inspection, motor current monitoring, and periodic vibration
monitoring. An EMPM Software package, which is an interactive repository for information on
motors and their condition, performance and maintenance histories, was also developed. As a
result of all these activities, it became apparent that most of the utilities need improvements in
the following areas:
• Capture of depleting motor knowledge
• Confidence in the advertised benefits of newer technologies and diagnostic devices
• Credible tracking of maintenance program performance
• Increased interpretation skills of motor predictive maintenance data
Purpose
Based on the above needs for improvement, the Advanced Electric Motor Predictive
Maintenance (AEMPM) project was undertaken. This project was to focus on the improvement
areas listed above and provide utility Predictive Maintenance (PdM) and Reliability Centered
Maintenance (RCM) programs with the information, tools, and technologies needed to raise their
effectiveness and efficiency to the next level.
Given the decline in plant motor experience, organizational resources, limitations of

reorganization, and the need to compete financially in a manner never before demanded, the
above AEMPM purpose has become more important than ever.
Project results are reported in EPRI report “ Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance Program” (TR 108773-V2).
1
The report is posted at www.epri.com for downloading.
1-1
10237086
Background
Foundation Technologies
Traditional motor diagnostics have been built around testing and analysis performed in the areas
of vibration, lube oil, thermography, and off-line electrical testing. In almost all industries, these
tests are the heart of the associated RCM programs and are key ingredients in performing
component troubleshooting.
This testing affords users with a known, reliable, and relatively economical method of
evaluation. Since much of the testing is quantitative in nature, it provides information useful in
long term trending, a key ingredient in the implementation of a Predictive Maintenance program.
This same quantitative information is useful in helping determine the present health of a
component during problem troubleshooting.
In addition to the testing described above, EPRI report TR-108773-V2 (August, 1999) on
Electric Motor Predictive Maintenance (EMPM) details other related testing that has traditionally
being used for electric motor diagnostics. These tests, along with a description of the test and its
role in electric motor maintenance, are listed below:
1. Insulation Resistance (IR): This is a measurement of the resistance between the stator
windings and the stator core. This value is expected to be very high, typically greater than
100 Megohms. Low values of IR indicate an excessive leakage between the winding and the
core, usually caused by contamination in the windings (e.g., oil, moisture, etc.) or by cracked
insulation.
2. Polarization Index (PI): The PI is a ratio of the 10-minute leakage current reading to the 1-
minute reading. It is recommended that corrective measures be taken whenever a value of
less than 2 is obtained. New IEEE Standards indicate that windings with a very high initial
insulation resistance reading can forego PI testing, since the newer insulation systems may
yield a low PI reading (i.e., 1 or 2), and still be in good condition. In older windings,
generally, low values of the PI ratio could be an indication of winding contamination, which
can cause short circuits across the insulation, a condition referred to as electrical tracking.
Refer to IEEE Standards 43-2000 for additional information.
3. DC Step Voltage Test (4kV only): This test applies a high DC voltage across the winding
insulation and measures the resultant leakage current. This is done in 1 kV steps until a
sudden rise in leakage current is observed or until the maximum allowable Hi-Pot voltage is
applied (9kV for 4kV motors). The maximum allowable Hi-Pot voltage, by IEEE Standards
is considered to be 2(EOperating)+1kV.
4. Winding Resistance: This tests the DC conductivity of the copper wire and associated
connections. Given a baseline value, an increase in the winding resistance could indicate that
the connections are deteriorating. Over time, this could lead to overheating.
5. Capacitance Testing and Dissipation Factor: Capacitance between the copper wire and the
stator core can be trended to identify faults such as loose windings, overheated insulation,
and winding contamination such as dirty oil or moisture. Since the capacitance can be
affected by changes in either the material itself or the relative spacing, this testing provides
for a higher degree of sensitivity than the IR or PI tests. The capacitance is measured using a
1-2
10237086
Background
capacitance bridge, since precision and accuracy is so critical (e.g., a 1% decline in

capacitance indicates severe thermal deterioration). Since a precision reading is so
important, it is recommended that the same piece of test equipment be used, if possible, when
taking each reading to ensure trending accuracy. If different pieces of test equipment were
used, it would be useful to ensure the equipment identification number is recorded along with
the data.
6. Dissipation Factor: is used to measure the losses within the insulation. This is useful in
identification of windings that have undergone thermal degradation. Like so many of the
other off-line tests, the absolute value is not as critical as the change in value seen by
trending over time.
7. Motor Current Signature Analysis: This test is used to detect electric motor faults such as
broken rotor bars and shorting ring problems. This test is performed using a high resolution
(at least 1600 lines) spectrum. Testing is done approximately every year, unless the motor is
suspected of having a problem or is operated in a manner where such a fault is more likely
(e.g., varying loads, at or above full load, frequent starts, etc.). In those cases, testing should
be performed more frequently such as monthly or quarterly, and in some cases weekly.
Limitations with Off-line Testing
Typically, there are two characteristics common to most of the associated motor electrical testing
above. First, most of the electrical testing is typically performed as an off-line test, that is, the
component is required to be out of service to perform the testing. Second, since any fault
identified with off-line testing is being detected with the equipment out of service, the
availability of that equipment becomes questionable. The major question being: when will it fail
and can I operate this equipment now? As such, the predictability of a component failure during
off-line testing is only as good as the extrapolated prediction, with the major question being the
restart. Conversely, if the equipment is already operating it, is more likely that its operational
mode will be held steady (i.e., remain operating) and the equipment will be trended for changes.
On-line testing also offers the inherent advantage of testing the equipment under its normal in-
service conditions, allowing testing variables such as loading, temperature, and system
dynamics, to be accurately included during the testing process. Other key concerns about off-
line testing are as follows:
1. Difficulty in trending: Some off-line testing can provide varying results based on the
individuals performing the test and the diagnostic test equipment being used. This is
especially true with winding resistance and capacitance testing. Also, many of the actual
values obtained during off-line testing are of relatively little value by themselves and require
use as part of trending or correlation with other tests to indicate problem areas.
2. Correlation with other technologies: It is important to integrate the readings of several tests
and/or measurements with those of other technologies to gain a clearer understanding of the
motor overall condition.
3. Testing concerns: Some testing is not preferred, such as DC Hi-Pot testing, which carries a
stigma of being a destructive test. Even though this may not true from an engineering
standpoint, there are many facilities that do not include that, and other off-line testing, in
their PdM program. This limits the programs impact and effectiveness.
1-3
10237086
Background
Exceptions to testing required to be performed off-line would include vibration, thermography,

and oil analysis. Vibration is a universal tool, and the heart of predictive maintenance, that can
be used for both system and component level testing while the equipment is in service. It is
useful in showing immediate status and relative change, and provides the user insight into the
urgency of an abnormal condition. From an electric motor perspective, it is usually more of a
diagnostic tool for the mechanical aspect of the motor, but is also very useful in detecting broken
rotor bars and other selected electrical faults. Oil analysis continues to grow as a diagnostic and
predictive tool. Oil analysis is very good in identifying abnormal or excessive wear of
components in bearings, especially sleeve or plain bearings, which offers the earliest indications
of incipient faults. Thermography or infrared inspection is a relatively new tool compared to
many of the others, and one that has rapidly gained universal popularity. The draw to
thermography is that it can be used for any system or component where temperature or
temperature differences can provide useful information. Since it is totally non-intrusive,
thermography testing can be performed on-line like vibration or oil analysis. For electric motors,
this tool can be used to identify both mechanical and electrical problems, as well as problems
with other components within the system that can cause related issues (e.g., a discharge check
valve stuck partially closed).
From a programmatic perspective, there remains an ongoing need for users to find “the biggest
bang for their buck.” In the simplest of terms, this would mean the best testing for the least
amount of cost; however, the reality is somewhat more complex. Users must determine what
testing is best for them based upon a number of factors. These would include, but not be limited,
to the following:
• The type of equipment being monitored
• The size of the facility
• The failure modes most commonly encountered at that facility (this can become even more
complex based on the number of facilities being run by a single owner and the desire for
increased commonality)
• The impact of removing a component or system from service
• The staffing and budget that is available for performing the testing
• The expertise of the staff
Use of the foundation technologies provides PdM organizations with many tools in which to
trend equipment health and troubleshoot equipment problems. Most of these are already
imbedded in each utility PdM program. Based on some of the concerns specified above, PdM
programs need to consider infusion of newer technologies into the program that, when combined
with the technologies presently being used, can offer more accurate and reliable results and
accomplish this with much of the equipment being left in service. The new on-line technologies,
along with the traditional vibration analysis, oil analysis, and thermography, all allow equipment
to remain in operation during testing. Should a fault be found or an anomaly be identified,
traditional off-line testing can then be scheduled to pinpoint the fault. In this manner, a PdM
program strategy can be developed to provide a station with a comprehensive diagnostic package
that is best for them.
1-4
10237086
Background
Progression of Motor Maintenance and Diagnostics
In the area of predictive maintenance, infrared inspection has flourished as a valuable tool in
most RCM programs. This is primarily because it can deliver valuable information from both a
system and component level with the equipment still in service. In that same vein, there is a
progression in electric motor maintenance and diagnostics towards on-line testing. Technologies
are now available to support on-line testing. Inherently, benefits that can be realized by
performing on-line motor diagnostics include the following:
• Minimal equipment swapping (less equipment stress, increased equipment availability, less
man-power concerns)
• Testing performed under dynamic versus static conditions (more accurate and realistic,
includes potential system aspects, as well as component)
• Higher probability that problems can be identified before component failure occurs
(equipment reliability, less outage time, investment protection)
• Better planning and scheduling (proactive instead of reactive)
• Better fault trending through more consistent and reliable results
• Increased fault notification or diagnosis, since this testing is not presently being conducted
• More condition based information without effecting availability
• Fewer number of total test equipment pieces (testing is becoming more efficient and thus,
less man-power intensive, as compared to older tests which required more pieces of test
equipment)
Leading the way in the new on-line diagnostic technologies for motor driven equipment are the
three vendors (diagnostic equipment models shown in parentheses) listed below. These vendors
are discussed in more detail later in this report. In addition, the Controlled Motor Testing (CMT)
section details the use of on-line motor diagnostics when used to detect known faults in a test
environment:
• Baker (Explorer)
• Framatome (EMPATH)
• PdMA (MCEmax)
For on-line monitoring for Partial Discharge:

