You are on page 1of 317

Hydropower Asset Management

Using Condition Assessments and Risk-Based Economic Analyses



September 2006



Disclaimer

This manual consists of information intended for internal use by the hydroAMP organizations.
The tests, methods, and procedures described herein represent a consensus of subject matter
experts within the partnership organizations. Any information regarding commercial products or
firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not to be construed as an
endorsement. This document is considered public information and may be distributed or copied.
Reprints or republications should include a credit substantially as follows: hydroAMP
(Hydropower Asset Management Partnership) Guidebook.


Executive Summary

Hydropower Asset Management
Using Condition Assessments and Risk-Based Economic Analyses

Developed by the Hydropower Asset Management Partnership:
Bureau of Reclamation, Hydro-Qubec, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
Bonneville Power Administration


Background

Aging and deteriorating hydroelectric powerplant equipment poses considerable risk to reliability
and may result in low generating unit availability. Significant investment in replacing, repairing,
and refurbishing hydroelectric generating and auxiliary equipment is required to assure the
continued viability and cost-effectiveness of existing hydropower assets. Successful strategic
planning for capital investments in hydropower facilities requires consideration and balancing of
many factors, including the risk of equipment failure. The four organizations involved in the
Hydropower Asset Management Partnership (hydroAMP) joined together to create a framework
to streamline and improve the evaluation of the condition of hydroelectric equipment and
facilities in order to support asset management and risk-based resource allocation.


Condition Assessments

Technical teams comprised of experts from the four hydroAMP organizations developed
condition assessment guides for key hydroelectric powerplant components, falling into two
classes. The first equipment class includes major power train components, such as circuit
breakers, excitation systems, generators, governors, transformers, and turbines. The second class
consists of auxiliary components, including batteries, compressed air systems, cranes, emergency
closure gates and valves, and surge arresters.

A two-tiered approach for assessing hydropower equipment condition was developed. Tier 1 of
the assessment process relies on test and inspection results that are normally obtained during
routine operation and maintenance (O & M) activities. Equipment age, O & M history, and other
relevant Condition Indicators are evaluated and combined with the test results to compute a
Condition Index. An additional, stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the
information available for scoring the Condition Indicators. The Condition and Data Quality
Indicators and the Condition Index for each piece of equipment are easily tracked using a
Computerized Maintenance Management System or other database tools.

The second, or Tier 2, phase of the condition assessment utilizes non-routine tests and
inspections to refine the Condition Index obtained during the Tier 1 assessment. Tier 2 tests
often require specialized expertise or instrumentation, depending on the problem or issue being
investigated. A low Condition Index or Data Quality Indicator score from the Tier 1 assessment
may indicate the need for a Tier 2 evaluation.


Individual equipment condition assessment results can be combined to develop an aggregated
assessment of a complete power train unit as well as an entire generating station. These
summary indices are designated Unit Index and Station Index, respectively.


Analytical Tools

The path that leads from a condition assessment to an investment decision is vitally important to
the management of hydropower facilities. The analytical tools described in this Guidebook are
intended to help decision makers develop and maneuver that path. These tools form a link
between the technical tasks that make up a condition assessment and the economic and risk
analyses that guide maintenance management and resource allocation.

Two types of analyses are presented, designated Type 1 and Type 2. A Type 1 analysis
considers equipment condition and cost alone all that may be needed to make an investment
decision in some cases. A more complex analytical approach, described as a Type 2 analysis, is
useful for evaluating and prioritizing various investment scenarios. It uses all factors from
Type 1 and introduces additional factors that relate to the possible consequences of undertaking
or not undertaking a repair or replacement action (e.g., legal, regulatory, safety, environmental,
and economic consequences). Several case studies and appendices with supporting information
are provided to further describe the risk and economic analysis concepts.


Data Management

A hydroAMP database was developed to allow plants and organizations to input their equipment
condition data into a single database in a standardized format. It also allows for individual plant
and utility analysis and reporting. The database is real-time and web-accessible, and provides
centralized data entry, storage, and retrieval for hydroAMP assessments. The database can be
accessed through the internet at the following address: https://secure.bpa.gov/hydroAMP/. An
account is required to access the database. Contact your organizations hydroAMP coordinator
to establish an account.


Implementation

The condition assessment tools and economic analyses described in this Guidebook are currently
being implemented within the hydroAMP organizations. After an initial period of use
(approximately 12 to 18 months), feedback from users will be solicited and used to improve and
enhance the tools, processes, and results.

i
Table of Contents

Page

Section I: Overview................................................................................................ 1
Background................................................................................................... 1
Hydropower Asset Management Partnership (hydroAMP) ........................ 1
Strategic Goals.............................................................................................. 2
Principles ..................................................................................................... 2
Intended Users ............................................................................................. 3
General Methodology................................................................................... 4

Section II: Equipment Condition Assessment ....................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................. 6
Tier 1 Assessment......................................................................................... 6
Tier 2 Assessment ........................................................................................ 7
Documentation ............................................................................................ 8
Unit and Station Indices .............................................................................. 8
Computerized Maintenance Management System (Maximo)................... 11
Condition Assessment Database................................................................... 12

Section III: Tools for Prioritizing Projects
Using a Risk Analysis Approach ................................................................. 14
Introduction ................................................................................................. 14
Types of Analyses ....................................................................................... 15
Type 1 Analysis ................................................................................. 15
Type 2 Analysis ................................................................................. 16

Section IV: Case Studies......................................................................................... 18
Introduction ................................................................................................. 18
Type 1 Analysis............................................................................................ 18
Type 2 Analysis ........................................................................................... 20
North Pacific Region Spare Transformer Project ........................................ 23
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 27



ii
Appendices

Page

Appendix A: Key Terms......................................................................................... 29

Appendix B: MaximoLoading Procedures ........................................................ 31
Introduction ................................................................................................. 31
Overview...................................................................................................... 31
Procedures ................................................................................................... 33
Example: Long Description of J ob Plans..................................................... 34
Recording Set Point Values on Work Order ................................................ 36
Condition Assessment Report...................................................................... 37

Appendix C: Example Economic Analysis of a Facility Upgrade
Generator and Turbine Replacement ........................................................... 40

Appendix D: hydroAMP Team Members and Contributors................................... 45

Appendix E: Equipment Condition Assessment Guides
1
...................................... 47

1
Due to the large number and size of the condition assessment guides, they are available as
separate electronic files. For more information, contact your organizations hydroAMP
coordinator.

iii
List of Figures

Page

Figure I-1: Overall Flow of Equipment Assessment and Decision-Making
Process ............................................................................................... 5

Figure B-1: Condition Monitoring Application .................................................... 33

Figure B-2: J ob Plans ............................................................................................ 34

Figure B-3: Long Description of J ob Plans............................................................ 35

Figure B-4: Work Order Tracking.......................................................................... 36

Figure B-5: Report Viewer..................................................................................... 37




iv
List of Tables

Page

Table II-1: Condition Index Ratings of Equipment ............................................. 7

Table II-2: Condition Indices of Power Train Components ................................. 9

Table II-3: Component Weights ........................................................................... 9

Table II-4: Condition Ratings of Units and Station ............................................. 10

Table III-1: Risk Map ............................................................................................ 17

Table III-2: Beta Tables ......................................................................................... 17

Table IV-1: Factors for Type 1 Analysis (Case 1) ................................................ 19

Table IV-2: Factors for Type 1 Analysis (Case 2) ................................................ 20

Table IV-3: Failure Factors for Type 2 Analysis ................................................... 21

Table IV-4: Transformer Condition Assessment Guidelines ................................ 24

Table B-1: Equipment / Set Point Name List ....................................................... 38

Table C-1: Cost of Replacement Components for Each Unit .............................. 40

Table C-2: Comparison of Costs between Alternatives ....................................... 41

Table C-3: Increases in Benefits for Each Alternative ......................................... 42

Table C-4: Savings in Maintenance Costs ........................................................... 43

Table C-5: Summary of Results ........................................................................... 43

1
Section I: Overview


Background

Successful strategic planning for capital investments in existing hydropower facilities requires
consideration and balancing of many factors, including the risks and consequences of equipment
failure. The hydropower community has long recognized the importance of assessing the
condition of existing equipment in order to make informed and sound business decisions for the
replacement of that equipment. Early attempts to develop condition assessment tools, however,
were not completely successful.

One formal approach for assessing the condition of hydroelectric equipment existed in the Corps
of Engineers Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation (REMR) Research Program
undertaken in the early 1990s. Prior to the REMR guidance, numerous test reports and
memoranda had to be researched to make a determination of equipment condition. REMR was
intended to provide guidance and a standard methodology for making condition assessments, and
to consolidate the assessments into a uniform format. However, feedback from the projects
using this tool indicated dissatisfaction with the REMR program for the following reasons:

The equipment evaluation processes tended to be unwieldy, requiring too many tests,
inspections, and measurements.
The evaluation procedures and results were not properly validated and calibrated.
There was no convenient and consistent method to capture, retrieve, and utilize the data
being collected.

As a result of this feedback, there were many discussions concerning the need to revise or
rewrite the REMR guidance. Concurrent with these discussions within the Corps of Engineers
(COE), other industry leaders were wrestling with this same issue, and in 2001, the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) and Hydro-Qubec (HQ) signed a formal partnership agreement to develop
guidance for assessing the condition of their hydroelectric equipment. The Corps of Engineers
Hydroelectric Design Center (HDC) was invited to participate in exploratory discussions in
October 2001. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) joined the partnership shortly
thereafter.


Hydropower Asset Management Partnership (hydroAMP)

Representatives from the four organizations met to discuss their respective goals and objectives.
This resulted in a decision to collaborate in the development of hydropower asset management
tools related to equipment condition assessments, investment prioritization methods, and
evaluation of business risks. The Hydropower Asset Management Partnership (hydroAMP)
identified the following concerns:

A majority of critical equipment in hydroelectric facilities in North America is near or
beyond its design life.

2
Equipment reliability contributes significantly to system generation availability.
The need for significant investment in repairing, refurbishing or replacing existing
generation and auxiliary equipment within hydroelectric projects is anticipated.
An opportunity exists to increase generation efficiency through investments in improved
control systems, operations, and equipment.
The process for identifying and prioritizing investments needs strengthening.
Establishment of an objective, consistent, and valid assessment process is critical.
Equipment condition assessment tools used in the past have been too complex and costly.


Strategic Goals

The goal of hydroAMP was to create a framework to streamline, simplify, and improve the
evaluation and documentation of hydroelectric equipment condition to enhance asset and risk
management decision-making. The team recognized that equipment condition assessments
support:

Development of long-term investment strategies.
Prioritization of capital investments.
Coordination of O & M budgeting processes and practices.
Identification and tracking of performance goals.


Principles

The partnership agreed that the following principles would be applied during development of the
equipment condition assessment methodology. Specifically, the hydroAMP framework should:

Be guided and managed through a collective team effort.
Be designed for fair and equitable application to all hydroelectric projects.
Result in an objective and repeatable assessment of the major equipment and critical
systems in the generation power train.
Start small (i.e., would not initially include all critical equipment and systems) and grow
over time as experience is gained.
Be streamlined to minimize the time and expense required for testing, evaluating data,
developing conclusions, and record keeping.
Rely on existing O & M records and routine inspections and tests applied at regular
intervals.
Be technically sufficient although not necessarily perfect.
Be field-tested and assessed periodically.
Be open to continuous improvement.
Be adaptable for different users, purposes, and situations.


3
Intended Users

This Guidebook was developed for use and implementation by all of the partnership agencies.
Therefore, the hydroAMP tools were designed to be open and flexible to fit into existing
maintenance, planning, budgeting, and decision-making structures. These processes are also
intended to serve multiple users within an agency who may have distinct roles and
responsibilities for hydropower asset management. Typical users of the hydroAMP tools include
the following:

On-Site Plant Staff. In general, these are the individuals who work with the equipment on a
daily basis and will have a direct role in performing the equipment condition assessments. The
information provided by the on-site staff is the foundation of the asset management process.
Plant staff will typically:

Perform Tier 1 equipment condition assessments.
Record the data in the maintenance management system.
Collaborate with technical specialists conducting Tier 2 tests or inspections.
Use equipment condition information to manage their operation and maintenance
activities.

Plant or Facility Managers. These individuals may use the hydroAMP processes to:

Support plant maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement decisions.
Evaluate equipment condition assessment data and trends, in conjunction with other
business decisions factors, to recommend additional analyses for certain components or
systems.

Technical Staff. This group consists of engineers, economists, environmentalists, biologists, and
other staff and technical specialists who are responsible for preparing detailed evaluations and
justifications for larger, more complex decision packages. They may use the risk-based
methodologies to analyze data as requested by the decision makers. In summary, technical staff
use equipment assessments and prioritization tools to:

J ustify Tier 2 analyses.
Support economic analyses.
Support risk analyses.
Support regional or multiple project analyses.

Asset Managers. These individuals may use the hydroAMP processes to:

Prioritize competing investment needs.
Analyze various business cases or justifications for investment decisions.
Support decisions that consider tradeoffs between competing needs or conflicting
requirements.



4
General Methodology

The equipment condition assessment and decision-making process involves three distinct phases:
Tier 1 assessment, Tier 2 assessment, and a Business Decision.
2
Tier 1 represents the start of the
condition assessment process and culminates in the determination of an equipment Condition
Index. The Tier 1 assessment relies on test and inspection results that are normally obtained
during routine operation and maintenance (O & M) activities. Equipment age, O & M history,
and other relevant Condition Indicators are evaluated and combined with the test results to
compute the Condition Index. The Condition Index is scored on a 0 to 10 numerical scale and
results in a good, fair, or poor rating.

An additional, stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the Condition Indicators. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, a Data
Quality Indicator is rated as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final
Condition Index.

Additional information regarding equipment condition may be needed to improve the accuracy
and reliability of the Condition Index. If so, Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements may be
performed. These tests are considered non-routine and may require specialized expertise or test
equipment. An outage and some disassembly of the component under test may also be required.
Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or decrease the score of the Condition Index.
The Data Quality Indicator score may be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the
availability of additional information or test data.

Condition assessment guides are available for the major power train components, i.e., circuit
breakers, excitation systems, generators, governors, transformers, and turbines. Assessment
guides have also been developed for important auxiliary equipment and systems including
batteries, compressed air systems, cranes, emergency closure gates and valves, and surge
arresters. It may be desirable to combine individual condition assessment results into an
aggregated assessment representing the entire power train unit, or perhaps the entire generating
station. Accordingly, a method for performing these calculations is presented in the Guidebook.
The resulting summary indices are designated the Unit Index and Station Index, respectively.
Condition assessments can also be used to identify condition trends in equipment types of
different ages.

This Guidebook outlines several approaches for evaluating risk and prioritizing hydropower
investment opportunities. The simplest approach, a Type 1 analysis, uses Condition Indices and
cost to prioritize, rank, and sort equipment needs. Alternatively, a more complex business case
may be developed using a Type 2 analysis which takes into account legal, regulatory, safety,
environmental, economic, and/or other concerns.

Economic analyses may be done horizontally across an organization to determine replacement
timing and order for similar types of equipment, for example, a transformer or circuit breaker
replacement program. Condition assessment information can also be evaluated vertically using

2
Definitions of key terms are given in Appendix A

5
the aggregated Unit Index or Station Index to identify the weakest link in the power production
chain.

The overall flow of the assessment and analyses processes are illustrated in Figure I-1.


Figure I-1: Overall Flow of Equipment Assessment and Decision-Making Process.


Start
Tier 1 - Track trends in equipment performance and condition via routine periodic maintenance
Tier 1
Tier 2
Monitor &
Adjust CI
Business
Analysis/
Risk-Based
Decision
On-site maintenance, etc.
Is action required?
Complete
Business Justification
and/or Record
Tier 2 - Additional tests and
inspections, if needed
Is the action
needed immediately?
Yes
Yes
Calculate Condition Index (CI) Assign rating of Good, Fair, or Poor
No
Prioritize and Complete
Business Analysis
(Risk of failure, economic
consequences, etc.)
Should investment
be considered for action
during next cycle?
Tier 2 - Additional tests and
inspections, if needed
No
No
Yes
Is the investment
justified?
Yes
No

6
Section II: Equipment Condition Assessment


Introduction

The hydroAMP technical teams have developed equipment condition assessment guides for the
following major power train equipment and auxiliary components:

Batteries
Circuit Breakers
Compressed Air Systems
Cranes
Emergency Closure Gates and Valves
Excitation Systems
Generators
Governors
Surge Arresters
Transformers
Turbines

The condition assessment guides are presented in Appendix E. Each guide is a stand-alone
document developed for evaluating a specific piece of equipment or system. The guides are not
intended to define component maintenance practices or provide detailed procedures for
performing inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies and
procedures must be consulted for such information.

The condition assessment process assumes that inspections, tests, and measurements are
conducted on a schedule that provides accurate and current information needed by the
assessment. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to acquire additional data prior to the
assessment.


Tier 1 Assessment

The methodology outlined in the condition assessment guides is divided into two tiers or levels.
A Tier 1 assessment relies on test and inspection results that are normally obtained by on-site
staff as part of routine operation and maintenance or by examination of existing data.

Each guide defines the Condition Indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the initial basis for assessing equipment condition. Generally, the following Condition
Indicators are used to evaluate the equipment condition:

Physical Inspection
Tests and Measurements
Operation & Maintenance History
Age or Number of Operations

7
Numerical scores are assigned to each Condition Indicator using the guidelines provided. The
scoring criteria may refer to conditions such as normal and degraded. These relative terms
are intended to reflect industry-accepted levels for equipment of similar design, construction, or
age operating in a similar environment, or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels. In some
situations, determination of the Condition Indicator scores is subjective and must rely on the
experience and opinions of personnel conducting the maintenance or inspection.

Weighting factors are applied to the Condition Indicator scores, which are then summed to
compute the Condition Index. Weighting factors account for the fact that certain Condition
Indicators reflect the actual equipment condition more than other indicators. The weighting
factors also normalize the Condition Index to a score between 0 and 10 and result in a rating
system as shown in the following table:

Table II-1: Condition Index Ratings of Equipment

Condition Index (CI)
7 CI 10 Good
3 CI <7 Fair
0 CI < 3 Poor

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to denote the quality of the information available for
scoring the Condition Indicators. Although reasonable efforts should be made to perform the
Tier 1 tests and inspections, in some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of questionable
integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated Condition Indicator
scores as well as the validity of the overall Condition Index. Given the potential impact of poor
or missing data, a Data Quality Indicator is assigned a value of 0, 4, 7, or 10 as a means of
recording confidence in the final Condition Index. The more current and complete the
assessment information, the higher the rating for this indicator.

Tier 1 tests may indicate abnormal conditions that must be addressed immediately or that can be
resolved via standard corrective maintenance solutions. To the extent that Tier 1 tests lead to
immediate corrective actions being taken, appropriate adjustments to the Condition Indicator
scores should be made and the new results used to compute a revised Condition Index. The Data
Quality Indicator score may also be updated to reflect the availability of additional information
or test data.


Tier 2 Assessment

As a result of the Tier 1 assessment, additional information may be required to improve the
accuracy and reliability of the Tier 1 Condition Index or to evaluate the need for more extensive
maintenance, rehabilitation, or equipment replacement. Therefore, each condition assessment
guide describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements that may performed,
depending on the specific issue or problem being pursued. A Tier 2 assessment is considered

8
non-routine. Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment
or expertise, may be intrusive, or may require an outage to perform.

For certain types of equipment, there are many tests that can provide information about different
aspects of component condition. The choice of which tests to apply should be made based on the
Tier 1 assessment as well as information obtained via review of O & M history, physical
inspection, other test results, and company standards. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either
increase or decrease the Condition Index. In some cases, more than one Tier 2 test may be
available to detect or confirm a single defect or state of deterioration. It is important to avoid
over-adjusting the Condition Index simply because two or more tests confirm or disprove the
same suspected problem. In the event that multiple tests are performed to assess the same
problem or concern, the test with the largest adjustment would normally be used to recalculate
the Condition Index. Since the Tier 2 tests are being performed by and/or coordinated with
knowledgeable technical staff, the decision as to which test is more significant and how different
tests overlap is left to the experts.

An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information
or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


Documentation

The condition assessment results are recorded on the Condition Assessment Summary form at
the end of each guide. The Tier 1 portion of the form contains a table listing the Condition
Indicators with their respective weighting factors. The indicator scores are multiplied by the
appropriate weighting factor and then summed to arrive at the Tier 1 Condition Index. In the
Tier 2 section, the Condition Index may be adjusted by the results of the Tier 2 inspections, tests,
and measurements.

Substantiating documentation is beneficial to support findings of the condition assessment,
particularly where a Tier 1 Condition Indicator score is low or where Tier 2 results in
subtractions to the Condition Index. Test reports, photographs, O & M records, and other
documentation are important to support the equipment condition assessment summary.


Unit and Station Indices

To assist facility managers and other decision-makers, the condition assessment results can be
used to develop an aggregated assessment of a complete power train unit as well as an entire
generating station. Strategic importance, lost revenues as a result of equipment failure, reliability
criticality, forced outage rates, environmental concerns, and other factors are important
considerations when developing Unit and Station Indices.

To illustrate a method of determining Unit and Station Indices, consider the fictitious XYZ
Hydropower Station. It has six (6) power train units, each consisting of the following
components: generator, transformer, turbine, governor, exciter, and circuit breaker as shown in
Table II-2. The condition indices for the power train components of the six units have been

9
deliberately selected to illustrate different equipment condition scenarios. A single, distinct
component has been designated as the weak link in each unit for this illustrative example. The
condition color-coding scheme follows that of Table II-1.

Table II-2: Condition Indices of Power Train Components

Unit
XYZ Hydropower Station
1 2 3 4 5 6
Generator 2.9 6.8 8.9 6.0 7.8 9.0
Transformer 5.0 6.0 2.3 7.3 5.4 4.0
Turbine 6.4 4.3 8.0 2.3 4.2 5.0
Governor 4.2 6.9 5.0 5.9 2.0 6.3
Exciter 8.4 2.9 6.0 6.7 7.0 3.5
Circuit Breaker 9.0 5.0 7.3 6.5 2.0 9.0

As shown in Table II-3 below, each component in the power train has been assigned a weight
based on how critical it is to overall power production. The generator is deemed the most critical
component and is weighted 0.30. The circuit breaker is the least critical component and is
weighted 0.05. Although the specific component weight rating and scales selected for this
example are appropriate, they may not reflect the best weighting for every situation. Therefore,
it should be noted that the individual component weights may be varied as long as their sum
equals 1.00.

Table II-3: Component Weights

Component Weight
Generator 0.30
Transformer 0.25
Turbine 0.20
Governor 0.10
Exciter 0.10
Circuit Breaker 0.05
Sum 1.00

A condition threshold value or Condition Index Trigger Value has been set at 3.0, as shown in
Table II-4. Accordingly, each component with a Condition Index of 3.0 or higher (i.e., a rating
of fair or good) is given a modified component rating equal to the weight assigned to the
component. For instance, a generator in fair or good condition is given a rating of 0.30. If the
components Condition Index is less than 3.0 (poor), a rating of zero is assigned. The Unit Index
is determined by summing the modified condition ratings, which is simply the sum of the

10
weights for all components in either fair or good condition. As shown in Table II-4, higher Unit
Indices result when the more critical components are in good or fair condition.

A power train unit is considered to be in good condition if its Unit Index is greater than 0.85, in
fair condition if its index is greater than 0.75 and less than or equal to 0.85, and in poor condition
if its index is 0.75 or below. It should be recognized that the Unit Index rating does not affect
the actions required to improve the condition of a poor reliability component since the failure of
an individual component in the power train can result in a major forced outage.

The Station Index represents the average of the Unit Indices.
3
In this simplified example, the
resulting Station Index is 0.83 [(0.7 +0.9 +0.75 +0.8 +0.85 +1.0) 6], indicating that XYZ
Hydropower Station is in fair condition.

Table II-4: Condition Ratings of Units and Station

Condition Index Trigger Value 3.0

Unit
Modified
Condition Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6
Generator 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Transformer 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25
Turbine 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20
Governor 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10
Exciter 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Breaker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05
Unit Index 0.70 0.90 0.75 0.80 0.85 1.00
Station Index 0.83

Unit and Station Ratings Good Fair Poor
Unit Index >0.85 >0.75 and 0.85 0.75
Station Index >0.85 >0.75 and 0.85 0.75


3
The condition of the auxiliary components is not considered in the station index calculation.

11
Computerized Maintenance Management System (Maximo)

The equipment condition assessment process can be easily adapted to a Computerized
Maintenance Management System(CMMS) to:

Store the Tier 1 equipment condition assessment procedures
Record and track Condition Indicator scores and weighting factors
Compute the equipment Condition Index
Store data for historical analyses

Maximois the CMMS that is currently being used by all of the hydroAMP partners. It serves
as a tool for facility managers to understand the condition of their equipment and to better
prioritize needed maintenance or replacement activities. It also serves to meet applicable facility
condition assessment requirements.

The equipment condition assessment procedure is loaded into Maximousing the following
three component applications:

1. J ob Plan Application

A J ob Plan application stores definitions that define the ratings that assess the condition
of a class of power equipment. A Maximojob plan has been created for each type of
equipment (e.g., turbine, transformer).

2. Preventive Maintenance Application

A Preventive Maintenance (PM) application links the J ob Plan from equipment
classification (e.g., transformer) to a specific piece of equipment. After the PM record is
established, the PM schedule is set to generate work orders on an annual interval.

3. Condition Monitoring Application

The Condition Monitoring application establishes and links measurement points to
specific equipment. The condition assessment process rates equipment conditions using
measurement point values entered in Condition Monitoring or on work orders.

When Maximois used to record condition assessment results, the supporting documentation
(e.g., test reports, photographs, O & M records) should be attached to the work order.

See Appendix B for a detailed description of loading the equipment condition assessment
procedure into Maximo.


12
Condition Assessment Database

Even though maintenance management systems such as Maximocan be used to record the
results of condition assessments, the hydroAMP team believed it was valuable to develop a
hydroAMP database to store results arising from these assessments. The database has several
important features; namely, accessibility through the internet, real-time updating of results, and
tracking of trends in Condition Indicators and Indices over time.

BPA engaged its information technology specialists to develop the database based on input from
COE engineering and maintenance staff. While the hydroAMP database is currently hosted and
maintained on BPAs website (https://secure.bpa.gov/hydroAMP/), it is available for use by any
participating hydroAMP organization for data input, storage, and retrieval. The site is password
protected with access granted on a case-by-case basis.

Database Input

The database and website use MSSQL and ASP.net technologies. Data entry is largely
accommodated through pull-down menus with Condition Indices automatically calculated and
ratings assigned. The database can be updated by simply logging onto the website and updating
user entry forms within the system. All updates made in this fashion are available immediately
via the reporting tools. We are in the development stage of creating a file updating standard and
procedure that will allow for export of updates directly from any maintenance management
system, such as Maximo.

Website Menu Options:

Condition Assessments Input equipment condition data for Tier 1 assessment.
Equipment Add, update and delete equipment for specific plants.
Reports View and export condition assessment reports.
My Account View and make changes to your account.
Help Provides links and contacts for information.

Database Output

The hydroAMP website has been developed such that a number of reports can be generated
directly by the system. These reports give summary information and are available directly
through the users web browser. All reports are exportable in multiple formats depending upon
user preference; HTML, PDF, Microsoft Excel, Tiff images, CSV, or XML.

Database Users and Contacts

The hydroAMP database is available to operation and maintenance staff, plant managers,
technical support staff, and investment decision makers of the hydroAMP organizations. The
development of hydroAMP was initially funded by the partner organizations. Implementation
and maintenance of hydroAMP is currently being funded by the COE, BOR, and BPA.


13
Database Access

To access the hydroAMP database, and for security reasons, individuals wanting access to the
system are required to open an account. The account will include a log-in, password, and
permissions. The permissions involve two parameters first, what actions you as a user will be
performing (e.g., read, read/write, or management review) and secondly, which hydro
projects/plants you have authorization to view and/or edit.

All requests for access to this database, and for reporting problems or concerns, should be sent to
the hydroAMP e-mail address hydroamp@bpa.gov and must include your full name, e-mail
address, phone number, and the plants for which you are requesting access. The hydroAMP
administrator will assign log-ins and passwords and respond to you via e-mail.



14
Section III: Tools for Prioritizing Projects Using a Risk Analysis Approach


Introduction

In the preceding section, we presented detailed steps, including tests and inspections, to assess
the condition of major power train equipment and auxiliary components at a hydro plant. These
comprehensive condition assessments are a critical factor for planning maintenance and capital
investments. But they are not the only factors.

The path that leads from a condition assessment to an investment decision is an important part of
managing large hydro plants for maximum benefit. The analytical tools described in this section
are intended to help decision makers develop and maneuver that path. They are the link between
the technical and engineering tasks that make up a condition assessment and the economic and
risk analyses that guide maintenance management and investment decisions.

There are several key factors to consider in these analyses, including cost, consequence, and risk.
These factors, along with the condition assessment, inform program priorities and investment
decisions.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a specific piece of equipment at a hydro plant is a complex
undertaking. Benefit is derived from actions that lead to efficiency improvements (reduction in
losses) and cost savings, or that avoid lost revenues. For reliability investments, the first two
areas of benefit can be easily determined, but the benefits are typically small. The third area is
more difficult to calculate. In the case of lost revenues, benefit is derived only from making the
piece of equipment in question more reliable than the next least-reliable piece of equipment of
the power train. Making this calculation and determining how to allocate the benefit among
multiple investments on the power train is complicated and involves elements of subjectivity.

A cost-effectiveness analysis on an entire generating unit or plant can more easily be done. An
analyst can compare the expected future investments on all equipment components of a
generating unit to the future avoided lost-revenue benefits to determine whether the investments
would be cost effective overall. If so, investments when needed for individual equipment
components can be deemed cost effective, as long as they are consistent with the expected future
investments that were analyzed.

There are several techniques and models available for doing unit or plant cost-effectiveness
analyses. All require the marginal value of the unit or plant as an input. Some models attempt to
optimize the timing of investments by minimizing the present value of future costs and lost
revenues. These models require that assumptions be made about the probability and
consequence of failure in order to determine the optimum timing for intervention. One such
technique that derives an expected net present value of investing in a unit or plant using Monte
Carlo simulation is outlined in Appendix C.

In the following hydroAMP framework, we assume that each company has a process in place to
determine whether anticipated future investments in units and plants are cost effective. That

15
information is taken as an input into hydroAMP. We do not attempt to optimize the timing of
investments, but do consider timing as it relates to risk management. What we outline here is a
simple, easy to use, and low cost process for rating equipment condition and prioritizing
investments using risk-management tools.

It should be noted that the analytical tools laid out here are not intended to be prescriptive, and
we have purposely avoided recommending a particular type of analysis for a specific piece of
equipment or situation. Each plant owner has its own circumstances, regulatory and legal
obligations, strategic goals, and preferences with regard to risk.


Types of Analyses

Two types of analysis, designated as Type 1 and Type 2 Analyses, are described below. They
outline a Business Analysis/Risk-Based Decision prioritization process, and are illustrated
through case studies in Section IV.

Type 1 Analysis

A Type 1 analysis considers equipment condition and cost alone, all that may be needed in some
cases. For example, a compressor is a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment. If there is
budget to do so, the best investment decision may be to replace a compressor that is in poor
condition as soon as possible.

The Type 1 analysis considers six cost and condition factors:

Total Cost: Cost to repair or replace the equipment, including engineering,
administration, and commissioning costs.
Current-Year Cost: Portion of investment cost incurred in the current year.
Incremental Annual Maintenance: The increase or decrease in maintenance provided by
the investment dollars.
Achievability: Ability to undertake the project in the immediate timeframe.
Phase of the Project: Defined here as study (S), engineering (E), procurement (P), or
construction (C).
Condition Index: Derived from the most recent performance and Condition Indicators for
the equipment as outlined in Sections I and II.

