See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317339125

Quality control of hydro equipment manufacturing and erection

Conference Paper · January 2008

CITATIONS READS
0 776

1 author:

John Gummer
Hydro-Consult
68 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydraulic View project

Drin river rehabiliation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Gummer on 06 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quality control of hydro equipment manufacturing and
erection

J.H.Gummer
Hydro-Consult Pty. Ltd
15 McLeod Street
Rye
Victoria 3941
Australia

1 Introduction
Most people can recognise quality in artefacts. Indisputable is the craftsmanship embodied in a piece of
Chippendale furniture, in the translucence of fine Dresden china and in the vibrancy of the colours of a
Matisse painting. This innate recognition of quality extends to functioning equipment such as automobiles,
kitchen appliances and garden tools. As soon as one hears the welcome thump at the closing of the door of
an up-market automobile one is assured of its quality of manufacture.
However quality and resulting fitness for service comes at a cost to the user, a cost that we, when purchasing
equipment for hydroelectric power plants, are quite often unwilling to accept. Our modi operandi in the
compiling specifications, letting of contracts, contract administration, manufacturing and erection of such
equipment over recent years has been tuned to obtaining dubious quality at the lowest possible cost. This
often results in, at the best, delays and costly rectification and, at the worst, accidents and failure of the
equipment to meet project objectives.
In our personal life we mull and deliberate over the design and building of our houses and in the purchase of
our appliances. Our personal specifications are detailed and seldom do we choose the cheapest just because
it is the cheapest. In the building of our private houses we inspect the workmanship as the building
progresses and would never think of allowing the builder to be solely responsible for quality control (the
“fox and henhouse syndrome”). However when it comes to equipment for our hydropower stations so often
our specifications are full of nebulous and meaningless phases such as “best manufacturing practice” and
“internationally acceptable standards” and accordingly are imprecise as to exactly what we require thus, in
some instances, leading to the installation of inappropriate equipment.
With the general acceptance of standards such as ISO 9001-2000 we have subcontracted inspection during
manufacture and erection to the very contractor who is doing the work . In some cases this may work but in
others it may not, resulting in mistakes that may not be rectifiable when the item reaches site or, worst still,
may not be found until the item is in service and is well outside of the guarantee period.
In this paper the author addresses the problems of today’s attitude to quality control of hydroelectric
equipment highlighting potential problem areas, giving examples where the system has failed and proposing
solutions.

2 General
So often one hears the comment “Well, now the installation of equipment has started at site things are finally
getting interesting for you E & M fellows”. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Site installation in
reality is the culmination of a long series of important decisions and events all of which are far more
important than site installation. Although quality control at site is important and should be correctly
exercised and monitored, no amount of site inspection will compensate for an inappropriate specification, a
poor design or major undiscovered manufacturing errors.
Quality control must be established at the very beginning of the project and be followed through the
specification, design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning phases well into the operation and
maintenance period. This includes complete and clear commissioning records and “as built” documentation
and drawings as well as comprehensive and well ordered Operation and Maintenance Manuals without
which on going station operation is both difficult and potentially dangerous.
The analogy with building a house given above is far more relevant in respect of equipment for a
hydroelectric facility than manufacturing an automobile. In the case of an automobile say Ford or Toyota
design and manufacture the product for sale on the open market. If quality in design or manufacture is
lacking then it is entirely their responsibility. In the case of a hydroelectric facility, as with a house many of
the major decisions regarding both design and manufacture are made by the “Client”. Traditionally the
“Client” has either been the end user or the “Engineer”. Lately this has changed and increasingly the
“Client” is a Project Management Unit (PMU) aided and abetted by a Panel of Experts (POE) and
Environmental and Single Interest Groups all of a which have the power to manipulate a project before it
ever gets to an equipment manufacturer. Whereas the traditional “Client” or “Engineer” were entities which
could be held to task for lack of quality in conceptual design and overriding control of manufacture the PMU
and POE are far more ephemeral organisations, both probably only existing for the early life of the project
and subject to many changes in the typical project gestation period of 8 to 10 years. In this paper the term
“Client” is used to embrace all possibly variants and combinations of PMU, end user and Engineer.