• Adwel International
• Iris Engineering
While on-line motor diagnostics is the up and coming technology, and provides many benefits as
detailed above, it should be understood that on-line testing may still require off-line testing for
complete fault diagnosis, depending on the fault. The premise for AEMPM is, however, that
equipment can be left in service and tested for faults or degradation, and removed from service
only when it is likely that failure will result or as part of a scheduled maintenance outage
1-5
10237086
Background
window. In either case, the downtime is planned. The ability to test equipment with it still in
service is especially important since the equipment could be critical to generation or generation
reliability. Taking the equipment out of service to perform off-line testing may not be practical
from a financial perspective, making on-line diagnostics even more important.
An understanding of the faults encountered is a major consideration for any PdM program.
Electric motor faults encountered throughout the utility industry have been categorized and
broken down into the following percentages. This often quoted data obtained by EPRI shows
approximate electric motor fault distributions as follows:
• 40% of the faults are due to problems associated with stator problems
• 40% of the faults are due to mechanical problems (e.g., bearings)
• 9% of the faults are due to rotor problems
• The remaining 11% of the faults were caused by miscellaneous problems
The present technologies approach diagnostics for winding problems and other stator concerns
with tests that include the use of winding resistance testing, IR and PI testing, capacitance
testing, power factor (or dissipation factor) testing, and DC step voltage (or Hi-Pot) testing.
These tests are primarily performed off-line, requiring the equipment to be taken out of service.
Some tests, such as capacitance testing, even require the motor be completely disconnected from
its power cables. The new on-line technologies allow equipment to remain in service and still
provide some indication of a stator or winding problems. Motor pattern differences, voltage
imbalance, and power factor changes are ways the on-line testing can help provide indication
that a problem might exist. In this manner, the equipment can remain in service longer, and then
be secured proactively should the on-line equipment indicate an emergent need. The off-line
testing can then be used to help pinpoint the problem.
On-line diagnostics in not just isolated to the realm of electrical testing. Fault detection is
diagnosed on the driver and the driven, and the mechanical and electrical elements of an electric
motor. Mechanical problem detection can be enhanced by the new technologies as well.
Presently, the use of vibration, thermography, and oil analysis would be the key tools for
detecting a bearing problem or some other mechanical fault. This has proven to be a reliable
means of diagnostics. The latest on-line technologies supplement those foundation technologies
with the ability to detect inconsistencies and anomalies that might otherwise go undetected using
only the traditional testing methods.
Under present technology, Motor Current Signature Analysis is the most common means of
detecting rotor faults. This involves using a current transformer to monitor for the slight
variations associated with broken rotor bars or shorting ring problems. Evaluation of these
variations or harmonics can provide information as to the health of the rotor. The presence of
calculated sidebands can then indicate the presence of broken rotor bars. The new on-line
technologies integrate this traditional testing into the associated equipment and software, and
provide a detailed summary report of the testing, which includes this information. In many
cases, the output will directly indicate broken rotor bars. In other cases, where the fault is less
severe, it may declare the rotor condition is questionable or indicate that there is an overall motor
condition problem. Besides increased sensitivity and updated software for processing this
information, the on-line equipment allows abnormalities to be factored in and show up on the
1-6
10237086
Background
data report. In this manner, incipient faults can be alerted to well before becoming a fully
developed fault.
Static Versus Dynamic Testing
On-line testing provides for a dynamic equipment assessment, which leads to a more accurate
and realistic look at equipment performance. A huge benefit to dynamic testing is that the
equipment is seen from a system perspective, not just a component perspective.
When performing off-line testing, equipment is out of service and the testing is typically focused
on a specific piece of equipment or component. For example, when performing IR testing or PD
testing off line, the motor is out of service and the test is specifically targeted to the motor
windings and more specifically, the insulation. No other system components are involved and
the total performance of the motor is not evaluated, except for the specific case of measuring the
insulation resistance or partial discharge activity. These are very specific and localized tests.
The point is they are focused on the component level, whereas on-line motor monitoring focuses
on the integrated components or system and how they work together, dynamically.
Besides the obvious advantages of not being required to remove equipment or systems from
service for testing, dynamic testing allows the component to be assessed in its normal
environment. This would include such important factors as vibration, temperature, loading,
supply voltage (e.g., irregularities, spikes, frequency, voltage levels, etc.), and impact from
system operation (e.g., throttled valves, blocked pipes, run-out conditions, cavitation, etc.). In
addition, the new technologies associated with on-line analysis facilitate detailed testing not
previously thought to be possible with equipment in service. On-line motor monitoring includes:
• Current unbalance
• Voltage unbalance
• Winding problems
• Eccentricity
• Stator problems
• Rotor problems
Even equipment anomalies that are in very early stages of deterioration are capable of being
detected, often showing up as a slight variation from the expected results during the testing and
analysis. This allows the user to perform follow-up (off-line) testing and trending to pinpoint the
concern. Static testing at the component level is still, in many cases, the most reliable method of
pinpointing an exact single component fault and its extent. The CMT section is included later
illustrates how on-line testing is supplemented by follow-up off-line (static) testing once a
problem or abnormality is identified. It is very important for any RCM program to recognize the
relationship of on-line and off-line testing, and how each should fit into their program.
1-7
10237086
10237086
2
ASSESSMENTS
In recent years, management is faced with significant challenges in establishing and maintaining
an effective RCM program. The needs of each utility, not to mention the needs of each station,
are different and require careful short range and longer range planning strategies to achieve
goals. While the strategies may differ, the external forces that make the job so challenging are
very similar for each user. These challenges are listed below, along with an explanation of how
they can impact plans for building and maintaining the desired RCM program.
Downsizing Organizations: This problem is being experienced in almost all facets of the
industry. Because of economic conditions and de-regulation, the need to be fiscally competitive
has never been so great. Cutting overhead and trimming excess cost continues to be an ongoing
process. As such, managers are forced to accomplish the required work with fewer resources. In
order to accomplish the same results, organizations are forced to find innovative ways to “work
smarter, not harder.”
Less Knowledgeable Personnel: As downsizing and reorganization takes place, personnel

turnover rates are higher. The result is that more experienced workers are leaving and the
experience base of those remaining is being significantly impacted. At a time when resources
and staffing are going down, a declining experience level can create inefficiencies and
exacerbate the problem.
Reorganization: As utilities attempt to remain competitive, it is becoming common to see

reorganization occur. This can happen in the form of changing groups or changing group
responsibilities. In the case of Predictive Maintenance (PdM) organizations, it is more common
to acquire additional responsibility since the group is technologically specialized, making it
harder to transfer duties to personnel less knowledgeable.
Increased Responsibilities: A natural progression from downsizing is that the remaining

personnel pick up additional responsibilities in order for the organization to continue to produce
at or near the same output. From a more macroscopic perspective, increased responsibilities are
also a result of station or corporate reorganization, as described above.
Reduced Budgets: A strong emphasis has been placed on trimming expenses. Typically, this
results in nearly all organizations being given a smaller budget in which to carry out required
duties. It is common for utilities and generation facilities to focus monetary allocations towards
problem areas. In general, if “it isn’t broken” or causing regulatory hardship, money that could
normally be allocated to a group is instead routed to an area that is. Since RCM or PdM groups
are service organizations, it is more common for their budgets to go down rather than up.
2-1
10237086
Assessments
Corporate Climate: By and large, utilities are in the business of generating electrical power. The
focus on production is very high at this time and ways to ensure reliability are looked at very
hard. This is an area where PdM programs can gain support and additional funding. Listed
below are key areas in which the corporate production focus can be directly enhanced by a good
PdM program.
a. Increased system and component availability can be realized with the implementation of a
good RCM program. Implementation of the AEMPM on-line testing technologies can
considerably enhance performance in this area. This can result in improved equipment
reliability, as well as provide the nuclear stations with improved regulatory standing for key
safety system availability statistics.
b. A solid RCM program can identify faults posing a production risk before production is
impacted. This would include both plant shutdowns and unplanned power reductions.
Shorter outage times directly translate to less production loss (and replacement power costs). A
good RCM or PdM program can contribute in this area by performing more on-line testing,
thereby reducing the amount of off-line testing required during an outage. PdM testing should
focus attention towards equipment that is in need of attention or repair. Thus, PdM could and
should direct maintenance resources and effectively increase reliability on rotating equipment.
Predictive Maintenance Program Elements
When developing and maintaining a RCM program, nearly all utilities will have to consider their
needs and how they can meet them taking the above factors into consideration. A good
Predictive Maintenance program will consist of all essential elements necessary to allow it to
perform at the desired levels and maintain or improve its performance over time. These elements
shall include the organization, communications, documentation, diagnostic technologies,
training, maintenance and repair, and progress indicators. A typical Predictive Maintenance
(PdM) program diagram showing all the essential elements is shown on Figure 2-1 below, along
with a description of how each element works to help make the PdM program successful.
2-2
10237086
Assessments
Organization
Communication Progress Indicators
PdM Program
PdM Maintenance &
Documentation Repair
Diagnostic
Training
Technologies
Figure 2-1
Predictive Maintenance Program (PdM) Diagram
Organization: The organizational structure should ensure that personnel are organized with
well-identified roles and responsibilities. Additionally, the organizational purpose and scope
should be well defined. The organization becomes the foundation for all other PdM program
elements. The proper utilization of capabilities and resources is imperative to ensure that
maintenance actions are driven by the PdM recommendations. The organizational structure
should allow for easy and methodical communication links, both verbal and written, as well as
post-maintenance activity feedback.
Communication: This PdM program element focuses on both formal and informal
communications. Without proper communications, the PdM program becomes inept and non-
functional. It is important that the PdM diagnostic result or finding be assimilated into the
maintenance flow of the plant, which is why the PdM group usually has close ties to the planning
and scheduling departments. Formal communications should be accomplished through
10237086
2-3
10237086
Assessments
participation at plant level meetings, as a minimum. At these meetings, key information such as
equipment condition, testing results, availability, and recommended actions should be presented
and discussed. At most facilities, informal or personal communications is relatively easy and,
not surprisingly, an essential source of conveying detailed PdM information.
Documentation: Documentation is integrated into the maintenance workflow process to ensure