This type of analysis is often used for (but is not limited to) situations involving emergency
repairs, failures, and auxiliary systems. Without budget and delivery constraints, investments
can be prioritized simply using the condition rating. Where constraints exist, other factors need
to be considered.


16
Type 2 Analysis

For more expensive pieces of equipment where there are several investment alternatives for
improving reliability, additional factors need to be considered when setting priorities. A more
complex analytical tool, described here as a Type 2 analysis, is useful for prioritizing a list of
investments that affect generation.

The Type 2 analysis uses all factors from Type 1 and introduces additional factors that relate to
the consequence of undertaking or not undertaking a repair or replacement action. These factors,
which may not be appropriate to every situation, are as follows:

Marginal Value of Generation: Annual value attributed to the piece of equipment. This
value is determined outside the hydroAMP framework and may include the value of
energy and ancillary services.
Total Outage Duration: For generation-affecting equipment, the length of time (in years)
to restore a unit to service after failure, including both the time required to procure and to
install equipment.
Revenue at Risk: Marginal value of generation times the total outage duration.
Risk Map Score: A score (explained below) that measures the relative risk for a piece of
equipment given its condition rating and the consequence associated with its failure.
Other Business Factors: Factors important to the decision, including environmental,
legal, and safety considerations.
Priority Rank: Risk map score plus other business factors.

The risk map in Table III-1 is a tool that helps a plant/asset manager prioritize a portfolio of
investment needs. As stated above, it measures the relative risk of a piece of equipment given its
condition rating and the consequence associated with its failure. The consequence we use here is
loss of revenue, but it could include other business factors.

The map is laid out in a grid, with condition values on one axis and the consequence of failure on
the other. Values in the grid are the sum of the corresponding beta values for condition and
consequence shown in Table III-2. The values in this table are for illustration only and can be
changed to meet the specific needs of each company.


17
Table III-1: Risk Map

Condition
Index
Condition
Beta
0 to 0.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Risk Level
Results
(Map #)
1 to 1.9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
High
17 - 20
2 to 2.9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
3 to 3.9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Medium-High
13 - 16
4 to 4.9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
5 to 5.9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Medium
9 - 12
6 to 6.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7 to 7.9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Medium-Low
5 - 8
8 to 8.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9 to 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low
1 - 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Risk Level
Consequence Beta
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

V
a
l
u
e
s
P
o
o
r
F
a
i
r
G
o
o
d
High
Consequence
Low Medium-Low Medium Medium-High



Table III-2: Beta Tables


18
Section IV: Case Studies


Introduction

Analyses described in Sections I, II, and III are illustrated through three (3) examples in this
section. Examples 1 and 2 illustrating Type 1 and Type 2 Analyses, respectively, are theoretical
in nature. Example 3 describes an actual spare transformer study for the North Pacific Region of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


Type 1 Analysis

The following example illustrates how to use a Type 1 analysis to set investment priorities, given
differing budget constraints:

Type 1, Case 1: In Table IV-1, we show auxiliary systems in two plants that lend themselves to
a Type 1 analysis. The current-year budget for investments is capped at $450,000. Decision
criteria used to prioritize the investments are: (1) condition indices, (2) achievability, and (3)
incremental annual maintenance costs.

Because the surge arrestors in Plant A and Crane 1 in Plant B are in poor condition, they are
priority items for action. The current-year budget request for these items is $365,000, leaving
$85,000 available to address other needs.

The second level of budget priority is for items in fair condition with high achievability. Crane 2
in Plant B requires a $100,000 investment in the current year, so there are insufficient funds to
start that activity at this time. But Battery 5 in Plant B can be completed for $35,000, which is
achievable in the current timeframe. Battery 5 in Plant B therefore gets a higher priority than
Crane 2 in Plant B for the current year, which leaves $50,000 available for other investments.

Since there are no other investments with high achievability, the next step is to look at items with
potential for high maintenance cost savings. The largest potential is with Crane 1 in Plant A,
which has a current-year cost of $50,000 and maintenance cost savings of $50,000 per year.
This investment has a medium achievability level and can be funded with the remaining
available dollars in the current-year budget.

Final priorities for Type 1, Case 1, $450,000 current-year budget:

1. Arrestors at Plant A $15,000
2. Crane 1 at Plant B $350,000
3. Battery 5 at Plant B $35,000
4. Crane 1 at Plant A $50,000


19
Table IV-1: Factors for Type 1 Analysis (Case 1)


Type 1, Case 2: In Table IV-2, we show the same conditions as in Case 1, but with a current-
year budget of $480,000.

Again, the first priority for investment is equipment in poor condition. The combined current-
year requirement is $365,000 for the two items in this category, so there is $115,000 remaining
for other investment needs. A high achievability project, Crane 2 at Plant B, can be funded with
the remaining funds. It becomes number three on the priority list, which leaves $15,000 for
other investments.

The costs for either Compressor 1 at Plant A or Compressor 1 at Plant B are low enough to be
funded with the remaining funds. But using the priorities we have set, the preferred alternative
would be Compressor 1 at Plant A because it has a lower condition rating. Compressor 1 at
Plant B is in good condition, so it is unlikely that an investment would be warranted even if
funds were available. By coincidence, in this case the funding priority is consistent with the
condition rating.

Final priorities for Type 1, Case 2, $480,000 current-year budget:

1. Arrestors at Plant A $15,000
2. Crane 1 at Plant B $350,000
3. Crane 2 at Plant B $100,000
4. Compressor 1 at Plant A $15,000

The cases under the Type 1 analysis show a straightforward path to an investment decision. But
not all decisions are that simple, and some require a more sophisticated treatment.

20
Table IV-2: Factors for Type 1 Analysis (Case 2)



Type 2 Analysis

The following example illustrates how to use a Type 2 analysis to set investment priorities under
various budget constraints:

Type 2, Case 1: In Table IV-3, we show power train equipment in three plants, plus a crane at
one of the plants. The current-year budget for these investments is capped at $1 million.
Decision criteria used to prioritize the investments are: (1) Priority Rank, (2) Risk Map Score,
and (3) Condition Index.

The first evaluation criterion is the priority rank, derived from the risk map score and other
business factors. The highest priority for investment is Generator 1 at Plant B, with a priority
rank of 15. It also has a risk map score of 15 (medium-high risk), derived from a condition beta
of 8 and consequence beta of 7 (see Table III-2). The generator, however, has a current-year
investment requirement that exceeds the budget, so it cannot be undertaken at this time.

Next in the priority list is Transformer 4 at Plant B, with a risk map score and priority rank of 14
(medium-high risk). Allocating $500,000 for this in the current year leaves $500,000 available
for other needs.

There are no other investment needs with medium-high or higher risk, so from a condition versus
revenue-at-risk perspective, the remainder of the portfolio (except for the generator that will need
to be addressed in the near future) presents no significant risks for the company. There are still
equipment components in poor condition, however, that could adversely affect revenues and

21
other business objectives of the company. There is also enough current budget available to
consider them.

While Transformer 1 at Plant B has a higher risk map score due to the amount of revenue at risk,
Transformer 2 at Plant A has an additional environmental problem that increases its priority rank
by 2, making it the preferred investment alternative for the remaining $500,000. A rationale for
investing in Transformer 1 at Plant B instead could also be made based on its higher revenue at
risk.

Final priorities for Type 2, Case 1, $1 million current-year budget:

1. Transformer 4 at Plant B $500,000
2. Transformer 2 at Plant A $500,000

Table IV-3: Failure Factors for Type 2 Analysis


Type 2, Case 2: The current-year budget is capped at $1.5 million.

There are two likely alternatives for investment with a $1.5 million budget: Generator 1 at Plant
B, which would require the entire available budget for the year, or the three transformers that are
in poor condition. The three transformers collectively represent more revenue at risk than the
single generator, and there are additional environmental benefits associated with an investment
in Transformer 2 at Plant A.

As a result of the analysis, it is apparent that the transformers should receive the investment in
the current year. The generator, however, would be a high priority in the next funding cycle, and
the company should prepare an operational risk-management plan for the immediate timeframe.

22
Final priorities for Type 2, Case 2, $1.5 million current-year budget:

1. Transformer 4 at Plant B $500,000
2. Transformer 2 at Plant A $500,000
3. Transformer 1 at Plant B $500,000

Type 2, Case 3: The current-year budget is capped at $2 million.

To minimize the overall outage time for Unit 1 at Plant B, it would make sense to address needs
in the entire power train and invest in both the generator and transformer. It would also be
desirable to seek an additional $180,000 for the current year in order to include work on the Unit
1 breaker since there would be an incremental lost-opportunity benefit of $240,000 for
combining that project with work on the generator and transformer.

Final priorities for Type 2, Case 3, $2 million current-year budget:

1. Generator 1 at Plant B $1,500,000
2. Transformer 1 at Plant B $500,000
3. Breaker 1 at Plant B $180,000 (if additional funds are available)

Type 2, Case 4: The current-year budget is capped at $3.5 million.

With $3.5 million to allocate toward investment needs, there are more options available to the
plant/asset manager. The first four items listed in Table IV-3 have relatively high priority
rankings and poor condition ratings, making them top priorities for investment. The total
funding requirement for these items is $3 million in the current year. As in Case 3, Breaker 1
should be added to the priorities to coincide with generator and transformer work on Unit 1 at
Plant B, leaving $320,000 available for other needs. There are safety issues associated with
Crane 1 at Plant B, so a $300,000 investment in that item is the next priority.

Final priorities for Type 2, Case 4, $3.5 million current-year budget:

1. Generator 1 at Plant B $1,500,000
2. Transformer 4 at Plant B $500,000
3. Transformer 2 at Plant A $500,000
4. Transformer 1 at Plant B $500,000
5. Breaker 1 at Plant B $180,000
6. Crane 1 at Plant B $300,000

The level of funding in Case 4 represents what a plant/asset manager would need to assure that
the three generating plants shown in Table IV-3 deliver performance that is reliable, safe, and
environmentally sound.

23
North Pacific Region Spare Transformer Project

Generator step-up (GSU) transformers connect the low voltage generators to the high voltage
transmission system. Depending on plant configuration, the failure of a single GSU transformer
can result in an outage of 1 to 4 generators. Procurement and manufacturing time for a large
GSU can extend up to 18 months.

In March 2002, Bonneville Power Authority, the federal power marketing agency for Corps of
Engineers projects in the North Pacific Region (NPR), requested that HDC develop a spare GSU
transformer purchase plan. The Spare Transformer Project covered 20 hydroelectric plants in the
Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla Districts. The study covered 155 transformers ranging from
115 to 500 kV, 13 to 385 MVA, and from 7 to more than 50 years old. The average age of the
GSU transformers in the region is over 34 years old, and there are very few spares. The goals of
the study were to:

Assess the condition of the existing transformers
Determine the risk and economic consequences of failure due to lost generation for each
transformer with and without a spare available
Develop a prioritized Sparing and Placement Plan

Condition Assessment

When the North Pacific Region Spare Transformer Project was initiated, a team of hydroAMP
transformer experts was developing a transformer condition assessment guide. Although the
guide was not yet complete, the technical team had identified the relevant Condition Indicators,
test result thresholds, and rating criteria to be used to perform a transformer condition
assessment. Table IV-4 provides an overview of the condition assessment process developed
using recommendations of the technical group as well as other industry sources. The assessment
utilizes the following information: Oil Analysis [dissolved gas analysis (DGA) and routine
physical screening], Power Factor measurements, O & M History, and Age.

For each of the Condition Indicators, test results were divided into four ranges and points were
assigned to each range (more points for better test results). The condition assessment was
performed using existing test records available from the project or district offices and from
external inspections of the transformers. No special testing or internal inspections were
performed. Five to ten years of test data were reviewed (when available) for the Oil Analysis
and Power Factor tests to evaluate trends.

An overall rating for each transformer was calculated using the following weighting factors
provided by the technical group:

Oil Analysis 1.2
Power Factor 1.0
O & M History 0.8
Age 0.5

24
Table IV-4: Transformer Condition Assessment Guidelines

TRANSFORMER CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Score
Condition Indicator
3 2 1 0

Oil Analysis*
1. Dissolved Gas Analysis
(DGA)

a. Generation Rate
(ppm/month)

Total Dissolved
Combustible Gas (TDCG)
<30 30-60 50-80 >80
Individual CG <10 <15 <25 >50
Carbon Monoxide (CO) <70 <150 <350 >350
Acetylene (C
2
H
2
) 0 0 <5 <10
b. Level (ppm)
Hydrogen <100 100-350 350-700 >700
Oxygen <5,000 5k-10k 10k-15k >15k
Methane (CH
4
) <75 75-200 200-400 >400
Acetylene (C
2
H
2
) <5 5-20 20-40 >40
Ethylene (C
2
H
4
) <30 30-60 60-100 >100
Ethane (C
2
H
6
) <30 30-60 60-100 >100
Carbon Monoxide (CO) <200 200-400 400-600 >600
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) <1,000 1k-3k 3k-5k >5k
TDCG <450 450-900 900-1,800 >1,800
2. Oil Quality
Interfacial Tension (IFT) >35 30-35 25-30 <25
Acid Neutralization No. 0-0.05 0.05-0.15 0.15-0.5 >0.5
Moisture 0-10 10-15 15-20 >25
Furans 0-75 75-150 150-250 >250
3. Power Factor
(Doble)**
Normal
(0.10 - 0.50)
Minor Degradation
(0.50 - 0.80)
Significant
Degradation
(0.80 - 1.0)
Severe Degradation
(>1.0)

O & M History/
Physical Condition
Normal
Some abnormal
operations or
additional
maintenance
Significant abnormal
operations or
additional
maintenance
Forced outages,
major leaks, severe
problems, sister unit
failures

Age (years) <30 30-45 >45 -

*Overall oil score is lowest of individual scores for each category. Weight "Level" scores less than "Generation
Rate" scores by increasing individual gas "Level" scores by one point.

In addition, if the Level of a gas is high but unchanged for 4 to 5 years, reduce weight of individual gas score for
each such gas by increasing score by one point.
**Values refer to percent power factor on overall tests. Review overall, excitation, and TTR results. Defer to test
engineer's assessment if present on report.

25

The outcome of the condition assessment was an adjective rating (Good/Fair/Poor) describing
the overall condition of each transformer. These results were used in conjunction with the
Economic Analysis described below to develop the Transformer Sparing Plan.

The overall condition assessment score ranges and associated ratings were:

Good 8.0 to 10.0
Fair 4.0 to 7.9
Poor 0 to 3.9

Economic Analysis Including the Probability of Failure

The simplified economic analysis was intended to determine for which projects at least one spare
transformer was economically justified. For the purposes of this analysis, the economic benefit
of having a spare transformer was defined as the difference in lost revenue between a long
outage without a spare and a short outage with one. It was recognized that there are other costs
involved with a transformer failure, including possible damage to adjacent equipment (e.g., bus
work, structures, etc.), detrimental environmental impacts, and significant safety hazard to
personnel. Having a spare GSU transformer does not mitigate these negative consequences nor
do these consequences influence which projects should have spare transformers. Accordingly,
these factors were not included in the analysis.

BPA provided annual generation and revenue information for each project to support the
economic analysis. Using this information and the configuration for each transformer (i.e., the
number of generating units served), lost revenue per year for a failure of each transformer was
calculated. To account for planned unit maintenance, baseline annual revenue assumed 90%
plant availability. The lost revenue was calculated by subtracting the revenue produced by the
plant less the unavailable units (due to the transformer outage) from the baseline revenue.

An evaluation of the need for spare transformers must take into account some element of risk or
probability of failure to properly balance the revenue saved by having a spare against the costs of
procuring a spare. One measurement of the exposure to an extreme and relatively improbable
event is the product of the potential cost of the event and the probability of that event occurring.
For this analysis, the revenue expected to be saved (i.e., benefit gained) by having a spare
transformer is used instead of the potential additional cost of the outage by not having a spare.

The probability of failure within the next year for a transformer whose condition was rated Good
was assumed to be 0.0095 based on recent similar study work performed. For the purposes of
this analysis, the probability of failure was increased to 0.0105 and 0.0115 for transformers
whose condition was rated Fair and Poor, respectively. Note that the probabilities assigned to
the three transformer conditions were somewhat arbitrary, and no analyses were performed in
this phase of the work to better quantify appropriate failure probabilities. However, a sensitivity
study was performed to demonstrate that the ranking of results is relatively unaffected by
assumed failure probabilities.


26
The probability of a transformer failure at a particular project increases with the number of
transformers at the project. Thus, the probability of a failure of any transformer among many
identical units was calculated. The Expected Benefit (defined as the product of the probability of
a transformer failure and the revenue saved by having a spare transformer) was calculated for
each project.

The estimated costs for spare transformers were developed from a review of the costs and MVA
ratings of replacement transformers procured during the previous five years and from input from
BPA personnel involved in purchasing transformers. The estimated costs for the spare
transformers assumed that the spare has the same configuration as the original (single or three-
phase). The estimates included design, manufacturing, shipping, erecting, testing costs, and all
appurtenances. The estimates did not have allowances for constructing storage facilities,
removing or repairing a damaged transformer, or any internal costs associated with procuring a
spare transformer.

To reflect the fact that in may cases a single spare transformer can serve as the spare for several
banks of transformers, the estimated cost of the spare was divided by the number of transformers
for which it would be a direct replacement.

The ratio of the Expected Benefits to the Spare Transformer Costs per unit for each project or
type of transformer was calculated; the greater the Benefit/Cost ratio, the more likely that one or
more spare transformers would be economically justified.

Benefit/Cost ratios ranged from 0.09 to 161. Ratios of one or greater suggested a spare should
be considered. Based on the analysis, results for each project were divided into four categories
as follows:

A Project where one or more spare transformers appear justified and none exists
B Projects where one or more spare transformers appear justified and one exists
C Projects where no spare transformers appear justified and none exists
D Projects where no spare transformers appear justified and one exists

Spare Transformer Plan
4


The study effort resulted in the development of a near-term plan to mitigate the failure of a GSU
transformer for each of the projects included. The system-wide condition assessment and
economic evaluation provided a basis for further analysis and indicated steps to be taken to
improve the condition of the existing transformers. For those projects where spare transformers
appear justified, the process to procure spares has begun.


4
Because of its length, the spare transformer plan is not included in this report. However, the
complete plan is available from the Hydroelectric Design Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
PO Box 2946, Portland, OR 97208-2946.

27
Conclusion

The preceding cases demonstrate how decision makers can use hydroAMP condition ratings and
risk-management tools to prioritize a portfolio of investment needs. The overall unit and station
condition information could also be used as an input to the hydroAMP risk analysis. As
previously stated, the examples are illustrations and are not meant to prescribe an approach to
setting investment priorities. Each plant owner has its own circumstances, regulatory and legal
obligations, strategic goals, and preferences with regard to risk that must be applied to its
investment decisions.

28










APPENDICES

29
Appendix A: Key Terms


Asset Management A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical
assets cost-effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and
economic theory, and provides tools to facilitate a more organized, logical approach to decision-
making. Asset management provides a framework for handling both short- and long-range
planning. (Asset Management Primer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Asset Management, December 1999, page 7.)

Availability The annual percentage of time that a piece of equipment is available for power
production.

Capacity The maximum rated output of a piece of equipment.

Certainty A condition where determinacy exists in the elements that characterize a situation.
The likelihood of an event occurring and its consequences are known absolutely.

Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) The CMMS produces
scheduled preventative maintenance to perform the equipment condition assessment. The results
of the assessments are captured in the condition monitoring section of the CMMS. The CMMS
will be used to generate summary reports showing the equipment condition and the integrated
facility assessment.

Condition The existing state of the component or equipment with respect to function and
fitness.

Condition Assessment The process of objectively evaluating the condition of a piece of
equipment or a system using a uniform process and guidelines.

Condition Indicators Individual components of an overall condition assessment. Typically
standardized inspections and tests that are evaluated in a common manner.

Condition Index The outcome of a condition assessment. An overall numerical rating
between 0 and 10 which describes condition, with higher numbers equating to better condition.

Dependability (Reliability) The probability that a piece of equipment will not perform
satisfactorily.

Efficiency A measure of losses for a piece of equipment; equals output power divided by input
power.

Forced Outage A forced outage occurs when a power plant component fails to perform
satisfactorily and causes an unplanned interruption in power production.


30
Functionality A subjective evaluation of a piece of equipment or system with regards to its
ability to perform the current intended function. Degradation of functionality can be caused by
deterioration, changing requirements or obsolescence.

Performance Normally the combined evaluation of the efficiency and capacity of a piece of
equipment.

Planned Outage A planned outage occurs when a piece of equipment is intentionally taken out
of service to perform routine inspections or planned repairs, replacements, and rehabilitations.

Reliability (of hydropower generating equipment) The extent to which the generating
equipment can be counted on to perform as originally intended. This encompasses the
confidence in the soundness or integrity of the equipment based on forced outage experience and
maintenance costs, the output of the equipment in terms of measured efficiency and capacity,
unit availability and the dependability of the equipment in terms of remaining service life
(retirement of the equipment).

Risk The exposure to a chance of loss or injury; the likelihood of adverse consequences.
Expressions of risk are composed of the existence of unwanted consequences and the occurrence
of each consequence expressed in the form of a probability.

Uncertainty A condition where indeterminacy exists in some of the elements that characterize
a situation. Uncertainty may exist from either probability uncertainty, outcome uncertainty or
any of the paths between the initiating event and the consequences.

31
Appendix B: MaximoLoading Procedure


Introduction

The development and implementation of Condition Assessment (CA) is driven by the need to
monitor the condition of major power plant equipment and meet agency-mandated facility
condition assessment requirements. The CA process will serve as a tool for facility managers to
understand the condition of their equipment and to better prioritize needed maintenance or
replacement activities. Once the CA process is set up in Maximo, it will be integrated into the
facilities normal maintenance procedures.


Overview

This document details the steps necessary to load the Power Equipment Condition Assessment
process into Maximo. This process assists facility Maximocoordinators as they load CA job
plans into their local database. This process makes the assessment more objective and utilizes
information gathered during routine maintenance.

Power Equipment Condition Assessment is loaded into Maximousing three component
applications and their screens:

1. J ob Plan Application

A J ob Plan stores definitions that define the ratings that assess the condition of a class of
power equipment. A Maximojob plan has been created for each class of equipment,
e.g., turbine runner, transformer, etc. The J ob Plan, along with its operation steps and
measurement point names, is the first component of Maximothat must be loaded. This
part provides the information, screen images, and cut and paste text to facilitate the
loading of condition assessment measurements.

2. Preventative Maintenance Application

A Preventative Maintenance (PM) links the J ob Plan to a specific piece of equipment.
The PM transforms the condition assessment process from equipment classification (e.g.,
transformer) to a specific piece of equipment. To load the PM, a user needs a J ob Plan
and the specific equipment number. After the PM record is established, the PM schedule
is set to generate work orders on an annual interval.

3. Condition Monitoring Application

The Condition Monitoring application establishes and links measurement points to
specific equipment. The condition assessment process rates equipment conditions using
measurement point values entered in Condition Monitoring or on work orders. These
points can be thought of as specific measurement points that measure a condition of
equipment. The condition assessment process defines the name of measurement points.

32
As an example for transformer condition assessment, a measurement point with a unique
point number is created for a specific condition and given the point name XFMR-AGE.
(The condition assessment process defines age as a measurement in the assessment
process.) During the assessment process, the measurement point created above is loaded
with a number that represents the condition of the equipment relative to its age. This
number is defined in the J ob Plan for the class of equipment. This number or scoring is
loaded within the Condition Monitoring application or on the Actuals tab on PM work
orders.

The sequence used to load condition assessment into Maximois:

1. Select the appropriate equipment.
2. Create measurement points for every Condition Assessment point identified.
Note: It is critical that each site use the exact measurement point name to ensure all the
reports will work.
3. Enter the J ob Plan. If it is possible, the Condition Assessment operational steps can be
incorporated into existing J ob Plans.
4. Create Preventive Maintenance Plans to schedule the assessment.

It is important that Maximobe set up correctly for condition assessment. When a work order is
generated by the PM application, the J ob Plan attached is automatically copied to the work order.
Maximocompares the J ob Plan point names and the condition monitoring point names for
measurement point names that match. When a match is found, Maximoinserts the point
number onto the work order. Using these points, the MaximoCoordinator can easily record
and store an equipment condition result as defined by the assessment process.

It is critical that the point names are entered exactly as defined by the Power Equipment
Condition Assessment process. You must create the condition monitoring point names prior to
loading them into J ob Plans. The J ob Plan Application will not accept point names if they have
not been saved in the Condition Monitoring application.

The Maximoreport (CNDASSET) is available in the Condition Monitoring application. This
report displays the current condition assessment points on all equipment setup for condition
assessment measurements.

For Power Equipment, condition points identified for Transformer, for example, are:

XFMR-OIL
XFMR-PF
XFMR-OM
XFMR-AGE
XFMR-RD

A full list of point names is contained in Table B-1 at the end of this appendix.



33
Procedures

The following condition assessment example is for a transformer. The same steps will be needed
for each piece of equipment.

This section details the steps for establishing Condition Assessment. You will need to go into
the Equipment Module and query for Transformer to get a complete list of transformer
equipment numbers. This will need to be done for all equipment classifications (see Table B-1).

Refer to the Condition Monitoring Application (Figure B-1).

Figure B-1: Condition Monitoring Application


Transformer The Point will be a unique number assigned by Maximoand will be
associated with the specific piece of equipment. Go to INSERT, NEW MEASUREMENT
POINT WITH AUTONUMBER. Type in the Description, assign the equipment number
(location will automatically populate), then type in the associated point name from Table B-1.
These point names must remain exactly as on Table B-1 for consistency throughout all
Maximosites. Future reports will query from this field. Limits are not required for these set
points. (The set point limits will accept a Null.)


34
You will need to check the condition of this piece of equipment on an annual basis. If you have
a current PM for that piece of equipment and plan on just adding to an existing J ob Plan, enter
the PM number now.

Now you will need to add the Condition Indicator scoring to your job plan. (Refer to Figure B-
2.)

Figure B-2: Job Plans


Go into the J ob Plan Module and call up your job plan for this transformer. Go to INSERT,
NEW ROW. Assign the row an Operational Step number. Tab to the Description column and
type Condition Indicator 1 Transformer Oil. In the long description, type in the scoring
benchmarks from the Condition Assessment Guide.


Example: Long Description of Job Plans

Dissolved gas analysis is the most important factor in determining the condition of a transformer.
Insulating oil analysis can identify internal arcing, bad electrical contacts, hot spots, partial
discharge, or overheating of conductors, oil, tank, or cellulose. The "health" of the oil reflects
the health of the transformer itself. (Refer to Figure B-3.)

35
Figure B-3: Long Description of Job Plans














SAVE the record. These scoring benchmarks will be the same for each transformer. Once you
have typed this information for the first piece of equipment, it can be copied and pasted into the
long description for the next transformer. This will speed up the condition assessment process.

Tab to Point Name and type in XFMR-OIL. This Point Name is the link to the condition
measurement, the equipment number and the J ob Plan (which is linked to the PM, which is also
linked to the equipment). This point name must be the same as listed in Table B-1. Repeat these
steps for Condition Indicators 2 through 5, adding the scoring benchmarks as stated in the
Condition Assessment Guide.

This transformer condition assessment is completed. This procedure will need to be
accomplished for each transformer.

Then repeat the procedure for each of the other equipment listed in Table B-1.



36
Recording Set Point Values on Work Order

When the condition assessment work order is generated, there will be a space on the work order
for the maintenance person to enter each set point value. (Refer to Figure B-4.)

When the work order is closed, the set point values will then be entered in the Maximowork
order module. This will associate the set point values with the appropriate equipment.

Figure B-4: Work Order Tracking


37
Condition Assessment Report
There will be a report that can be run annually that will:

Calculate the condition of each equipment based on the set point values recorded.
Generate a list of the current condition of facilities equipment.

Refer to the Report Viewer (Figure B-5).

Figure B-5: Report Viewer



38
Table B-1: Equipment / Set Point Name List

Equipment Point Name
Unit of
Measure
Turbine
Turbine Age TURB-AGE NUMBER
Turbine Physical Condition TURB-PHY NUMBER
Turbine Operations TURB-OPS NUMBER
Turbine Maintenance TURB-MNT NUMBER
Transformer
Transformer Oil XFMR-OIL NUMBER
Transformer Power Factor XFMR-PF NUMBER
Transformer Operations and Maintenance
(O & M)
XFMR-OM NUMBER
Transformer Age XFMR-AGE NUMBER
Transformer Data Quality Indicator XFMR-RD NUMBER
Generator Stator
Stator O & M STAT-OM NUMBER
Stator Physical Inspection STAT-PHY NUMBER
Stator Insulation Resistance and Polarization
Index
STAT-IR

NUMBER
Stator Winding Age STAT-AGE NUMBER
Stator Data Quality Indicator STAT-RD NUMBER
Generator Rotor
Rotor O & M ROTR-OM NUMBER
Rotor Physical Inspection ROTR-PHY NUMBER
Rotor Insulation Resistance and Polarization
Index
ROTR-IR

NUMBER
Rotor Winding Age ROTR-AGE NUMBER
Rotor Data Quality Indicator ROTR-RD NUMBER
Circuit Breakers Air Magnetic, Air Blast NUMBER
Breaker Dielectric Test BKRA-DT NUMBER
Breaker O & M BKRA-OM NUMBER
Breaker Contact Resistance BKRA-CR NUMBER
Breaker Number of Operations (Cycles) BKRA-CYC NUMBER
Breaker Data Quality Indicator BKRA-RD NUMBER
Circuit Breakers Bulk Oil NUMBER
Breaker Dielectric Test BKRB-DT NUMBER
Breaker O & M BKRB-OM NUMBER
Breaker Contact Resistance BKRB-CR NUMBER
Breaker Number of Operations (Cycles) BKRB-CYC NUMBER
Breaker Data Quality Indicator BKRB-RD NUMBER
Circuit Breakers SF6 NUMBER
Breaker Dielectric Test BKR6-DT NUMBER
Breaker O & M BKR6-OM NUMBER

39
Breaker Contact Resistance BKR6-CR NUMBER
Breaker Number of Operations (Cycles) BKR6-CYC NUMBER
Breaker Data Quality Indicator BKR6-RD NUMBER
Circuit Breakers Vacuum NUMBER
Breaker O & M BKRV-OM NUMBER
Breaker Data Quality Indicator BKRV-RD NUMBER
Governor
Governor Age GOV-AGE NUMBER
Governor O & M History GOV-OM NUMBER
Governor Availability of Spare Parts GOV-SP NUMBER
Governor Performance GOV-P NUMBER
Governor Data Quality Indicator GOV-RD NUMBER
Exciter
Exciter Age EXC-AGE NUMBER
Exciter O & M EXC-OM NUMBER
Exciter Availability of Spare Parts EXC-SP NUMBER
Exciter Power Circuitry Tests EXC-PCT NUMBER
Exciter Control Circuitry Tests EXC-CCT NUMBER
Exciter Data Quality Indicator EXC-RD NUMBER
Battery
Battery Visual Inspection BATT-VI NUMBER
Battery Age BATT-AGE NUMBER
Battery Routine Testing BATT-RT NUMBER
Battery Data Quality BATT-RD NUMBER
Surge Arrester
Surge Arrester Thermal Imaging SA-TI NUMBER
Surge Arrester Data Quality SA-RD NUMBER


40
Appendix C: Example Economic Analysis of a Facility Upgrade Generator and Turbine
Replacement


This is an example of an economic analysis applied to a hydropower scenario. In this example,
the powerplant has four generating units that have reached a condition where replacing the
generators and turbines are being considered. These components are still functional and could
remain in operation indefinitely with continuous maintenance, but more efficient components are
available and being considered. Other components, besides the generators and turbines, are in
satisfactory condition or are included in the cost estimates for these replacement parts.