3 Quality control during feasibility and inception phases

The feasibility and inception phases of a project are seldom associated with quality control of the Electrical
and Mechanical equipment, however this is the stage of the project when many of the major decisions
affecting the eventual equipment are made and, if the choice is inappropriate, these irreversible decisions
will haunt the project throughout its life.
Brittle fracture of a spiral casing circa 1950
Brittle fracture of a generator bottom bracket
circa 2002
Some lessons should never be forgotten
At the feasibility stage typically the type and
arrangement of the equipment are chosen. For
medium to high head schemes the maintenance and
operational advantages of a Pelton unit are equated
against the lower civil costs and higher peak
efficiency of a Francis unit. The simplicity and
lower cost of a propeller unit is compared with the
far better range of operation of a Kaplan unit. The
need for surge tanks compared with higher machine
inertias is evaluated together with the advantages
and disadvantages of providing both hydraulic
isolation in the form of inlet valves and electrical
isolation in the form of unit circuit breakers.
Arguably the biggest decisions to be taken at the
feasibility and inception phases are whether to have
an underground or surface powerhouse and the need
for and capacity of relief devices such as spillway
gates and drainage facilities such as bottom outlets
from reservoirs.
All these and others are major decisions from which
equipment specification and eventual design and
manufacture will flow. Typically there are no clear
answers and the final configuration will be a
combination of economics, operational demands,
past precedents and unfortunately dogmatic opinion
with, regrettably the principal hindrance to quality
decisions at the feasibility stage being the latter. The
challenge therefore is to find means of maximising
logical and reasoned analysis and minimising “gut
feeling”.
Hydroelectric plants are naturally dominated by the
civil aspects as they typically represent between
80% to 90% of the cost. Accordingly emphasis at
the feasibility stage is on the civil aspects and
electrical and mechanical equipment tend to take a
back stage. However it must be remembered that the
end objectives of the construction of the plant is to
produce energy and to control water, both of which
are strongly dependent on the suitability of the
equipment chosen for the task. Accordingly decisions relating to equipment selection and arrangement
should be given the same emphasis as those concerning the civil work and should be well documented in the
form of comprehensive reports.
Where economics play an important role in equipment selection (which is almost always) the basis for the
economic analysis must take into consideration possible futures roles for the facility and in so doing follow
current trends. Particular examples of this are the premiums placed upon peaking power, the need for
spinning reserve, competitive trends governing the sale of energy and quick response in electrical networks
which have to accommodate an ever increasing amount of unpredictable renewable generation.
As many opinions as feasibly possible should be sought and care should be taken to ensure that these
opinions are unbiased. Although the age and experience of the advisors are important factors equally valid
are new ideas and developments especially in the fast moving fields of control and monitoring. The opinions
of leading equipment manufacturers should be solicited and incorporated where appropriate. On the other
hand the hydroelectric industry has a well deserved reputation for a conservative approach and leading edge
technologies should only be adopted with caution.