that recommendations become official and follow accepted plant work planning practice,
including feedback following repair. As such, this element is a key component to all aspects of
equipment maintenance. Initially, documentation is critical in allowing station personnel to
understand a problem and develop the planning for the necessary work. Following the work, the
documentation becomes essential in allowing personnel to assess the post-work health of the
equipment. In nuclear facilities, this could include information required to make equipment or
system operability declarations, which is necessary for regulatory compliance. Finally, from a
historical perspective, proper documentation allows for trending of known problem conditions
(e.g., the equipment problem is getting worse) and helps identify recurring problems (e.g., a
component seems to fail on average every two years).
Diagnostic Technologies: Motor predictive maintenance practices should include the use of
basic diagnostic tools such as thermography, vibration analysis, motor current signature analysis,
lube oil analysis, and stator electrical testing. Performance trending should also be applied as an
aid in helping determine changes in equipment health. Parameters such as winding temperatures,
amperages, bearing temperatures, vibration levels, etc. can be trended to enable a PdM group to
be more proactive than reactive relative to declining equipment health and impending component
failures. A description of these key basic diagnostic tools is provided below.
1. Thermography: This non-intrusive equipment is used to locate thermal ‘hot’ spots in

breaker cabinets, motor electrical connections, and equipment casings. It is also used to
locate ‘hot’ bearings, cooling design flaws, over-current conditions, low lubricant levels,
and dirt accumulation problems. In many cases, thermography can even be used to sense
fluid flow (or no flow) in piping.
2. Vibration Analysis: This diagnostic tool is used to detect bearing problems, gear defects,
misalignment, balance issues, etc. This is type of monitoring is non-intrusive, with the
exception of resonance testing. In some cases, such as proximeter probe installation,
equipment may be required to be out of service to support monitoring equipment
installation.
3. Motor Current Signature Analysis: Throughout the industry, rotor bar deterioration
accounts for roughly ten percent of motor failure modes. Typically, motors with this failure
mode are operated under conditions of varying loads and/or frequent starts. To a lesser
degree, the design of a motor can contribute to this condition. Motor current signature
analysis is one way to identify that a rotor bar deterioration condition exists. It can be also
provide indication of rotor winding problems.
4. Lubrication Analysis: This diagnostic tool can determine bearing health by analyzing both
the materials suspended in the lubricant and the lubricant itself. This testing, or sampling, is
usually performed with the equipment in service (sometimes requiring addition of the
amount of oil removed for sampling).
2-4
10237086
Assessments
5. Stator Electrical Testing: Standard stator testing consists of a Polarization Index (PI),
Insulation Resistance (IR), dissipation factor, capacitance, and Hi-Pot testing, as needed.
This testing is typically performed every two years and requires the equipment to be out of
service (i.e., off-line testing).
6. Performance Trending: Trending of motor parameters should be accomplished using plant

programs that display historical and current readings. As stated above, if implemented and
utilized correctly, a good performance trending program can help a PdM organization
become more proactive than reactive, often finding negative performance trends before
failure and subsequent unavailability occurs.
Training: Training ensures that program objectives and the scope of work are obtainable, and
works to preserve present and future capabilities. It is also used to convey and reinforce the
desired high quality standards. Training is especially important in a business environment that
results in declining resources (number of workers, experience level, etc.) and technological
advances.
Maintenance & Repair: Motor maintenance includes assessing the proper mix of Preventive
Maintenance (PM), Predictive Maintenance (PdM), and Corrective Maintenance (CM) tasks. It
is important to ensure that repair activities, whether performed by an outside motor shop or in-
plant personnel, follow the expected sequence and scope. This would include the acceptance of
the work, confirmation of results, and supplied paperwork.
Progress Indicators: A Progress Indicator, as used in this application, is a measurement of the

direction in which a maintenance program element is proceeding. Indicators are composed of
the two basic groups, Leading (L) and Lagging (Lg). It is important to understand what is
represented by leading and lagging indications and how the organization and plant maintenance
as a whole is affected.
A Leading indicator is a measure of success of the foundation of the maintenance program.

While short-term success does not rely on positive trends of these indicators, long-term program
success does. A Leading Indicator, although general in nature, is fundamental to a long-term
maintenance strategy. A Lagging indicator is more indicative of measuring what the program
has actually accomplished, rather than the foundation of the program itself. The terms Leading
and Lagging are in relationship to the results of the program. A Leading indication points to
where your program can expect to be in the future, i.e., an indicator that is ahead of the results of
your program. A Lagging indication points to where your program has been, since it is an
indication of the results that your program has already produced. Typical examples of indicators
used to measure a Predictive Maintenance program are listed below. The type of indicator,
Leading or Lagging, is shown in parenthesis after each indicator.
PdM Program Improvement

• Percent planned versus percent unplanned CM (L)
• Percent PM, percent PdM, and percent CM (L)
• Return On Investment (Lg)
2-5
10237086
Assessments
Reductions in Equipment Costs / Savings

• Total equipment repair costs (previous 2 years) yearly update (Lg)
• Estimate of percent total equipment repair costs to total equipment replacement costs
(Lg)
• Total cost benefits (avoidance) quarterly updates (Lg)
Increase in Reliability
• Total Equipment Availability (days) (Lg)
• Total Equipment Unavailability (days), including comments on impact to generation
(and, for nuclear plants, regulatory impacts) (Lg)
Use of these indicators will vary, depending on station and/or corporate needs. However, a basic
grouping of indicators will usually include the following:
• Percent planned versus percent unplanned CM
• Percent PM, percent PdM, and percent CM
• Total cost benefits (avoidance)
A more advanced grouping of indicators will include all of the above indicators, including the
percentage of equipment unavailability (days) to equipment availability (days). It is very
important that any PdM program include both leading and lagging indicators that reflect
available information and are representative of station and/or corporate goals.
Using the above Predictive Maintenance Program Diagram as a guide, the various utilities
involved in the AEMPM program were assessed for each of the program elements: organization,
communication, documentation, diagnostic techniques, training, maintenance and repair, and
progress indicators. The data obtained in the assessment provided relative levels of program
strength and weakness in each area. The results of a typical assessment would typically be
provided on an Assessment Matrix Worksheet, as shown on Table 2-1 below. The relative levels
are Good, Fair, and Poor.
It is the intent of the Assessment Matrix Worksheet to provide a visual indication of general
trends in Predictive Maintenance Programs, which could prove to be useful in helping corporate
and station personnel target areas for improvement in a PdM organization. Using the indications
shown below, with descriptions of selected elements include the following:
1. Expectations: This element is directly tied to organizational leads or management. The

goals for site organizations are focused on helping the station meet its needs, which in turn
are designed to support the corporate goals. As easily understood, a success or failure to
have clear expectations lies with the organization itself. As previously discussed, most
organizations are in a state of change. It is very important that the clarity of these
expectations and scope remain intact, however challenging this may be. Staffing, scope and
responsibility, and organizational changes in response to deregulation, mergers and
2-6
10237086
Assessments
acquisitions, and fiscal concerns all offer additional challenges to organizational

accomplishments.
2. Repair Feedback: This item is attributed to documentation and/or communication issues. A

characteristic of a typical PdM organization in today’s environment is that a significant
amount of the work is emergent and/or time critical, which many times leads to a culture
that is production oriented. This can cause the quality of post-job feedback to slip, often not
having or taking the time to detail information necessary to gain all the useful “learnings.”
In addition, the quality of post-work feedback is directly related to the vehicle used to
capture the information and allow it to be used at later date.
3. Partial Discharge (PD) and On-Line Testing: These areas of weakness fall directly in the
PdM program element of Diagnostic Technologies. Throughout the industry, PD is used
extensively on Generators, but rarely, although improving in its acceptability on motors. It
is common for organizations such as electric utilities, given their conservative nature, to be
fairly slow to respond to changes in technology. The ability to keep up with technological
advances, and to plan their assimilation into the PdM organization, are key strategic
components that management must address. Typically, very few organizations can “have it
all”, and as such, must chose the diagnostic tools that best suit their needs. The AEMPM
program goes a long way in helping make some of those decisions, since it provides
excellent exposure to utility personnel in the form of training and hands-on experience for
some of the most modern diagnostic equipment available. Since the training and operation
involves equipment from several leading vendors, the comparison of equipment capabilities
can be factored in.
4. Correlation of Corporate Goals, Correlation of Scope, Leading and Lagging Indicators,

Yearly Review, and Reporting: It is typical of utilities to be slow in the application of the
necessary indicators. This is changing, since they are required to show their worth to the
organization as a process of reorganization. In the past, it was expected that the PdM Group
would establish their value at its inception only. However, as times and circumstances have
changed, the organizations are adapting and are establishing the necessary Progress
Indicators. Until recently, PIs had not received a lot of attention in the industry, primarily
because they didn’t have to. Now, with deregulation impacting such a large part of many
utilities, the need to be or remain cost competitive is greater than ever as is the need to prove
it. To this end, it is important that organizations have the ability to self-assess both their
effectiveness and their efficiency while tracking their progress.
5. Cost Benefit (Avoidance) / Indicators: CBA is the very basic of indicators. Most PdM or
RCM programs have this indicator only. Clearly, if a program could only have one
indicator, it should be the CBA, from which the ROI is derived. But if required to have a
full justification of the program, the addition of other indicators would furnish the full
picture. First, until recently, most utilities were not required to worry about cost as much as
they do in today’s environment. Second, as organizational change has become the rule of
the day, programmatic changes are made as well. This can result in changing priorities, data
skew, and philosophical changes in direction. Part of a PdM organizational strategy should
include optimization and ensuring that any negative impact from change is minimized.
2-7
10237086
Assessments
Table 2-1
Assessment Work Sheet
Organization Structure Focus/Goals Direction

Scope Equipment Monitored PM/PdM/CM Mix
Known Failure Modes
Corporate Support Plant Support Department Support
Personnel Background Disciplines
Defined Roles Defined Responsibilities Capabilities vs Tasks
Expectations
Location Assessable Work Area Equipment
Communication Formal Links Meetings Schedules

Reports/Updates Corrective Actions
Cost Benefit Analysis Repair Feedback
Informal Links Interpersonal Skills Conveyance

Approachable Knowledgeable
Diagnostic Technologies Thermography Vibration Analysis Partial Discharge

Lubrication Program Stator Testing Performance Trending
Lubrication Analysis Rotor Testing - MCSA On-line Diagnostics
Maintenance/Repair PM Activities Visual Inspections Overhauls

Lubrication Changes
Outside Motor Repairs EASA / IEEE STD Acceptance
Repair Invoice/Statement
Plant Maint. Activities Alignment Balancing
Bearing Replacement Motor Purchases
Motor Storage
Documentation Corrective Action Maint. Planning Submittal Post Maint. Feedback