This example reflects costs and benefits based on real cash flows, not reflecting any changes
that would occur due to inflation. Therefore, the discount rate that is used is also a real discount
rate, not including any inflationary component. The real discount rate of 3.1 percent, as
suggested by Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-94, Appendix C for
2005, is used in this example. This is the rate for cost-effectiveness analysis for projects of 30
years or more. This rate changes every year, on or about February 1, and is appropriate for
analyses in which inflation in costs is not considered. There are specified rates published by
OMB for analyses that include inflation. The discount rate required in an economic analysis is
dependent on many factors, however, these factors will not be considered here.

The design engineers have provided two alternatives to consider. Alternative A provides a
generator and turbine combination similar to original equipment, but due to engineering
improvements leading to greater efficiency, this alternative will provide an increase in capacity
of 1.5 megawatts (MW) per unit. Alternative B provides the powerplant with even more
efficient components at a higher cost. Alternative B provides components that will increase
capacity by 2 MW per unit. The gains for either alternative are due to improvements in both the
generator and turbine, and are shown in one combined number.

Table C-1 shows the costs of the replacement components. Alternative A requires a total
expenditure of $5,100,000 per unit based on the costs of the generator ($2,300,000) and turbine
($2,800,000), as shown. Alternative B is more expensive, costing $7,100,000 per unit with more
expensive components due to the greater cost of design and construction. Therefore, if
alternative A is chosen, a total initial cost of $20,400,000 will be required to replace the four
units, whereas the total initial cost for alternative B is $29,200,000. Each component will be
paid for at the beginning of the year in which it will be installed.

Table C-1: Cost of Replacement Components for Each Unit

Component Alternative A Alternative B
Generator Cost $ 2,300,000 $ 3,300,000
Turbine Cost $ 2,800,000 $ 3,800,000
Total Cost per Unit $ 5,100,000 $ 7,100,000



41
The life of the turbines is assumed to be 50 years and the life of each generator is 25 years. The
analysis will be performed based on the life of the turbines, but because the generators will wear
out, they will need to be replaced after the first 25 years. This allows the analysis to be
performed over the 50 year time horizon. All of the costs and benefits for these 50 years are
discounted back to the beginning of the first year for benefit-cost analysis.

Since the costs are incurred at the beginning of each year for the first four years, the present
value (PV) of the initial costs for alternative A is $19,498,227. Additionally, the generators will
need to be replaced again beginning in year 26. The present value of these replacements of four
generators in years 26 through 29 is $4,099,078. The sum of the present values is $23,597,305.
A summary of the analysis of costs is provided in Table C-2.

The present value for alternative B is calculated in a similar way. For the initial installations, the
present value is $27,144,590. The replacement generators in years 26 to 29 have a present value
of $5,881,285, totaling $33,025,876 for the present value of costs for this alternative. These
values are summarized in Table C-2. Note that the Cost column expresses costs without being
discounted.

Table C-2: Comparison of Costs between Alternatives

Alternative A Alternative B
Year
Costs PV of Costs Costs PV of Costs
1 $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100,000
2 $ 5,100,000 $ 4,946,654 $ 7,100,000 $ 6,886,518
3 $ 5,100,000 $ 4,797,918 $ 7,100,000 $ 6,679,455
4 $ 5,100,000 $ 4,653,655 $ 7,100,000 $ 6,478,618
Subtotal $ 20,400,000 $ 19,498,227 $ 28,400,000 $ 27,144,590
26 $ 2,300,000 $ 1,072,164 $ 3,300,000 $ 1,538,322
27 $ 2,300,000 $ 1,039,926 $ 3,300,000 $ 1,492,068
28 $ 2,300,000 $ 1,008,658 $ 3,300,000 $ 1,447,205
29 $ 2,300,000 $ 978,330 $ 3,300,000 $ 1,403,690
Subtotal $ 9,200,000 $ 4,099,078 $ 13,200,000 $ 5,881,285
Total $ 29,600,000 $ 23,597,305 $ 41,600,000 $ 33,025,876

It is assumed that there are months during the year when water flows are lower and at least one
unit is idle. The installation of the replacement components will be scheduled during this period
so that there is no lost generation or spillage resulting from this activity.

Other assumptions in this example include a constant plant factor of 45 percent. While plant
factors change in most hydropower plants and these changes normally are modeled in an
economic analysis, plant factors are assumed to be constant for this example. The economic
value of the generation is also assumed to be constant and equal to $55 per megawatt hours
(MWh).

42
Given a plant factor of 45 percent, 8,760 hours in a year, and an increase in capacity of 1.5 MW
per unit for alternative A, the increase in generation will amount to 5,913 MWh (0.45 8760
1.5). Assuming a value of $55/MWh, this equals $325,215 (5,913 $55) annually per unit. A
similar calculation for alternative B shows that the increase in generation will be 7,884 MWh
(0.45 8760 2) equal to $433,620 (7,884 $55) per unit. In addition, for each alternative
there will be a savings in maintenance costs of $50,000 annually for each unit. This $50,000
reflects the costs that would occur keeping the original equipment operating.

In each of the first four years, one unit is scheduled for replacement and assumed to be finished
at the end of the year. Therefore, each unit adds value when it goes online. At the beginning of
the second year, the benefits from one unit occur and are recognized in the analysis, as this is the
first year of increased benefits. At the beginning of the third year, benefits from two units begin,
continuing through the four units.

The benefits for each alternative include both the increase in generation resulting from the new
components plus the savings in maintenance costs. The increase in generation for each
alternative is shown in Table C-3. For alternative A, the increase in generation is worth
$325,215 per unit per year, as previously calculated. During the first year of operation (year 2),
the benefits include the increased generation for one unit; in the second year of operation (year 3)
the benefits include two units; the third year of operation (year 4) provides benefits from three
units; and then for the remaining 46 years (years 5 through 50), the benefits result from the four
units having been replaced. To properly compare benefits to costs, the present value of the
benefits for 50 years needs to be discounted back to the current year. These discounted values
are shown in Table C-3 as the present value of the benefits equaling $30,706,822. Similar
benefits are shown for alternative B. The benefit resulting from each unit is $433,620 per year
and the present value of 50 years of benefits is $40,942,430.

Table C-3: Increases in Benefits for Each Alternative

Years Alternative A Alternative B
Benefits PV of Benefits Benefits PV of Benefits
2 $ 325,215 $ 315,436 $ 433,620 $ 420,582
3 $ 650,430 $ 611,904 $ 867,240 $ 815,872
4 $ 975,645 $ 890,258 $ 1,300,860 $ 1,187,011
5 through 50 $ 1,300,860 $ 28,889,224 $ 1,734,480 $ 38,518,965
Total $ 61,790,850 $ 30,706,822 $ 82,387,800 $ 40,942,430

In addition to the changes in generation resulting from the replaced components, benefits include
the savings in maintenance costs of $50,000 per unit per year. The present value of these
decreased costs total $4,721,003. These values are shown in Table C-4. The decreased
maintenance costs are the same for both alternatives.



43
Table C-4: Savings in Maintenance Costs

Years
Decreased Maintenance
Costs
Present Value of Decreased
Maintenance Costs
2 $ 50,000 $ 48,497
3 $ 100,000 $ 94,077
4 $ 150,000 $ 136,872
5 through 50 $ 200,000 each year
PV total for years 5-50:
$ 4,441,558
Total $ 9,500,000 $ 4,721,003

The total benefit in the economic analysis is the sum of the present value of the increased
generation shown in Table C-3 and the decreased maintenance costs shown in Table C-4 for each
alternative. The total benefit for alternative A is $35,427,826 as shown in Table C-5. For
alternative B, the total benefit is equal to $45,663,433. Table C-5 also shows the total of the
present value of costs previously provided in Table C-2. Subtracting the present value of costs
from the present value of benefits gives the net present value for each alternative. For alternative
A, the net present value is $11,830,521. For alternative B, the net present value is $12,637,557.
Table 5 also shows the benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio often cited in studies. For alternative A, the
B/C ratio is 1.50 whereas for alternative B the ratio is 1.38.

Table C-5: Summary of Results

Summary of Results: Alternative A Alternative B
Present Value of Benefits $ 35,427,826 $ 45,663,433
Present Value of Costs $ 23,597,305 $ 33,025,876
Net Present Value $ 11,830,521 $ 12,637,557
B/C Ratio 1.50 1.38

The preferred alternative is the one that provides the highest net present value. At times, other
methods are used in the decision process, including the B/C ratio, payback method, and internal
rate of return. However, these methods are inferior to the net present value calculation.

The B/C ratio has traditionally been a popular method, but has a fatal flaw when comparing two
or more alternatives. This method shows the discounted benefits per dollar of discounted cost.
One problem with the B/C ratio is the sensitivity to the definition of benefits and costs. A
negative benefit can be considered a cost, which would affect the ratio, moving from the
numerator to the denominator. A second problem is the size effect. As a project gets larger, the
size of the discounted benefits may decrease for each additional dollar of cost, reducing the ratio.
But if the added benefit is greater than the added cost, then this increase is beneficial and should
be undertaken even if the B/C ratio is reduced. One situation where the B/C ratio is beneficial is
when several projects are chosen; ranking them by the ratio allows implementation under a
limited budgeting process.


44
The payback method determines the length of time in years that the benefits take to pay back the
cost of the project. The annual benefits are divided into the cost to determine this value. The
alternative with the shortest payback becomes the preferred alternative. However, this method
has problems since the method fails to consider the time value of money in the analysis and it
fails to consider all the cash flows. The alternative that is shown to be inferior may have large
positive cash flows beyond the payback period which are then ignored and not captured.
Therefore, the payback method is not a good method for decision-making.

The internal rate of return (IRR) method is the method that defines a discount rate that equates
costs and benefits. The criterion requires that projects or alternatives are accepted where the IRR
is greater than a default opportunity cost of capital or the alternative that shows the greatest IRR.
However, this method may choose the alternative that should not be the preferred one. Values of
benefits and costs may vary depending on the discount rate, as the mathematics assumes a single
discount rate over the life of the project, implying reinvestments at the IRR. At different IRR
values, then different alternatives will appear to be preferred. Also, the IRR method usually can
provide multiple, conflicting results providing several viable rates of return where costs equal
benefits.

Net present value is the method that provides the correct choice for the preferred alternative.
Acceptable projects are those that have a net present value greater than zero; those that provide
benefits greater than the costs. When the projects are mutually exclusive, such as choosing one
alternative among many, the preferred project is the one that provides the greatest net present
value. In our example, while alternative A has a higher B/C ratio, it provides a lower net present
value, so is the inferior choice and alternative B is preferred. Alternative B provides the greater
amount of value; providing $807,036 higher value to society.

45
Appendix D: hydroAMP Team Members and Contributors


Ernie Bachman, Bureau of Reclamation (Governor Guide)
Steve Bellcoff, Bonneville Power Administration (Website Database)
James Boag, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Emergency Closure Gate and Valve Guide)
Bernard Bourgeois, Hydro-Qubec (Guidebook)
James Calnon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Compressed Air System Guide)
Ben Canno, Bureau of Reclamation (Circuit Breaker Guide)
Roger Cline, Bureau of Reclamation (Turbine Guide)
Jim Clune, Bonneville Power Administration (Guidebook, Compressed Air System Guide)
Scott Cotner, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Circuit Breaker Guide, Transformer Guide)
Marcos Ferreira, Bonneville Power Administration (Generator Guide)
Doug Filer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Surge Arrester Guide)
Erin Foraker, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook, Turbine Guide)
John Germann, Bureau of Reclamation (Crane Guide)
Thierry Godin, Hydro-Qubec (Excitation System Guide)
Phil Gruwell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Excitation System Guide)
Sarah Jones, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Crane Guide)
Bill Joye, Bureau of Reclamation (Compressed Air System Guide)
James Kerr, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Emergency Closure Gate and Valve Guide)
Nathalie Laberge, Hydro-Qubec (Guidebook, Governor Guide)
Francine Lefranois, Hydro-Qubec (Crane Guide)
Mark Lindstrom, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Crane Guide)
Deborah Linke, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook)
Duke Loney, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Guidebook, Compressed Air System Guide,
Turbine Guide)
Tom Manni, Bureau of Reclamation (Generator Guide)
Ken Maxey, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook)
Steve Melavic, Bureau of Reclamation (Emergency Closure Gate and Valve Guide)
Ronnie Murphy, Hydro-Qubec (Guidebook)
Brian Moentenich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Turbine Guide)

46
Richard Nelson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Guidebook)
Phat Vinh Nguyen, Hydro-Qubec (Compressed Air System Guide)
Jim Norlin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Guidebook)
Duc Ngoc Nguyen, Hydro-Qubec (Generator Guide)
Gary Osburn, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook, Surge Arrester Guide, Plant Battery Guide,
Transformer Guide)
Shawn Patterson, Bureau of Reclamation (Excitation System Guide)
Abel Pereira, Bonneville Power Administration (Surge Arrester Guide, Transformer Guide)
Mark Pierce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Generator Guide)
Lori Rux, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Guidebook, Generator Guide)
Mitch Samuelian, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook)
Jay Seitz, Bureau of Reclamation (Guidebook)
Phil Thor, Bonneville Power Administration (Guidebook, Generator Guide, Emergency Closure
Gate and Valve Guide)
Robert Thouin, Hydro-Qubec (Turbine Guide)
Jean-Paul Rigg, Hydro-Qubec (Guidebook)
Ginette Vaillancourt, Hydro-Qubec (Governor Guide, Turbine Guide)
Rich Vaughn, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Governor Guide, Compressed Air System Guide)

47
Appendix E: Equipment Condition Assessment Guides


Condition Assessment Guides have been developed for the following equipment:

Batteries
Circuit Breakers
Compressed Air Systems
Cranes
Emergency Closure Gates and Valves
Excitation Systems
Generators
Governors
Surge Arresters
Transformers
Turbines

Note: Due to the size of the condition assessment guides, they are available as separate
electronic files.

E1-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E1: Generator Condition Assessment


E1.1 GENERAL

Hydroelectric generators are key components in the power train at hydroelectric powerplants and
are appropriate for analysis under a condition assessment program. Unexpected generator failure
can have a significant economic impact due to the high cost of emergency repairs and lost
revenues during an extended forced outage.

Determining the present condition of a generator is an essential step in analyzing the risk of
failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Generator Condition Index which may
be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and other
factors.


E1.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to hydroelectric
generators, motor/generators, and motors rated 2 MW (megawatts) or higher. The condition
assessment primarily focuses on the generator stator winding and core, rotor, and field and
amortisseur windings. Auxiliary components such as fans, coolers, fire suppression systems,
generator protection relays, etc. are not considered during this assessment.

This appendix is not intended to define generator maintenance practices or describe in detail
generator inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies and
procedures must be consulted for such information.


E1.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS, AND GENERATOR
CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes the condition indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the initial basis for assessing generator condition. The following indicators are used to
separately evaluate the condition of the stator and rotor:

Physical Inspection
Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index (stator and field windings)
Operation & Maintenance History
Age

E1-2
These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each stator and rotor
condition indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Stator and Rotor
Condition Indices. The lower of the two indices is selected to represent the overall Generator
Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the generator condition indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or
of questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the overall Condition Index. Given the
potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a means of
evaluating and recording confidence in the final Generator Condition Index.

Additional information regarding generator condition may be necessary to improve the accuracy
and reliability of the Generator Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1 condition
indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements
that may be applied to the Stator and Rotor Condition Indices, depending on the specific issue or
problem being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is
readily available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests
may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may
either increase or decrease the score of the Generator Condition Index. The Data Quality
Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of
additional information or test data.

The Generator Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective actions and/or
follow-up Tier 2 testing. The Generator Condition Index may also be used as an input to a
computer model that assesses risk and performs economic analyses.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate de-energization or prevent re-energization of the generator,
regardless of the Generator Condition Index score.


E1.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in generator diagnostics. Qualified staff that is competent in these routine
procedures may conduct the basic tests and inspections. More complex inspections and
measurements may require a generator diagnostics expert.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be performed on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Generator condition assessment may cause concerns that justify more frequent monitoring.
Utilities should consider the possibility of taking more frequent measurements or installing on-
line monitoring systems that will continuously track critical parameters. This will provide
E1-3
additional data for condition assessment and establish a certain amount of reassurance as
generator alternatives are being explored.
Details of the inspection, testing, and measurement methods and intervals are described in
technical references specific to the electric utility.


E1.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
plant staff and generator experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation
refer to results that are compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previously
acceptable levels on this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age
operating in a similar environment.


E1.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators affect the Generator Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other
indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among generator design and
maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E1.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every generator is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this guide cannot
quantify all factors that affect individual generator condition. If the Generator Condition Index
triggers significant follow-up actions (e.g., major repairs or a Tier 2 assessment), it may be
prudent to first have the index reviewed by generator experts. Mitigating factors specific to the
utility may affect the final Generator Condition Index and the final decision on generator
replacement or rehabilitation.


E1.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., less than normal) or where a Tier 2
test results in subtractions to the Generator Condition Index. Test reports, photographs, O & M
records, and other documentation should accompany the Generator Condition Assessment
Summary Form.


E1.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are weighted and summed to
determine the Condition Index. Condition Indices are developed separately for the stator and
rotor. The lower of the Stator and Rotor Condition Indices is used to arrive at an overall
E1-4
Generator Condition Index. The Generator Condition Index is applied to the Generator
Condition-Based Alternatives, Table 24, to determine the recommended course of action.
The stator condition assessment focuses on the stator winding and core. Stator winding
condition is evaluated using Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests. Assessment of the stator core is considered
to be non-routine, and therefore, a Tier 2 evaluation. Rotor condition assessment comprises the
rotor, and field and amortisseur windings. Rotor components are evaluated using both Tier 1 and
Tier 2 tests.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score a condition indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means
of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Generator Condition Index.


E1.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 tests include those inspections, tests, and measurements that are routinely accomplished as
part of normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing
data. Tier 1 test results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and
summed to arrive at a Condition Index. Tier 1 tests may indicate abnormal conditions that can
be resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. To the extent that Tier 1 tests result
in immediate corrective maintenance actions being taken by plant staff, then adjustments to the
condition indicators should be reflected and the new results used when computing the overall
Tier 1 Condition Index. Tier 1 test results may also indicate the need for additional
investigation, categorized as Tier 2 tests.

E1.11 STATOR CONDITION INDICATORS

Stator Condition Indicator 1 Operation & Maintenance History

During operation, large synchronous generators are continuously subjected to electrical,
mechanical, thermal, and environmental stresses. These stresses act and interact in complex
ways to degrade the machines components and reduce its useful life. Deterioration of the stator
winding insulation is a leading factor for determining the serviceability of hydroelectric
generators. Unexpected stator winding failure can result in forced outages and costly emergency
repairs.

Operation and maintenance history may provide a useful indication of stator condition. The
operation and maintenance history of the generator should be reviewed by qualified personnel to
make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as many operation and
maintenance factors as possible under this indicator. Factors to consider include:

Maintenance needs are increasing with time or problems are re-occurring;
Spare parts are becoming unavailable;
Frequent starts and stops;
Rapid loading ramp rates are used;
E1-5
Operating outside of voltage rating (either higher or lower);
Sustained overloading;
Frequent rough-zone crossings;
Close-in lightning strikes;
Out-of-phase breaker closings;
Unbalanced phase operation;
Previous failures on this equipment related to the stator winding or core;
Failures or problems on equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in
a similar environment.

Results of stator winding O & M history are analyzed and applied to Table 1 to arrive at an
appropriate Stator Condition Indicator Score.

Table 1 Stator Winding Operation & Maintenance History Scoring

Results Stator Condition Indicator Score
Operation and maintenance normal. 3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.
2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant
additional maintenance is required; forced outage
occurs; outages are regularly extended due to
maintenance problems; similar units are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective;
major electrical or mechanical failures; similar units
have reached end-of-life.
0

Stator Condition Indicator 2 Physical Inspection

Several types of stator winding problems can be detected during the course of physical
inspections, such as insulation cracks, bulging or puffy coils, surface corona, contamination,
carbon tracks, winding movement, loose bracing and blocking, and loose wedges or slot fillers.
Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many inspection factors as possible under this indicator. Negligible evidence of aging, damage,
and/or deterioration would lead to a normal rating, whereas a minor amount of wear and tear
would be rated as some deterioration. If the deterioration observed is very obvious and
widespread, a rating of significant deterioration is appropriate. At a minimum, the following
areas should be inspected and the condition evaluated:

Stator winding;
Stator winding wedges, packing, blocking, and bracing;
Circuit ring bus;
Main and neutral leads.

Results of the stator winding physical inspection are analyzed and applied to Table 2 to arrive at
a Stator Condition Indicator Score.
E1-6

Table 2 Stator Winding Physical Inspection Scoring

Results Stator Condition Indicator Score
Inspection results are normal. 3
Inspection shows some deterioration. 2
Inspection shows significant deterioration. 1
Inspection shows complete or imminent failure of
stator winding components.
0

Stator Condition Indicator 3 Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index

Insulation resistance is defined as the quotient of the applied direct voltage over the measured
current (R = V/I). For a high capacitance specimen such as a generator stator winding, an
applied voltage step will result in a measured current that decays exponentially with time.
Because of this time-dependency, insulation resistance is normally calculated and recorded one
minute after the test voltage is applied. Insulation resistance measurements combine both
surface and volume resistances, and are mainly used to detect moisture absorption, conductive
contamination, degree of cure, and cracks or fissures. Insulation resistance tests are sensitive to
specimen temperature and are often normalized to a standard temperature (typically 40C) for
analysis. Humidity and surface contamination can also affect the measurement. The insulation
resistance of good insulation may range from hundreds to thousands of megaohms. Comparison
of individual phases and trending over time are the best means of evaluating insulation condition.

A polarization index test is similar to the insulation resistance test except that current readings
are taken at two time intervals, normally one and ten minutes after application of the voltage
step. The quotient of these two current readings (I
1
/I
10
) is termed the polarization index and
gives an indication of insulation dryness, contamination, cure, and mechanical integrity. Since
the polarization index is the ratio of two measurements made under identical conditions, it is less
sensitive to temperature variations than is insulation resistance. However, normal polarization
indices vary significantly for different types of insulation systems depending on the electrical
properties of the constituent dielectric materials, making it difficult to define acceptable
polarization index criteria. Therefore, trending of measurements over time and comparison
between phases are typically necessary to assess insulation condition.

Stator winding insulation resistance and polarization index test results should be analyzed and
applied to Table 3 to arrive at a Stator Condition Indicator Score.
E1-7
Table 3 Stator Winding Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index Scoring

Results Stator Condition Indicator Score
Results are normal and similar to previous
tests.
3
Results indicate minor decrease in insulation
resistance or polarization index (e.g., factor of
2 decrease).
2
Results indicate significant decrease in
insulation resistance or polarization index
(e.g., factor of 10 decrease).
1
Insulation resistance or polarization index is
below minimum acceptable values.
0

Stator Condition Indicator 4 Winding Age

The age of the generator stator winding is an important factor to consider when identifying
candidates for replacement. Age is one indicator of remaining life and upgrade potential to
state-of-the-art materials and designs. The design life of a stator winding rated 6.9 kV or higher
is typically 25 to 35 years. For lower voltage windings, the design life is typically 35 years or
more. It is important to recognize, however, that although age may be a useful indicator, the
actual service life that can be realized varies widely depending on the specific equipment
manufacturer and date of manufacture; the insulation system design, materials, and production
methods; the quality of installation; and the generators operation and maintenance history.

The stator winding age should be determined and applied to Table 4 to arrive at an appropriate
Stator Condition Indicator Score.

Table 4 Stator Winding Age Scoring

Age Stator Condition Indicator Score
<20 years 3
20 and <30 years 2
30 and <40 years 1
40 years 0


E1.12 TIER 1 STATOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the stator condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Stator Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Multiply each stator indicator score by
its respective Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Stator Condition
E1-8
Index. Attach supporting documentation. The Stator Condition Index may be adjusted by the
Tier 2 stator inspections, tests, and measurements described later in this document.


E1.13 TIER 1 STATOR DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

Stator Data Quality Indicator Quality of Inspections, Tests, and Measurements

The Stator Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and measurement
results used to evaluate the stator condition under Tier 1. The more current and complete the
results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing frequency is defined as the
organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to
arrive at an appropriate Stator Data Quality Indicator Score.

Table 5 Stator Data Quality Scoring

Results Stator Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed within the normal testing
frequency and the results are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 6 and <
24 months past the normal testing frequency
and results are reliable.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 24 and <
36 months past the normal testing frequency,
or some of the results are not available or are
of questionable integrity.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 36
months past the normal frequency, or no
results are available or many are of
questionable integrity.
0

Enter the Stator Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Stator Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this document.


E1-9
E1.14 ROTOR CONDITION INDICATORS

Rotor Condition Indicator 1 Operation & Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance history may provide a useful indication of generator rotor condition.
The operation and maintenance history of the rotor should be reviewed by qualified personnel to
make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as many operation and
maintenance factors as possible under this indicator. Factors to consider include:

Maintenance needs increasing with time or problems are re-occurring;
Spare parts are becoming unavailable;
Operating outside of voltage rating (either higher or lower);
Sustained overloading;
Frequent rough-zone crossings;
Out-of-phase breaker closings;
Number of times unit has been subjected to over speed or runaway (usually
associated with load rejection);
Previous failures on this equipment related to the rotor or field winding;
Failures or problems on equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in
a similar environment.

Results of rotor O & M history are analyzed and applied to Table 6 to arrive at an appropriate
Rotor Condition Indicator Score.

Table 6 Rotor Operation & Maintenance History Scoring

Results Rotor Condition Indicator Score
Operation and maintenance normal. 3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced
and/or additional maintenance above normal is
required.
2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant
additional maintenance is required; forced outage
occurs; outages are regularly extended due to
maintenance problems; similar units are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost
effective; major electrical or mechanical failures;
similar units have reached end-of-life.
0

Rotor Condition Indicator 2 Physical Inspection

Several types of rotor problems can be detected during the course of physical inspections, such
as overheating, loose and vibrating components, impact damage, and contamination. Qualified
personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as many
inspection factors as possible under this indicator. The following areas should be inspected and
the deterioration should be evaluated:
E1-10
Rotor hub, radial arms, and rim;
Field poles, keys, collars, and pole faces;
Field windings and interpole connections;
Field winding leads;
Amortisseur winding bars, shorting straps, and inter-connections;
Rim-mounted fan blades.

Results of the rotor physical inspection are analyzed and applied to Table 7 to arrive at a Rotor
Condition Indicator Score.

Table 7 Rotor Physical Inspection Scoring

Results Rotor Condition Indicator Score
Inspection results are normal. 3
Inspection shows some deterioration. 2
Inspection shows significant deterioration. 1
Inspection shows complete or imminent failure of field
winding components.
0

Rotor Condition Indicator 3 Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index

Refer to Stator Condition Indicator 3 Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index in section
E1.11 above for a detailed description of insulation resistance and polarization index
measurements.

Results of the insulation resistance and polarization index tests are analyzed and applied to
Table 8 to arrive at a Rotor Condition Indicator Score.

Table 8 Field Winding Insulation Resistance and Polarization Index Scoring

Results Rotor Condition Indicator Score
Results are normal and similar to previous
tests.
3
Results indicate minor decrease in insulation
resistance or polarization index (e.g., factor of
2 decrease).
2
Results indicate significant decrease in
insulation resistance or polarization index
(e.g., factor of 10 decrease).
1
Insulation resistance or polarization index is
below minimum acceptable values.
0

E1-11
Rotor Condition Indicator 4 Field Winding Age

The age of the generator field winding is an important factor to consider when identifying
candidates for replacement. Age is one indicator of remaining life and upgrade potential to
state-of-the-art materials and designs. The design life (or life expectancy) of the insulation of
field windings is 50 to 60 years. Although age is a useful indicator of remaining life and
upgrade potential, it is also important to recognize that the actual service life that can be realized
varies widely depending on the specific equipment manufacturer and date of manufacture; the
insulation system design, materials, and production methods; the quality of installation; and the
generators operation and maintenance history.

The age of the field winding should be determined and applied to Table 9 to arrive at an
appropriate Rotor Condition Indicator Score.

Table 9 Field Winding Age Scoring

Age Rotor Condition Indicator Score
<20 years 3
20 and <30 years 2
30 and <40 years 1
40 years 0


E1.15 TIER 1 ROTOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the rotor condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Rotor Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Multiply each indicator score by its
respective Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Rotor Condition
Index. Attach supporting documentation. The Rotor Condition Index may be adjusted by the
Tier 2 rotor inspections, tests, and measurements described later in this document.


E1.16 TIER 1 ROTOR DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

Rotor Data Quality Indicator Quality of Inspections, Tests, and Measurements

The Rotor Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and measurement
results used to evaluate the rotor condition under Tier 1. The more current and complete the
inspections, tests and measurements, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing
frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific
test or inspection.

E1-12
Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 10 to
arrive at an appropriate Rotor Data Quality Indicator Score.

Table 10 Rotor Data Quality Scoring

Results Rotor Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed within the normal testing
frequency and the results are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 6 and <
24 months past the normal testing frequency.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 24 and <
36 months past the normal testing frequency,
or some of the results are not available.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 36
months past the normal frequency, or no
results are available.
0

Enter the Rotor Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 10 into the Rotor Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E1.17 TIER 2 STATOR INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or expertise,
may be intrusive, or may require an outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered
routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Generator Stator Condition Index
established using Tier 1 tests as well as confirm or disprove the need for more extensive
maintenance, rehabilitation, or generator replacement.

Note that there are many tests that can provide information about the various aspects of stator
condition. The choice of which tests to apply should be made based on known information
obtained via review of O & M history, physical inspection, other test results, and company
standards as well as the Tier 1 assessment. Many of the following Tier 2 tests are used to detect
or confirm a similar defect or state of deterioration. In the event that more than one Tier 2 tests
are performed to assess the same problem or concern, then the test with the largest adjustment
shall be used to recalculate the Stator Condition Index. It is important to avoid adjusting the
Condition Index downward twice or more simply because multiple tests are completed for the
same suspected problem. Since the Tier 2 tests are being performed by and/or coordinated with
knowledgeable technical staff, the decision as to which test is more significant and how different
tests overlap is left to the experts.

E1-13
For Tier 2 assessments performed, apply only the appropriate adjustment factors per the
instructions above and recalculate the Stator Generator Condition Index using the Generator
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data
Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained
during the Tier 2 assessment.

Test T2.S1: Ramped Voltage Test

To conduct this test, an automatic high-voltage power supply (i.e., ramped voltage test set) is
used to linearly increase the applied direct voltage from zero up to some maximum value at a
constant ramp rate, typically 1 to 2 kV per minute. The current response versus applied voltage
is measured and plotted, and the results are used to evaluate the condition of the insulation by
noting deviations from the normal shape of the test curve. Any departure from a smooth curve
could be an indication of insulation problems. Because the maximum test voltage is above the
normal operating stress, the ramped voltage test also serves as a high-potential withstand test.

Ramped voltage test results are analyzed and applied to Table 11 to arrive at a Stator Condition
Index score adjustment.

Table 11 Ramped Voltage Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Smooth, linear curve. Add 0.5
Curve slightly nonlinear, similar to previous test results.* No Change
Curve less linear than previous test results.* Subtract 0.5
Curve significantly less linear than previous test results.* Subtract 1.0
Test stopped early to avoid breakdown. Subtract 2.0
Failure during test. Subtract 5.0

*If no previous test results are available, compare to results of similar machines or to typical
results.

Test T2.S2: Partial Discharge Measurements

Partial discharges are localized ionizations of the gaseous space surrounding or within a solid
insulation. When the electric stress in the gas exceeds a critical value, a transient ionization, or
partial discharge, occurs. The ionized gas contains electrons, ions, excited molecules, and free
radicals. These chemically reactive species can affect and degrade the adjacent solid insulation.
Although the damage caused by a single partial discharge (PD) event is minute, the cumulative
effect of many discharges can eventually lead to insulation failure.