4 Specification and tender resolution

4.1 Commercial considerations

The equipment specification will reflect the

conclusions of the feasibility and inception
studies. Already many items will already be
unalterable and any changes will be difficult,
especially if the feasibility phase has been vetted
and approved by Lending Agencies and a Panel
of Experts (POE). Hence the equipment
specification should be viewed as an extension of
the feasibility report and as a means of ensuring
that decisions made at the previous stage are
implemented in the purchase and manufacture of
the equipment.
That said it should also be realised that important
decisions are also necessary before the equipment
specification can be started, all of which can
affect the quality of the end product either
directly because of inappropriate or unrealistic
conditions or indirectly due to future contractual It would have been cheaper and far easier to have
animosity and hindrance to the programme. Some specified a temporary steel draft tube bulkhead
of the more important decisions to be taken are
generally as follows:-
Split up and number of contracts - there are a myriad of alternatives ranging from a single contract for the
complete E&M equipment for a project inclusive of hydraulic turbines, generators, transformers, hydraulic
gates, auxiliaries etc to separate contracts for each. Conventional thinking is that better individual prices can
be obtained for smaller packages. Whilst this is probably true, offset against any price advantage of a smaller
package must be the cost of bidding and tender resolution in addition to the difficulties of contract
administration and settling of interfaces and limits of supply. Also, it must be remembered that the costs of
contract administration and interfacing have not been lost in a “Turn Key” type contract; they have just been
passed on to the Contractor with a doubtless not inconsiderable mark-up by him.
The final decision really depends upon the strength and capacity of the Client’s organisation or that of his
representative. If the Client’s organisation is strong and experienced then obviously it can handle far more
co-ordination than a small inexperienced organisation. If there is any doubt then best to have the minimum
number of Contracts.
Commercial General Conditions of Contract – If the money for the Contract is originating either entirely
or in part with an international lending organisation then they may wish to impose their own General
Conditions of Contract. These may or may not be suitable for the works envisaged or, more likely, they will
require extensive add on clauses to accommodate the particular requirements of the current project.
Personally the author sees nothing wrong with “FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Electrical and Mechanical
Works” for most applications. They are widely used, cover most situations without major modifications and,
most important, are known in detail to Client, Consultant and Contractor alike.
Pre and Post Qualification – The basic reasoning behind pre-qualification is to reduce the number of
bidders to those who can actually do the job, in theory reducing the work required during the bid evaluation.
The process is particularly relevant to exceptional equipment or standard equipment which has to operate in
exceptional circumstances. In years gone by when there was a myriad of equipment manufacturers the pre-
qualification process was very necessary in order to thin the field however with recent mergers and
acquisitions by major manufacturers it is fair to question the relevance of pre-qualification in today’s
commercial environment. The basic problem with pre-qualification is that once a potential bidder is pre-
qualified it is virtually impossible to reject his bid if it is the lowest in price and is without major divergences
to the Specification. This may not be in the interests of obtaining the best possible equipment for the job.
However pre-qualification is better than post qualification in which a bidder is accepted or rejected on the
basis of certificates as to his past experience which are submitted with the bid. In the author’s experience as
soon as money is involved all sorts of excuses and reasons are employed in order to push the lowest bidder
past the post qualification hurdle.
Regardless of whether pre post or no qualification is employed it is of utmost importance that facilities are
available to check the qualification documentation especially where the bidder is not a leading international
player. A Certificate or affidavit has no value unless it can be independently checked, preferably physically
or through data published in the public domain.
Loading during bid evaluation – Bid loading is typically applied to guarantees such as output, efficiency
and dimensions where those dimensions affect the civil works. The latter is incontestable. If a machine
cannot be fitted into the specified civil works then obviously the costs incurred in adjusting the works must
be added to the bid price. These costs must be indicated in the Specification as a rate per dimension or
combination of dimensions and must be commensurate with the Specification drawings. In the interests of
the construction programme the Specification compilers may wish to make some dimensions mandatory in
which case they should be indicated as such.
Loadings for performance such as output and efficiency are much more difficult to define and apply. If
codes such as IEC 60041 are employed then typically the measured values carry tolerances which, in the
case of site measured turbine efficiency can be as high as ±2.5% depending on the flow measurement
method employed. This gives the bidder plenty of scope to manipulate his guaranteed values and thus the
hypothetical benefits of the higher guaranteed performance can never be proven. Even if a zero tolerance
approach is adopted, the assumed benefits of higher guaranteed values may not be finally realised because
measurement occurs at the end of the Contract when typically only about 10% of the Contract cost is
available for Liquidated Damages.
Hence, in the author’s opinion, values of loading for performance guarantees should reflect the tolerances of
measurement and money available for Liquidated Damages at the end of the Contract.

4.2 Technical Specification

Contrary to some popular thinking the Technical

Clauses of an equipment specification should
not be a collection of words from a specification
library rushed to completion on a computer
word processor. Each project has its own
particular features and they should be reflected
in tailor made Technical Clauses. Verbosity
should be kept to a minimum and vague
statements such as “to the approval of the Client
or Engineer” serve no purpose (other than
increase specification volume). Obvious
requirements such as “The turbine head cover
shall be made from welded or cast steel” should
be avoided (the author has never seen a wooden
head cover). Small mistakes can have far reaching
consequences
International codes such as IEC, ISO, FEM etc
should be employed as much as possible and
should not be paraphrased. It is sufficient just to reference the code and to identify and elucidate alternatives
and identify the redundant parts of the code. The technical specification should have structure and follow
exact guide lines. For this the recommendations of the IEC codes IEC/TR 61366-1 through IEC/TR 613661-
7 are an excellent start to specifying hydraulic turbines, pump turbines and storage pumps and IEC 34 for
generators. However they provide only a skeleton on which the substance of the Specification is formed. The
substance will comprise features specific to the scheme, design and manufacturing requirements and Client
preferences based upon past experience with similar equipment.
The Technical Specification must reflect the deliberations and conclusions of the feasibility work and, if
necessary, leave alternatives for the bidders to price and justify, either as a verification of the alternative
chosen during the feasibility stage or its repudiation. It is far better that these questionable items are included
as alternatives in the Specification because, if the bidding is to Lending Agency rules, then it is very difficult
to broach them at the bidding analysis stage. Every word of a specification counts. It is in effect a blue print
for the final equipment. As any shopper knows, if you want a Rolls Royce then you have to order a Rolls
Royce. Any additions or modifications required after the contract is signed will come at considerable cost.
And quite rightly so. The bidder has in all honestly tailored his price to the requirements of the specification
and it is unrealistic and naïve to expect major changes to be provided free of charge.
Essential in the Technical Specification is a clear indication
of the involvement of the Client or his representatives in
design approval, in manufacturing and erection inspection
and in commissioning. The drawings and documents
required for Client review should be clearly stated and be
within the Client’s capacity to make a expeditious and
timely analysis and reply. Client review of design should
be commensurate with the nature of the equipment.
Obviously a run of the mill 150 m head 60 MW unit from
an established manufacturer should require less Client
review than a 750 MW unit. In any event Client review
should be orientated to ensuring that the equipment meets
the specification and, in the case of multiple contracts,
mates with that of other Contractors and should never be
such as to relieve the Contractor of his responsibilities.
For the want of a pump suction strainer Although frowned upon by the Lending Agencies, it may
only be possible to correctly specify the required quality of
a proprietary piece of equipment by manufacturer’s name. This particularly applies to auxiliary items such as
valves, switchgear, pumps, electric motors etc. It is an unfortunate fact of life that these items are the first to
fail and their failure or lack of performance can put the operation of the whole powerhouse in jeopardy. Also
there is a question of uniformity of spares with the operation and maintenance becoming increasingly
complicated with a myriad of minor equipment from different suppliers. Hence the author finds nothing
wrong with identifying acceptable manufacturers for auxiliary equipment albeit with the obligatory “or
equivalent” rider demanded by the Lending Agencies.