Repair Histories Repair Invoices/CMA/WO
Quarterly Reports Distribution List YTD Totals
Cost Benefit (Avoidance) Indicators
Training Range of Knowledge Depth of Knowledge Experience

Levels per Technologies Depth per Technology Enhancements Needed
Progress Indicators Use of Indicators Leading Indicators Lagging Indicators

Correlate w/ Corp. Goals Correlate w/ Scope Correlate w/ Capabilities
Proper Mix Yearly Review Reporting
Legend Good Fair Poor
2-8
10237086
Assessments
The Assessment Spider Chart, shown below in Figure 2-2, can be used to provide graphic
indication of the data obtained in the assessment of AEMPM participants. This chart is
essentially a graphic representation of the assessment data displayed on the Assessment Matrix
Worksheet. The outer perimeter shape is indicative of ideal program results, usually termed as
‘World Class.’ The inner shape is a graphic reflection of how well each Predictive Maintenance
program element actually performed, taken as an average of the all the specific areas assessed for
that element. This chart provides the user with a quick indication of how well the program
elements are meeting the desired results and where the areas for improvement are.
Assessment Spider Chart
Organization
Progress
Communication
Indicators
Diagnostic
Training
Technologies
Maintenance/Re
Documentation
pair
Figure 2-2
Assessment Spider Chart
The information provided on the Assessment Matrix Worksheet and Assessment Spider Chart
can provide immediate feedback as to where most utility PdM programs are hitting or missing
the mark. Establishing the same tools for an individual station can be a very useful tool for an
organization to assess its specific PdM program.
2-9
10237086
10237086
3
DECISION LOGIC TREES
Background
In general, most operations are performed in one of three manners, either skill-based, rule-based,
or in the deductive mode. Skill-based operations are so familiar and so simple that it takes little
thought and has a very small probability for error. An example of this would be driving a car or
operating a television set. Rule-based operations are less frequently performed and/or more
complex and as such, are performed with the assistance of some type of procedure. Given that
the procedure is of high enough quality, the chance for error while performing a more complex
evolution is considerably less than when being performed without the additional guidance. This
is best exemplified by the operations and maintenance activities performed each day at a
generating station. When performing in the deductive mode, things are not always that evident.
Performing complex testing or trying to figure out how to place a component in service without
some further, reliable guidance (i.e., just thinking this is right), has an amazingly high probability
for error (up to 50% by some accounts). Making rule-based decisions a very valuable guide to
those encountering problems for the first time or infrequently.
When strategizing about an AEMPM program, consideration should be given to developing a

more rule-based approach for selected, infrequent tasks. There are a number of factors
associated with maintenance and diagnostics that make this a practical and desirable tactic.
These considerations are discussed in detail below.
1. On-line testing: In the past, off-line testing of motors was the prevalent test methodology
and was performed one test at a time, with the results being fairly “black and white,” or
strongly referenced by organizations such as IEEE. A test was performed, a result
obtained, and that value compared to acceptance criteria. Subjectivity usually became a
factor only when the data was close to a limit of acceptability. With the emergence of on-
line testing as a viable tool for motor diagnostics, the associated results analysis can contain
considerable amounts of information pertaining to various aspects of equipment health. It
will be up to the personnel performing the results analysis to catch any subtleties or
variations for those cases where a failure is not present. The Controlled Motor Testing
(CMT) project results (included later in this report) clearly showed the importance of being
able to perform thorough and accurate on-line test analysis. Because of the large amount of
information available in an on-line test report, the chances of missing data or not picking up
anomalies is considerably greater than it is for off-line testing. Having rule-based guidance
in place can serve as a checklist during the analysis to help maximize efficiency and
effectiveness.
3-11
10237086
Decision Logic Trees
2. Declining Group Experience: As previously stated, it is recognized that the experience level
in most organizations is on the decline. Even so, the organization is still expected to
function at the same level of performance (actually higher over time, at most utilities).
Procedural guidance for motor troubleshooting and analysis could help compensate for the
loss the more plant-based knowledgeable personnel, help shorten learning curve durations,
and add consistency and accuracy to the organization.
3. Less Experienced Support Personnel: At most utilities, Engineering is also trying to do

more with less. In most cases, they are not only trying to do more with less personnel, they
are trying to do more with less experience. This can result in System Engineers (or System
Managers) and their backups having considerably less experience when it comes time to
supporting station troubleshooting or planning needs. Procedural guidance can help provide
the System Engineers or Plant Engineers with the details needed to help fill in the pieces
missing due to inexperience.
4. Flexibility in Application: Use of procedural guidance does not require on-line testing to be
performed or experience levels to be in decline in order for it to provide positive results.
From a strictly global approach, this process can be used with many aspects of the predictive
maintenance program (e.g., oil analysis, off-line testing, thermographic inspection, etc.) and,
when done correctly, has the potential to provide a consistent, methodical, step-by-step
approach to troubleshooting and analysis. By implementing lessons learned during
equipment problems into this procedural guidance, organizational improvement in the areas
of troubleshooting and analysis can be programmatically assured.
Decision Logic Tree Implementation
One way to provide procedural guidance is through the use of decision logic trees. These trees
are essentially logic flow charts that implement decision-making criteria based on known
industry and component information and on experience. The flow chart provides the user with a
starting condition, prescribes the actions to be taken, the checks to be made, the choices in
results, and the next actions to be taken based on those results. The user continues to be guided
through the logic diagram until the fault is identified.
A decision logic tree can also be presented in tabular form, which provides users with a matrix of
data that identifies problems, symptoms, causes, and actions to be taken. Tabular format is
especially useful when a large amount of data is involved or multiple entries are required for
many of the categories.
Shown below are examples of decision logic tree diagrams in both flow chart and tabular form
that can be used to help guide the performance of testing and recommended follow-up actions. A
brief description of the logic diagram and associated testing information is also provided (not
included for the tabular example). It should be noted that the logic tree diagrams shown are only
typical examples to illustrate the application as a useful PdM tool. It is recommended that the
PdM organization establish decision logic trees specific to the needs of their station. These could
include, but are not limited to, such site-specific considerations as terminology,
organization/department names, specific site testing requirements, testing philosophy, and
3-12
10237086
acceptance criteria or action levels. Please refer to EPRI report TR-1004003 for full and detailed
information on this subject.
Capacitance to Ground Testing
1 2 3 4
Has the Capacitance to 5
Determining the cleanlines of Take baseline data ground increased since last No Less than 10% change from Return motor to service
your electric motor on motor motor test? baseline and reading is low Monitor on normal schedule
compared to similar motors
YES
7
Monitor more often
6
Motor has an
Yes upward trend
showing a 10%-
100%change
from baseline
and the reading
is low compared
to similar motors.
10
Motor has an upward or

unstable trend or reading of
greater than 200%change
from baseline or is high NO
compared to other similar 9
motors. Schedule cleaning ; monitor more
8 often to better define trends
Yes
Motor has an upward
trend showing a
Yes 100% - 200%change
11from baseline or is in
midrange compared
11 No
to similar motors.
Correlate with resistance to ground ;
perform insulation system physical
inspection.
Figure 3-1
Capacitance to Ground Testing Logic Diagram
Capacitance indicates the amount of material buildup on the windings in AC and DC motors.
Capacitance levels are influenced by various factors so a diagnosis from a single reading is not
feasible. Trending motor readings over time, or comparing the readings of similar motors in the
same environment, usually provides the most reliable information. Problems capacitance testing
can indicate include dirt and contamination buildup, loose windings, and overheated insulation.
Refer to Figure 3-1 above for the following detailed description.
Box 1: The reason to take trending data on AC/DC motors is to aid in helping determine the
health and cleanliness of the motor. As dirt and other contaminants build up, a change in
capacitance will occur. Capacitance can also change, usually down, as insulation becomes
overheated and begins to deteriorate.
Box 2: On a new motor (or an older motor with no data history), the first thing that needs to be
done is to take baseline data. This will provide a starting place for the motor to be trended over
time. This same box represents data collection for a motor that has already been trended for
10237086
3-13
10237086
some period of time. Since thermal degradation can result in a capacitance change of as little as
1%, a capacitance bridge is used to collect the data since most other capacitance measuring
devices do not have the required accuracy.
Box 3: If baseline data was obtained in Box 2, this box will be more useful during subsequent
testing after a period of time (i.e., trending), however, a comparison of similar motors can still be
used if the health of the motor is in question. If trending is already being performed, the data
obtained in Box 2 can be compared to previous data to help evaluate the cleanliness of the motor
or provide additional information that could be helpful during problem troubleshooting. A
nominal 10% change from baseline reading makes a good threshold value.
Box 4: If capacitance change is within limits and comparable to similar motors, as applicable,
than there is no immediate indication of a problem.
Box 5: With the results of the testing okay, the motor is cleared for return to service.
Monitoring should continue at the normally scheduled frequency.
Box 6: This step is used to determine how much the capacitance has changed and evaluate how
the capacitance value compares to other similar motors. If the motor is showing an upward trend
of 10% - 100% change from baseline and the reading is low compared to similar motors, there is
reason to place the motor on an increased-frequency monitoring program.
Box 7: The result of the testing is to monitor more often. This allows the motor to be placed
back in service after programmatic measures have been taken to ensure monitoring will occur at
a frequency often enough to detect further degradation.
Box 8: This step is only arrived at because there is concern with either the change in trend or the
capacitance value compared to other similar motors. If the upward trend shows a 100 - 200%
change from the baseline or the capacitance reading is in midrange compared to similar motors,
the motor can be placed back in service, however, there is an immediate need for additional
action to be taken.
Box 9: Based on a 100 - 200% change and a midrange comparison reading, the motor may be
placed back in service but should have increased monitoring and better defined trending limits
established. In addition, a cleaning of the motor should be scheduled for the first available
opportunity.
Box 10: This step looks for the undesirable combination of a high change in upward trend (100 -
200%) and a measured value that is high compared to other similar motors.
Box 11: When the undesirable conditions of Box 10 are identified, additional testing should be
performed prior to returning the equipment to service. This testing should include at least
resistance to ground measurements and a physical inspection of the motor.
3-14
10237086
Dissipation / Power Factor Testing
1
2
DF < .5% for Epoxy 3
Dissipation or Yes Is this the first time Yes Record Test
DF < 3% for Asphaltic
Power factor the equipment was tested data for trend
Insulation
Testing
No No 9
Consider
Tip-Up
4 5 Testing
No significant change
Does Motor have Yes Yes
from previous
grading paint
readings
10
Return to Service
No
No
6
7 Is
Yes Insulation considered
Go to Resistance/PI
to be clean
Testing
and dry
No
8
Clean and dry
insulation and
test again
Figure 3-2
Dissipation/Power Factor Testing Logic Diagram
The Dissipation/Power Factor test is used to provide information concerning the possibility of a
change in insulation condition. Basically, the test setup places an AC voltage between the
insulation conductor and ground to measure the phase angle of the resistive current and reactive
current in relation to each other. The maximum test voltage level is limited to a value below the
normal line to neutral voltage of the machine.
The theory is that changes in the ratios of these two currents will signal a change in insulation
condition. References indicate that good Epoxy-mica insulation will register dissipation factors
of 0.5% or less and good asphaltic insulation will be found to be less than 3%.
This test is typically only used in conjunction with trending and monitoring to identify if
additional testing may be required. Since poor insulation readings can be the result of either
damaged insulation or insulation that is dirty or contaminated, bad test results will initially
require the insulation to be cleaned and dried. The test can then be repeated and a determination
made as to the cause of the unsatisfactory readings. If the test results are still bad, a
determination must be made as to how bad the insulation is and how long will it be before it
10237086
3-15
10237086
becomes unserviceable. This information can only be obtained from additional tests and
experience with similar conditions.
It is preferred to isolate each winding for test when possible to improve the sensitivity of the test.
It should also be noted that grading paint, which is normally found on 6.6kV and higher voltage
motors, will normally dominate the tip-up effect and void the test results. Refer to Figure 3-2
above for the following detailed description.
Box 1: If the dissipation/power factor reading is less than 0.5% for epoxy insulation or less than
3% for asphaltic insulation, it is normally considered in good condition. If the readings are not
less than the expected amount, additional actions are required to understand why.
Box 2: If this is the first time a power factor test is done and it is within the acceptable ranges,
the data should be recorded as baseline, along with the test conditions (e.g., ambient and winding
temperatures, relative humidity, etc.), for future use in trending. If existing test data is available,
the reading can be compared to it for indications of significant changes.
Box 3: The recorded data can be compared to any existing data to identify significant changes
that could indicate an insulation concern in the motor. If no previous data is available, the
readings should be documented to become the new baseline for future testing.
Box 4: A motor with grading paint will often provide indications of high losses and false
indications of bad insulation condition. As such, the established acceptance criteria (0.5% and
3%) cannot be considered valid. This box determines the appropriate actions to be taken for
excessively high readings, based on if the motor has grading paint.
Box 5: This step ensures that the test reading is compared to any previous data that there is for
that motor, and can be arrived at two different ways. The first way is if the readings were
satisfactory (i.e., <0.5% or <3%) and there was previous data on that motor. This ensures the
new reading is compared to the trending data to identify any significant changes, even though the
dissipation factors may have been okay. The second way this step is reached is if the motor has
grading paint. As previously discussed, the presence of grading paint makes the acceptance
criteria invalid, which leaves a comparison to previous test data as the best means to identify a
concern.
Box 6: The primary cause for bad dissipation/power factor readings is contamination. If the
indications are bad, the first step is to ensure that the insulation under test is clean and dry. Once
it is verified to be clean and dry, additional testing is required to determine the overall condition
of the insulation.
Box 7: Ground Resistance and PI testing need to be performed to assist in making a