There are several potential sites of partial discharges in high-voltage generator stator windings,
such as between the surface of the slot portion of the winding and the grounded stator core, at
E1-14
either boundary of the voltage stress grading coating in the end turn area, in the winding
overhang region where potential differences exist between adjacent coils separated by small air
spaces, and internal to the insulation within voids, delaminations, or other defects.
PD measuring equipment and data analysis methods have been developed to quantify the level of
discharge activity and determine the source. Measurements may be made either on-line or off-
line, and a variety of detection techniques are possible (e.g., corona probe, PDA, EMI). Since
discharge measurements are greatly influenced by the specific measuring technique, the PD
instrument manufacturer should be consulted to determine appropriate evaluation criteria.

Partial discharge test results are analyzed and applied to Table 12 to arrive at a Stator Condition
Index score adjustment.

Table 12 Partial Discharge Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Low PD readings throughout the generator. Add 0.5
Few in number and low in magnitude. No Change
Numerous high PD readings. Subtract 0.5
Widespread and abnormally high PD readings. Subtract 1.0

Test T2.S3: Dissipation (or Power) Factor Measurements

The dissipation factor, or tan , represents the losses in an insulation tested under sinusoidal
voltage conditions. (Alternately, the power factor =cos is used to measure insulation losses.
Typically, the numerical difference between tan and cos is negligible so that the terms
dissipation factor and power factor are often used interchangeably.) Absolute values of tan as
well as changes with respect to voltage are used to assess insulation quality and condition. When
performing the test, several tan measurements are made over a range of applied voltages. For
example, a typical test schedule would involve making measurements from 0.25 Un (where Un
equals the rated phase-to-neutral voltage of the winding) through 1.25 Un, increasing the test
voltage in increments of 0.25 Un. The tip-up, or tan , is calculated by subtracting tan
measured at 0.25 Un from tan at 1.0 Un. Relatively high values of tan and tip-up generally
indicate the presence of voids, delaminations, or high conductivity.

Normal tan measurements may vary depending on several factors, such as the type of dielectric
materials comprising the insulation, the effect of the end winding voltage stress grading
treatment, and specimen temperature and humidity. Given the difficulty in establishing absolute
limits for tan measurements, trending over time and/or comparisons among identical machines
are generally needed to analyze and interpret dissipation factor values.

Dissipation factor results are analyzed and applied to Table 13 to arrive at a Stator Condition
Index score adjustment.

E1-15
Table 13 Dissipation Factor Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Tan and tip-up are below expected values. Add 0.5
Tan and tip-up are equal to expected values. No Change
Tan or tip-up slightly exceed expected
values.
Subtract 0.5
Tan or tip-up somewhat exceed expected
values or have increased since previous test.
Subtract 1.0
Tan or tip-up significantly exceed expected
values or have increased sharply since
previous test.
Subtract 2.0

Test T2.S4: Ozone Monitoring

The presence of ozone in an air-cooled hydrogenerator stator housing is usually an indication
that high intensity electrical discharges are occurring in the machine. Discharges between the
surfaces of the slot portion of the generator stator winding and the grounded stator core are
referred to as slot discharges and result from defective or deteriorated semi-conductive slot
treatment or because the stator coils are loose in their slots. Discharges which occur at either
boundary of the voltage stress grading coating in the end turn area of the stator winding are often
called grading coating discharges. Grading coating discharges normally result from deficiencies
in the voltage stress grading system. If the resistivity of the voltage grading treatment is too
high, discharges occur at the interface between the grading treatment and the semi-conductive
slot paint. If the resistivity is too low, discharges occur at the upper boundary of the stress
grading treatment, i.e., away from the stator core. Electrical activity can also occur in the end
winding region where high potential differences exist, such as between adjacent line- and
neutral-end coils or between line-end coils of different phases. These discharges are known as
end winding discharges. End winding discharges vary according to winding design, geometry
and spacing between coils, the type of surface treatment, and end winding cleanliness. Stator
windings can also experience internal discharges due to voids in the groundwall insulation.
These discharges are not likely to cause elevated ozone levels.

All types of external discharges can cause air to ionize, producing ozone and other damaging by-
products. In addition to the risk of a stator winding insulation failure resulting from intense
electrical discharges, damage to the ferrous and rubber materials which are exposed to ozone can
also be extremely serious. The following components are particularly susceptible to ozone: the
iron stator core, brake ring, rotor shaft, hub, and rim laminations; air cooler fins and gaskets;
unpainted water piping, and other exposed surfaces. Furthermore, normal leakage of stator
housing air into the powerplant can result in increased background ozone levels in the plant work
areas, prompting concern for worker health and safety.

Ozone levels may vary depending on the particular location at which the measurement is taken
within the machine, as well as generator terminal voltage, loading, temperature and relative
E1-16
humidity. Therefore, to the extent possible, repeat ozone measurements should be made under
the same general conditions.

Ozone results are analyzed and applied to Table 14 to arrive at a Stator Condition Index score
adjustment.

Table 14 Ozone Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Ozone levels <0.05 ppm. Add 0.5
Ozone levels 0.05 and <0.1 ppm. No Change
Ozone levels 0.1 and <1.0 ppm. Subtract 1.0
Ozone levels 1.0 ppm. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.S5: Black Out Test

This test is generally performed on generators with stator windings rated 6900 volts and above
since machines with lower ratings are not likely to experience surface discharges during normal
operation. The black out test may be performed with either the rotor in place or removed.
However, removing the rotor improves visibility of surface discharges in the slot region. The
test is typically conducted in the evening with the powerhouse lights off. A black plastic
covering may be placed over the air housing to help eliminate outside light. An individual coil,
group of coils, complete phase, or the entire stator winding is energized at rated voltage or
slightly above while observers positioned inside the unit look for visual evidence of electrical
discharges. Active areas of corona are noted with respect to slot number and location.

Black out test results are analyzed and applied to Table 15 to arrive at a Stator Condition Index
score adjustment.

Table 15 Black Out Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Negligible corona. Add 0.5
Few locations and minor intensity. No Change
Several locations and moderate intensity. Subtract 1.0
Widespread, intense corona. Subtract 2.0


E1-17
Test T2.S6: High-Potential Withstand Test

High-potential withstand tests are typically performed to provide some assurance that the
winding insulation has a minimum level of electrical strength. Because the inherent withstand
capability of sound insulation is well above the usual proof test value, failure during a test at an
appropriate voltage indicates the insulation is unsuitable for service. Withstand tests are
intended to search for flaws in the material and for manufacturing defects, and to demonstrate in
a practical manner that the insulation has a minimum level of electrical integrity. A primary
requirement of such a test is that it should be discerning and effective in detecting serious flaws
at or below the minimum specified strength without damaging sound insulation. The applied test
voltage may be power frequency, very low frequency (VLF), or direct voltage.

Stator winding high-potential withstand test results are analyzed and applied to Table 16 to arrive
at a Stator Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 16 Stator Winding High-Potential Withstand Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Passed withstand test. Add 0.5
Failed withstand test. Subtract 5.0

Test T2.S7: Stator Core Inspection

A stator core physical inspection may be done with the rotor in place although it is more
convenient to examine the core with the rotor removed. The stator core should be examined for
looseness and shifting. Core looseness should be checked with the knife test. Stator through bolt
torque may also be checked. Any broken core laminations, laminations which protrude into the
air gap, signs of fretting corrosion, bent core duct separators, or other evidence of core damage
should be noted. Interlaminar insulation faults may result in severe overheating which could
damage the stator winding at that location. Generally, defects at the core surface are easily
observed while defects in the slot area or in the back iron are not detectible visually. If
inspection panels are present on the stator frame wrapper, they should be removed to allow
inspection of the back iron and stator frame.

Stator core inspection results are analyzed and applied to Table 17 to arrive at a Stator Condition
Index score adjustment.

E1-18
Table 17 Stator Core Inspection Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Core condition appears very good. Add 0.5
No indication of core damage or deterioration. No Change
Minor core damage or deterioration. Subtract 0.5
Moderate core damage or deterioration. Subtract 1.0
Significant core damage or deterioration. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.S8: Wedge Tightness Evaluation

Stator windings are wedged into the core slots and subjected to positive radial pressure to protect
the winding from vibration-induced damage during normal operation and to keep coils/bars from
being forced out of the slots during phase-to-phase short circuit conditions. This evaluation is
used to determine the condition of the stator winding wedge system. The wedge system should
be examined closely for loose, broken, or burnt wedges. To perform a comprehensive
assessment with the rotor in place, one or two pole pieces must be removed in order to access the
entire length of the stator core and the rotor must be rotated manually in order to inspect all
wedges in every slot. A partial evaluation may be conducted by inspecting only those wedges
that are within reach between the rotor poles. The wedge evaluation procedure requires careful
visual inspection of the wedging system, including wedges and slot packing materials. The
wedge system may be further examined by tapping the wedges with a blunt metallic instrument
which rings or vibrates when hit against a solidly wedged slot. Loose wedges produce a dull
sound when tapped. Commercial wedge tightness measuring tools are also available. Wedge
systems utilizing under-wedge ripple springs may be evaluated using a depth gauge to measure
the ripple spring compression. Regardless of the specific evaluation method used, wedge system
condition is assessed based on the overall percentage of loose wedges as well as the number and
location of loose wedges in any given slot.

Stator core inspection results are analyzed and applied to Table 18 to arrive at a Stator Condition
Index score adjustment.

E1-19
Table 18 Wedge Tightness Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
Rewedging completed within last <5 years
and no indication of loose wedges.
Add 0.5
No indication of loose wedges. No Change
Few loose wedges. Subtract 0.5
Numerous loose wedges. Subtract 1.0
Widespread loose wedges. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.S9: Core Loop Test

The stator core loop test, also known as the ring test or rated flux test, is performed on motor or
generator stators to evaluate the integrity of the core laminations. Core damage may be caused
by ingress of foreign bodies into the stator bore, excessive vibrations, or deterioration of the
lamination insulation due to overheating or other aging processes. Inadvertent core damage may
also occur during rewedging or removal of the rotor and/or stator coils. A bearing failure may
also cause the rotor to rub and damage the stator core. The core loop test is used to detect
damage, assess its severity, and indicate whether repair is required.

The loop test is made by wrapping an excitation winding around the stator core and frame. A
60-Hz voltage is applied to the winding sufficient to induce a flux approximately equal to the
rated operating flux density and produce normal axial voltage between laminations. Defective
areas of the core or tooth insulation appear as hot spots that can be detected via infrared
thermal imaging. An area of iron exhibiting a temperature equal to or greater than 5 C above
the average core temperature is generally considered to be a hot spot.

Core loop test results are analyzed and applied to Table 19 to arrive at a Stator Condition Index
score adjustment.

Table 19 Core Loop Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
No visible hot spots. Add 0.5
One warm spot <5 C. No Change
Two or more warm spots <5 C, or one hot
spot 5 C and <10 C.
Subtract 0.5
Two or more hot spots 5 C and <10 C. Subtract 1.0
One or more hot spots 10 C. Subtract 2.0
E1-20
Test T2.S10: EL CID Test

The Electromagnetic Core Imperfection Detector (EL CID) test is used to detect and evaluate
known or suspected damage to the stator core lamination insulation. The main advantage of the
EL CID test over the rated flux test is that it requires a much smaller capacity power supply for
the excitation winding, since only 3 to 4 percent of rated flux needs to be induced in the core.
The EL CID test operates on the basis that eddy currents will flow through failed or significantly
aged core insulation. Using a special Chattock coil, a voltage signal is obtained that is
proportional to the magnitude of eddy current flowing between laminations. The measured
voltage is fed to a signal processor what gives an output in mA (milliamperes) that represents the
axial component of the measured voltage. Relatively high readings indicate faulty insulation.
The manufacturer of the EL CID test equipment states that output readings above 100 mA
indicate significant core shorting.

EL CID test results are analyzed and applied to Table 20 to arrive at a Stator Condition Index
score adjustment.

Table 20 EL CID Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Stator Condition Index
No readings >50 mA. Add 0.5
No readings >100 mA. No Change
One reading >100 mA and 200 mA. Subtract 0.5
Two or more readings >100 mA and 200 mA. Subtract 1.0
One or more readings >200 mA. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.S11: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests such as winding dissection, capacitance measurements, core bolt insulation
resistance, winding conductor resistance measurements, and others may be applied to evaluate
specific stator winding or core problems. Some of these diagnostic tests may be considered to be
of an investigative research nature. When conclusive results from other diagnostic tests are
available, they may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to the Stator Condition Index.


E1.18 TIER 2 STATOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Generator Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Stator Condition Index to arrive at the Net Stator Condition Index. Attach supporting
documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if
additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E1-21
E1.19 TIER 2 ROTOR INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or expertise,
may be intrusive, or may require an outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered
routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Rotor Condition Index number established
using Tier 1 tests as well as confirm or disprove the need for more extensive maintenance,
rehabilitation, or generator replacement.

Note that there are many tests that can provide information about the various aspects of rotor
condition. The choice of which tests to apply should be made based on known information
obtained via review of O & M history, physical inspection, other test results, and company
standards as well as the Tier 1 assessment. Many of the following Tier 2 tests are used to detect
or confirm a similar defect or state of deterioration. In the event that more than one Tier 2 tests
are performed to assess the same problem or concern, then the test with the largest adjustment
shall be used to recalculate the Rotor Condition Index. It is important to avoid adjusting the
Condition Index downward twice or more simply because multiple tests are completed for the
same suspected problem. Since the Tier 2 tests are being performed by and/or coordinated with
knowledgeable technical staff, the decision as to which test is more significant and how different
tests overlap is left to the experts.

For Tier 2 assessments performed, apply only the appropriate adjustment factors per the
instructions above and recalculate the Rotor Generator Condition Index using the Generator
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.

Test T2.R1: High-Potential Withstand

High-potential withstand tests are typically performed to provide some assurance that the
winding insulation has a minimum level of electrical strength. Because the inherent withstand
capability of sound insulation is well above the usual proof test value, failure during a test at an
appropriate voltage indicates the insulation is unsuitable for service. Withstand tests are
intended to search for flaws in the material and for manufacturing defects, and to demonstrate in
a practical manner that the insulation has a minimum level of electrical integrity. A primary
requirement of such a test is that is should be discerning and effective in detecting serious flaws
at or below the minimum specified strength without damaging sound insulation. The applied test
voltage may be power frequency, very low frequency (VLF), or direct voltage.

Field winding high-potential withstand test results are analyzed and applied to Table 21 to arrive
at a Rotor Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 21 Field Winding High-Potential Withstand Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Rotor Condition Index
Passed withstand test. Add 0.5
Failed withstand test. Subtract 5.0
E1-22
Test T2.R2: AC Pole Drop Test

This test is performed on salient pole rotors to detect shorted turns in the field winding. The
winding is energized at 120 V, 60 Hz and the voltage drop across each pole is measured. Poles
with appreciably lower voltage drops may have shorted turns. The voltage drop across the
immediately adjacent poles may be low as well due to the influence of the defective pole on the
magnetic circuits of the adjacent poles.

AC pole drop test results are analyzed and applied to Table 22 to arrive at a Rotor Condition
Index score adjustment.

Table 22 AC Pole Drop Test Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Rotor Condition Index
Poles reinsulated within last <10 years. Add 0.5
No indication of shorted turns. No Change
One pole with one shorted turn. Subtract 0.5
Two or more poles with one shorted turn. Subtract 1.0
One or more poles with multiple shorted turns. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.R3: Field Winding AC Impedance

Due to the appreciable centrifugal forces that act on a rotor winding at rated speed, certain
shorted turns may only be apparent when the rotor is revolving at or near rated speed. An
impedance test can be performed while the machine is being shut down or brought up to speed to
detect shorted turns that are only present under centrifugal forces. To perform the test, a 120 V,
60 Hz power supply is applied to the winding through the collector rings. The applied voltage
and current are measured and the impedance is calculated over a range of rotational speeds.

Field winding ac impedance test results are analyzed and applied to Table 23 to arrive at a Rotor
Condition Index score adjustment.

E1-23
Table 23 Field Winding AC Impedance Scoring

Test Results Adjustment to
Rotor Condition Index
Difference between readings taken at rated
speed and standstill is <5%. No abrupt
changes.
Add 0.5
Difference between readings taken at rated
speed and standstill is 5% and <10%. No
abrupt changes.
No Change
Difference between readings taken at rated
speed and standstill is 5% and <10%, with
abrupt change 5%.
Subtract 1.0
Difference between readings taken at rated
speed and standstill is 10% and abrupt
change is 5%.
Subtract 2.0

Test T2.R4: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests such as DC resistance measurements, temperature scanning, etc. may be applied
to evaluate specific rotor problems. Some of these diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an
investigative research nature. When conclusive results from other diagnostic tests are available,
they may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to the Rotor Condition Index.


E1.20 TIER 2 ROTOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Generator Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Rotor Condition Index to arrive at the Net Rotor Condition Index. Attach supporting
documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if
additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E1.21 GENERATOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Choose the lower of the Net Stator Condition Index and Net Rotor Condition Index to represent
the overall Generator Condition Index. Record the Data Quality Indicator score associated with
the chosen Condition Index. Suggested alternatives for follow-up action, based on the Generator
Condition Index, are described in the Generator Condition-Based Alternatives located in
Table 24.


E1.22 GENERATOR CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The Generator Condition Index either modified by Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for
decision-making regarding generator alternatives. The Index is also suitable for use in a risk-
E1-24
and-economic analysis model. Where it is desired to consider alternatives based solely on
generator condition, the Generator Condition Index may be directly applied to the Generator
Condition-Based Alternatives table (Table 24).

Table 24 Generator Condition-Based Alternatives

Generator Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E1-25
GENERATOR
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________ Location: ______________________________________
Gen. Identifier: ___________ Gen. Manufacturer: __________________ Yr. Mfd.: _________
Stator Winding Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Winding Installed: _____________
Stator Insulation Type: ________________ MVA: _______ PF: ______ Voltage: ___________
Field Winding Manufacturer: _____________________ Yr. Winding Installed: _____________
Field Insulation Type: __________________ Current: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Part A: Calculate the Tier 1 Stator Condition Index

Tier 1 Generator Stator Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
O & M History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.18
2
Physical Inspection
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.18
3
Insulation Resistance and
Polarization Index
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.58
4
Winding Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.39


Tier 1 Stator Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Stator Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

E1-26
Part B: Calculate the Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index

Tier 1 Generator Rotor Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
O & M History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.18
2
Physical Inspection
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.18
3
Insulation Resistance and
Polarization Index
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.58
4
Winding Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.39


Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Rotor Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

E1-27
Part C: Determine the Tier 1 Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index

To determine the Tier 1 Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index, choose the lower of the
Tier 1 Stator Condition Index and the Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index. Record the Data Quality
Indicator associated with the chosen Condition Index.

Generator Condition Index _____________

Data Quality Indicator _________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

Generator Condition-Based Alternatives

Generator Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E1-28
GENERATOR
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________ Location: ______________________________________
Gen. Identifier: ___________ Gen. Manufacturer: __________________ Yr. Mfd.: _________
Stator Winding Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Winding Installed: _____________
Stator Insulation Type: ________________ MVA: _______ PF: ______ Voltage: ___________
Field Winding Manufacturer: _____________________ Yr. Winding Installed: _____________
Field Insulation Type: __________________ Current: _____________ Voltage: ____________
Part A: Calculate the Tier 2 Stator Condition Index

Tier 2 Stator Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Stator Condition Index
T2.S1 Ramped Voltage Test
T2.S2 Partial Discharge Measurements
T2.S3 Dissipation Factor Measurements
T2.S4 Ozone Monitoring
T2.S5 Black Out Test
T2.S6 High-Potential Withstand Test
T2.S7 Stator Core Inspection
T2.S8 Wedge Tightness Evaluation
T2.S9 Core Loop Test
T2.S10 EL CID Test
T2.S11 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Stator Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Stator Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Stator Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Stator Condition Index:

Tier 1 Stator Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Stator Adjustments __________ = ________________
Net Stator Condition Index
E1-29
Part B: Calculate the Tier 2 Rotor Condition Index

Tier 2 Rotor Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Rotor Condition Index
T2.R1 High-Potential Withstand Test
T2.R2 AC Pole Drop Test
T2.R3 Field Winding AC Impedance
T2.R4 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Rotor Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Rotor Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Rotor Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index:

Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Rotor Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Rotor Condition Index

E1-30
Part C: Determine the Tier 2 Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index

To determine the Net Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and
10), choose the lower of the Net Stator Condition Index and the Net Rotor Condition Index.
Record the Data Quality Indicator associated with the chosen Condition Index:

Net Generator Condition Index _____________
Data Quality Indicator ______________

Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E1-31
EXAMPLE

GENERATOR
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: 6-25-03 Location: Yellowtail Powerplant
Gen. Identifier: Unit Gen. Manufacturer: Westinghouse Yr. Mfd.: 1965
Stator Winding Manufacturer: National Electric Coil Yr. Winding Installed: 1983
Stator Insulation Type: Epoxilated Resin MVA: 65,789 kVA Voltage: 13.8 kV

Part A: Calculate the Tier 1 Stator Condition Index

Tier 1 Generator Stator Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
O & M History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
2 1.18 2.36
2
Physical Inspection
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 1.18 3.54
3
Insulation Resistance and
Polarization Index
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
2 0.58 1.16
4
Winding Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
2 0.39 0.78


Tier 1 Stator Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)
7.84

Tier 1 Stator Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)
7









E1-32
Part B: Calculate the Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index

Tier 1 Generator Rotor Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
O & M History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 1.18 3.54
2
Physical Inspection
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 1.18 3.54
3
Insulation Resistance and
Polarization Index
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.58 1.74
4
Winding Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.39 1.17


Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)
10.00

Tier 1 Rotor Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)
4

E1-33
Part C: Determine the Tier 1 Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index

To determine the Tier 1 Generator (Stator and Rotor) Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and
10), choose the lower of the Tier 1 Stator Condition Index and the Tier 1 Rotor Condition Index.
Record the Data Quality Indicator associated with the chosen Condition Index:

Generator Condition Index _____7.84__________
Data Quality Indicator ______7 __________

Evaluator: Armand Bird, Acting Electrical Foreman_ Technical Review: Tom Manni_________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E1-34
Supporting Documentation

Date: 6-25-03 Location: Yellowtail Powerplant
Gen. Identifier: Unit Gen. Manufacturer: Westinghouse Yr. Mfd.: 1965
Stator Winding Manufacturer: National Electric Coil Yr. Winding Installed: 1983
Stator Insulation Type: Epoxilated Resin MVA: 65,789 kVA Voltage: 13.8 kV

Unit 1 Stator was given a rating of 2 on O & M History for the following reasons: Yellowtail is
a remotely-controlled peaking plant with frequent use of AGC, thus resulting in fast ramp rates,
frequent rough zone crossings, and abnormally high numbers of starts and stops.

Records of quadrennial ramp tests indicate snaking which has been associated with possible
delamination of the strands in the winding. The most recent ramp tests are acceptable and show
no increasing signs of deterioration.

Coupling capacitors have been installed to monitor partial discharge, but results have been
questioned on their value.

Insulation resistance or polarization index testing is not performed at Yellowtail, but D. C. Ramp
testing is performed on a quadrennial schedule. The results of this test have indicated that no
substantial increase in leakage is occurring. The resulting score of 2 is because the testing was
not performed, but no abnormal results would be anticipated.

Winding age was rated at 2 because the winding is on the border line between 20 and 30 years.
Also, with the rapid ramp rates and abnormal starts and stops the winding is being subjected to
thermal stresses undetectable by inspection or test.


E2-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E2: Circuit Breaker Condition Assessment


E2.1 GENERAL

Circuit breakers are key components in the power train at hydroelectric powerplants and are
appropriate for analysis under a condition assessment program. Circuit breaker failures can have
a significant economic impact due to the high costs of equipment replacement and lost power
generation during an extended repair outage.

Determining the present condition of a circuit breaker is an essential step in analyzing the risk of
failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Circuit Breaker Condition Index
which may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic
consequences, and other factors.


E2.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

Circuit breakers are obtained from a variety of manufacturers, and there is a large variety of
designs. Breaker specifications apply only to the particular circuit breaker being evaluated, and
are not necessarily applicable to those produced by other manufacturers. Even within a single
manufacturer, different models may not have the same design or specifications. Therefore, it is
necessary to refer to the manufacturers specifications for each circuit breaker that is to be
assessed.

The breaker condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to metal-clad,
station class, and freestanding circuit breakers. Breakers in these classes can be any of a variety
of types of interrupters including air magnetic, air blast, bulk oil, SF
6
gas (dual pressure and
puffer), and vacuum. Due to design differences in the breakers, the inspections, tests, and
measurements described in this appendix have varying applicability to the different types of
breakers. The appropriate inspections, tests, and measurements for each type of breaker are
described in section E2.10 below.

This appendix is not intended to define circuit breaker maintenance practices or describe in detail
circuit breaker condition assessment inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility maintenance
policies and procedures, as well as manufacturers recommendations must be consulted for such
information.


E2-2
E2.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND CIRCUIT BREAKER
CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes four condition indicators generally regarded as a sound basis for
assessing circuit breaker condition:

Dielectric Condition
Operation and Maintenance History
Contact Resistance
Number of Operations

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Circuit Breaker Condition
Index.

Only Operation and Maintenance History is used for assessing the condition of vacuum circuit
breakers. This is explained further in the vacuum breaker section.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the circuit breaker indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores, as well as the validity of the overall Condition Index. Given the
potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a means of
evaluating and recording confidence in the final Circuit Breaker Condition Index.

Additional information regarding circuit breaker condition may be necessary to improve the
accuracy and reliability of the Circuit Breaker Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the
Tier 1 condition indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and
measurements that may be applied, depending on the specific issue or problem being addressed.
Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is readily available, it may be
used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be deliberately
performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or
decrease the score of the Circuit Breaker Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator score may
also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional information
or test data.

The Circuit Breaker Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective actions
and/or follow-up Tier 2 testing. After review by qualified personnel, the Circuit Breaker
Condition Index is suitable for use as input to a risk-based economic analysis.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate corrective action, regardless of the Circuit Breaker Condition Index
score.


E2-3
E2.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTING, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in circuit breaker operation and maintenance.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Circuit breaker condition assessment may cause concern that justifies more frequent monitoring,
in which case utilities should consider the possibility of making more frequent inspections. This
will provide additional data for condition assessment and establish a certain amount of
reassurance as circuit breaker repair or replacement alternatives are being investigated.


E2.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on personnel experienced in
assessing circuit breaker conditions. Relative terms such as Results Normal and
Deterioration refer to results that are compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or
previously acceptable levels on this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction,
or age operating in a similar environment.


E2.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some condition
indicators affect the Circuit Breaker Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other
indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among circuit breaker design
and maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E2.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every circuit breaker is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix
cannot quantify all factors that affect individual circuit breaker condition. It is important that the
Circuit Breaker Condition Index arrived at be reviewed by engineering experts. Mitigating
factors specific to the utility may determine the final Circuit Breaker Condition Index and the
final decision on circuit breaker replacement or rehabilitation.


E2.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 or where a Tier 2 test results in
subtractions to the Circuit Breaker Condition Index. Test results and reports, photographs, O &
M records, or other documentation should accompany the Circuit Breaker Condition Assessment
Summary form.

E2-4
E2.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score; then the score is weighted and summed with
scores from other condition indicators. The sum is the Circuit Breaker Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is missing to properly score the condition indicator, it may be assumed that
the score is Good or numerically some mid-range number such as 2. This strategy must be
used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of the potential
impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means of
evaluating and recording confidence in the final Circuit Breaker Condition Index.


E2.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 tests include inspections, tests, and measurements routinely accomplished as part of
normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing data.
Tier 1 results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and summed to
arrive at a Circuit Breaker Condition Index. Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements may
indicate abnormal conditions that can be resolved with standard corrective maintenance
solutions. The results from Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements may also indicate the
need for additional investigation, categorized as Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements.

Note: There are four different sub-sections below, each of which is written for a particular type
of circuit breaker (air magnetic / air blast, oil tank, SF
6
, and vacuum). Use the sub-section
describing the Tier 1 tests that are appropriate for the type of circuit breaker being evaluated.

E2.10.a. Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breakers

Air Magnetic breakers are air insulated, spring operated, and use magnetically contoured arc
chutes to elongate and cool the arc. They are often installed in metal clad switchgear and can be
removed entirely for maintenance. The dielectric condition of the breaker can be measured and
trended by performing megger and power factor tests on the fully assembled breaker including
the arc chutes. The main and arcing contacts should be inspected for signs of wear including
pitting, scoring, or overheating and burning. It is normal to show more wear on the arcing
contacts than the main contacts. All components of the operating mechanism should be checked
for loose or broken parts, missing retainers or other hardware, excessive wear on moving parts,
and for binding during movement. The fully assembled circuit breaker should be tested to
determine breaker operation and timing is within original manufacturer tolerances.

Air Blast breakers are air insulated and use high pressure air to operate the breaker and to
elongate and cool the arc. They are often installed in station class switchgear and cannot be
removed entirely for maintenance. The dielectric condition of the breaker can be measured and
trended by performing megger and power factor tests on the fully assembled breaker including
the arc chutes. The main and arcing contacts should be inspected for signs of wear including
pitting, scoring, or overheating and burning. It is normal to show more wear on the arcing
contacts than the main contacts. All components of the operating mechanism should be checked
E2-5
for loose or broken parts, missing retainers or other hardware, excessive wear on moving parts,
and for binding during movement. The compressed air system and control valves should be
checked for proper operation, including compressor run times and start/stop controls. The
complete circuit breaker should be tested to confirm correct breaker operation and that timing is
within original manufacturer tolerances.

Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 1 Dielectric Tests

Power Factor testing of air magnetic or air blast breakers can evaluate the overall dielectric
condition of the breaker including bushings, arc chutes, operating rods, etc.

The results of these tests are analyzed and applied to Table 1 to arrive at a Condition Indicator
Score.

Table 1 Air Magnetic/Air Blast Dielectric Test Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Test results are normal. (Good - G)* 3
Test results show minor deterioration. (Deteriorated - D)* 2
Test results show significant deterioration. (Investigate - I)* 1
Test results show severe deterioration. (Bad - B)* 0
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)
* Doble insulation rating shown in parentheses.


Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 2 Operation and
Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall circuit breaker condition. O &
M history factors that may apply are:

Difficult or expensive to bring mechanism into compliance for timing and travel.
Timing and travel measurements are taken with the circuit breaker removed from
service. It is expected that a circuit breaker will not be returned to service until it has
been adjusted or repaired to result in satisfactory timing and travel measurements. If
these adjustments or repairs are frequent or expensive, they may indicate that the
mechanism is worn out or not well designed.
High number of fault current operations. If the data is available, the fault currents
and durations can be used to estimate the interrupting duty the breaker has seen. In
general, as the energy level of the interrupted fault increases, the stress on the breaker
increases.
Numerous forced outages or outage extensions to correct problems.
E2-6
Excessive or frequent corrective maintenance.
Difficulty in obtaining or very high cost of spare or replacement parts

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many O & M factors as possible under this Indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table
2 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 2 Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breaker O & M History Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal. 3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.
2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant
additional maintenance is required; or forced outage occurs;
or outages are regularly extended due to maintenance
problems; or similar units are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective; or
severe mechanical problems; or similar units have failed.
0

Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 3 Contact Resistance Tests

Performing a contact resistance test on the breaker in the closed position can detect abnormal
conditions that could result in overheating of the breaker contacts. The test can be performed
using a Digital Low-Resistance Ohmmeter (DLRO). The DLRO forces large currents (50-100 A
or more) through the contacts and precisely measures the voltage drop across the breaker. The
test is also referred to as a millivolt drop test.

Apply the test results to Table 3 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 3 Air Magnetic/Air Blast Contact Resistance Test Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<25 percent increase since last test AND below
manufacturer recommended maximum resistance.
3
25 and <75 percent increase since last test AND below
manufacturer recommended maximum resistance.
2
75 percent increase since last test OR above manufacturer
recommended maximum resistance.
1
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

E2-7
Air Magnetic/Air Blast Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 4 Number of Operations

The number of operations that a breaker has been subject to is a measure of the used life of a
breaker. Consideration should be given to treating the counter as reset to zero following a
complete breaker overhaul or refurbishment.