5 Manufacturing, erection and commissioning

Manufacturing, erection and commissioning are
regarded as the traditional bastions of Quality Control
however, as indicated above, they are but a culmination
of all that has preceded them. The extent of the Quality
Assurance and the determining standards for the
Quality Control required by the Client should already
be clear from the Technical Specification. The onus is
therefore on the Contractor to develop the Specification
requirements into a Quality Plan which will form the
basis of all manufacturing and site inspection including
the Client’s and/or his representatives involvement in
the process.
The accepted starting point for Quality Assurance of
manufacturing and erection is ISO 9001-2000 and its
related standards., This standard covers the structure of An inferior component can put the whole
the Contractor’s Quality Assurance department and, in powerhouse in jeopardy
particular, the system it uses for documenting the progress and quality of the work. ISO does not certify
compliance of any organisation to ISO 9001-2000; this is done by certifying agents, usually commercial
inspection bodies such as TUV and Lloyds Register. Certification to ISO 9001-2000 does not guarantee the
quality of any particular item, it just confirms that conditions are present in the design and manufacturing
facility for it to produce quality work. Hence certification to ISO 9001-2000 is very specific to its declared
aims which is probably why even minor builders and garages can now proudly display their accreditation to
this standard.
This is not to decry accreditation to ISO 9001-2000. A Company which has taken the time and trouble to
obtain accreditation is obviously far more aware of quality requirements than one which has not. However
that said, any Client must understand both the limitations and strengths of the Standard and take appropriate
measures to ensure that it covers the particular requirements of the equipment Specification.
As part of the accreditation process ISO 9001-2000 requires an audit of the manufacturer by the
accreditation agency. This will involve review of the structure of the manufacturer’s Quality Assurance
organisation, its arrangements for Quality Control and its processing of Quality Assurance and Quality
Control documentation. The audit is not product dependent and does not confirm that, for example, the
manufacturer’s Quality Assurance arrangements are appropriate to the manufacture of say a hydraulic
turbine. If the Contractor in question is an internationally recognised manufacturer of hydraulic turbines and
all the equipment is to be manufactured in his home factory then the audit implicitly checks that his home
factory’s Quality organisation is appropriate for the product. However the situation becomes far more
nebulous when a myriad of sub-contractors is employed or when the prime Contractor is a trading house and
is relying on others for Quality Assurance of the product(s). These days the problems of diluted
responsibility are not only those of sub-contractors. With globalisation the main contractor may elect to have
major parts manufactured in his various establishments worldwide some of which may not be entirely under
his control. Accordingly if there is any doubt, the Client should arrange for its own audit of the actual
establishments nominated by the Contractor for production of the works and thus ensure that the Quality
Assurance and Quality Control arrangements in each establishment are suitable for the product being
manufactured there. Any independent audit by the Client should be done in conjunction with the prime
Contractor.
As part of the Technical Specification requirements the Contractor should prepare a Plan for Inspection and
Testing (PIT) for the manufacture and erection of all major components. Typically this is in the form of a
table indicating the extent of material, fabrication and functional testing. The PIT is in effect a check list and
should be supplemented by written procedures stipulating standards, procedures and acceptance criteria.
Again the extent of the PIT should depend on the product for example a run of the mill turbine should not
require the same degree of Quality Control as a leading edge machine.
Although ISO 9001-2000 is essentially a controlling document for the Contractor’s Quality Assurance, in the
author’s experience it is in the Client’s interest to take an active and continuous interest in all parts of the
process. Although final inspection by the Client before delivery has the potential of preventing a sub-
standard item leaving the factory the delays occurred are typically unacceptable and will lead to major losses
in eventual generation the price of which cannot be recuperated from the Contractor. Hence every part of the
Shewhart cycle of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) of Quality Assurance should be accompanied by the
Client to lesser or greater degree to ensure that there are no surprises at the final inspection or, worst still,
when the equipment arrives on site.
Client inspection can either be done by the Client’s own personnel or by Contracted agencies. In both cases
it is essential that the personnel involved are skilled, experienced and know the Contract. Only by mutual
understanding with the Contractor’s Quality Assurance personnel will the Client’s representatives make a
meaningful contribution to the project. When employing a commercial inspection agency the Client must
acknowledge that the most responsible of these agencies will not expedite manufacture. They will report
progress, usually in relation to an overall manufacturing programme but will not “progress chase”. The
agencies quite rightly consider that expediting conflicts with their Quality Assurance role. Hence if progress
needs to be accelerated it is the Client himself who must take the necessary action. In taking this action the
Client must be aware that Quality may be compromised and the gains in accelerating manufacture must be
weighed against increased Quality supervision, a weighing that usually involves some cost.