determination of the insulation condition.
Box 8: This step is reached when the motor is identified to be dirty or contaminated with oil or
moisture. When cleaning the insulation, care should be taken not to overheat the insulation
anytime it is being dried. In addition, only approved cleaning materials should be used.
3-16
10237086
Box 9: If there are no significant changes from the previous testing, the insulation should be
considered to be in the same condition as when previously tested. However, if there is any
concern with the condition of the insulation, it is recommended that a Dissipation/Power Factor
Tip-Up test should be considered, along with standard ground resistance and PI testing, to
provide additional data that may be helpful in determining the service condition of the insulation.
As previously stated above, graded paint can dominate the tip-up effect and void the test results.
Box 10: If all the indications are good and data is recorded, the machine should be returned to
service.
Oil Sample Analysis Testing
Table 3-1 is a typical application of a decision logic tree diagram presented in tabular form. In
this manner, a considerable amount of information and options can be presented in a concise and
condensed manner. In addition, tabular form makes it easy for the user to get a full picture of the
information.
3-17
10237086
Table 3-1
Oil Sample Analysis Testing and Fault Table
Pro blem Sympto ms Causes Verification So lu tions

Ox idation •Dark Center Blotter (B) •Tim e •RBO T – short lifetim e •Change oil
•Dark Color (V) •Elev ated tem perature •FTIR – S pectrum ∆ •Inv estigate tem p
•Burnt O dor (O ) •M etallic contam ination •Inv estigate wear
•Increased Acid (T an) •Air contam ination •Add defoam ant
•Increased v iscosity (Vis) •M etallic wear •Inv estigate m etallic cont.
•Additiv e depletion (SC) •Additiv e depletion •Inv estigate general cont.
Sheer Breakdown •Blotter? •High stress app. •FTIR – ∆ from new oil •Use m ultigrade oil
•Decreased v iscosity (V is) •Tim e •Change oil
W rong oil / W rong •Off color (V) •Hum an error •FTIR – S pectrum ∆ •Change oil
addition •Viscosity ∆ •M anufacturer error •Q uestion personnel •T rain personnel
•Additiv e package ∆ •M anufacturer change •Inv estigate m aintenance, •Ev aluate use
•Acid ∆ (T an) records
•Q uestion v endor
W ater •Milky (V) •Leaking seals •Karl Fisher - > New oil •Inspect / repair seals
Contam ination •Standing water (V) •Contam inated source •FTIR – S pectrum ∆ •Inspect / repair breathers
•W ater blotter (B) •Breather intrusion •Inv estigate com ponent •Stop dousing com ponent
•Viscosity ∆ (Vis) – depends on lab. •Com ponent washing washing storage
•Positiv e crackle •W eather •Check seals •Ensure proper source
•Increased Na (SC) •Leaking oil cooler •Verify SW System •Inspect / repair coolers
•Check fill source
Dirt cont. •Visual – sev ere cases (V) •F aulty breather •FTIR – spectrum ∆ •Inspect / repair seals
•Blotter – sev ere cases (B) •No breather •Q uestion personnel •Inspect / repair breather
•High silicon (SC) •Bad shaft / m otor seals •Sam ple source oil •Change oil / flush reserv oir
•High alum inum (S C) •Contam inated source •Im prov e housekeeping
•High particle count (PC) •Poor F M E during repair •Ensure proper source storage
•High T DS (T S)
3-18
10237086
4
CONTROLLED MOTOR TESTING
Introduction
The AEMPM group recognized the technological advances that have been made and the impact
that on-line testing can have on a PdM organization. It was also recognized that it was unlikely
that each station would need or want the same test equipment, since program needs would differ
from station to station.
In order to provide each participant an opportunity to learn the available equipment, experience
its capabilities hands-on, and better select the equipment best suited for their station, the
Controlled Motor Testing (CMT) project was undertaken. The Controlled Motor Testing took
place at the PSE&G Central Maintenance Facility Motor Shop and involved four motors donated
by participating utilities. The premise of the CMT was to insert faults into the motors under test
and utilize the latest on-line and off-line diagnostic test equipment to attempt to diagnose the
induced faults. In addition, some of the donated test motors already had faults (e.g., broken rotor
bars, etc.) present. It was expected that the CMT would provide the following benefits:
1. Better understanding of the capabilities of the latest diagnostic test equipment available from
the different vendors.
2. Provide training and hands on experience for the latest technological equipment available.
This will help station personnel better select the equipment best suited for their station.
3. Improve the knowledge of the participants in the area of electric motor faults by performing
the fault simulation and subsequent testing and analysis.
The CMT project involved the participants deciding on which faults were to be inserted,
simulation methodology, preparation of the motors and equipment to support the testing (this
included rewinding, conditioning/thermal aging, and pre-CMT testing off-line diagnostics), the
CMT testing itself, and post-testing analysis (including coil dissection).
CMT Summary
Overview
During the week of June 2, 2002, the EPRI AEMPM Project conducted testing in a controlled
manner by inducing selected faults into four motors. The types of faults to be introduced were
selected by the project participants, based on the needs and experience of the associated utilities.
4-1
10237086
Controlled Motor Testing
The four motors used for the testing were donated by the utilities to support this testing. The
types of motors used were as follows: one 480V, one 2.3kV, and two 4kV motors. Testing was
divided into two major components, on-line/off-line monitoring and Partial Discharge (PD). All
motor testing and preparations performed to support the testing were performed at the PSE&G
Control Maintenance Shop. Test data from current and voltage sensors were digitally recorded
thanks to Texas A&M.
Purpose
The purpose of the Controlled Motor Testing (CMT) is to enable the project participants to
become familiar with the latest motor diagnostic equipment, and to increase their knowledge and
understanding of the equipment functions and capabilities. This was best accomplished by
testing motors with known faults in a controlled environment, and applying the participant’s
training and career experiences to determine which diagnostic equipment will best suit their
needs, based on the faults encountered at their facilities.
Participation
A listing of the utilities, vendors, and individual participants involved in the CMT is provided
below.
Utilities Involved:
• AmerenCIPS
• AmerenUE
• Baltimore Gas & Electric (Calvert Cliffs) – Constellation Energy
• City Public Service of San Antonio
• Dynegy Midwest Generation
• Exelon
• Kansas City Power & Light
• Niagara Mohawk (Nine Mile Point) – Constellation Energy
• PSEG
• TXU
Vendors Involved:
• Adwel International
• Baker Instruments
• BJM Corporation
• Framatome ANP
4-2
10237086
• Iris Power Engineering

• PdMA Corporation
Participants Involved:
• Brian Baldwin Dynegy Midwest Generation
• Rob Bartsch Constellation Energy – Calvert Cliffs
• Rick Ghaul PSEG
• John Groze PSEG
• Lyle Manhier PSEG
• Kent Ohlendorf AmerenUE
• Jeff Poor Constellation Energy – Nine Mile Point
• Victor Sacket Constellation Energy – Calvert Cliffs
• Ron Watson Constellation Energy – Nine Mile Point
• George Yeboah Kansas City Power & Light
• Roman Zulak Exelon
PSE&G Central Maintenance Facility Motor Shop