Records are analyzed and applied to Table 4 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 4 Air Magnetic/Air Blast Operations Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<1,000 normal operations 3
1,000 and <3,000 normal operations 2
3,000 and <5,000 normal operations 1
5,000 normal operations 0

E2.10.b Oil Tank Circuit Breakers

Oil tank circuit breakers have their contacts submersed in oil within a tank. They are normally
freestanding. The operating mechanism is located outside the tank and is transmitted to the
moving contacts through operating rods. There are several tests that can be performed on the
insulating oil in the breaker including dielectric breakdown, water content, power factor, color,
and interfacial tension. These tests can indicate when it is necessary to recondition the breaker
oil. Since the normal operation of the breaker will degrade the oil and bulk tank oil breakers are
directly vented to the atmosphere, poor test results do not necessarily indicate a problem with the
breaker itself. Therefore, these tests are not included in the condition assessment for oil
breakers.

The dielectric condition of the breaker can be measured and trended by performing megger and
power factor tests on the fully assembled breaker. The bushings themselves can also be power
factor tested. The current carrying contacts of an oil breaker are not accessible during routine
maintenance. Contact engagement may be discernible by measuring the travel of the operating
mechanism (lift rod). All components of the operating mechanism should be checked for loose
or broken parts, missing retainers or other hardware, excessive wear on moving parts, and for
binding during movement. The complete circuit breaker should be tested to confirm correct
breaker operation and that timing is within original manufacturer tolerances.

Oil Tank Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 1 Dielectric Tests

Power factor testing of the breaker can evaluate the overall dielectric condition of the breaker
including bushings and interrupting grids. Low bushing power factors should not result in a
lowered condition indicator for the entire breaker (since the bushing itself can be replaced).

E2-8
The results of these tests are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to arrive at a Condition Indicator
Score.

Table 5 Oil Tank Dielectric Test Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Test results are normal. (Good G)* 3
Test results show minor deterioration. (Deteriorated D)* 2
Test results show significant deterioration. (Investigate I)* 1
Test results show severe deterioration. (Bad B)* 0
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)
* Doble insulation rating shown in parentheses.

Oil Tank Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 2 Operation and Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall circuit breaker condition. O &
M history factors that may apply are:

Difficult or expensive to bring mechanism into compliance for timing and travel.
Timing and travel measurements are taken with the circuit breaker removed from
service. It is expected that a circuit breaker will not be returned to service until it has
been adjusted or repaired to result in satisfactory timing and travel measurements. If
these adjustments or repairs are frequent or expensive, they may indicate that the
mechanism is worn out or not well designed.
High number of fault current operations. If the data is available, the fault currents
and durations can be used to estimate the interrupting duty the breaker has seen. In
general, as the energy level of the interrupted fault increases, the stress on the breaker
increases.
Numerous forced outages or outage extensions to correct problems.
Excessive or frequent corrective maintenance.
Difficulty in obtaining or very high cost of spare or replacement parts.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this Indicator. Results are analyzed
and applied to Table 6 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

E2-9
Table 6 Oil Tank O & M History Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal. 3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.
2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant
additional maintenance is required; or forced outage occurs;
or outages are regularly extended due to maintenance
problems; or similar units are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective; or
severe mechanical problems; or similar units have failed.
0

Oil Tank Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 3 Contact Resistance Tests

Performing a contact resistance test on the breaker in the closed position can detect abnormal
conditions that could result in overheating of the breaker contacts. The test can be performed
using a Digital Low-Resistance Ohmmeter. The DLRO forces large currents (50-100 A or more)
through the contacts and precisely measures the voltage drop across the breaker. The test is also
referred to as a millivolt drop test.

Apply the test results to Table 7 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 7 Oil Tank Contact Resistance Test Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<25 percent increase since last test AND below
manufacturer recommended maximum resistance.
3
25 and <75 percent increase since last test AND below
manufacturer recommended maximum resistance.
2
75 percent increase since last test OR above manufacturer
recommended maximum resistance.
1
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

Oil Tank Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 4 Number of Operations

The number of operations that a breaker has been subject to is a measure of the used life of a
breaker. Consideration should be given to treating the counter as reset to zero following a
complete breaker overhaul or refurbishment.

Records are analyzed and applied to Table 8 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.
E2-10
Table 8 Oil Tank Operations Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<250 normal operations 3
250 and <750 normal operations 2
750 and <1,500 normal operations 1
1,500 normal operations 0

E2.10.c SF
6
Circuit Breakers

SF
6
breakers utilize sulfur hexaflouride gas to both insulate the current carrying parts and to aid
in interrupting the arc. SF
6
breakers can be installed in metal clad or station class switchgear as
well as being freestanding. The dielectric condition of the breaker can be measured and trended
by performing megger and power factor tests on the fully assembled breaker. The current
carrying contacts of an SF
6
breaker are not accessible during routine maintenance. Contact
engagement may be discernible by measuring the travel of the operating mechanism. All
components of the operating mechanism should be checked for loose or broken parts, missing
retainers or other hardware, excessive wear on moving parts, and for binding during movement.
The complete circuit breaker should be tested to confirm correct breaker operation and that
timing is within original manufacturer tolerances.

SF
6
Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 1 Dielectric Tests

Power factor testing of the breaker can evaluate the overall dielectric condition of the breaker
including bushings.

The results of these tests are analyzed and applied to Table 9 to arrive at a Condition Indicator
Score.

Table 9 SF
6
Dielectric Test Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Test results are normal. (Good G)* 3
Test results show minor deterioration. (Deteriorated D)* 2
Test results show significant deterioration. (Investigate I)* 1
Test results show severe deterioration. (Bad B)* 0
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)
* Doble insulation rating shown in parentheses.
E2-11
SF
6
Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 2 Operation and Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall circuit breaker condition. O &
M history factors that may apply are:

Difficult or expensive to bring mechanism into compliance for timing and travel. Timing
and travel measurements are taken with the circuit breaker removed from service. It is
expected that a circuit breaker will not be returned to service until it has been adjusted or
repaired to result in satisfactory timing and travel measurements. If these adjustments or
repairs are frequent or expensive, they may indicate that the mechanism is worn out or
not well designed.
High number of fault current operations. If the data is available, the fault currents and
durations can be used to estimate the interrupting duty the breaker has seen. In general,
as the energy level of the interrupted fault increases, the stress on the breaker increases.
Numerous forced outages or outage extensions to correct problems.
Excessive or frequent corrective maintenance.
Difficulty in obtaining or very high cost of spare or replacement parts.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this Indicator. Results are analyzed
and applied to Table 10 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 10 SF
6
O & M History Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal.

3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.

2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant additional
maintenance is required; or forced outage occurs; or outages are
regularly extended due to maintenance problems; or similar units
are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective; or
severe mechanical problems; or similar units have failed.

0

SF
6
Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 3 Contact Resistance Tests

Performing a contact resistance test on the breaker in the closed position can detect abnormal
conditions that could result in overheating of the breaker contacts. The test can be performed
using a Digital Low-Resistance Ohmmeter (DLRO). The DLRO forces large currents (50-100 A
or more) through the contacts and precisely measures the voltage drop across the breaker. The
test is also referred to as a millivolt drop test.

Apply the test results to Table 11 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

E2-12
Table 11 SF
6
Contact Resistance Tests Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<25 percent increase since last test AND below manufacturer
recommended maximum resistance.
3
25 and <75 percent increase since last test AND below
manufacturer recommended maximum resistance.
2
75 percent increase since last test OR above manufacturer
recommended maximum resistance.
1
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate evaluation,
additional testing, consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

SF
6
Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 4 Number of Operations

The number of operations that a breaker has been subject to is a measure of the used life of a
breaker. Consideration should be given to treating the counter as reset to zero following a
complete breaker overhaul or refurbishment.

Records are analyzed and applied to Table 12 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 12 SF
6
Operations Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
<2,000 normal operations 3
2,000 and <5,000 normal operations 2
5,000 and <8,000 normal operations 1
8,000 normal operations 0

E2.10.d Vacuum Circuit Breakers

Vacuum circuit breakers utilize a pair of main contacts encapsulated in a sealed vacuum bottle.
The actual contact separation is very small as there is no medium that the arc would ionize to
sustain itself after the contacts open. The dielectric condition of the breaker can be measured
and trended by performing power factor tests on the fully assembled breaker. The current
carrying contacts of a vacuum breaker are not accessible. The operating rod for the moving
contact is scribed with a mark whose position with the contacts closed can be noted and
compared to a reference mark. If the scribe mark and the reference mark are in alignment, the
contacts have worn to the point of needing to be replaced. All components of the operating
mechanism should be checked for loose or broken parts, missing retainers or other hardware,
excessive wear on moving parts, and for binding during movement. The complete circuit
breaker should be tested to confirm correct breaker operation and that timing is within original
E2-13
manufacturer tolerances. The vacuum level in the bottle can be checked by performing a hi-pot
test on the bottle per the manufacturers instructions. There can be no partial vacuum loss so this
is a go /no-go type of test.

Vacuum circuit breakers have fewer components and lower operating forces than other types of
breakers. When routine O & M testing indicates problems with vacuum breakers, the repair is
very often to replace the suspect component. This includes almost all parts of the breaker
including the vacuum bottle itself. Since the vast majority of detected problems with a vacuum
breaker result in replacing the faulty component, the breaker is rarely returned to service in less
than like new condition.

Some of the Tier 1 tests performed for other types of breakers do not provide meaningful results
for vacuum breakers. Dielectric test results, contact resistance, or the number of operations are
not useful in determining whether the breaker is a good candidate for upgrade or replacement.
For these reasons, the only condition indicator used for vacuum breakers is O & M History.

Vacuum Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator 1 Operation and Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall circuit breaker condition. O &
M history factors that may apply are:

Difficult or expensive to bring mechanism into compliance for timing and travel.
Timing and travel measurements are taken with the circuit breaker removed from
service. It is expected that a circuit breaker will not be returned to service until it has
been adjusted or repaired to result in satisfactory timing and travel measurements. If
these adjustments or repairs are frequent or expensive, they may indicate that the
mechanism is worn out or not well designed.
High number of fault current operations. If the data is available, the fault currents
and durations can be used to estimate the interrupting duty the breaker has seen. In
general, as the energy level of the interrupted fault increases, the stress on the breaker
increases.
Numerous forced outages or outage extensions to correct problems.
Excessive or frequent corrective maintenance.
Difficulty in obtaining or very high cost of spare or replacement parts.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this indicator.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 13 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

E2-14
Table 13 Vacuum O & M History Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal. 3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.
2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant additional
maintenance is required; or forced outage occurs; or outages are
regularly extended due to maintenance problems; or similar units
are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective; or
severe mechanical problems; or similar units have failed.
0


E2.11 TIER 1 CIRCUIT BREAKER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Circuit Breaker Condition Indicator scores from the tables above into the Circuit
Breaker Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this appendix. Multiply each
condition indicator score by the Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the
Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index. Attach supporting documentation. This index may be
adjusted by the Tier 2 circuit breaker inspections, tests, and measurements described later in this
document.

E2.12 TIER 1 CIRCUIT BREAKER DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Circuit Breaker Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and
measurement results used to evaluate the circuit breaker condition under Tier 1, as well as the
age of the comparison between short circuit study results and the breaker interrupting rating.
The more current and complete the results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The
normal testing frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for
performing the specific test or inspection.

Records are analyzed and applied to Table 14 to arrive at a Circuit Breaker Data Quality
Indicator Score.












E2-15
Table 14 Circuit Breaker Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were completed
within the normal testing frequency and the results are reliable
AND
comparison of breaker interrupting rating with short circuit study
results was performed within the last <5 years.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 6 and <24 months past the normal testing
frequency and results are reliable
OR
comparison of breaker interrupting rating with short circuit study
results was performed 5 and <10 years ago.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 24 and <36 months past the normal testing
frequency, or some of the results are not available or are of
questionable integrity
OR
comparison of breaker interrupting rating with short circuit study
results was performed 10 and <15 years ago.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 36 months past the normal frequency, or no
results are available or many are of questionable integrity
OR
comparison of breaker interrupting rating with short circuit study
results was performed 15 years ago.
0

Enter the Circuit Breaker Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 14 into the Circuit Breaker
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E2-16
E2.13 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or training,
may be intrusive, or may require an extended outage to perform. Tier 2 assessment is considered
non-routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Circuit Breaker Condition Index
number established using Tier 1 but also may confirm or refute the need for more extensive
maintenance, rehabilitation, or circuit breaker replacement.

For circuit breakers, there are only two Tier 2 tests: interrupter inspection and a comparison of
available short circuit current with the breakers interrupting rating. The comparison of the
available short circuit currents and the breakers interrupting rating requires expert analyses and
up-to-date short circuit studies. Because of the importance of the results of the comparison, the
adjustment to the Circuit Breaker Condition Index for poor comparison results is significant.

For Tier 2 assessments performed, apply only the appropriate adjustment factors per the
instructions above and recalculate the Circuit Breaker Condition Index using the Circuit Breaker
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data
Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained
during the Tier 2 assessment.

Test T2.1: Interrupter Inspection

Performing an inspection of a breakers interrupter requires a significant outage of the breaker.
The decision to perform an interrupter inspection would most likely be based on finding
problems with the breakers timing and travel adjustments or with excessive contact resistance.
An interrupter inspection would include disassembly of the breaker and inspection of all moving
and stationary internal components.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 15 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 15 Interrupter Inspection Scoring

Adjustment to Circuit Breaker
Results Condition Indicator Score
Interrupter component wear and condition is normal. No Change
Interrupter components show signs of considerable wear, but
components remain serviceable.
Subtract 2.0
One or more interrupter components show excessive wear,
with minimal life remaining.
Subtract 4.0
One or more interrupter components show excessive wear or
damage with questionable remaining life.
Subtract 6.0
(May indicate serious problem
requiring immediate consultation
with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

E2-17
A circuit breaker cannot be safely returned to service with unresolved deficiencies in the internal
mechanisms that affect the breakers performance. If the problems found can be repaired, the
breaker should be repaired and the appropriate Tier I tests repeated. It may be appropriate to
lower the O & M History indicator score based on the findings of the interrupter inspection and
repair.

Test T2.2: Circuit Breaker Ratings vs. Available System Fault Current

Circuit breakers are chosen such that interrupting current ratings exceed the maximum available
fault current, considering contributions from the generator and the connected system (which may
include other generators on the same medium voltage bus). There is also an allowance provided
for the system fault contribution to grow with time included in the calculations. Operating a
circuit breaker under conditions exceeding the ratings of the breaker can result in failure of the
breaker and considerable incidental damage to adjacent equipment and even to the generator
itself.

It is prudent to periodically review the adequacy of the circuit breakers ratings compared with
the system growth in the area of the breaker. Therefore, the first step in assessing the condition
of a circuit breaker should be comparing the interrupting current rating of the breaker with the
present and projected system fault current that the breaker must be capable of interrupting. This
will require an up-to-date system fault study in the area of the circuit breaker to provide the new
and projected system contributions.

Circuit breaker experts should be consulted when comparing the breaker ratings with the
projected system fault currents. The first rating standards applicable to circuit breakers,
developed in the 1940s and 1950s, were based on the highest current to be interrupted, including
both the ac symmetrical current and the dc component at the instant of contact separation. This
basis for the rating is referred to as total current rating. The method of rating circuit breakers
was gradually changed (in the late 1960s and 1970s) to include only the ac symmetrical current
at the point of contact separation. The total current standards were rescinded in 1986. The new
basis is referred to as symmetrical current rating. Breakers rated using the old standards cannot
be directly compared to breakers rated under the new standards.

Note: If the fault currents that the breaker may be called on to interrupt exceed the rating of
the breaker, steps must be taken to reduce the fault current to which the breaker is exposed
and/or plans should be initiated to upgrade or replace the breaker.

Current interrupting test rating results are analyzed and applied to Table 16 to arrive at a Circuit
Breaker Condition Index score adjustment.


E2-18
Table 16 Tier 2 Current Interrupting Rating Scoring

Adjustment to Circuit Breaker
Test Results Condition Index Score
Ratio of circuit breaker interrupting rating to available
system fault current 1.1
No Change
Ratio of circuit breaker interrupting rating to available
system fault current 0.9 and <1.1

Subtract 3.0
Ratio of circuit breaker interrupting rating to available
system fault current <0.9

Subtract 6.0

Test T2.3: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific circuit breaker problems. Some of these
diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive
results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate
adjustment to the Circuit Breaker Condition Index.


E2.14 CIRCUIT BREAKER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Circuit Breaker Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Subtract the sum of these adjustments
from the Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index to arrive at the Net Circuit Breaker Condition
Index. Attach supporting documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score
may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2
assessment.


E2.15 CIRCUIT BREAKER CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by qualified personnel, the Circuit Breaker Condition Index either modified by
Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for decision making regarding circuit breaker alternatives.
The Index is also suitable for use in a risk-and-economic analysis model. Where it is desired to
consider alternatives based solely on circuit breaker condition, the Circuit Breaker Condition
Index may be directly applied to Table 17.

E2-19
Table 17 Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.


E2.16 EXAMPLE CIRCUIT BREAKER CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The following Tier 1 test results are for a hypothetical air magnetic circuit breaker and are
reported from the breakers last routine maintenance work. The Condition Indicators for an air
magnetic breaker are Dielectric Tests, Operations and Maintenance History, Contact Resistance,
and Number of Operations. The raw data for each of the indicators is as follows.

Dielectric Tests Doble test reports indicate insulation rating for the breaker (all poles
and arc chutes) is Good.

Operations and Maintenance History This breaker is 35 years old and occasionally
requires intervention by an electrician to close the breaker after it has been tripped due to
mechanism misalignment. The misalignment is caused by excessive wear in the
operating mechanism. Replacement parts are not available. Project staff have fabricated
replacement components for the mechanism in the past.

Contact Resistance Tests The measured contact resistance was below the maximum
recommended by the manufacturer.

Number of Operations The breaker counter indicates a total of 1245 operations since
the breaker was installed.

Data for Circuit Breaker Quality Indicator The Doble tests were performed 6 months ago. The
Contact Resistance test results are 30 months old and no previous results are on file. The last
short circuit study was performed two years ago and the breaker rating was found to be in excess
of the system requirements by a factor of 1.2.

The results of the various tests above are compared to the appropriate tables to develop a Score
for each Condition Indicator, with the following results:

E2-20
Table 18 Circuit Breaker Example Results

Tier 1 Condition Indicator

Score

Dielectric Tests 3
Operations and Maintenance History 1
Contact Resistance Tests 3
Number of Operations 2

Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator

Score

Quality of Inspections, Tests, and Measurements
7


The raw Scores in Table 18 are then entered into the appropriate Condition Assessment
Summary form which contains the Weighting Factors to account for the differing importance of
the Tier 1 tests. (Refer to the following tables.)

Note: No change in score results from the Current Interrupting Rating Indicator, a Tier 2 test, as
the ratio of breaker interrupting rating to available system fault current is 1.2.
E2-21

EXAMPLE

AIR MAGNETIC/AIR BLAST CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _J anuary 4, 2003___________ Location: __River Plant___________

Circuit Breaker Identifier: __Example 1___ Manufacturer: __OEM______ Yr. Mfd.: ___1968__

Current Rating: _5000_A_______ Interrupting Rating: __50 kA______ Voltage: _13.8_kV__


Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Dielectric Condition of Breaker
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.877 2.631
2
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1 1.3156

1.316

3
Contact Resistance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.702 2.106
4
Number of Operations
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
2 0.439 0.878

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)
6.931

Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)
7


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)

E2-22
Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E2-23
EXAMPLE

AIR MAGNETIC/AIR BLAST CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _J anuary 4, 2003___________ Location: __River Plant___________

Circuit Breaker Identifier: __Example 1___ Manufacturer: __OEM______ Yr. Mfd.: ___1968__

Current Rating: _5000_A_______ Interrupting Rating: __50 kA______ Voltage: _13.8_kV__


Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1 Interrupter Inspection 0
T2.2
Current Interrupting Rating vs. Short Circuit Current
Analysis
0
T2.3 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests 0
Tier 2 Adjustments to Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)
0

Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)
7

To calculate the Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index, subtract the Tier 2 Adjustments from the
Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index:

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index __6.931__

minus Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Adjustments __0______ = _____6.931_______

Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)



E2-24
Table 19 Circuit Breaker Condition Assessment Summary

Test Detects Tool
Breaker Common Tests:

Megger and Power Factor
Tests
Presence of dirt and moisture (tracking), Insulation
deterioration, bushing insulation condition,

Electrical test equipment and experienced personnel
Contact Inspection

Pitted or scarred surfaces, embedded foreign material,
discoloration, evidence of overheating

Experienced and qualified inspectors
Operating Mechanism
Inspection

Missing, loose, or damaged parts; worn moving parts,
binding during movement
Experienced and qualified inspectors

Overall Timing Misadjusted contacts or limits, worn or binding
mechanisms, proper dashpot or shock absorber action,
overall circuit breaker mechanical condition.

Circuit breaker timing analyzer and sensors/attachments


Infrared Scan (while breaker
is in service)
Overheated connections, abnormal heating Thermographic camera and analysis software, experienced and
qualified inspectors
Contact Resistance

Poor conducting surfaces, low contact pressure (weak
springs)

Digital Low Resistance Ohmmeter or other high current source able to
measure microvolt drops across contacts
Breaker Specific Tests:

Hi-pot Test Integrity of vacuum in interrupter Electrical test equipment and experienced personnel

Oil Physical and Chemical
Tests
Moisture, degraded interfacial tension (IFT), acidity,
color, dielectric strength, and power factor.

Requires laboratory analysis
SF
6
Gas Analysis Density, moisture, purity Requires laboratory analysis
Interrupter Grid Inspection Deterioration of arc extinguishing parts Experienced and qualified inspectors
Compressed Air System

Adequate compressor performance, control valve
condition, piping system leaks or damage
Experienced and qualified inspectors
E2-25
AIR MAGNETIC/AIR BLAST CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Dielectric Condition of Breaker
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.877
2
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.316
3
Contact Resistance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
0.702
4
Number of Operations
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.439

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


E2-26
Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E2-27
AIR MAGNETIC/AIR BLAST CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1

Interrupter Inspection


T2.2
Current Interrupting Rating vs. Short Circuit Current
Analysis

T2.3 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index:

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)
E2-28
OIL TANK CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Dielectric Condition of Breaker
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.684
2
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.282
3
Contact Resistance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
0.684
4
Number of Operations
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.684

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


E2-29
Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E2-30
OIL TANK CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1

Interrupter Inspection


T2.2
Current Interrupting Rating vs. Short Circuit Current
Analysis

T2.3 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index:

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Adjustments __________ = ______________

Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E2-31
SF
6
CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Dielectric Condition of Breaker
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.439
2
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.316
3
Contact Resistance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
0.877
4
Number of Operations
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.702

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


E2-32
Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E2-33
SF
6
CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1

Interrupter Inspection


T2.2
Current Interrupting Rating vs. Short Circuit Current
Analysis

T2.3 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index:

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E2-34
VACUUM CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Dielectric Condition of Breaker
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
_ _ _ _ 0
2
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3.333
3
Contact Resistance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
_ _ _ _ 0
4
Number of Operations
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
_ _ _ _ 0

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


E2-35
Circuit Breaker Condition-Based Alternatives

Circuit Breaker Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E2-36
VACUUM CIRCUIT BREAKER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ______________________ Location: ___________________
Circuit Breaker Identifier: _________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
Current Rating: ______________ Interrupting Rating: _____________ Voltage: ____________

Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1

Interrupter Inspection


T2.2
Current Interrupting Rating vs. Short Circuit Current
Analysis

T2.3 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Circuit Breaker Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index:

Tier 1 Circuit Breaker Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Circuit Breaker Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Circuit Breaker Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)




E3-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E3: Governor Condition Assessment


E3.1 GENERAL

Speed governors are major elements of hydroelectric generating units and are appropriate for
analysis under a condition assessment program. Unexpected governor failure can have a
significant economic impact due to lost revenues during an extended forced outage.

Determining the present condition of a speed governor is an essential step in analyzing the risk of
failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Governor Condition Index which may
be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and other
factors.


E3.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The governor condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to mechanical,
analog, and digital speed governors. This appendix primarily focuses on the governor control
system and the governor valves. The components listed below are within the scope of this
document.

1. Governor Control System (mechanical, analog or digital)

Speed sensing devices
Speed adjustment
Speed droop
SSG (speed signal generator) or PMG (permanent magnet generator)
Restoring mechanism
Pilot valve

2. Governor Distributing Valves & Auxiliary Valve (if applicable)

Servomotors and other auxiliary components such as pressure and sump tanks, pumps, oil filters,
piping and hydraulic valves (other than the governor valves) are not considered during this
assessment.

This appendix is intended for application to each individual governor at a plant and not to an
entire plant or to a family of governors at a plant. Each governor should be evaluated separately
for condition rating and prioritizing investment needs.

E3-2
This appendix is not intended to define governor maintenance practices or describe in detail
governor inspections, tests or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies and
procedures must be consulted for such information.


E3.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND GOVERNOR
CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes the condition indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the initial basis for assessing governor condition.

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are weighted and summed to
determine the Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the governor condition indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the validity of the overall Condition
Index. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a
means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Governor Condition Index.

Additional information regarding governor condition may be necessary to improve the accuracy
and reliability of the Governor Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1 condition
indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements
that may be applied to the Governor Condition Index, depending on the specific issue or problem
being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is readily
available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be
deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either
increase or decrease the score of the Governor Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator
score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional
information or test data.

The Governor Condition Index is applied to the Governor Condition-Based Alternatives Table
(Table 9) to determine the recommended course of action. The Governor Condition Index may
indicate the need for immediate corrective actions and/or follow-up Tier 2 testing. The Governor
Condition Index is also suitable for use as an input to the risk-based economic analysis model.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate de-energization or prevent re-energization of the governor,
regardless of the Governor Condition Index score.


E3.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in governor diagnostics. More complex inspections and measurements may
require an expert.

E3-3
Inspections, tests, and measurements should be performed on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Details of the inspection, testing, and measurement methods and intervals are described in
technical references specific to the electric utility.


E3.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
competent personnel. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to
results that are compared to industry-accepted levels; or to baseline or previously acceptable
levels on this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a
similar environment.


E3.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some condition
indicators affect the Governor Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other indicators.
These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among governor maintenance and
engineering personnel with extensive experience.


E3.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every governor is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this guide cannot quantify
all factors that affect individual governor condition. If the Condition Index triggers significant
follow-up actions (e.g., major repairs or a Tier 2 assessment), it may be prudent to first have the
index reviewed by governor experts. Mitigating factors specific to the utility may affect the final
Condition Index and the final decision on replacement or rehabilitation.


E3.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 Condition Indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., Normal) or where a Tier 2 analysis
results in subtractions to the Governor Condition Index. Test reports, facility review reports,
special exams, photographs, O & M records, and other documentation should accompany the
Governor Condition Assessment Summary form.


E3.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are weighted and summed to
determine the Condition Index.

E3-4
Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score the Condition Indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated during the
Tier 1 assessment as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Governor
Condition Index.


E3.10 TIER 1 GOVERNOR INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

The following condition indicators are used to perform a Tier 1 Condition Assessment:

Age
Operation and Maintenance History
Availability of Spare Parts
Performance

The Tier 1 condition indicators are based on inspections, tests, and measurements conducted by
utility staff over the course of time and as a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical
scores are assigned to each Tier 1 condition indicator, which are then weighted and summed to
determine the Governor Condition Index.
Governor Condition Indicator 1 Age
The age of the governor is among the factors to consider when identifying candidates for
mechanical rehabilitation, partial replacement (digital retrofit), or complete replacement. Age is
one indicator of remaining life and upgrade potential to current state-of-the-art materials and
designs.

As a governor ages, the mechanical parts become affected by wear and are more susceptible to
internal leaks, thus affecting its performance. In the same way, the electronic parts are subjected
to more deterioration due to overheating, excessive vibration, or contamination.

Although actual service life varies depending on the manufacturers design, quality of assembly,
materials used, and operation and maintenance history, the average expected life for a governor
is most dependent on the technology used (mechanical, analog, or digital). Statistically, the
average service life for a governor control system varies from 15 to 40 years depending upon the
type of control system.

The following tables are used to separately evaluate the age of mechanical, analog and digital
governors. Depending on the governor type, apply the Governor Age to Table 1A, 1B, or 1C,
whichever is appropriate.
E3-5

Table 1 Age Scoring
Control System


Table 1A Age Scoring
Mechanical Control System

Age Condition Indicator Score
<25 years 3
25 and <40 years 2
40 years 1

Table 1B Age Scoring
Analog Control System

Age Condition Indicator Score
<20 years 3
20 and <30 years 2
30 years 1

Table 1C Age Scoring
Digital Control System

Age Condition Indicator Score
<10 years 3
10 and <15 years 2
15 years 1

Condition Indicator 2 Operation & Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history provides useful information for determining the
governor condition. Records should be examined to evaluate the amount of maintenance carried
out in the past to keep the governor in operation and in good condition. The amount of
preventive and corrective maintenance required and the occurrence of operational limitations
play a role in determining the condition and reliability of a governor, and the need for capital
investment.
E3-6
O & M history is reviewed and results are applied to Table 2 to arrive at an appropriate condition
indicator score.

Table 2 Operation & Maintenance History Scoring

Historical Results Condition Indicator Score
Normal preventive and corrective maintenance (<50 hours/year/unit)
or no significant increase in preventive and corrective maintenance
(less than 1.5 x baseline, as established by maintenance records).
3
Significant increase (over 1.5 x baseline) in preventive maintenance,
but no significant increase in corrective maintenance, or operational
constraints occurring rarely.
2
Significant increase (over 1.5 x baseline) in corrective maintenance
or operational constraints occurring occasionally.
1
Repeated corrective maintenance or operational constraints. 0

Condition Indicator 3 Availability of Spare Parts

Availability of spare parts is an important factor to take into account when determining the need
for upgrade and the serviceability of governors. Consideration shall be given only to wear parts
or parts that can be reasonably expected to require future replacement or rehabilitation. This
condition indicator is applicable to mechanical parts as well as electronic parts.
The assessment of spare parts availability is applied to Table 3 to arrive at an appropriate
condition indicator score.

Table 3 Availability of Spare Parts Scoring

Availability Condition Indicator Score
All necessary mechanical and electronic parts are available from
original supplier.
3
Necessary mechanical and electronic parts are no longer available
from original supplier and must be obtained from alternate suppliers.
2
Some electronic and mechanical parts are not available at all and/or
some mechanical parts must be reverse-engineered and manufactured
by alternate suppliers.
1
Most mechanical and electronic parts are not available at all and/or
there are significant obstacles to successful reverse-engineering of
mechanical parts.
0

Condition Indicator 4 Performance

The performance of a speed governor is one of the leading indicators in determining its
condition. Factors to consider in evaluating the performance may include:

E3-7
Synchronization time and ability;
System stability;
Black start capability (if applicable);
Auto-synchronization capability (if applicable);
Ability to remote start (if applicable);
Accuracy and repeatability in response to load change and system disturbance;
Hunting problems.

Governor performance is analyzed and the results are applied to Table 4 to arrive at an
appropriate condition indicator score.

Table 4 Performance Scoring

Observations (Criteria) Condition Indicator Score
Off-line and on-line response and stability normal, governor free
from hunting, accuracy of frequency within <0.2 Hz,
synchronization time within the norm, and able to remote start.
3
Off-line and on-line response and stability are fair, occasional
hunting problems, synchronization time and accuracy of frequency
outside the norm, or remote start is difficult.
2
Poor off-line and on-line response and stability, re-occurring hunting
problems, difficulty in synchronization, or unable to remote start.
1

A score of 3 should be given if all corresponding criteria are met. A score of 1 or 2 should be
given if at least one of the corresponding situations occurs.


E3.11 TIER 1 GOVERNOR CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Governor Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Multiply each indicator score by its
respective Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Governor Condition
Index. This index may be adjusted by the Tier 2 governor inspections, tests, and measurements
described in section E3.13 of this document. Suggested alternatives for follow-up action based
on the Governor Condition Index are described in the Governor Condition-Based Alternatives
table (Table 9).