6 Operation and Maintenance

An oft forgotten ingredient to on going Quality Assurance is the need for a complete comprehensive set of
documents for Operation and Maintenance of the equipment. The Operation and Maintenance instructions
should be succinct, easy to apply and be relevant to the equipment as installed. Unused alternatives should
 be deleted from standard equipment brochures and all listed data should correspond with measurements
taken during commissioning. Final drawings and design documents should be “As Built” with any deviations
to the original design clearly shown.
Operation and Maintenance instructions should be strictly adhered to by the Client even though this could
possibly conflict with the exigencies of generation. Limits of operation as determined during the
specification and design stage must be firmly adhered to. As time passes the reasons for these limits tend to
be forgotten, however they remain valid to limit transients, reduce rough running and control cavitation.
Periodic maintenance as recommended by the manufacturer should be strictly followed and damaged or
badly functioning parts promptly replaced. In essence Quality Assurance during the operation of the plant is
as important as that prior to take over and becomes increasingly so as the plant ages.

7 Conclusions
Quality Assurance is a complex many faceted subject which involves all aspects of hydroelectric equipment
specification, design, manufacture, erection commissioning and eventual operation and maintenance. The
purpose of this paper has been to highlight and give an inkling of the various ingredients which, if properly
employed can result in a product which is the best possible alternative for the end use and is “fit for service”.
Its main thrust has attempted to show that Quality Assurance is not purely a manufacturing or erection
function but one which embraces the whole spectrum of our work. The old maxim of “Quality of
manufacturing can enhance a good design but it cannot correct the errors in a poor design” is very relevant.
The final word best comes from NASA, an organisation which has found Quality Assurance to be an ever
moving target.
The NASA safety panel conclusions into the failure of the space conducting cable were:-
“The lesson to be learned is there is no substitute for good engineering design and judgement review and –
when possible – rigorous testing of the total system”
Sentiments which are far removed from those of Alan Shepard who recollected thinking, when standing
before the Atlas rocket which was to take him aloft during the Mercury Project:-
“I wasn’t scared, but I was up there looking around, and suddenly I realised I was sitting on top of a rocket
built by the lowest bidder."
In the procurement of hydroelectric equipment, as much as we try to try for the latter sentiment we should
never forget the former. The ultimate purpose of Quality Assurance is to find the best path between these
two conflicting aims.

The Author
John Gummer was educated at London and Bristol Universities in the UK, and has spent more than 40 years
working on major hydroelectric and pumped storage projects throughout the world. Since leaving the Itaipu
Hydroelectric Project where he was the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the IECO-ELC Co-ordination Group,
he has acted as consultant to the World Bank, ODA, and many leading engineering organisations and
lending authorities. He is on the Editorial Board of The International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, is
Vice Chairman of the IHA Permanent Committee on technology and has authored over 40 papers on
hydropower and fluid dynamics.

View publication stats