• Cliff Both
• Carmen Butera
• Frank Lemongello
• Bob Rucker
• Michael Madden
4-3
10237086
Motor Nameplate Specifications
Motor 1
Manufacturer: Allis Chalmers
Rated Voltage: 460 Nameplate Current: 162A
Rated HP: 150 Number of Rotor Bars: Unavailable
Winding Type: Random Wound Number of Stator Slots: Unavailable
Phases: 3 Hertz: 60
RPM: 1788 Motor Type: Induction
SF: N/A Insulation Class: F
Poles: 4 Bearing Type: Sleeve
Enclosure: TEFC
Motor 2
Manufacturer: General Electric
Rated Voltage: 2200 Nameplate Current: 163
Rated HP: Unavailable Number of Rotor Bars: 102
Winding Type: Form Wound Number of Stator Slots: 120
Phases: 3 Hertz: 60
SF: N/A Insulation Class: Unavailable
Enclosure: Open Drip Proof
4-4
10237086
Motor 3
Rated Voltage: 4000 Nameplate Current: 38.4
Rated HP: 300 Number of Rotor Bars: 56
Phases: 3 Hertz: 60
Enclosure: Open
Motor 4
Rated Voltage: 4000 Nameplate Current: 38.4
Rated HP: 300 Number of Rotor Bars: 56
Phases: 3 Hertz: 60
Enclosure: Open
4-5
10237086
CMT Objectives
The objectives of Controlled Motor Testing (CMT) were as follows:

• Evaluate on-line test equipment by inducing common electrical and mechanical faults in
electrical motors and troubleshooting the faults.
• Determine to what extent Partial Discharge (PD) test equipment is capable of detecting
winding faults in 4kV motors.
• Correlate on-line technologies versus off-line test equipment for effectively locating and
detecting winding faults.
• Gather raw data from motor tests for future equipment evaluation.
• Improve participant knowledge and understanding of available motor diagnostic equipment
and its functions and capabilities, to better assess potential implementation into the
associated site predictive maintenance program.
Fault Introduction
Two low voltage (480V and 2.3kV) motors and two medium voltage (4kV) motors were donated
from the participating utilities. The motors were inspected and refurbished at the PSEG Central
Maintenance Facility Motor Shop. The following tasks were performed on each motor prior to
the test date:
• Disassemble motor and inspect
• Clean all components if required
• Repair any defects
• Replace bearings if required
• Re-varnish the stator
• Balance rotor if required
• Perform the electrical testing listed below to ensure motor is satisfactory for testing
– Insulation Resistance test
– Polarization Index (PI) test
– Winding resistance
– Surge test
For on-line and off-line testing, baseline data was obtained during the CMT prior to fault
introduction. On-line baseline testing was performed with the motor loaded. Baseline PD
readings were obtained with the motor loaded at least three months prior to the CMT test date to
allow for adequate time to create and install the desired PD anomalies for fault introduction
testing.
4-6
10237086
A glossary of the faults that were introduced into the motors is provided below, along with a
description of how the faults were assimilated into the testing.
High Resistance in Motor Leads:
A resistor was installed in series on one motor lead in the motor junction box. This was
used to simulate a loose motor lead or high resistance in a motor starter. Use of different
value resistors allowed for varying the severity of the fault, thereby allowing for a more
comprehensive diagnostic equipment evaluation. Resistors utilized were prepared and
staged prior to the testing.
Low Resistance to Ground:
A conductor and termination was installed on one motor lead in the junction box. A resistor
was then connected between the termination and ground after the initial (baseline) testing.
This simulated a fault in the slot of the motor.
Turn-to-Turn Fault:
After motor refurbishment, terminations were installed in series with the magnet wire on the
end turns. In this configuration, the motor was wired correctly to obtain motor baseline
data, and later rewired to simulate a turn-to-turn fault.
Eccentric Air Gap:
The air gap of the motor was measured and an eccentric air gap simulated by shimming a
bushing off center (10% of radial air gap). A replacement outboard bearing with an
undersized OD was purchased to accommodate the bushing.
Dirty Motor:
Grease with carbon dust was used to contaminate the motor end arms. The contaminated
grease motor applied to the end turns following baseline data testing.
Broken Rotor Bar:
Two rotor bars were cut to simulate broken rotor bars.
Thermal Aging:
A select few coils within a phase group were isolated with a DC power supply installed to
induce circulating currents. Coil temperatures were maintained at 200 deg C for
approximately 2 months to de-laminate the ground wall insulation. An off-line PD test was
conducted at two-week intervals to monitor the progress of degradation.
4-7
10237086
End Winding Discharges:
A conductive material was applied to the end windings between several adjacent coils from
two different phase groups to induce high potential discharges.
Ground Wall Voids:
Stator winding ground wall insulation voids were created by drilling holes axially along the
stator winding insulation in several locations on a few coils. The holes were then covered
with an epoxy resin and mica tape to prevent immediate ground faults. The selected coils
were line-end coils for a specific winding phase.
Slot Discharges:
Slot discharges were created by loosening several coils within the same phase group. The
coils were loosened by removing slot wedges and filler materials, and by breaking free the
blocking and bracing ties from adjacent coils (optional).
Equipment Used
Listed below is the diagnostic test equipment used for baseline and fault detection during the on-
line, off-line, and Partial Discharge testing.
• Baker, Explorer (Refer to Figure 4-1)
• PdMA, EMAX (Refer to Figure 4-2)
• Framatome, EMPATH (Refer to Figure 4-3)
• Baker, AWA (Refer to Figure 4-4)
• PdMA, MCE (Refer to Figure 4-5)
• BJM, All-Test IV Pro (Refer to Figure 4-6)
Partial Discharge Testing Equipment

• IRIS, TGA-B Lite with 80pf couplers, three total (Refer to Figure 4-7)
• ADWEL, PDA Premium with 500pf couplers, three total (Refer to Figure 4-8)
4-8
10237086
Figure 4-1
Baker On-line Test Device
4-9
10237086
Figure 4-2
PdMA EMAX On-Line Test Device
4-10
10237086
Figure 4-3
Framatome EMPATH On-Line Test Device
4-11
10237086
Figure 4-4
Baker AWA Off-Line Test Device
4-12
10237086
Figure 4-5
PdMA MCE Off-Line Test Device
4-13
10237086
Figure 4-6
BJM All-Test Pro Off-Line Test Device BJM All-Test III (Foreground). All-Test Pro (rear)
4-14
10237086
Figure 4-7
IRIS TGA-B Lite Partial Discharge Test Device
4-15
10237086
Figure 4-8
ADWEL PDA Premium Discharge Test Device
Testing Outline
An outline of the testing performed on Days 1 through 4 of the CMT is provided below. A more
detailed schedule of the activities is provided in table 4-1, Controlled Motor Testing Schedule,
along with a summary of the faults introduced on each motor.
4-16
10237086
Motor Testing Day 1
Motor 1: 460V, 150hp
Preparation
• Motor disassembled, inspected, and tested prior to controlled motor testing.
• Terminations are installed in magnet wire on end turns to induce turn-to-turn fault.
• Termination run out of motor junction box for resistor application in simulating high motor
lead resistance and low resistance to ground faults.
Materials staged
• Selected resistors prepared.
Test Sequence
• Off-line testing performed with no faults to obtain baseline data.
• On-line testing performed at 50% and 100% load with no faults to obtain baseline data.
• Install resistor in series with motor lead to simulate a high motor lead resistance fault.
• On-line testing (with fault) performed at 50% and 100% loads.
• Install resistor on motor lead to ground to simulate low resistance to ground fault.
• On-line testing (with fault) performed at 50% load.
• Induce turn-to-turn fault.
• Perform off-line testing for turn-to-turn fault.
• Perform on-line testing at 50% and 100% load to test for turn-to-turn fault.
4-17
10237086
Motor Testing Day 2
Motor 2: 2.3kV
Preparation
• Count number of rotor bars.
• Prepare bearings for testing.
• Measure air gap.
Materials Staged
• Shims/spacers installed for inducing eccentric fault condition.
• Hand tools for pulling motor end bell.
• Grease with carbon dust mixed in.
Test Sequence
• Off-line testing performed to obtain baseline data.
• On-line testing performed at 50% and 100% loads with no faults to obtain baseline data.
• Induce eccentric fault.
• On line test performed at 50% and 100% load with eccentric fault.
• Remove outboard end bell. Put contaminated grease on end turns to simulate a dirty motor
with low insulation resistance and cut rotor bars to simulate broken rotor bars.
• Perform off-line test for dirty motor.
• Perform on-line test for broken rotor bars and contaminated windings.
4-18
10237086
Motor Testing Day 3
Motor 3: 4kV, 300 hp
Preparation
• PD baseline testing performed.
• Motor subjected to accelerated aging process prior to motor testing within one phase group
(ØA).
• Stator RTD’s installed.
Materials Staged
• Hand tools for end bell removal.
• Three 80 pF Iris EMC bus couplers and termination box.
• Three 500 pF Adwel bus couplers and termination box.
• Motor heaters to elevate motor temperature.
Test Sequence
PD testing was performed under the following conditions:

• Run at 50% load until motor temperature is stable (up to one hour).
• Run at 100% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the temperature
(up to one hour).
• Run at 50% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the temperature (up
to one hour).
• Off-line test performed to detect coil damage (motor to be tested to failure).
Post Testing
• Cut out several samples of coils from aged group and control group for analysis.
• Cut out samples of coils from failed area for analysis.
4-19
10237086
Motor Testing Day 4
Motor 4: 4kV motor, 300 hp
Preparation
• PD baseline testing performed.
• Ground wall voids installed prior to testing in one phase group (C).
• End winding faults installed prior to testing in another phase group (A and C).
• RTD’s installed.
Materials Staged
• Three 80 pF Iris EMC bus couplers and termination box.
• Three 500 pF Adwel bus couplers and termination box.
• Hand tools for end bell removal.
• Motor heaters to elevate motor temperature.
Test Sequence
PD testing was performed under the following conditions:

• Run at 100% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the temperature
(up to one hour).
• Run at 50% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the temperature (up
to one hour).
Post Testing
• Cut out several samples of coils from end winding fault and control group for analysis.
• Cut out samples of coils from failed area for analysis.
4-20
10237086
Table 4-1
Controlled Motor Testing Schedule
MON TUES WED THUR FRI TEST