E3-8
E3.12 GOVERNOR DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Governor Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test, and measurement
results used to evaluate the governor condition under Tier 1. The more current and complete the
results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing frequency is defined as the
organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many factors
as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to arrive at an
appropriate Governor Data Quality Indicator Score.

Table 5 Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements were completed
within the normal testing frequency and results are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements
were completed 6 and <24 months past the normal testing
interval and results are reliable.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements
were completed 24 and <36 months past the normal testing
interval, or some of the results are not available or are of
questionable integrity.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements
were completed 36 months past the normal interval or many
results are of questionable integrity or no results are available.
0

Enter the Governor Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Governor Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E3.13 TIER 2 GOVERNOR INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

The following condition indicators are used to perform a Tier 2 Condition Assessment:

Leakage Test
Step Response Test
Physical Inspection

The Tier 2 condition indicators are based on selected appropriate inspections, tests, and
measurements conducted by qualified personnel or experts and as a part of non-routine
maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each Tier 2 condition indicator, which
are used to adjust the Governor Condition Index determined in Tier 1, to arrive at a Revised
Condition Index.

E3-9
Test T2.1: Leakage Test

The rate of oil leakage is indicative of the condition of the valves in the governor system. The
leakage test can determine the consumption of the main valve and the auxiliary valve. The
consumption of the pilot valve is considered too small to show significant data.

1. The following test shows the leakage of the main valves:

Prior to doing this test:

Scroll case must be empty;
Main valve should be blocked in its hydraulic centered position (this position is
achieved when the pressure is equal on each side of the servomotor piston or when
there is no movement of the servomotor);
Vibrator motor should be isolated by closing the appropriate valve;
Pilot valve should be isolated from incoming oil by closing the appropriate valve;
Auxiliary valve should be closed (the transfer valve is on the main valve).

The consumption of the main valve can be determined by the leakage rate read on the tank.
For better accuracy, take a large change in oil (H) or use computerized instrumentation.

For a Kaplan runner, this test will provide the leakage of the two main valves combined. The
piston of the runner must be isolated.

2. The following test shows the leakage of the auxiliary valve (if applicable):

Prior to doing this test:

Scroll case must be empty;
Gates must be moved to 50 % opening (this position is achieved when the pressure is
equal on each side of the servomotor piston);
Vibrator motor should be isolated by closing the appropriate valve;
Pilot valve should be isolated from incoming oil by closing the appropriate valve;
Main valve should be closed (the transfer valve in on the auxiliary valve).

The consumption of the auxiliary valve can be determined by the leakage rate read on the
tank. For better accuracy, take a large change in oil level (H) or use computerized
instrumentation.

[ ] min / 10 493 . 6
2
2
gal US
T
d H
rate Leakage



=








where
H = change in oil level [inches]
d = diameter of the tank [inches]
T = time [seconds]
E3-10
Overall Leakage = Leakage from the main valves (including main valve for Kaplan runner)
+ Leakage from the auxiliary valve

Table 6 Overall Leakage Rate Scoring

Adjustment to
Observations (Criteria) Condition Index Score
No significant increase on leakage rate from original value or previous
data or that of comparable governors.
No change
Small increase in the leakage rate. Subtract 1.0
Leakage rate has doubled (or more). Subtract 2.0

Test T2.2: Step Response Test

In order to adequately evaluate a governors performance, its various settings (such as needle
valve, compensating crank, restoring ratio on a mechanical governor) must be adjusted to their
optimum values, given the current condition of the governor. A poorly performing governor
may not be in bad condition, but just misadjusted. The various settings must be set to match the
response of the governor to the rotating inertia of the generator and the inertia of the water
column in the penstock. A properly adjusted governor in good condition will be able to maintain
off-line speed stability within <0.2 Hertz, allow the unit to be synchronized to the bus, allow the
unit to be quickly loaded when operating on an infinite bus, and will be able to maintain
frequency within <0.2 Hertz when operating isolated. Making adjustments to simply reduce off-
line hunting to make it easier to synchronize on-line many times will make the governor
unresponsive on-line or unable to react quickly enough to maintain frequency if the unit should
become isolated. Procedures for these adjustments for mechanical governors are found in
Reclamations FIST Volume 2-3, Mechanical Governors for Hydroelectric Units. These
procedures take into account the penstock geometry and rotating mass of the generator. If an
optimum response can not be accomplished, major work or replacement of the governor may be
required.

Dead time and friction will be evident when performing the step response test. It can induce a
significant time lag in the response. Any lag in movement from the time a step in speed set point
is initiated and actual movement of the gates occurs is referred to as dead time and is usually a
result of friction in the governor, restoring cable, in the servomotor, or wicket gate linkage. The
response to a small (0.5 to 1%) speed changer step should be a smooth, regular curve. If the
response shows any erratic movement, friction is likely someplace in the turbine control system.
Likely places in the governor for friction are the dashpot, linkage pins and bearings, pilot valve
and main valve. The motion of the main valve should also be observed during a step response.
The motion of the dither of around 6 to 9 mils should always be evident. The motion following a
speed step should be a quick initial movement and then a smooth movement back to center.
Erratic movement during the step, or when at a steady state condition, usually indicates some
problem with the main or pilot valves.

After making required adjustments as described above, a step response test may be performed.
This test will normally be performed off-line by inputting a speed step, but may be performed
E3-11
on-line by inputting a load step. The governor is evaluated by inputting a speed or frequency (or
load) step of 1% minimum and 5% maximum and recording the response in speed (and/or load)
versus time. For mechanical governors, it is acceptable to make the test easier by inputting the
step with a sudden change of the speed adjust.

It is preferred to compare the governor response to a computer simulation model of the governor.
In the absence of a computer simulation, it is acceptable to compare the response to the typically
recommended 0.7 critically damped system. The response should be similar to the response
shown in Figure 1 for off-line testing. For on-line testing with a load step a response with higher
damping and no overshoot is expected.



Figure 1. A 0.7 Critically Damped System


Table 7 Step Response Scoring
(After governor has been adjusted)

Adjustment to
Observations (Criteria) Condition Index Score
Off-line speed stability <0.1 Hertz. Response to speed step
correlates with computer simulation or is 0.7 critically damped.
No Change
Off-line speed stability 0.1 and <0.2 Hertz. Response to speed
step is acceptable, but does correlate closely with computer
simulation or is not 0.7 critically damped.
Subtract 0.5
Adjustment has no effect on governor response and unable to adjust
governor to prepare for step response test or obtain a 0.7 critically
damped response to speed step, or dead time and friction prevent an
acceptable response.
Subtract 1.0

E3-12
Test T2.3: Physical Inspection

The disassembly and physical inspection of the components of the governor can verify findings
of other tests and determine if the governor can be restored or is a candidate for replacement.
The type of governor will determine the course of action.

Mechanical Governors

The dashpot should be removed and checked for leakage by closing the needle and bypass and
pushing the small dashpot plunger down as far as it can go and timing how long it takes to re-
center. It should take at least 50 seconds to travel 0.125 inch. If the travel is faster than that, the
dashpot requires repairs or replacement. The linkage pins and links should be checked for wear
or binding. The main valve should be removed and inspected for signs of wear, chatter, or
binding. Make sure the plunger moves freely in its bushing. Remove the plungers from the
distributing valve and check condition of seats and piston rings. Remove the pilot valve and
check for signs of binding and wear. Check the ball-head for broken springs, and that fly
weights move freely.

Digital and Analog Governors

These governors have much fewer mechanical and hydraulic parts to be inspected. Mechanical
inspection generally will be limited to the hydraulic governor head, which is usually comprised
of a proportional valve and other associated solenoid control valves. The functions that had been
performed by the ball-head, pilot valve, restoring cable, dashpot, and associated linkages are now
accomplished by a programmable logic controller (PLC). Unit speed and gate position
information is input electronically to the PLC instead of by mechanical means. Depending on
the model, the proportional valves and other related control valves that are present may be off-
the-shelf items which were purchased by the manufacturer and then assembled in a complete
governor system. Any complete disassembly or maintenance of these valves should be done
only after consulting the manufacturers manual or other factory information. Before turning off
power to the governor, check that solenoids are picking up and moving the spool when
energized. If not, remove the control valve end caps and determine if the spool moves freely.
Inspect all accessible valve and pipe fittings for leakage. Trouble-shooting flow charts should be
available from the manufacturer, and may help pin-point problems before resorting to
disassembly. Once the problem has been identified, replacement of parts may be the best course
of action instead of repair, if the parts are readily available.

Table 8 Physical Inspection

Adjustment to
Observations (Criteria) Condition Index Score
Damaged parts found and replaced with new parts. Governor
response improved.
Add 1.0
No damaged components found. No Change
Damaged parts found. New parts not available. Subtract 1.0
E3-13
Test T2.4: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific governor problems. Some of these
diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive
results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate
adjustment to the Governor Condition Index.


E3.14 GOVERNOR CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The Governor Condition Index either modified by Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for
decision-making regarding governor alternatives. The Condition Index is also suitable for use in
a risk-based economic analysis model. Where it is desired to consider alternatives based solely
on governor condition, the Governor Condition Index may be directly applied to the Governor
Condition-Based Alternatives table (Table 9).

Table 9 Governor Condition-Based Alternatives

Governor Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E3-14
GOVERNOR
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Gov. Identifier: _________________ Gov. Manufacturer: _______________________________
Yr. Manufactured: ______________________ Yr. Rehabilitated: _________________________
Gov. Control System: Mechanical Analog Digital

Tier 1 Governor Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)
No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Age
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
0.17
2
Operation & Maintenance History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.17
3
Availability of Spare Parts
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.83
4
Performance
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
1.17
Tier 1 Governor Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)
E3-15

Governor Condition-Based Alternatives

Governor Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.


E3-16
GOVERNOR
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Gov. Identifier: _________________ Gov. Manufacturer: _______________________________
Yr. Manufactured: ______________________ Yr. Rehabilitated: _________________________
Gov. Control System: Mechanical Analog Digital

Tier 2 Governor Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1 Leakage Test
T2.2 Step Response Test
T2.3 Physical Inspection
T2.4 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Governor Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Governor Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Governor Condition Index:

Tier 1 Governor Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Governor Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Governor Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)


E4-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E4: Excitation System Condition Assessment


E4.1 GENERAL

Excitation systems are key components in hydroelectric powerplants and are appropriate for
analysis under a condition assessment program. Excitation system failure can have a significant
economic impact due to high equipment costs as well as long lead times in procurement,
manufacturing, and installation and lost revenues during an extended forced outage.

An excitation system can be divided into two major subsystems: the low voltage system (control
and electronics) and the high voltage system (excitation system supply transformer, rotating
exciter, power bridge, supply breaker, field breaker, etc.). The high voltage portion of the
excitation system will likely dictate the need for replacement of the entire system. The low
voltage and electronic portion will play a key role if spare parts are no longer available and/or
the equipment becomes obsolete. A failure of one or more components in a system may not
necessitate the replacement of the entire system, only the affected components.

Many excitation system abnormalities, especially in the low voltage control portion, are readily
detected through regular maintenance and can be corrected without complete replacement of the
excitation system. Individual electronic circuits can be replaced efficiently and cheaply if they
are still supported by the manufacturer. However, if manufacturer support is not available, the
costs may become substantial and a partial or complete replacement of the excitation system may
be warranted.

Determining the present condition of an excitation system is an essential step in analyzing the
risk of failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at an Excitation System Condition
Index which may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic
consequences, and other factors.

E4.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The excitation system condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to
fully static systems (SCR bridge rectifier supplying the required generator field voltage), rotating
exciter systems incorporating electronic regulators and/or pilot exciters, and older magnetic
amplifier type systems.

This appendix is not intended to define excitation system maintenance practices or describe in
detail excitation system condition assessment inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility
maintenance policies and procedures must be consulted for such information.



E4-2
E4.3 CONDITION INDICATORS AND EXCITATION SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes five Condition Indicators generally regarded by engineers as providing a
sound basis for assessing excitation system condition:

Age
Operation and Maintenance History
Availability of Spare Parts
Power Circuitry Tests (excitation supply transformer, rotating exciter, rectifier
bridge, AC and DC circuit breakers, etc.)
Control Circuitry Tests (electronic circuits, power supplies, control logic, etc.)

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Excitation System Condition
Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the Excitation System Condition Index. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date,
or of questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the validity of the overall
Condition Index. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator
is used as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Excitation System
Condition Index.

The appendix also describes Tier 2 tests that may be applied to excitation systems depending on
utility practice. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is readily
available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be
deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either
increase or decrease the score of the Excitation System Condition Index. The Data Quality
Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of
additional information or test data.


Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate de-energization, or prevent re-energization, of the excitation system
regardless of the Excitation System Condition Index score.


E4.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTING, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in excitation system diagnostics. Qualified local staff members may perform
some basic tests. More complex inspections and measurements may require an excitation system
diagnostics expert.


E4-3
Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Excitation system condition assessment may cause concerns that justify more frequent
monitoring. Utilities should consider the possibility of installing an on-line monitoring system
that will continuously track critical quantities. This will provide additional data for condition
assessment and establish a certain amount of reassurance as excitation system alternatives are
being explored.


E4.5 SCORING

Excitation System Condition Indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on excitation
system condition experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to
results that are compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable)
levels on this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a
similar environment.


E4.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators may affect the Excitation System Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than
other indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among excitation system
design and maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E4.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every excitation system is unique and therefore the methodology described in this guide cannot
quantify all factors that affect individual excitation system condition. It is important that the
Excitation System Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by engineering experts. Mitigating
factors specific to the utility may determine the final Condition Index and the final decision on
excitation system replacement.


E4.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 Condition Indicator score is less than 3 or where a Tier 2 test results in
subtractions from the Excitation System Condition Index. Test results and reports, photographs,
O & M records, or other documentation should accompany the Excitation System Condition
Assessment Summary Form.



E4-4
E4.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each Condition Indicator
individually to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score. The score is then weighted and summed
with scores from other condition indicators to determine the Excitation System Condition Index.
The Condition Index is applied to the Excitation System Condition-Based Alternatives table
(Table 8) to determine the recommended course of action.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is missing to properly score the Condition Indicator, it may be assumed that
the score is Good or numerically some mid-range number such as 2. Caution: This strategy
should be used judiciously to prevent misleading results. In recognition of the potential impact
of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means of evaluating and
recording confidence in the final Excitation System Condition Index.


E4.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Condition Indicator 1 Age

During operation, excitation systems are continuously subjected to electrical, mechanical,
thermal, and environmental stresses. Over time, these stresses act and interact in complex ways
to deteriorate certain components in the excitation system and possibly leading to unexpected,
catastrophic failure and forced outage.

Age is one indicator of remaining life of the excitation system and is an important factor to
consider when identifying candidates for replacement. The average life expectancy of previous
excitation systems was about 30 years. However, it is difficult to predict life expectancy for
newer digital systems where computer software/hardware may become obsolete in a few years
and long-term experience with digital systems is not yet available. Accordingly, comparisons to
average equipment age industry-wide may be of value.

While age is a useful indicator of remaining life and upgrade potential, it is also important to
recognize that the actual service life that can be realized varies widely depending on the specific
manufacturer, date of manufacture, design, materials, production methods, quality of
installation, material in the supply transformer and cables, and the operation and maintenance
history.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many aging
factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 1 to arrive at a
Condition Indicator Score.


E4-5

Table 1 Age Scoring

Age Condition Indicator Score
<10 years +2
10 and <20 years +1
20 and <30 years 0
30 and <40 years - 3
40 years - 4

Condition Indicator 2 Operation and Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall excitation system condition. O
& M history factors that may apply are listed below. Depending on the age of the excitation
system, some of the following items may not be applicable:

Motor operated adjuster (motor and potentiometer condition);
Supply transformer maintenance history;
Power bridge maintenance history;
Circuit breakers (AC supply and DC field breakers) maintenance history;
Premature component failures;
Abnormally high temperatures in supply transformer (via infrared scanning);
Abnormally high temperatures in power bridge (via infrared scanning);
Abnormally high temperatures in bus bar connections (via infrared scanning);
Commutator pitting and/or premature brush failure;
Problems with auxiliary systems (airflow sensors, fans, control relays, etc.);
Deteriorated control and protection wiring and devices;
Increase in corrective maintenance or difficulty in acquiring spare parts;
Anomalies determined by physical inspection;
Previous failures on this equipment;
Known failures or problems with equipment of similar design, construction, or age
occurring on adjacent units or in other plants;
Frequent diagnostic or failure alarms or tripping.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed
and applied to Table 2 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.


E4-6
Table 2 Operation and Maintenance History Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal. +2
Some additional maintenance above normal
occurring.

+1
Significant additional maintenance is required;
or forced outage or unit trip occurs; or outages
are regularly extended due to maintenance
problems; or similar units are problematic.

- 2
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost
effective; or severe mechanical/electrical
problems; or similar units have failed.

- 4

Condition Indicator 3 Availability of Spare Parts

Excitation systems consist of a large number of components and many spare parts are purchased
when the systems are purchased and installed. In addition to the spare parts stored on the
premises, the availability of replacement parts from the manufacturer is an important
consideration. This applies particularly to electronic components, which tend to have short
production life spans.

A variety of factors may be considered when evaluating the availability of spare parts, such as
the level of impact a component may have on the operation of the excitation system. Limited
operation may be possible upon failure of some components, whereas others may be critical to
operation. Peripheral systems necessary to program or diagnose digital systems should also be
considered. Because computer software has a short life span, compatibility becomes difficult
over time, and hardware and software standards become obsolete. Qualified personnel should
make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many factors as possible under this
indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 3 to arrive at a Condition Indicator Score.

Table 3 Availability of Spare Parts Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Spare parts are readily available. +2
Some spare parts are not readily available, but
are still in production.
0
Some spare parts are not readily available or in
production, but can be obtained on a limited
basis or reproduced.
- 1
Spare parts are unavailable. - 3


E4-7
Condition Indicator 4 Power Circuitry Tests

Elements of the power circuit consist of various combinations of power transformers, DC or AC
generators, amplidynes, circuit breakers, power cables, rectifier bridges, field flashing
equipment, etc. Requirements for many of the elements will be included in standard plant
equipment maintenance documents. For example, maintenance, performance, repair, or
replacement schedules are usually specified in manufacturer's instruction and maintenance
manuals. In cases where elements are found to be deficient, repair or replacement of a single
component may be the most appropriate solution, although replacement of other components or
entire systems may sometimes be appropriate.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many factors
as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 4 to arrive at a
Condition Indicator Score.


Table 4 Power Circuitry Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Power circuit elements are normal. +2
One power circuit element assessment
indicates minor deficiencies.
- 1
More than one minor deficiency in power
circuit.
- 2
Severe power circuit component deficiency. - 5

Condition Indicator 5 Control Circuitry Tests

Elements of the control circuit consist of various combinations of electronics, power supplies,
control logic, relays, digital controllers, magnetic amplifiers, etc. In most cases, replacement of a
single problematic component may be the most appropriate solution, although replacement of
other components or entire systems may be necessary, depending on the level of integration
versus modularity.

Excitation system control circuits incorporate many critical functions of the generator operation,
such as voltage regulation, limiters and protective functions, stabilizers, etc. Different
components may have varying impacts on the operation of the excitation system. For example,
limited operation may be possible upon failure of some components, whereas others may prevent
operation of the generator. In fact, problems in excitation system control circuits are likely to
manifest as generator misoperations.

Thorough evaluation of control circuitry will likely have to be conducted by specialists, although
it may be standard operating practice (possibly reinforced by national and/or regional reliability
council requirements) to perform specialized, detailed testing of these systems on a periodic
basis. The most current reports of such required tests may be valuable in this assessment.

E4-8
Attention should also be paid to whether the excitation system meets the stability requirements
specified by the reliability councils, etc. More detailed testing of excitation systems is listed as a
Tier 2 assessment.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many factors
as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to arrive at a
Condition Indicator Score.

Table 5 Control Circuitry Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Control circuitry is functioning normally,
stability requirements met.
+2
Minor variations in functionality, stability
requirements met.
+1
Major variations in functionality, or stability
performance marginal.
- 2
Elements of control circuits are non-functional,
or stability requirements not met.
- 5


E4.11 TIER 1 EXCITATION SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Condition Indicator Scores from the tables above into the Excitation System Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this guide. Multiply each condition indicator score by
its corresponding Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Excitation
System Condition Index. If the result yields a negative value, set the Condition Index score to
zero. Suggested alternatives for follow up action, based on the Excitation System Condition
Index, are described in the Excitation System Condition-Based Alternatives at the end of this
guide.

E4.12 TIER 1 DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

Data Quality Indicator Quality of Inspections, Tests, and Measurements

The Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and measurement results
used to evaluate the condition of the excitation system. The more current and complete the
results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing frequency is defined as the
organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many factors as
possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 6 to arrive at an
appropriate Data Quality Indicator Score.


E4-9
Table 6 Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed within the normal testing
frequency.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 6 and <
24 months past the normal testing frequency.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 24 and <
36 months past the normal testing frequency,
or some of the results are not available.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 36
months past the normal frequency, or no
results are available.
0

Enter the Excitation System Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 6 into the Excitation
System Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E4.13 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or training,
may be intrusive, or may require an extended outage to perform. Tier 2 assessment is considered
non-routine. Tier 2 inspections may affect the Excitation System Condition Index number
established using Tier 1 and also may confirm or disprove the need for more extensive
maintenance, rehabilitation, or excitation system replacement.

Test T2.1: Detailed Control Circuitry Tests (Excitation System Realignment)

An excitation system realignment is performed by excitation system specialists and includes
detailed testing of most excitation system functions, such as regulators, limiters, protection,
control functions, stability, etc.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 7 to arrive at an Excitation System Condition Index
score adjustment.


E4-10
Table 7 Detailed Control Circuitry Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results Excitation System Condition Index
Excitation system is fully operational with no
significant functional abnormalities. Some
readjustment may be necessary.
No Change
Excitation system is operational, but
abnormalities are detected. Significant
adjustment or repair is necessary.
Subtract 1.0
Excitation system has components that are not
operational.*
To be determined by an excitation system
specialist.

*May indicate a serious problem requiring immediate evaluation. Generator and power system
reliability may be compromised.

Test T2.2: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific excitation system problems. Some of these
diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive
results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate
adjustment to the Excitation System Condition Index.


E4.14 TIER 2 EXCITATION SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Excitation System Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from
the Tier 1 Excitation System Condition Index to arrive at the Net Excitation System Condition
Index. If the result yields a negative value, set the Condition Index score to zero. Attach
supporting documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be
appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E4.15 EXCITATION SYSTEM CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by an excitation system expert, the Excitation System Condition Index either
modified by Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for decision making regarding excitation
system alternatives. The Index is also suitable for use in a risk-and-economic analysis model.
Where it is desired to consider alternatives based solely on excitation system condition, the
Excitation System Condition Index may be directly applied to Table 8.


E4-11
Table 8 Excitation System Condition-Based Alternatives

Excitation System Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E4-12
EXCITATION SYSTEM
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Excitation System Identifier: ____________ Manufacturer: ______________ Yr. Mfd.: _______
No. of Phases: ___________________ MVA: __________________ Voltage: ______________

Tier 1 Excitation System Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Age
(Score must be 2, 1, 0, -3, or -4)
1
2
O & M History
(Score must be 2, 1 ,-2, or -4)
1
3
Availability of Spare Parts
(Score must be 2, 0, -1, or -3)
1
4
Power Circuitry Tests
(Score must be 2, -1, -2, or -5)
1
5
Control Circuitry Tests
(Score must be 2, 1, -2, or -5)
1
Tier 1 Excitation System Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores. A negative result should be set to a value of zero.)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: _________________________ Technical Review: __________________________
Management Review: ________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E4-13
Condition-Based Alternatives

Excitation System Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

E4-14
EXCITATION SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Excitation System Identifier: ____________ Manufacturer: ______________ Yr. Mfd.: _______
No. of Phases: ___________________ MVA: __________________ Voltage: ______________

Tier 2 Excitation System Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1 Detailed Control Circuitry Test
T2.2 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Excitation System
Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



To calculate the Net Excitation System Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract
the Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Condition Index:

Tier 1 Excitation System Condition Index __________
minus Tier 2 Adjustments __________ = ______________

Net Excitation System
Condition Index



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)
E5-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E5: Transformer Condition Assessment


E5.1 GENERAL

Power transformers are key components in the power train at hydroelectric powerplants and are
appropriate for analysis under a condition assessment program. Transformer failure can have a
significant economic impact due to long lead times in procurement, manufacturing, and
installation in addition to high equipment cost. According to the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Extending the useful life of power transformers is the single most important
strategy for increasing life of power transmission and distribution infrastructures, starting with
generator step-up transformers (GSU) at the powerplant itself. (EPRI Report #1001938.)

Determining the present condition of a power transformer is an essential step in analyzing the
risk of failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Transformer Condition Index
which may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic
consequences, and other factors.


E5.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The transformer condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to oil-filled
power transformers (>500 kVA) currently in operation.

This guide is not intended to define transformer maintenance practices or describe in detail
transformer condition assessment inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility maintenance
policies and procedures must be consulted for such information.


E5.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND TRANSFORMER
CONDITION INDEX

The following four condition indicators are generally regarded by hydro powerplant engineers as
providing a sound basis for assessing transformer condition:

Insulating Oil Analysis (DGA and Furan)
Power Factor and Excitation Current Tests
Operation and Maintenance History
Age

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
E5-2
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Transformer Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the Transformer Condition Index. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the condition index. Given the potential
impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a means of evaluating and
recording confidence in the final Transformer Condition Index.

Additional information regarding transformer condition may be necessary to improve the
accuracy and reliability of the Transformer Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1
condition indicators, this Guide describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and
measurements that may be applied to the Transformer Condition Index, depending on the
specific issue or problem being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if
Tier 2 data is readily available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment.
Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of
the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or decrease the score of the Transformer Condition Index.
The Data Quality Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the
availability of additional information or test data.

The Transformer Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective actions and/or
follow-up Tier 2 testing. The Transformer Condition Index is also suitable for use as an input to
a risk-based economic analysis model.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate de-energization, or prevent re-energization, of the transformer
regardless of the Transformer Condition Index score.


E5.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

The hierarchy of inspections, tests, and measurements is illustrated in Figure 1 (Transformer
Condition Assessment Methodology). Table 16 briefly describes the activities related to
conducting the transformer condition assessment.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in transformer diagnostics. Qualified staff that is competent in these routine
procedures may conduct the basic tests and inspections. More complex inspections and
measurements may require a transformer diagnostics expert.

This guide also assumes that inspections, tests, and measurements are conducted on a frequency
that provides the accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Results of the transformer condition assessment may cause concerns that justify more frequent
monitoring. Utilities should consider the possibility of taking more frequent measurements (e.g.,
oil samples) or installing on-line monitoring systems (e.g., gas-in-oil) that will continuously
track critical quantities. This will provide additional data for condition assessment and establish
E5-3
a certain amount of reassurance as transformer alternatives are being explored. Inspection,
testing, and measurement methods are specified in technical references specific to the electric
utility.


E5.5 SCORING

Transformer condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on transformer
condition experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to results
that are compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels on
this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a similar
environment.


E5.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some condition
indicators affect the Transformer Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other
indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among transformer design and
maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E5.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every transformer is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix cannot
quantify all factors that affect individual transformer condition. It is important that the
Transformer Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by engineering experts. Mitigating factors
specific to the utility may determine the final Transformer Condition Index and the final decision
on transformer replacement or rehabilitation.


E5.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., less than normal) or where a Tier 2
test results in subtractions from the Transformer Condition Index. Test results and reports,
photographs, O & M records, or other documentation should accompany the Transformer
Condition Assessment Summary Form.


E5.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are then weighted and summed
to determine the Transformer Condition Index. The Transformer Condition Index is applied to
the Transformer Condition-Based Alternatives, Table 15, to determine the recommended course
of action.

E5-4
Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score a condition indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means
of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Generator Condition Index.


E5.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements are routinely accomplished as part of normal
operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing data. Tier 1 test
results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and summed to arrive at a
Transformer Condition Index. Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements may indicate
abnormal conditions that can be resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. Tier 1
test results may also indicate the need for additional investigation, categorized as Tier 2 tests.

Transformer Condition Indicator 1 Insulating Oil Analysis

Dissolved gas analysis is the most important factor in determining the condition of a transformer.
Being performed more frequently than other tests, it may be the first indication of a problem.
Insulating oil analysis can identify internal arcing, bad electrical contacts, hot spots, partial
discharge, or overheating of conductors, oil, tank, or cellulose. The health of the oil reflects
the health of the transformer itself. Dissolved gas analysis (DGA) consists of drawing
transformer insulating oil samples from the transformer tank and sending the samples to a
commercial laboratory for analysis. The most important indicators are the individual and total
dissolved combustible gas (TDCG) generation rates, based on IEC and IEEE standards.
Although gas generation rates are not the only indicator, they are reasonable for use in
determining the condition indicator score.

Furanic analysis may indicate a problem with the paper insulation which could affect transformer
longevity. A baseline furanic analysis should be made initially and repeated if the transformer is
overheated, overloaded, aged, or after changing or processing the oil.

Physical tests such as interfacial tension (IFT), acidity, moisture content, and dielectric strength
usually indicate oil conditions that can be remedied through various reclamation processes.
Therefore, they are not indicative of overall transformer condition that would lead to
replacement. Such tests do not affect the Insulating Oil Condition Indicator score.

Results of the insulating oil analysis are applied to Table 1 to arrive at an appropriate Condition
Indicator Score.

E5-5
Table 1 Insulating Oil Analysis Scoring

Results (See Notes 1 & 2) Condition Indicator Score
{Total Dissolved Combustible Gas (TDCG) generation rate <30
ppm (parts per million)/month AND all individual combustible
gas generation <10 ppm/month. Exceptions: CO generation <
70 ppm/month AND acetylene (C
2
H
2
) generation rate =0 ppm.}
AND
{2 FAL Furans <150 ppb (parts per billion). (See Note 3)}
3
{TDCG generation rate 30 and <50 ppm/month AND all
individual combustible gas generation rates <15 ppm/month.
Exceptions: CO generation rate <150 ppm/month AND C
2
H
2

generation rate =0 ppm.}
OR
{2 FAL Furans 150 and <200 ppb. (See Note 3)}
2
{TDCG generation rate 50 and <80 ppm/month AND all
individual combustible gas generation rates <25 ppm/month.
Exceptions: CO generation rate <350 ppm/month AND C
2
H
2

generation rate <5 ppm/month.}
OR
{2 FAL Furans 200 and <250 ppb. (See Note 3)}
1
{TDCG generation rate 80 ppm/month AND any individual
combustible gas generation rate >50 ppm/month. Exceptions:
CO generation 350 ppm/month AND C
2
H
2
generation rate <
10 ppm/per month.}
OR
{2 FAL Furans 250 ppb. (See Note 3)}
0

Note 1: The above DGA numbers are based on dissolved gas in oil generation rates and come
from a combination of IEEE C57-104, IEC 60599 and Delta X Researchs Transformer Oil
Analysis (TOA) software.

Note 2: Any ongoing acetylene (C
2
H
2
) generation indicates an active arcing fault and the
transformer may have to be removed from service to avoid possible catastrophic failure. A
transformer may be safely operated with some C
2
H
2
showing in the DGA. C
2
H
2
sometimes
comes from a one-time event such as a close-in lightning strike or through fault. However, if
C
2
H
2
is increasing more than 10 ppm per month, the transformer should be removed from
service. Because acetylene generation is a critical indicator of transformer internal condition,
each utility should establish practices in accordance with published standards and
recommendations from transformer experts. Increases in gas generation should be monitored
and corrective actions taken as appropriate. Increasing the frequency of DGA analysis and de-
gasifying the transformer oil are potential alternatives to consider.

Note 3: Furan limits in the table are for thermally upgraded paper. For non-thermally upgraded
paper, i.e., rated 55 degrees C maximum, divide the lab test result Furan values by 3 before
E5-6
applying them to the table. Non-thermally upgraded paper emits approximately 3 times more
Furans before a problem is indicated.