Pre-test meeting. Job assignments, Plan review,
7-8
Introductions.
8-10 Test motor with no faults. Off line/On line [motor 1]
10-12 On Line Testing - high resistance motor leads

480Volt [motor 1]
1230- On Line Testing - low resistance to ground
1430 480 Volt [motor 1]
15-16 Off Line Testing - Turn to turn fault
480 Volt [motor 1] [*optional]
16-18 On Line Testing - turn to turn fault
480 Volt [motor 1]
7-730 Pre test brief
730 - Test motor with no faults
0930 2.3 KV motor [motor 2]
On Line Testing - eccentric air gap
0930-
2.3KV [motor 2]
1130
1300- Off Line Testing - Dirty motor
1500 2.3KV [motor 2] [*optional]
1500- On Line Testing - broken rotor bar
1700 2.3KV [motor 2]
730- PD Testing - thermal aging
1200 4KV [motor 3]
1300- Off line Testing - thermal aging
1500 4KV [motor 3]
730- PD Testing - end arm and ground wall voids
1200 4KV [motor 4]
1300- Off Line Testing - end arm and ground wall
15:00 4 KV [motor 4]
1500- Complete testing and debrief
1700
Control Panel and Dynamometer
Testing was performed at the PSEG Central Maintenance Facility Motor Shop. The control
panel utilized was an American High Voltage Test System, an AC/DC motor test set, Model
Number MTS750SCR-300D, designed to provide complete testing capabilities for electric
motors. All necessary power supplies and controls are housed in a common steel cubicle
provided with output terminations. The test system has three outputs as follows:
4-21
10237086
1. A three-phase AC supply with 7 voltage taps up to 4160 volts. The output voltage is
variable from zero to maximum voltage for each tap voltage. Single-phase output can be
achieved by using any two of the three phases.
2. A DC armature supply of 400 amps, variable from 0 to 750 volts DC, for independent
excitation of DC armature circuits.
3. A DC field supply of 40 amps, variable from 0 to 750 volts DC, for independent excitation
of DC motor shunt field circuits.
Instrumentation metering is provided for all power supplies to provide definitive indication of
voltage and current for the total range of the test set.
The dynamometer is a Hydraulic-Hydrokinetic Designed, model AW 20,000E. This design

incorporates a vortex cup design, providing high torque as low as 200 RPM. A dynamically
balanced, cavitation resistant, rotor assembly allows high speed testing to be performed on two-
pole, 3600 RPM, electric motors.
Pictures of the control panel and dynamometer are provided below in figures 4-9 and 4-10.
Figure 4-9
Control Panel
4-22
10237086
Figure 4-10
Dynamometer
Motor Fault Summary
Motor 1 (480V) Faults Induced:

• High resistance motor leads
• Motor starter high resistance
• Low resistance to ground
• Turn-to-turn
Motor 2 (2.3kV) Faults Induced:

• Eccentric air gap
• Broken rotor bar
• Dirty motor/Contaminated windings
Motor 3 (4kV) Faults Induced:

• Thermal aging
• Broken rotor bars (pre-existing fault)
4-23
10237086
Motor 4 (4kV) Faults Induced:

• Endwinding contamination
• Ground wall voids
Detailed Motor Testing Summary
Motor 1 Test Summary
Common electrical faults were introduced into this 480V motor to become familiar with the use
and capabilities of on-line testing diagnostic equipment and to provide correlation between on-
line and off-line fault testing. The test sequence for Motor 1 is as follows:
• Off-line testing performed with no faults to obtain baseline data.
• Install resistor in series with motor lead to simulate a high motor lead resistance fault.
• On-line testing (with fault) performed at 50% and 100% loads.
• Install resistor on motor lead to ground to simulate low resistance to ground fault.
• On-line testing (with fault) performed at 50% load.
• Induce turn-to-turn fault.
• Perform off-line testing for turn-to-turn fault.
• Perform on-line testing at 50% and 100% load to test for turn-to-turn fault.
On-line Testing
High Resistance in Motor Leads Fault
Description:
A poor connection in the motor junction box is a common electrical fault that results in a failed
motor. Typically, this is caused by a poor crimp or loose bolting, and creates a high resistance at
the point of connection. The current is higher in the faulty lead, which produces heat that
eventually fails the connection or lead. This can cause single phasing in the motor and results in
a breaker trip.
Refer to Figure 4-11. For testing, this type of fault was simulated by placing a resistance in
series with one motor lead. This simulation was performed twice, once using a 0.012 ohms
resistor and once with a 0.633 ohms resistor. The selection of 0.633 ohms was based on
operating the diagnostic equipment with a typical faulted connection impedance, while the use of
0.012 ohms was to provide the equipment an opportunity to detect a minor fault that would
4-24
10237086
normally be very difficult to find. Winding leads are brought out from the casing of the motor in
order to facilitate testing.
Figure 4-11
Motor 1 Testing Layout
Results:
When the higher resistance of 0.633 ohms was placed in series with the motor lead, all three
pieces of test equipment readily detected the fault. When the 0.012 ohms resistor was used, the
current imbalance was too low to be detected by all three pieces of equipment at both 50% and
100% load. Test personnel did note a high harmonic distortion with Diagnostic Equipment C,
which was created by the motor power supply. Diagnostic Equipment C noted the high
harmonic distortion throughout the Motor 1 testing.
Conclusion:
Higher resistance imbalances were readily detected. However, a minor resistance imbalance due
to a poor motor connection is difficult for on-line test equipment to detect. Standard off-line
resistance testing should still be relied on for fault detection at very low resistance levels. On-
line diagnostics still shows promise in its ability to detect this type of fault before motor failure
occurs if testing and trending is consistently performed.
4-25
10237086
Low Resistance to Ground Fault
Description:
Movement of the winding in the slot, damaged insulation, or excessive heat can cause a
breakdown in the ground wall insulation. As the resistance to ground decreases, more heat is
generated until the motor eventually fails. Standard off-line Insulation Resistance (IR) testing is
readily used to detect this type of fault.
To simulate a low resistance to ground, a 5M ohms resistor was connected between one motor
lead and ground. This resistance value was chosen to ensure the diagnostic equipment would be
challenged to detect a value that might be found in a plant environment, while still affording the
degree of personnel safety required for testing.
Results:
This on-line test was performed with the motor at 50% load. During testing, the leakage current
in the test phase was found to be less than 100 microamperes, a value too low for on-line
detection. The original test plan had this testing performed at 100% load, as well, but the full
load test run was not performed since the leakage current was not large enough to detect.
Conclusion:
On-line diagnostic testing with less than 100 microamperes leakage did not show any
abnormality that would allow the test results to be questioned. As suspected, on-line motor
testing did not detect a low resistance to ground condition that results in very low leakage
currents. However, detection is expected with larger leakage currents. Therefore, with trending,
the fault should be detectable over time as the fault develops.
Turn-to-Turn Fault
Description:
Turn-to-turn faults progress rapidly and typically the motor fails prior to off-line testing being
able to locate the problem. On-line testing was performed at 50% and 100% load to determine if
the technology could be useful in locating faults typically reserved for off-line Surge testing.
This testing was performed twice, once with a 0.633 ohms resistor installed between turns and
once with a short circuit installed between turns. The 0.633 ohms resistance value was selected
to test the diagnostic equipment at a value that if detection were possible, might allow for
removal of the motor from service before failure occurs. A side benefit to using 0.633 ohms was
that the resistor was available from the motor lead resistance testing previously performed. The
short circuit testing was performed last in the event that the fault resulted in the failure of the
motor. The turn-to-turn (low resistance and short circuit) faults were installed in the third turn.
4-26
10237086
Results:
With the 0.633 ohms resistor simulating the turn-to-turns fault, none of the diagnostic equipment
directly detected the fault, however, each did detect inconsistencies or anomalies that could raise
questions as to the test results. The (0.633 ohm) test results for each piece of diagnostic
equipment are provided below.
1. Diagnostic Equipment A: Detected a “motor pattern difference” of 120% from previous

tests during the 50% load testing.
2. Diagnostic Equipment B: Detected a voltage imbalance at 50% load.
3. Diagnostic Equipment C: Detected a power factor difference at 50% load.
When the short circuit failure was installed, motor failure occurred almost immediately, thereby
precluding use of the test equipment for data gathering. This was thought to be a possible result
and one planned for in the testing sequence.
Conclusion:
The fault was not specifically found, however, the test results indicated various indeterminate
problems that could provide the utility with insight that additional testing may be required. As
such, it is recommended that when similar inconclusive test results are obtained, the problem be
investigated further. In this manner, more conclusive off-line testing can be utilized to augment
on-line results.
Off-line Testing
Turn-to-Turn Fault
Description:
Off line testing was performed to determine if 0.633 ohms resistance between turns was
sufficient to be recognized as a credible flaw in the insulation. This testing was performed prior
to the on-line tests.
Results:
The results of the testing are provided below for each of the three types of test equipment.
1. Diagnostic Equipment D: During the Hi Pot testing, the first test tripped on over-current.
Other subsequent surge testing was then performed using various configurations. Test
personnel did see indications of a problem in the surge testing data, however, it should be
noted that the ability to detect these indications is directly related to the experience and
training of the personnel performing and reviewing the testing.
4-27
10237086
2. Diagnostic Equipment B: This equipment indicated a difference in the phase-to-phase

resistance, as noted during the data review.
3. Diagnostic Equipment E: This equipment indicated a difference in the phase-to-phase