Transformer Condition Indicator 2 Power Factor and Excitation Current Tests

Power factor insulation testing is important to determining the condition of the transformer
because it can detect winding and bushing insulation integrity. Power factor and excitation
current tests are conducted in the field on de-energized, isolated, and properly grounded
transformers. Excitation current tests measure the single-phase voltage, current, and phase angle
between them, typically on the high-voltage side with the terminals of the other winding left
floating (with the exception of a grounded neutral). The measurements are performed at rated
frequency and usually at test voltages up to 10 kV. The test detects shorted turns, poor tap
changer contacts, and core problems.

Results of the power factor and excitation current tests are analyzed and applied to Table 2 to
arrive at an appropriate Condition Indicator Score.

Table 2 Power Factor and Excitation Current Test Scoring

Test Results* Condition Indicator Score
Power factor results normal. (Good G)
AND
Normal excitation current values and patterns compared to other
phases and prior tests.
3
Power factor results show minor degradation. (Deteriorated D)
OR
Minor deviation in excitation current values and patterns compared
to other phases and prior tests. **
2
Power factor results show significant deterioration. (Investigate I)
OR
Significant deviation in current values and patterns compared to
other phases and prior tests. **
1
Power factor results show severe degradation. (Bad B)
OR
Severe deviation in current values and patterns compared to other
phases and prior tests. **
0
(May indicate serious
problem requiring
immediate evaluation,
additional testing,
consultation with experts,
and remediation prior to re-
energization.)
* Doble insulation rating shown in parentheses.
** Be sure to account for residual magnetism and tap changer position.

E5-7
Transformer Condition Indicator 3 Operation and Maintenance History

Operation and maintenance (O & M) history may indicate overall transformer condition. O & M
history factors that may apply are:

Sustained overloading;
Unusual operating temperatures indicated by gauges and continuous monitoring;
Abnormal temperatures indicated by infrared scanning;
Nearby lightning strikes or through faults;
Abnormally high corona detected;
Abnormally high external temperatures detected;
Problems with auxiliary systems (fans, radiators, cooling water piping, pumps,
motors, controls, nitrogen replenishment system, and indicating and protection
devices);
Deteriorated control and protection wiring and devices;
Increase in corrective maintenance or difficulty in acquiring spare parts;
Anomalies determined by physical inspection* (e.g., incorrectly positioned valves,
plugged radiators, stuck temperature indicators and level gages, noisy oil pumps or
fans, oil leaks, connections to bushings);
* External inspection or internal inspection not requiring untanking.
Previous failures on this equipment;
Failures or problems on equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in
a similar environment.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this Indicator. Results of the O & M
history are analyzed and applied to Table 3 to arrive at an appropriate Condition Indicator Score.

Table 3 Operation and Maintenance History Scoring

History Results Condition Indicator Score
Operation and Maintenance are normal.

3
Some abnormal operating conditions experienced and/or
additional maintenance above normal occurring.

2
Significant operation outside normal and/or significant
additional maintenance is required; or forced outage occurs; or
outages are regularly extended due to maintenance problems; or
similar units are problematic.
1
Repeated forced outages; maintenance not cost effective; or
major oil leaks and/or severe mechanical problems; or similar
units have failed.
0

E5-8
Transformer Condition Indicator 4 Age

Transformer age is an important factor to consider when identifying candidates for transformer
replacement. Age is one indicator of remaining life and upgrade potential to current state-of-the-
art materials. During the life of the transformer, the mechanical and insulating properties of
materials which are used for structural support and electrical insulation, especially wood and
paper, deteriorate. Although actual service life varies widely depending on the manufacturers
design, quality of assembly, materials used, operating history, current operating conditions, and
maintenance history, the average expected life for an individual transformer in a large population
of transformers is statistically about 40 years.

Apply the transformer age to Table 4 to arrive at the Condition Indicator Score.

Table 4 Age Scoring

Age Condition Indicator Score
<30 years 3
30 and <45 years 2
45 years 1


E5.11 TIER 1 TRANSFORMER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Transformer Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Multiply each condition indicator score
by the Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Transformer Condition
Index.


E5.12 TIER 1 TRANSFORMER DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Transformer Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and
measurement results used to evaluate the transformer condition under Tier 1. The more current
and complete the inspections, tests, and measurements, the higher the rating for this indicator.
The normal testing frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for
performing the specific test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to
arrive at a Transformer Data Quality Indicator Score.

E5-9
Table 5 Transformer Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed within the normal testing frequency and the results
are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 6 and <24 months past the normal testing
frequency and the results are reliable.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 24 and <36 months past the normal testing
frequency, or some of the results are not available or are of
questionable integrity.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed 36 months past the normal frequency, or no
results are available or many are of questionable integrity.
0

Enter the Transformer Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Transformer Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E5.12 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or training,
may be intrusive, or may require an extended outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not
considered routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Transformer Condition Index
number established using Tier 1 but also may confirm or refute the need for more extensive
maintenance, rehabilitation, or transformer replacement.

Note that there are many tests that can give information about the various aspects of transformer
condition. The choice of tests should be made based on known information gathered by
inspection history, other test results, company standards, and Tier 1 assessment. Many Tier 2
tests are used to detect or confirm a similar defect in the condition of the transformer. In the
event that several Tier 2 tests are performed that assess the same condition issue, the test with the
largest adjustment should be used in recalculating the Condition Index. Since Tier 2 tests are
being performed by, and/or coordinated with, knowledgeable technical staff, the decision on
which test is most significant and how these tests overlap in application is left to the experts.
The important factor is to avoid adjusting the Condition Index downward twice or more simply
because two or more tests are completed for the same suspected condition.

For Tier 2 evaluations, apply only the applicable adjustment factors per the instructions above
and recalculate the Transformer Condition Index using the Transformer Condition Assessment
Survey Form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score
may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2
assessment.
E5-10
Test T2.1: Turns Ratio Test

The transformer turns ratio (TTR) test detects shorts or severe tracking between turns of the
same coil, which indicates insulation failure between the turns. These tests are performed with
the transformer de-energized and may show the necessity for an internal inspection or removal
from service.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 6 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.


Table 6 Turns Ratio Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results Transformer Condition Index
<0.20 percent difference from nameplate
voltage ratio (V
1
/V
2
) and compared to
previous readings.
No Change
0.20 and <0.50 percent difference
compared to nameplate voltage ratio
(V
1
/V
2
).
Subtract 1.0
0.50 percent difference compared to
nameplate voltage ratio (V
1
/V
2
).
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring immediate
evaluation, additional testing, consultation with
experts, and remediation prior to re-energization.)

Test T2.2: Short Circuit Impedance Test

Sometimes called Percent Impedance or Leakage Reactance, these tests are conducted in the
field and compared to nameplate information, previous tests, and similar units to detect
deformation of the core or windings caused by shipping damage, through faults, or ground faults.
Some difference may be expected between nameplate and field test results because factory tests
are conducted at full load current, normally not possible in the field. Field connections and test
leads and jumpers also play a significant role in test results and it is impossible to exactly
duplicate the factory test setup. Therefore, the I
2
R power losses may be different and cause
different test results. By comparing percent-reactance to nameplate impedance, the differences
caused by leads and connections can be eliminated. Because reactance is only the inductive
component of the impedance, I
2
R power losses are omitted in the test results.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 7 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index score
adjustment.

E5-11

Table 7 Short Circuit Impedance Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results Transformer Condition Index
<1 percent difference from nameplate impedance. No Change
1 and <3 percent difference from nameplate
impedance. (Minor degradation.)
Subtract 0.5
3 and <5 percent difference from nameplate
impedance. (Significant degradation.)
Subtract 1.0
5 percent difference from nameplate impedance.
(Severe degradation.)
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, additional testing,
consultation with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

Test T2.3: Core-to-Ground Resistance (Megger) Test

The transformer core is intentionally grounded through one connection. The core-to-ground
resistance test can detect if this connection is loose. It can also detect whether there are other
undesired and inadvertent, grounds. If the intentional core ground is intact, the resultant
resistance should be very low. To check for unintentional core grounds, remove the intentional
ground and megger between the core and the grounded transformer tank. This test should
produce very high resistance, indicating that an unintentional ground is not present. This test is
to supplement dissolved gas analysis that shows generation of hot metal gases (i.e., methane,
ethane, and ethylene) and to indicate if a spurious, unintentional core ground is the problem.
Experience can help locate the source of the problem.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 8 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 8 Core-to-Ground Resistance Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results* Transformer Condition Index
1,000 megaohms. (Results normal.) No Change
500 and <1000 megaohms. Subtract 0.5
200 and <500 megaohms. Subtract 1.0
<200 megaohms.

Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring immediate
evaluation, additional testing, consultation with
experts, and remediation prior to re-energization.)
* With intentional ground disconnected.
E5-12
Test T2.4: Winding Direct-Current Resistance Measurement

Careful measurement of winding resistance can detect broken conductor strands, loose
connections, and bad contacts in the tap changer (DETC or LTC). Results from these
measurements may indicate the need for an internal inspection. This information supplements
dissolved gas analysis (DGA) and is useful when DGA shows generation of heat gases (i.e.,
ethane, ethylene, methane). These tests are typically performed with a micro-ohmmeter and or
Wheatstone bridge. Test results are compared between phases or with factory tests. When
comparing to factory tests, a temperature correction must be employed (IEEE P62). This test
should be performed only after the rest of the routine electrical tests because it may magnetize
the core, affecting results of the other tests.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 9 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 9 Winding Direct-Current Resistance Measurement Scoring

Adjustment to
Measurement Results Transformer Condition Index
<5 percent difference between phases or
from factory tests.
No Change
5 and <7 percent difference between phases
or from factory tests.
Subtract 0.5
7 and <10 percent difference between
phases or from factory tests.
Subtract 1.0
10 percent between phases or from factory
tests.
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, additional testing,
consultation with experts, and remediation prior
to re-energization.)

Test T2.5: Ultrasonic and Sonic Fault Detection Measurements

These assessment tests (sometimes called Acoustic Testing) are helpful in locating internal
faults. Partial discharges (corona) and low energy arcing / sparking emit energy in the range of
50 megahertz (ultrasonic), well above audible sound. To make these measurements, sensors are
placed on the outside of a transformer tank to detect these ultrasonic emissions which are then
converted electronically to oscilloscope traces or audible frequencies and recorded. By
triangulation, a general location of a fault (corona or arcing/sparking) may be determined so that
an internal inspection can be focused in that location. These devices also can detect loose shields
that build up static and discharge it to the grounded tank; poor connections on bushings; bad
contacts on a tap changer that are arcing / sparking; core ground problems that cause sparking /
arcing; and areas of weak insulation that generate corona. Sonic testing can detect increased core
and coil noise (looseness) and vibration, failing bearings in oil pumps and fans, and nitrogen
leaks in nitrogen blanketed transformers.

E5-13
Information gained from these measurements supplements dissolved gas analysis, and provides
additional supporting information for de-energized tests such as core ground and winding
resistance tests. In addition, these tests help pinpoint areas to look for problems during internal
inspections.

Performing baseline tests may provide comparisons for later tests. Experience can help locate
the source of the problem.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 10 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 10 Ultrasonic and Sonic Measurement Scoring

Adjustment to
Measurement Results Transformer Condition Index
Results normal. No Change
Low level fault indication. Subtract 0.5
Moderate level fault indication. Subtract 1.0
Severe fault level indication. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.6: Vibration Analysis

Vibration can result from loose transformer core and coil segments, shield problems, loose parts,
or bad bearings on oil cooling pumps or fans. Vibration analyzers are used to detect and measure
the vibration. Information gained from these tests supplements ultrasonic and sonic (acoustic)
fault detection tests and dissolved gas analysis. Information from these tests may indicate
maintenance is needed on pumps or fans mounted external to the tank. It may also show when
an internal transformer inspection is necessary. If wedging has been displaced due to paper
deterioration or through faults, vibration will increase markedly. This will also show if core and
coil vibration has increased compared to baseline information. Experience can help locate the
source of the problem.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 11 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

E5-14
Table 11 Vibration Analysis Scoring

Adjustment to
Analysis Results Transformer Condition Index
Results normal. No Change
Low vibration. Subtract 0.5
Moderate vibration. Subtract 1.0
Severe vibration. Subtract 2.0

Test T2.7: Frequency Response Analysis

Frequency Response Analysis (FRA) or Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) can
determine if windings of a transformer have moved or shifted. It can be done as a factory test
prior to shipment and repeated after the transformer is received on site to determine if windings
have been damaged or shifted during shipping. This test is also helpful if a protective relay has
tripped or a through fault, short circuit, or ground fault has occurred

A sweep frequency is generally placed on each of the high voltage windings and the signal is
detected on the low-voltage windings. This provides a picture of the frequency transfer function
of the windings. If the windings have been displaced or shifted, test results will differ markedly
from prior tests. Test results are kept in transformer history files so they can be compared to
later tests. Results are determined by comparison to baseline or previous measurements or
comparison to units of similar design and construction.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 12 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 12 Frequency Response Analysis Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results Transformer Condition Index
No deviation compared to prior tests. No Change
Minor deviation compared to prior tests. Subtract 2.0
Moderate deviation compared to prior tests. Subtract 3.0
Significant deviation compared to prior tests. Subtract 4.0
Severe deviation compared to prior tests.
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, additional testing,
consultation with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

E5-15
Test T2.8: Internal Inspection

In some cases, it is necessary to open the tank, partially or fully drain the oil, and perform an
internal inspection to determine transformer condition. These inspections must be performed by
experienced staff with proper training. Sludging, loose wedges, loose coils, poor electrical
connections on bushing bottoms, burned contacts on tap changers, localized overheating
signified by carbon buildup, displaced wedging or insulation, and debris and other foreign
material are general areas of concern. Photographs and mapping problem locations are good
means of documenting findings.

Note: Before entering and while inside the transformer, OSHA, state, local, and utility safety
practices must be followed (e.g., permitted confined space entry practices).

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 13 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 13 Internal Inspection Scoring

Adjustment to
Inspection Results Transformer Condition Index
Conditions normal. No Change
Minimal degradation. Subtract 0.5
Moderate degradation. Subtract 1.5
Severe degradation.
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, additional testing,
consultation with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

Test T2.9: Degree of Polymerization

Winding insulation (cellulose) deterioration can be quantified by analysis of the Degree of
Polymerization (DP) of the insulating material. This test gives an indication of the remaining
structural strength of the paper insulation and is an excellent indication of the remaining life of
the paper and the transformer itself. This requires analyzing a sample of the paper insulation in a
laboratory to determine the deterioration of the molecular bonds of the paper.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 14 to arrive at a Transformer Condition Index
adjustment.

E5-16
Table 14 Degree of Polymerization Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Test Results Transformer Condition Index
900 and no polymerization decrease. (Results
normal.)
No Change
600 and <900. (Minimal polymerization
decrease.)
Subtract 0.5
200 and <600. (Moderate polymerization
decrease.)
Subtract 1.5
<200. (Severe polymerization decrease.
Insulation has no mechanical strength; has
reached end of life.)
Subtract 5.0
(May indicate serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, additional testing,
consultation with experts, and remediation
prior to re-energization.)

Test T2.10: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific transformer problems. Some of these
diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive
results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate
adjustment to the Transformer Condition Index.


E5.13 TIER 2 TRANSFORMER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into theTransformer Condition Assessment
Summary Form at the end of this appendix. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier
1 Transformer Condition Index to arrive at the total Transformer Condition Index. An
adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or
test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E5.14 TIER 2 TRANSFORMER CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The Transformer Condition Index either modified by Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for
decision-making regarding transformer alternatives. The Index is also suitable for use in a risk-
and-economic analysis model. Where it is desired to consider alternatives based solely on
transformer condition, the Transformer Condition Index may be directly applied to the
Transformer Condition-Based Alternatives table on the Summary Form.

E5-17
Table 15 Transformer Condition-Based Alternatives

Transformer Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E5-18
Problem?
Problem
Tier 1 Inspections, Tests, and
Measurements
Oil , Power Factor & Excitation, Routine O&M, Age
Repair, Rehab,
Retest
Ultrasonic &
Sonic
Contact
Fault
Detection
Ultrasonic
Non-Contact
Fault
Detection
Vibration
Analysis
Turns
Ratio Test
Problem
Repair,
Rehab,
Retest
Replace
Transformer
Internal Partial
Discharge, Arcing,
Sparking
Mechanical
Problems
Nitrogen
Leaks
Core Shield Problems,
Loose Parts
Shorted
Winding
TC Contacts, Broken
Strands, Loose
Connections
Winding DC
Resistance
Measurements
NO
YES*
NO
YES
Return to Routine
Inspection & Testing
Figure 1.
Transformer Condition
Assessment
Methodology
transcond 8/6/02
YES
NO
Internal
Inspection
Results of Inspections,
Tests, and Measurements
are Quantified as Condition
Indicators Used to Arrive at
a Transformer Condition
Factor.
Core to
Ground
Resistance
Test
Oil Sludging
Displaced Windings or Wedging
Loose Windings
Bad Connections
Conservator Leaks
Debris
Bad Intentional
Ground Connection &
Unintentional Ground
Transformer
Tripped or
Malfunctioned
Tier 2 Tests Below
* Severe problems may warrant
immediate de-enegization
Short Circuit
Impedance
(Leakage
Reactance)
Frequency
Response
Degree of
Polymerization
Core / Winding
Deformation
Shifted
Windings
Insulation
Condition

E5-19
Table 16 Transformer Condition Assessment

Test Detects Tool
On-Line Tests:
Dissolved Gas Analysis
Internal arcing; bad electrical contacts; hot spots; partial discharge; and
overheating of conductors, oil, tank, and cellulose insulation.
Requires laboratory analysis.
Oil Physical and Chemical Tests
Moisture, degraded interfacial tension (IFT), acidity, furans, dielectric
strength, and power factor.
Requires laboratory analysis.
External Physical Inspection
Oil leaks, broken parts, worn paint, defective support structure, stuck
indicators, noisy operation, loose connections, cooling problems with
fans, pumps, etc.
Experienced staff and binoculars.
External Temperatures
(Main tank and load tap changer)
Temperature monitoring with changes in load and ambient temperature. Portable temperature data loggers and software.
Infrared Scan
Hot spots indicating localized heating, circulating currents, blocked
cooling, tap changer problems, and loose connections.
Thermographic camera and analysis software.
Ultrasonic (Acoustic) Contact Fault
Detection
Internal partial discharge, arcing, sparking, loose shields, poor bushing
connections, bad tap changer contacts, core ground problems, and weak
insulation that is causing corona.
Ultrasonic detectors and analysis software.
Sonic Fault Detection
Nitrogen leaks, vacuum leaks, core and coil vibration, corona at
bushings, and mechanical & bearing problems in pumps and cooling
fans.
Ultrasonic probe and meter.
Vibration Analysis Internal core, coil, and shield problems; loose parts and bad bearings. Vibration data logger.
Off-Line Tests:
Doble Tests (bushing capacitance,
insulation power factor, tip up,
excitation current)
Loss of winding insulation integrity, loss of bushing insulation integrity,
and winding moisture.
Doble test equipment.
Turns Ratio Shorted windings. Doble test equipment or turns ratio tester.
Short Circuit Impedance Deformation of the core or winding. Doble or equivalent test equipment.
Core-to-Ground Resistance
(External test may be possible depending on
transformer construction)
Bad connection on intentional core ground; and existence of
unintentional grounds.
Megger.
Winding DC Resistance
Measurements
Broken strands, loose connections, bad tap changer contacts.
Wheatstone Bridge (1 ohm and greater),
Kelvin Bridge micro-ohmmeter (less than 1 ohm).
Frequency Response Analysis Shifted windings. Doble or equivalent sweep frequency analyzer,
Internal Inspection
Oil sludging, displaced winding or wedging, loose windings, bad
connections, localized heating, debris and foreign objects.
Experienced staff, micro-ohmmeter.
Degree of Polymerization Insulation condition (life expectancy). Laboratory analysis of paper sample.
E5-20
TRANSFORMER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: __________________________ Location: _______________________________________
Transformer Identifier: ________________ Manufacturer: _________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
No. of Phases: ________________ MVA: _____________ Voltage: _______________________

Tier 1 Transformer Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Oil Analysis
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.143
2
Power Factor and Excitation
Current Tests
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.952
3
Operation and Maintenance
History
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.762
4
Age
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
0.476


Tier 1 Transformer Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)
E5-21

Transformer Condition-Based Alternatives

Transformer Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat
condition assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.

Note: A Transformer Condition Index of zero strongly indicates that the transformer should not be re-
energized until repair raises the condition index or the transformer is replaced.
E5-22
TRANSFORMER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: __________________________ Location: _______________________________________
Transformer Identifier: ________________ Manufacturer: _________________ Yr. Mfd.: ______
No. of Phases: ________________ MVA: _____________ Voltage: _______________________

Tier 2 Transformer Condition Summary

Adjustment to
Tier 2 Test Tier 1 Condition Index
T2.1 Turns Ratio Test
T2.2 Short Circuit Impedance Test
T2.3 Core-to-Ground Resistance (Megger) Test
T2.4 Winding DC Resistance Measurement
T2.5 Ultrasonic and Sonic Fault Detection Measurements
T2.6 Vibration Analysis
T2.7 Frequency Response Analysis
T2.8 Internal Inspection
T2.9 Degree of Polymerization
T2.10 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Transformer Condition Index
(Sum of individual adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Transformer Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Transformer Condition Index:

Tier 1 Transformer Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Transformer Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Transformer Condition Index

E5-23

Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E6-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E6: Turbine Condition Assessment


E6.1 GENERAL

The hydraulic turbine is a critical component of a hydroelectric powerplant but it may not be
apparent that degradation of the condition of the turbine has occurred. Weld repairs, operation in
a rough zone, and operation on Automatic Generation Control (AGC) all take their toll on the
overall condition of the turbine. Efficiency losses are usually gradual and are not noticeable
unless efficiency tests are performed. New turbine runners are often not considered unless a
considerable uprate is possible or the existing runner is physically failing. Assessing the overall
condition of the turbine may show that a replacement runner with a state-of-the-art hydraulic
design, fabricated from modern materials and refurbishing other components, may provide
economic benefits when compared to the current costs of repair and the efficiency of the existing
runner.

Determining the present condition of a turbine is an essential step in analyzing the risk of failure.
This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Turbine Condition Index which may be used to
develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and other factors.


E6.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The turbine assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to Francis, Kaplan, and
propeller (reaction type) hydraulic turbines. The entire turbine is considered in this assessment
tool, with the turbine runner as a major component. At the Facility Managers discretion, the
assessments can be performed on individual turbines or a family of identical or near-identical
turbines. This appendix is not intended to define turbine maintenance practices or describe in
detail inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies and procedures
must be consulted for such information.


E6.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS, AND TURBINE
CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes the condition indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the basis for assessing turbine condition. The following four indicators are used in the
initial, or Tier 1, assessment:

Age
Runner Physical Condition
Operational Conditions/Restraints
E6-2
Maintenance

The Tier 1 condition indicators are based on the known turbine runner condition and/or
inspections conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as part of routine
maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each turbine condition indicator, which
are then weighted and summed to determine the Turbine Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the turbine condition indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the overall Condition Index. Given the
potential impact of poor or missing data, the Turbine Data Quality Indicator is used as a means
of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Turbine Condition Index.

Additional information regarding turbine condition may be necessary to improve the accuracy
and reliability of the Turbine Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1 condition
indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements
that may be applied to adjust the Turbine Condition Index, depending on the specific issue or
problem being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is
readily available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests
may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may
either increase or decrease the score of the Turbine Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator
score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional
information or test data.

The Turbine Condition Index may be used as the sole justification for replacing or rehabilitating
a turbine. The Turbine Condition Index may also be used as an input to a computer model that
assesses risk and performs economic analyses.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate corrective action, regardless of the Turbine Condition Index score.


E6.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in turbine diagnostics. The more basic tests may be conducted by qualified staff
that are competent in these routine procedures. More complex inspections and measurements
may require a turbine diagnostics expert.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted on a frequency that provides accurate
and current information needed by the assessment.

Turbine condition assessment may cause concerns that justify more frequent monitoring.
Utilities should consider the possibility of taking more frequent measurements or installing on-
line monitoring systems that will continuously track critical parameters. This will provide
E6-3
additional data for condition assessment and establish a certain amount of reassurance as turbine
alternatives are being explored.


E6.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
plant staff and turbine experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Deterioration
refer to results that are compared to industry-accepted levels; or to baseline or previous
(acceptable) levels on this equipment; or to turbines of similar design, construction, or age
operating in a similar environment.


E6.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators affect the Turbine Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other indicators.
These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among turbine design and maintenance
personnel with extensive experience.


E6.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every turbine is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix cannot
quantify all factors that affect individual turbine condition. Mitigating factors not included in
this Guide may determine the final Turbine Condition Index and the final decision on turbine
replacement or rehabilitation. If the Turbine Condition Index triggers significant follow-up
actions (e.g., major repairs or a Tier 2 assessment), it may be prudent to first have the index
reviewed by turbine experts. Mitigating factors specific to the utility may affect the final
Turbine Condition Index and the final decision on turbine replacement or rehabilitation.


E6.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., less than normal) or where a Tier 2
test results in subtractions to the Turbine Condition Index. Test reports, photographs, O & M
records, and other documentation should accompany the Turbine Condition Assessment
Summary form.


E6.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The score is then summed with scores from
other condition indicators. The sum is the Turbine Condition Index. Apply the Turbine
Condition Index to Table 17 Turbine Condition-Based Alternatives to determine the
recommended course of action. Each step is described below.
E6-4
E6.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 tests include those inspections, tests, and measurements that are routinely accomplished as
part of normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing
data. Tier 1 test results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and
summed to arrive at a Condition Index. Tier 1 tests may indicate abnormal conditions that can
be resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. To the extent that Tier 1 tests result
in immediate corrective maintenance actions being taken by plant staff, then adjustments to the
condition indicators should be reflected and the new results used when computing the overall
Tier 1 Condition Index. Tier 1 test results may also indicate the need for additional
investigation, categorized as Tier 2 tests.


E6.11 TURBINE CONDITION INDICATORS

Turbine Condition Indicator 1 Age

Age is an important factor to consider when identifying candidates for turbine runner
replacement or refurbishment. As a turbine ages, it becomes affected by fatigue and becomes
susceptible to cracks. The effect of weld repairs over the years can be cumulative, increasing the
likelihood of failure. Also, an older turbine has greater potential to be improved by state-of-the-
art design and materials. Contours changed by weld repairs will change the hydraulics of the
runner, reducing its efficiency. In addition, it has been found by a large number of field
performance tests that turbine efficiency and capacity declines with age. Most decisions to
commence rehabilitation are driven by economics, and efficiency and capacity gains have
historically yielded most of the net benefits. Therefore, while age is not relevant when
predicting a failure, it is relevant to rehabilitation decision-making. The in-service date will be
used to determine turbine age. When looking at a family of turbines that were installed over a
period of time at a specific facility, the average age should be used.

The turbine runner age should be determined and applied to Table 1 to arrive at an appropriate
Condition Indicator score.

Table 1 Turbine Age Scoring

Age Age
(New/Full Rehabilitation) (Partial Rehabilitation) Condition Indicator Score
<25 years <15 years 3
25 and <35 years 15 and <25 years 2
35 and <45 years 25 and <35 years 1
45 years 35 years 0

A partial rehabilitation is defined as a new runner with the majority of remaining critical turbine
components not restored, or an existing turbine repaired and the majority of remaining critical
components restored. The remaining critical turbine components include:
E6-5
Facing plates and gate end seals
Discharge ring
Gate mechanism (motors, shift ring, wicket gate locking mechanisms, bushings)
Main shaft bearing
Wicket gates

The intent of the age criterion for the turbine condition assessment is to indicate performance
degradation.

Turbine Condition Indicator 2 Physical Condition

The surface condition of the waterway is important, especially since it affects the efficiency and
capacity of the machine. Areas in the waterway that see the highest velocities will have the
largest effects on efficiency. The surface condition of metal components may deteriorate over
time due to erosion, corrosion, operating in cavitation zones, and cavitation and cracking damage
and repairs. The following can be evaluated through inspection of the turbine and its
components: the runner, wicket gates, stay vanes, and discharge ring. The photographs in
Annex A are intended to assist in evaluating the surface condition of the runner.

Results of the physical inspection are analyzed and applied to Table 2 to arrive at condition
indicator scores.

Table 2 Physical Condition Scoring

Cracks

Results* Condition Indicator Score
No Cracking 2
Inactive Cracks 1
Active Cracks 0
Cavitation and Surface Damage

Results Condition Indicator Score
Good Surface/Minimal Cavitation Damage 2
Fair Surface/ Moderate Cavitation Damage 1
Poor Surface/Severe Cavitation Damage 0
Total

Physical Condition Score
Sum of Cracks plus Cavitation and Surface Damage
Condition Indicator Scores


* Active cracks are those cracks, which when measured, are growing over time. Inactive cracks
are cracks that appear and when re-measured at a later date, have not grown.
E6-6
Turbine Condition Indicator 3 Operations

Operational limitations play a role in determining the serviceability of equipment: the greater the
limitations, the greater the impact to the power system leading to lost generation and sometimes
spilling. Minimal operating restraints include operations to avoid minor rough zones. Moderate
operating restraints would include last-on/first-off, hot bearings, large rough zones, high
vibration, etc. Severe limitations include situations which make the turbine undesirable to
operate such as a blade falling off, or the use of the head gate to stop the unit due to wicket gate
leakage. This rating does not include environmental restrictions, such as minimum flows, up
ramp, or maximum flow limitations.

Operational limitations of the turbine are analyzed and applied to Table 3 to arrive at a Turbine
Operational Limitations score.

Table 3 Operational Limitations Scoring

Form of Operation Condition Indicator Score
No operating restraints 1.5
Minimal operating restraints 1.0
Moderate operating restraints 0.5
Severe limitations, inoperable 0

Turbine Condition Indicator 4 Maintenance

The amount of corrective maintenance that either has been or must be performed is an indication
of condition. No corrective maintenance is an indication that the turbine is in good shape. Small
amounts of corrective maintenance would be repairs that could be completed during a unit
preventative maintenance outage that is scheduled on a periodic basis. Moderate corrective
maintenance is maintenance that extends the normal scheduled outage time to perform. Severe
corrective maintenance is maintenance that requires scheduled or forced outages to perform.

Results of turbine maintenance history are analyzed and applied to Table 4 to arrive at an
appropriate Turbine Condition Indicator score.

Table 4 Maintenance Scoring

Corrective Maintenance Condition Indicator Score
No corrective maintenance 1.5
Small amounts of corrective maintenance (e.g., less than 3
staff days per unit per year)
1.0
Moderate corrective maintenance that causes extensions of
unit preventative maintenance outages
0.5
Severe corrective maintenance or forced outages 0

E6-7
E6.12 TIER 1 TURBINE CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the turbine condition indicator scores from Tables 1 through 4 above into the Turbine
Condition Assessment Summary form (at the end of this document). Multiply each indicator
score by its respective Weighting Factor, and sum the total scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Turbine
Condition Index. This index may be adjusted by the Tier 2 turbine inspections, tests, and
measurements described later in this document.

The Turbine Condition Index is suitable for use in risk-based economic analysis models. As in
all decision-making related to life expectancy of existing equipment, there is a certain amount of
uncertainty. Current condition is not a definitive indicator of remaining life; however, it is an
important consideration and may be used to modify typical life expectancy curves and to arrive
at a reasonable and defensible probability of continued life.


E6.13 TIER 1 TURBINE DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Turbine Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test, and measurement
results used to evaluate the turbine condition under Tier 1. The more current and complete the
inspections, tests, and measurements, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing
frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific
test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to
arrive at an appropriate Turbine Data Quality Indicator Score.

Table 5 Turbine Data Quality Scoring

Data Quality
Results Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were completed
within the normal frequency.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed 6 and <24 months past the normal frequency.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed 24 and <36 months past the normal frequency, or
some of the results are not available.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed 36 months past the normal frequency, or no results are
available.
0

Enter the Turbine Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Turbine Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.