resistance.
Conclusion:
The first two turns of a winding are the most likely to fail surge type testing. The fault installed
in the third turn would be less common, and considered more difficult to detect. It is commonly
accepted that surge testing might not be useful in detecting turn-to-turn faults that are deeper
than the first two turns, however, in this case, it was directly detected. Refer to the “Detailed
Motor Surge Testing Summary” section of this report for information concerning additional
surge testing that was performed. In addition, the other equipment did note that an abnormality
existed.
Motor 2 Test Summary
Mechanical faults were introduced into this 2.3kV motor to determine the effectiveness of the
diagnostic test equipment in detecting similar faults while the equipment is in service. As with
Motor 1, both on-line and off-line testing was performed. The test sequence for Motor 2 is
provided below.
• Off-line testing performed to obtain baseline data.
• Induce eccentric fault.
• On line test performed at 50% and 100% load with eccentric fault.
• Remove outboard end bell. Put contaminated grease on end turns to simulate a dirty motor
with low insulation resistance and cut rotor bars to simulate broken rotor bars.
• Perform off-line test for dirty motor.
• Perform on-line test for broken rotor bars and contaminated windings.
4-28
10237086
Figure 4-12
Motor 2 Test Setup
On-line Testing
Eccentric Air Gap Fault
Description:
Worn bearings, bearing support problems, or alignment problems can create an eccentric
condition in the air gap causing motor performance problems. The bearing housings for the test
motor were approximately 13 mils lower than true center. The tests were performed with the
eccentric condition and then the bearings were shimmed to correct the condition for subsequent
testing.
Results:
Testing with the eccentric air gap was performed at 50% and at 100% load. Although the results
for each of the three pieces of diagnostic test equipment were different, each did provide some
indication of an abnormality. The results of the testing for each type of monitoring equipment
are provided below.
10237086
4-29
10237086
1. Diagnostic Equipment A: While a fault was not directly detected, inconsistencies were
noted in side band amplitude during data review.
2. Diagnostic Equipment B: This equipment did not directly detect a motor problem during
testing, but there was an indication of eccentricity identified during data review.
3. Diagnostic Equipment C: This equipment detected a “static eccentric problem” during

testing.
Conclusion:
An eccentric air gap condition is capable of being detected by the on-line test equipment,
depending on the severity. During the test, the motor test programs were not restrictive enough
for all three types of equipment to detect the fault in the same manner, however, each type
provided indication of the fault through inconsistencies noted during data review.
Broken Rotor Bars Fault
Description:
The test motor had 102 rotor bars and 2 bars were cut to simulate broken rotor bars. The motor
was then tested with the broken rotor bars at 50% and 100% load.
Figure 4-13
Broken Rotor Bars (Typical)
4-30
10237086
Results:
It was unknown if the diagnostic equipment could detect this motor problem since such a small
percentage of bars were broken. The results of the testing for each type of monitoring equipment
are provided below.
1. Diagnostic Equipment A: This motor program indicated a “rotor bars questionable”

condition at lower resolution and raised operational concerns at 50% load.
2. Diagnostic Equipment B: This equipment indicated a problem with the power factor at 50%
load. At 100% load, the motor program detected a “Motor Condition Yellow.”
3. Diagnostic Equipment C: This equipment provided indication of broken rotor bars during
the test data review.
Conclusion:
With less than 2% of the total number of motor rotor bars faulted, the efficiency of the motor
was not greatly affected. The CMT indicates that as the percentage of broken rotor bars goes
down, the probability of the test equipment directly detecting the fault goes down, as well.
Likewise, the CMT shows that the equipment will identify related inconsistencies that can allow
the test results to be questioned. As with most of the other testing, the effectiveness of the on-
line testing will be a function of the skill level and training of the performers.
Contaminated End-Turn Windings (Dirty Motor) Fault
Description:
At the time the outboard motor end bearing was removed to access the rotor bars for cutting,
“Never-Seize” was applied to the motor end windings to simulate a dirty motor. The test motor
windings are a form wound type and it was expected that the “Never-Seize” would impact the
testing.
Results:
The on-line instrumentation did not detect a fault with the windings. The contaminated grease
did not establish an adequate tracking path that could cause a leakage current to be present.
Conclusion:
Since the grease could not compromise the internal insulation (VPI encased windings) in the
motor, the only conclusion that can be made is that the grease never established a tracking
leakage current path. As such, there was no fault present that the equipment should have been
expected to detect. It is expected that the equipment will detect a conductive foreign material
when it begins to adversely impact the insulation resistance of the motor.
4-31
10237086
Off-line Testing
Contaminated End-Turn Windings (Dirty Motor) Fault
Description:
As described above for the on-line testing, “Never-Seize” was applied to the outboard motor end
bearing to act as a contaminant in simulating a dirty motor condition. It was expected that the
conductivity of the grease would be detected by the monitoring equipment and show up as low
insulation resistance.
Results:
Since the “Never-Seize” did not have time to penetrate the insulation of the motor, the
contamination never showed up as a resistance low enough to be detected.
Conclusion:
The off-line testing conclusion is the same as discussed above for the on-line testing. Since
leakage current would have to be present for diagnostic equipment to detect a problem, it is not
expected that the equipment would have identified a concern, given that the grease would not be
capable of penetrating the VPI encased windings and that a sufficient tracking leakage path was
not established.
Motor 3 and 4 Partial Discharge Testing
The objective of this portion of the Controlled Motor Test (CMT) was to determine if Partial
Discharge (PD) analysis was capable of detecting stator winding insulation anomalies in 4kV
motors utilizing 500 pF and 80 pF capacitive bus couplers with portable PD test equipment on a
periodic testing frequency. Additionally, the on-line and off-line motor diagnostic systems used
to monitor Motors 1 and 2 were employed to determine their abilities in detecting any of the
anomalies introduced to Motors 3 and 4.
Two identical 300hp, 4160V Allis Chalmers motors (CMT Motors 3 and 4), utilized in a primary
air fan application, were obtained for the partial discharge portion of the CMT. Anomalies were
created in the stator winding insulation for each of the motors, which were then tested on-line
under half and full load conditions to determine if they were detectable. Realistic stator winding
insulation anomalies were simulated to provide commercially available PD test equipment the
opportunity for detection. When Motor 3 was donated by the utility, it came with 4 of the 56
total rotor bars already broken. This condition was included as part of the CMT testing.
The sequence for reporting these events and results will start with partial discharge for motors 3
and 4, and then proceed to the on-line and off-line motor diagnostics results for motors 3 and 4.
The on-line and off-line motor diagnostics were employed to discover if they could detect
anomalies relating to this type of insulation condition. However, it must be clearly understood
4-32
10237086
that this was done as a matter of convenience since the motor diagnostic equipment and
the aged or altered insulation systems were both available.
Motor 3 PD Test Summary
This 4kV motor was thermally aged for PD testing several months prior to performing
the CMT in June. PD test preparation focused on simulating thermal aging and ground
wall de-lamination through the application of a high DC current to selected coils in
phase 3. This was done to accomplish internal winding heating, and thus simulate
thermal aging and degradation of similar windings that age due to operation.
Baseline PD data collected on Motor 3 prior to thermal aging was found to be

marginalized due to excessive noise interference from the test panel power supply. This
condition was remedied prior to the start of the CMT as described later. Because of this
noise interference, high PD from a pre-existing condition on phase 2 was masked and
not readily apparent prior to the CMT. During the course of the CMT on-line PD testing,
phase 2 exhibited the highest PD magnitudes and low magnitudes were observed on
phase 3 where selected coils had been subjected to accelerated thermal aging.
Post testing analysis and coil dissection revealed:
1. Coils in phase 3 subjected to accelerated aging did have numerous voids, but, were
not line side coils exposed to potentials necessary for partial discharge inception.
2. Validation of high PD observed on phase 2 due to pre-existing voids in the

groundwall insulation of line side coils.
PD testing performed under the following conditions:

• Run at 100% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the
temperature
(up to one hour).
• Run at 50% load until motor temperature is stable with heaters elevating the
temperature (up to one hour).
• Perform post-testing analysis, including cutting out aged and control group coil
samples and coil samples from the failed area.
4-33
10237086

Advanced Electric Motor Predictive 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Electric Motor Predictive 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Electric Motor Predictive

Final Report, May 2003

EPRI Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

R & P Consulting, LLC

This report was prepared by

R & P Consulting, LLC.

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Results & Findings

Challenges & Objectives

Applications, Values & Use

2 ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................. 2-1

3 DECISION LOGIC TREES..................................................................................................3-11

4 CONTROLLED MOTOR TESTING...................................................................................... 4-1

5 EQUIPMENT LENDING AND INFORMATION SHARING ................................................... 5-1

6 GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

7 OPTIMIZING MOTOR MAINTENANCE ............................................................................... 7-1

8 CASE HISTORIES............................................................................................................... 8-1

9 LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................................................... 9-1

Figure 2-1 Predictive Maintenance Program (PdM) Diagram ................................................. 2-3

Table 2-1 Assessment Work Sheet ......................................................................................... 2-8

Given the decline in plant motor experience, organizational resources, limitations of

The report is posted at www.epri.com for downloading.

capacitance bridge, since precision and accuracy is so critical (e.g., a 1% decline in

Limitations with Off-line Testing

Exceptions to testing required to be performed off-line would include vibration, thermography,

Progression of Motor Maintenance and Diagnostics

For on-line monitoring for Partial Discharge:

Static Versus Dynamic Testing

Less Knowledgeable Personnel: As downsizing and reorganization takes place, personnel

Reorganization: As utilities attempt to remain competitive, it is becoming common to see

Increased Responsibilities: A natural progression from downsizing is that the remaining

Predictive Maintenance Program Elements

Communication Progress Indicators

Documentation: Documentation is integrated into the maintenance workflow process to ensure

1. Thermography: This non-intrusive equipment is used to locate thermal ‘hot’ spots in

6. Performance Trending: Trending of motor parameters should be accomplished using plant

Progress Indicators: A Progress Indicator, as used in this application, is a measurement of the

A Leading indicator is a measure of success of the foundation of the maintenance program.

PdM Program Improvement

Reductions in Equipment Costs / Savings

1. Expectations: This element is directly tied to organizational leads or management. The

acquisitions, and fiscal concerns all offer additional challenges to organizational

2. Repair Feedback: This item is attributed to documentation and/or communication issues. A

4. Correlation of Corporate Goals, Correlation of Scope, Leading and Lagging Indicators,

Organization Structure Focus/Goals Direction

Communication Formal Links Meetings Schedules

Informal Links Interpersonal Skills Conveyance

Diagnostic Technologies Thermography Vibration Analysis Partial Discharge

Maintenance/Repair PM Activities Visual Inspections Overhauls

Documentation Corrective Action Maint. Planning Submittal Post Maint. Feedback

Training Range of Knowledge Depth of Knowledge Experience

Progress Indicators Use of Indicators Leading Indicators Lagging Indicators

Legend Good Fair Poor

Assessment Spider Chart

When strategizing about an AEMPM program, consideration should be given to developing a

3. Less Experienced Support Personnel: At most utilities, Engineering is also trying to do

Decision Logic Tree Implementation

Capacitance to Ground Testing

Motor has an upward or

Dissipation / Power Factor Testing