E6-8
E6.14 TIER 2 TURBINE INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements require specialized personnel to inspect the turbine,
interview plant O & M staff and, if necessary, perform a simplified field performance test. The
work will require an outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered routine. Tier 2
inspections may affect the Turbine Condition Index established using Tier 1. An adjustment to
the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were
obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.

Hydraulic turbines, unlike generators and transformers, rarely fail catastrophically and do not
really have a physical lifetime. They do have an economic lifetime, however. Because the
performance of existing turbines degrades with time, and the value of energy and power and the
performance of replacement units increase with time, there comes a point when it becomes more
economical to rehabilitate or replace them than to continue to operate and maintain them.
Families of identical or near-identical turbines at a plant should be evaluated as a group as
opposed to individual units.

A team consisting of the Plant O & M Representative(s) and Technical Support Staff should
perform Tier 2 assessments. The tasks that need to be performed for Tier 2 are summarized as
follows:

1. Technical support staff will be responsible to:

Visit the plant to perform a physical inspection of a turbine and interview O & M
staff.
Determine current performance and perform a simplified field test, if necessary.
Review and, if necessary, adjust the Tier 1 Condition Index based upon the inspection
and comparison with the condition of other similar families of units.

2. Plant O & M Representative will be responsible to:

Provide necessary assistance and information to Technical Support staff.
Assist in the assessment process.

For each Tier 2 test performed, add or subtract the appropriate amount to/from the Turbine
Condition Index. Many of the following Tier 2 tests are used to detect or confirm a similar
defect or state of deterioration. In the event that more than one Tier 2 tests are performed to
assess the same problem or concern, then the test with the largest adjustment shall be used to
recalculate the Turbine Condition Index. It is important to avoid adjusting the Condition Index
downward twice or more simply because multiple tests are completed for the same suspected
problem. Since the Tier 2 tests are being performed by and/or coordinated with knowledgeable
technical staff, the decision as to which test is more significant and how different tests overlap is
left to the experts.

E6-9
Test T2.1: Efficiency Test

The efficiency of the turbine is probably the most important factor in determining if a turbine
runner should be replaced. The efficiency test may show that the condition of the turbine has
degraded to a point that its efficiency has been reduced significantly. Even if efficiency has not
degraded, newer turbine designs are usually more efficient than those 30 years or older. In
addition, many turbines were designed for best efficiency head in the mid-range of the reservoir
elevation swing, but operational philosophy has changed. An efficiency increase and decreased
cavitation can be gained from installing a replacement runner that is designed around a head
range established from historical operations rather than original design data.
Turbine efficiency test results are analyzed and applied to Table 6 to arrive at a Turbine
Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 6 Efficiency Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Measured Efficiency Test Results Condition Index Score
Measured efficiency is 93% or <2% less than original efficiency. Add 0.5
Measured efficiency is 91 and <93% or 2 and <3% less than
original efficiency or efficiency not measured.
No Change
Measured efficiency is <91% or 3% less than original efficiency. Subtract 1.0

Test T2.2: Capacity Test

The capacity of the turbine is another important factor in determining if a turbine runner should
be replaced. As efficiency degrades over time, so does the maximum capacity of the machine.
Tests may show that the condition of the turbine has degraded to a point that its capacity has
been reduced significantly, sometimes more than 4 percent. Installing a new runner will restore
maximum capacity to original output level. In some cases, a new runner may provide an
opportunity to increase the capacity above the original design.

Capacity test results are analyzed and applied to Table 7 to arrive at a Turbine Condition Index
score adjustment.

Table 7 Capacity Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Measured Capacity Range Condition Index Score
Lost <2% of original capacity. Add 0.5
Lost 2 and <4% of original capacity or capacity not
measured.
No Change
Lost 4% of original capacity. Subtract 0.5

E6-10
Test T2.3: Off-Design Conditions Test

Consideration of present conditions must be given. If there is a significant change in the flow
rate or head from the original design condition, this can greatly impact the machine performance
and lead to recurring maintenance issues.

Test results from design conditions are analyzed and applied to Table 8 to arrive at a Turbine
Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 8 Off-Design Conditions Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Changes in Design Conditions Condition Index Score
No significant changes in flow rate or head from original design
condition.
No Change
Significant changes in flow rate or head since original design
condition.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.4: Paint Film Quality Test

A visual inspection should be made of the ferrous portions of the spiral case and extension, stay
vanes, wicket gates, runner, discharge ring, head cover, and draft tube. The paint film quality
will be scored and compared to that of other units.

Paint Film Quality test results are analyzed and applied to Table 9 to arrive at a Turbine
Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 9 Paint Film Quality of Ferrous Wetted Surfaces Test Score

Adjustment to
Paint Film Quality Test Condition Index Score
Paint film is mostly intact ( 90% of the surface is intact). Add 0.5
The paint film is mostly absent but the steel surfaces have not
yet suffered serious corrosion or erosion damage.
No Change
Ferrous surfaces exhibiting extensive erosion or corrosion are
observed (or need to be periodically repaired) in critical areas
(stay vanes, wicket gates, around (or in) man-door or in spiral
case or penstock).
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.5: Surface Roughness of Runner and Discharge Ring Test

During the physical inspection, surface quality comparison gages or measurement tools will be
used to determine the surface roughness. Although roughness can be caused from cavitation
attack, erosion, corrosion or any combination of the three, this indicator is focused only on
roughness caused by erosion and corrosion. Test T2.7 focuses on damage caused by cavitation.

E6-11
Surface quality comparison test results are analyzed and applied to Table 10 to arrive at a
Turbine Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 10 Surface Roughness of Runner and Discharge Ring Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Surface Quality Condition Index Score
Good Add 0.5
Moderate No Change
Severe Subtract 0.5

Test T2.6: Cracking of Runner and Discharge Ring Test

O & M personnel will be interviewed to determine and document the cracking repair history. If
a cracking problem has been permanently solved (i.e., no cracks have occurred in the last
10 years), it will be scored as minimal. If cracking occurs, but in non-critical areas, it will be
scored as moderate. See the sketches in Annex B. Critical areas are those labeled I and II. All
other areas are considered non-critical.

The cracking repair test results are analyzed and applied to Table 11 to arrive at a Turbine
Condition Index score adjustment.



Test T2.7: Cavitation of Runner and Discharge Ring Test

Both the average depth of the worst pitting and size of area of damage should be considered.
Photographic evidence could be utilized in the event a physical inspection is not possible.

The following areas will be inspected: Suction side of the vanes/blades near the band; pressure
side of the vanes/blades near the leading edge; discharge ring,18 inches below the runner; and
runner hub adjacent to blades.

The cavitation damage test results will be analyzed and applied to Table 12 to arrive at a Turbine
Condition Index score adjustment.
Table 11 Cracking of Runner and Discharge Ring Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Cracking During Last 10 Years Condition Index Score
Minimal (i.e., none, or not active in non-critical areas and <1
long)
Add 1.0
Moderate (i.e., active but in non-critical areas and 1 and <2
long)
No Change
Severe (i.e., active in critical areas or 2 long) Subtract 1.0
E6-12

Test T2.8: Condition of Remaining Parts and Systems Test

In addition to the turbine runner, there are many other parts and systems which need to function
to enable the turbine to operate satisfactorily. Each one by itself would not necessarily change
the condition assessment score of the unit. However, taken together, an overall assessment can
be made. The following is a list of other components and considerations:

Gate mechanism (servo motors, shift ring, wicket gate locking mechanisms, bushings)
Guide bearings
Seals
Oil-head (if Kaplan)
Blade adjusting mechanism (if Kaplan)
Alignment/verticality
Concrete growth
Run-out
Vibration
Noise
Greasing system
Oil circulating pumps
Headcover drains or pumps
Vacuum breakers

Test results from the condition of all remaining parts and systems are analyzed and applied to
Table 13 to arrive at a Turbine Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 12 Cavitation Damage of Runner and Discharge Ring Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Cavitation Damage Condition Index Score
Minimal:
Stainless frosting only (in small areas)
Carbon frosting only (in small areas)
No Change
Moderate: Depth Area
Stainless <1/8 <5%

Carbon <3/8 <5%
Subtract 0.3
Severe: Depth Area
Stainless 1/8 5%
Carbon 3/8 5%
Subtract 0.6
E6-13
Table 13 Condition of Remaining Parts and Systems Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Equipment Condition Condition Index Score
All sub-systems are normal and there are no major issues in any of
the listed areas. In general, very little maintenance is required.
Add 0.2
Some sub-systems require frequent maintenance or do not operate
well. Frequent minor maintenance is needed to keep the unit
running well.
No Change
The unit runs but takes significant or frequent maintenance. Some
more important components are damaged or broken.
Subtract 0.7

Test T2.9: Environmental Improvement Test

The primary environmental issues relative to turbines are losing oil or grease into the waterway,
poor survival of fish passing through them, and low Dissolved Oxygen (DO) content of released
water during portions of the year. Facilities without environmental issues score No Change.

Environmental improvement test results are analyzed and applied to Table 14 to arrive at a
Turbine Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 14 Environmental Improvement Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Environmental Conditions Condition Index Score
There are no perceived environmental issues and rehabilitation of
the turbine would have minimal positive effect on the environment.
Little or no oil or grease is released into the environment and no
DO improvements can be gained by a turbine replacement.
No Change
There is some history of negative impacts (occasional minor oil
releases, some mortality of fish which transit the turbine, and most
years, the desired dissolved oxygen content of released water is met
or exceeded during all months).
Subtract 0.3
There are known negative impacts which regularly occur which can
be mitigated by a turbine rehabilitation. Significant amounts of oil
or grease are occasionally released into the environment. Or, DO
improvements or fish passage survival improvements can be gained
by a turbine replacement.
Subtract 0.6

Test T2.10: Operating Conditions Test

Operating conditions are a good indicator of potential wear on a machine. Conditions such as
the loading (base loaded or peaking), Automatic Generation Control (AGC), condensing, and the
number of start/stops may lead to accelerated damage to units.
E6-14
Test results from the operating conditions are analyzed and applied to Table 15 to arrive at a
Turbine Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 15 Operating Conditions Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Form of Operation (Annually) Condition Index Score
Base loaded. Add 0.2
Peaking operation, AGC or <100 start/stops or condensing cycles. No Change
100 start/stops or condensing cycles. Subtract 0.5

Test T2.11: Maintenance Test

O & M staff should work with Engineering personnel to evaluate the past 5 to 10 years of
maintenance records to determine the level of maintenance that has been required to keep the
unit operational. Significant maintenance activities known to be needed in the near future shall
also be considered. Given the individual nature of the equipment in each operating facility and
variations in how it is operated and maintained, the specific factors considered in this evaluation
may be somewhat different for each facility.

The evaluation of past and upcoming maintenance is analyzed and applied to Table 16 to arrive
at a Turbine Condition Index score adjustment.

Table 16 Maintenance Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Maintenance Performed Condition Index Score
Normal maintenance. Add 0.2
Additional maintenance during normal outages. No Change
Additional outages or extended outages needed to perform
maintenance task or maintenance work deferred due to lack of time.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.12: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific turbine problems. Some of these diagnostic
tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive results from
other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to the
Turbine Condition Index.


E6.15 TIER 2 TURBINE CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Tier 2 Turbine Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Turbine Condition Index to arrive at the Net Turbine Condition Index. Attach supporting
E6-15
documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if
additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E6.16 TURBINE CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The Turbine Condition Index either modified by Tier 2 tests or not may be sufficient for
decision-making regarding turbine alternatives. The Index is also suitable for use in a risk-and-
economic analysis model. Where it is desired to consider alternatives based solely on turbine
condition, the Turbine Condition Index may be directly applied to Table 17 Turbine Condition-
Based Alternatives below.

Table 17 Turbine Condition-Based Alternatives

Turbine Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat or update Tier 1
assessment during next scheduled maintenance outage.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue O & M without restriction. Schedule a Tier 2
assessment in 4 years or less.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Schedule a Tier 2 assessment in 1 year.
E6-16
TURBINE
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Turbine Identifier: ______________ Manufacturer: _________________Yr. Mfd.: ___________

Tier 1 Turbine Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score x Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.667
2
Physical Condition
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)
1.250
3
Operations
(Score must be 0, 0.5, 1, or 1.5)
1.000
4
Maintenance
(Score must be 0, 0.5, 1, or 1.5)
1.000


Tier 1 Turbine Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Turbine Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)

Turbine Condition-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat or
update Tier 1 condition assessment during next
scheduled maintenance outage.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue O & M without restriction. Schedule a
Tier 2 assessment in 4 years or less.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Schedule a Tier 2 assessment in 1 year.
E6-17
TURBINE
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Turbine Identifier: ______________ Manufacturer: _________________Yr. Mfd.: ___________

Tier 2 Turbine Condition Summary

Individual Adjustments
No. Tier 2 Test to Tier 1 Condition Index
T2.1 Efficiency
T2.2 Capacity
T2.3 Off-Design
T2.4 Paint Film Quality
T2.5 Surface Roughness
T2.6 Cracking
T2.7 Cavitation
T2.8 Condition of Remaining Parts
T2.9 Environmental
T2.10 Operating Conditions
T2.11 Maintenance
T2.12 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Turbine Condition Index
(Sum of Individual Adjustments)



( 0 and 10)

Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



E6-18
To calculate the Net Turbine Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Turbine Condition Index:

Tier 1 Turbine Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Turbine Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Turbine Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)
E6-19
Annex A: Steel Conditions


Figure A-1: Stainless Steel Fair Condition.
E6-20

Figure A-2: Stainless Steel Poor Condition.


Figure A-3: Carbon Steel Fair Condition (pitting).
E6-21


Figure A-4: Carbon Steel Poor Condition.
E6-22















Figure A-5: Carbon Steel Poor Condition.



Figure A-6: Carbon Steel.
E6-23


Figure A-7: Carbon Steel Poor Condition.






Annexx B: Critical Areas

(As Referenced for Test T2.S6)

Figure B-1: Francis Runner Critical Areas.

Figure B-2: Kaplan Blade Critical Areas.
I Most Critical, II Less Critical, III Least Critical
E7-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E7: Surge Arrester Condition Assessment


E7.1 GENERAL

Surge arresters are key components in the power train at hydroelectric powerplants and are
appropriate for analysis under a condition assessment program. Surge arresters protect other
electrical equipment from high-energy surges caused by lightning strikes and circuit switching.
Failure of an aging and ineffective arrester can leave critical and expensive equipment, such as
transformers, exposed to the damaging effects of these surges. Power equipment cannot be
operated safely without effective surge arresters.

Surge arrester failure can be hazardous to staff and other equipment should the arrester fail
explosively. Although procurement cost and time for arresters is not significant, the replacement
cost and outage time for equipment collaterally damaged from an arrester explosion may be
large. The economic impact from an extended outage resulting from an arrester explosion can be
enormous. A strategy for dealing with ineffective or defective surge arresters is important to
improving the reliability of the powerplant.

Determining the present condition of a surge arrester is an essential step in analyzing the risk of
failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Surge Arrester Condition Index which
may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and
other factors.


E7.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The surge arrester condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to station-
class arresters currently in operation. It addresses both gapped, silicon-carbide type and metal-
oxide varistor (MOV) type arresters.

This appendix is not intended to define surge arrester maintenance practices or describe in detail
surge arrester condition assessment inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility maintenance
policies and procedures must be consulted for such information.


E7.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND SURGE ARRESTER
CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes different methods for obtaining condition indices for both silicon-
carbide and MOV type arresters. In the case of silicon-carbide type, the Surge Arrester
Condition Index will always be zero, as described in the section below entitled Tier 1 -
E7-2
Inspections, Tests, and Measurements. In the case of metal-oxide type arresters, the primary
condition indicator is thermal imaging. This indicator is evaluated using Tier 1 inspections,
tests, and measurements conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time. A
numerical score is assigned to the condition indicator and used to arrive at an overall Surge
Arrester Condition Index for MOV type arresters.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the Surge Arrester Condition Index. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or
of questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the validity of the overall
Condition Index. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator
is used as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Surge Arrester Condition
Index.

The appendix also describes one Tier 2 test that may be applied to MOV type arresters
depending on utility practice. If Tier 2 data is readily available, it may be used to supplement the
Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1
findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or decrease the score of the Surge
Arrester Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier
2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional information or test data.

After review by a surge arrester expert, the Condition Index is suitable for use as an input to the
risk and economic analysis model or may be used directly to determine replacement options.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate replacement regardless of the Surge Arrester Condition Index
score.


E7.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTING, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in surge arrester diagnostics and on a frequency that provides the accurate and
current information needed by the assessment.


E7.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is based on extensive experience by surge arrester maintenance staff
and engineers over a significant period of time and on recognized practices in the hydroelectric
industry. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to results that are
compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels on this
equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a similar
environment.


E7-3
E7.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators affect the Surge Arrester Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other
indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among surge arrester
maintenance personnel and engineers with extensive experience.


E7.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every surge arrester is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix cannot
quantify all factors that affect individual arrester condition. It is important that the Arrester
Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by engineering experts. Mitigating factors specific to
the utility may determine the final Arrester Condition Index and the final decision on
replacement.


E7.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where surge arrester replacement is indicated. Test results should accompany the Surge Arrester
Condition Assessment Summary Form at the end of this document.


E7.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The score is then weighted and summed
with scores from other condition indicators. The sum is the Surge Arrester Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform inspections, tests, and measurements. However,
when data is missing to properly score a Condition Indicator, it may be assumed that the score is
Good or numerically some mid-range number such as 2. Caution: this strategy should be used
judiciously to prevent misleading results. In recognition of the potential impact of poor or
missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means of evaluating and recording
confidence in the final Surge Arrester Condition Index.


E7.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Surge arrester design and construction has undergone major transformation in recent years. Prior
to about 1985, arresters were of the gapped, silicon-carbide type. The condition of this type of
arrester is difficult to determine through diagnostic testing and the arrester may fail without
warning. Explosive arrester failure can be disastrous to other equipment. Many cases of
unexpected arrester failure from undetected internal conditions have been experienced in recent
years, causing significant damage to adjacent equipment and expensive forced outages. Older
arresters may not have venting means, which makes them more vulnerable to failure. Gapped
arresters also become more vulnerable after several operations.
E7-4
The general practice is to preemptively replace gapped, silicon-carbide type arresters based on
age. Therefore, condition indicator scoring for these arresters intentionally arrives at an
automatic Condition Index of zero, indicating a need to replace the arresters regardless of other
test results.

Subsequent to 1985, arresters were manufactured using metal oxide varistor (MOV) technology.
MOV arresters do not experience the same kind of failure as the silicon-carbide arresters.
However, MOV-type arresters can be affected by moisture ingress. Like the silicon-carbide
type, it is difficult to determine the condition of MOV arresters through diagnostic testing.
Currently, there is no known relationship between age and failure for MOV-type arresters. The
following Condition Indicators only apply to MOV-type arresters.

Condition Indicator 1 Thermal Imaging (MOV-Type Arresters)

Thermal imaging of arresters using infrared scanning equipment can detect abnormal heating
patterns from leakage current, which may indicate imminent arrester failure. Infrared images are
compared to previous images or to images of other arresters of similar age and construction.
Differences in heating patterns or temperature differences between phases are of particular
concern.

Apply the thermal imaging measurements to Table 1 to arrive at the condition indicator score.

Table 1 Thermal Imaging Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Normal compared to previous or similar units. 3
Minor to moderate variation from previous tests
or similar units.
2
Significant variation from previous tests or
similar units.
0
(May indicate a serious problem requiring
immediate evaluation, consultation, and
remediation prior to re-energization.)


E7.11 TIER 1 SURGE ARRESTER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Surge Arrester Condition
Assessment Summary Form at the end of this document. Multiply each condition indicator score
by the Weighting Factor and sum the total scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Surge Arrester Condition
Index. This Index may be adjusted by the Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements described
below. Suggested alternatives for follow-up action, based on the Surge Arrester Condition
Index, are described in the Surge Arrester Condition-Based Alternatives (Table 4).


E7-5
E7.12 SURGE ARRESTER DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Surge Arrester Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test, and
measurement results used to evaluate the arrester condition under Tier 1. The more current and
complete the inspections, tests, and measurements, the higher the rating for this indicator. The
normal testing frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for
performing the specific inspection, test, or measurement.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 2 to
arrive at a Surge Arrester Data Quality Indicator score.


Table 2 Surge Arrester Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed within the normal testing frequency and
results are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and
measurements were completed 6 and <24 months
past the normal testing frequency and results are
reliable.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and
measurements were completed 24 and <36 months
past the normal testing frequency, or some of the
results are not available or are of questionable
integrity.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests and
measurements were completed 36 months past the
normal frequency, or no results are available or
many are of questionable integrity.
0

Enter the Surge Arrester Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 2 into the Surge Arrester
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E7.13 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or expertise,
may be intrusive, or may require an outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered
routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Surge Arrester Condition Index established
using Tier 1 tests as well as confirm or disprove the need for more extensive maintenance,
rehabilitation, or surge arrester replacement.

For Tier 2 assessments performed, apply only the appropriate adjustment factors per the
instructions above and recalculate the Surge Arrester Condition Index using the Surge Arrester
E7-6
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data
Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained
during the Tier 2 assessment.

Test T2.1: AC Insulation Tests (MOV-Type Arresters)

AC insulation tests (Doble tests) for surge arresters include dielectric power (watts) loss and
charging current. Such tests may provide some information regarding arrester condition but they
cannot detect certain internal conditions that could lead to failure. Poor insulation test results
indicate arrester replacement; fair or good insulation results do not necessarily mean arresters are
reliable. Problems with arresters of similar design, construction, and age are important when
considering replacement.

Apply surge arrester test results to Table 3 to arrive at the Surge Arrester Condition Index
adjustment.

Table 3 AC Insulation Test Scoring

Adjustment to
Results Arrester Condition Index
Normal. No Change
Minor to Significant Degradation; minor
increase in power (watts) loss or charging
current compared to prior tests or similar units.
Subtract 2.0
Severe Degradation; significant increase in
power (watts) loss or charging current
compared to prior tests or similar units.*
To be determined by a surge arrester specialist.

*May indicate a serious problem requiring immediate evaluation, consultation, and remediation
prior to re-energization.

Test T2.2: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific surge arrester problems. Some of these
diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive
results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate
adjustment to the Surge Arrester Condition Index.


E7.14 TIER 2 SURGE ARRESTER CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Surge Arrester Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Surge Arrester Condition Index to arrive at the Net Surge Arrester Condition Index. Attach
supporting documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be
appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.
E7-7
E7.15 SURGE ARRESTER CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by a surge arrester expert, the Surge Arrester Condition Index is suitable for use in
a risk-and-economic analysis model. The condition index may be deemed sufficient in itself for
decision-making regarding surge arrester alternatives, in which case the Surge Arrester
Condition Index may be directly applied to Table 4.

Table 4 Surge Arrester Condition-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but accelerate re-evaluation and
plan for arrester replacement.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Replace surge arrester immediately.*

* Surge arresters should be replaced as a set, i.e., all three phases should be replaced
simultaneously. Surge arresters on opposite ends of a transmission line or on opposite sides
of a transformer should be replaced simultaneously with arresters of the same material
composition. This strategy will prevent voltage wave reflections due to dissimilar
construction or the over dependence on the metal-oxide arresters.
E7-8
SURGE ARRESTER
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Arrester Identifier: ____________________ Phase: ___________
Manufacturer: _________________Yr. Mfd.: ___________
Silicone Carbide Gapped: _____ or Metal Oxide: _____ Voltage: ________ BIL: ____________

Surge Arrester Condition Summary*
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Thermal Imaging*
(Score must be 0, 2, or 3)
3.333


Tier 1 Surge Arrester Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)

*Condition indicators are used to score MOV type arresters only. For gapped, silicon-carbide
type arresters, the Arrester Condition Index is zero (0).

Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


E7-9

Surge Arrester Condition-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but accelerate re-evaluation and
plan for arrester replacement.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Replace surge arrester immediately.**

** Surge arresters should be replaced as a set, i.e., all three phases should be replaced
simultaneously. Surge arresters on opposite ends of a transmission line or on opposite
sides of a transformer should also be replaced simultaneously with arresters of the same
material composition. This strategy will prevent voltage wave reflections due to dissimilar
construction or the over dependence on the metal-oxide arresters.
E7-10
SURGE ARRESTER
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Arrester Identifier: ____________________ Phase: ___________
Manufacturer: _________________Yr. Mfd.: ___________
Silicone Carbide Gapped: _____ or Metal Oxide: _____ Voltage: ________ BIL: ____________

Tier 2 Surge Arrester Condition Summary
(MOV type arresters only)
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Tier 2 Test Adjustment to Tier 1 Condition Index
T2.1 AC Insulation
T2.2 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Surge Arrester
Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Surge Arrester Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Surge Arrester Condition Index:

Tier 1 Surge Arrester Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Surge Arrester Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Surge Arrester Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)



E8-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E8: Battery Condition Assessment


E8.1 GENERAL

Plant or station batteries are key components in hydroelectric powerplants and are appropriate
for analysis under a condition assessment program. Plant batteries provide essential backup
power for circuit breaker tripping and protective relay operation. Plant batteries often provide
power for emergency lighting, fire detection / protection systems, and critical pumps and valves.
Upon failure of either the normal alternating-current power or the battery chargers, the plant
battery is the only remaining supply of energy to protect the plant and the power system during
abnormal conditions.

Failure of the plant battery can be catastrophic to powerplant equipment and systems, as well as
a risk to the power system. If the battery cannot provide the needed energy when required,
protective action cannot remove sources of fault energy or isolate the plant from the power
system. Equipment in the power train may be damaged or destroyed, thus causing significant
outage time and costs. Power system stability may be jeopardized if the plant cannot be
disconnected from the system. The powerplant cannot be safely operated without a healthy plant
battery.

Many abnormal battery conditions detected through regular maintenance can be corrected.
Under certain circumstances, individual cells may be replaced. However, some conditions
indicate complete battery replacement. A strategy for detecting and dealing with failing plant
batteries is important to improving the reliability of the powerplant.

Determining the present condition of plant batteries is an essential step in analyzing the risk of
failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Plant Battery Condition Index which
may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and
other factors.


E8.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The powerplant battery condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to
multi-cell, vented lead-acid (VLA) (often called flooded or wet cell) type and valve-
regulated lead-acid (VRLA) type. This methodology may be used to determine alternatives for
continued maintenance or battery replacement.

This appendix is not intended to define plant battery maintenance practices or describe in detail
plant battery condition assessment inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility maintenance
policies and procedures must be consulted for such information.
E8-2
E8.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND PLANT BATTERY
CONDITION INDEX

The following three condition indicators are generally regarded by hydro powerplant engineers
as providing a sound basis for assessing plant battery condition:

Visual Inspection
Age
Routine testing

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Plant Battery Condition Index.

In addition, a stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available to
score the Plant Battery Condition Index. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the condition index. Given the potential
impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a means of evaluating and
recording confidence in the final Plant Battery Condition Index.

The appendix also describes Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements that may be applied
depending on the specific problem being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. If
Tier 2 data is readily available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment.
Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of
the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or decrease the score of the Plant Battery Condition
Index. The Data Quality Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to
reflect the availability of additional information or test data.

The methodology described in this appendix is valid only if a study of battery capacity versus
present load has been performed and that the capacity is adequate. If capacity is not adequate,
replacement is warranted and the condition methodology described herein is not applicable.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate replacement regardless of the Plant Battery Condition Index score.


E8.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTING, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in plant battery diagnostics and on a frequency that provides the accurate and
current information needed by the assessment. More complex inspections and measurements
may require a battery diagnostics expert.

Results of the battery condition assessment may cause concerns that justify more frequent
monitoring. Utilities should consider the possibility of taking more frequent measurements or
E8-3
installing computerized battery monitors that will continuously track critical quantities and
automatically perform tests. This will provide additional data for condition assessment and may
provide a certain amount of reassurance in continuing to operate the battery as maintenance /
replacement alternatives are being explored.


E8.5 SCORING

Battery condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on battery condition experts.
Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to results that are compared to
industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels on this equipment; or to
equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a similar environment.


E8.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators affect the Plant Battery Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other
indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among plant battery
maintenance personnel and engineers with extensive experience.


E8.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every plant battery is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix cannot
quantify all factors that may affect individual battery condition. It is important that the Plant
Battery Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by engineering experts. Mitigating factors
specific to the utility may determine the final Plant Battery Condition Index and the final
decision on replacement.


E8.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment. Test results
should accompany the Power Battery Condition Assessment Summary Form.


E8.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The score is then weighted and summed
with scores from other condition indicators. The sum is the Plant Battery Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score a condition indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated during the
E8-4
Tier 1 assessment as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the Plant Battery
Condition Index.


E8.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements are routinely accomplished as part of normal
operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing data. Tier 1 test
results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and summed to arrive at a
Plant Battery Condition Index. Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements may indicate
abnormal conditions that can be resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. Tier 1
test results may also indicate the need for additional investigation, categorized as Tier 2 tests.


Battery Condition Indicator 1 Visual Inspection

Visual inspection is an easy yet effective way to begin assessing battery condition. Battery cells
should be in good condition even if the battery has been in service for many years.

In the case of vented lead-acid batteries, inspection may include levels and colors of
sedimentation at the bottom of the cells; condition of plates; level of electrolyte; condition of
flame arresters; leaks, cracks, and corrosion of cell casing and terminals.

For valve-regulated, lead-acid batteries, inspection should include looking for bulges, leaks, and
cracks in cell casings and corrosion of cell terminals.

Results of visual inspection are applied to Table 1 to arrive at an appropriate Condition Indicator
Score.

Table 1 Visual Inspection Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Inspection normal. 3
Minor degradation no cracks or leaks, minimal corrosion; minimal
sedimentation; normal electrolyte level.
2
Significant degradation no cracks; few if any unrepairable leaks;
moderate corrosion; moderate sedimentation; normal electrolyte level
or needing minimal replacement.
1
Extreme degradation cracks, leaks, or corrosion leaching into cell
or cable; heavy sedimentation (quantity or size), consistently low
electrolyte.
0


E8-5
Battery Condition Indicator 2 Age

Battery age is important as an indicator of remaining life. VLA batteries have life expectancies
of about 20 years if properly maintained.
1
VRLA batteries have significantly less life typically
5 to 7 years
2
and must be maintained much more diligently than VLA batteries. Therefore,
many utilities do not use VRLA batteries as plant batteries.

Apply the battery age to either Table 2 or Table 3 to arrive at the Condition Indicator Score.


Table 2 Age Scoring Vented Lead-Acid

Age Condition Indicator Score
<12 years (<60% of expected life) 3
12 and <16 years ( 60 and <80% of expected life) 2
16 and <20 years ( 80 and <100% of expected life) 1
20 years ( 100% of expected life) 0


Table 3 Age Scoring Valve Regulated Lead-Acid

Age Condition Indicator Score
<3 years (<60% of expected life) 3
3 and <5 years ( 60 and <80% of expected life) 2
5 and <7 years ( 80 and <100% of expected life) 1
7 years ( 100% of expected life) 0

Battery Condition Indicator 3 Routine Testing

Utilities conduct routine testing of batteries as part of a scheduled maintenance program. Test
types and frequency vary between utilities but often include the following tests and
measurements:

Vented Lead-Acid:

Impedance or internal resistance test
Battery and cell float voltages
Specific gravity readings

1
The manufacturer should be consulted for life expectancy values for specific batteries.
2
Experience has shown that manufacturers VRLA life expectancy data may be overly optimistic.
E8-6
Temperature readings
Connection resistance

Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid:

Impedance test or internal resistance
Battery and cell float voltages
Temperature readings
Connection resistance

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many operation and maintenance factors as possible under this indicator.

Results of Routine Testing are analyzed and applied to Table 4 to arrive at an appropriate
Condition Indicator Score.

Table 4 Routine Testing Scoring

Results Condition Indicator Score
Results Normal:

{Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 105% of baseline for
multi-cell VRLA jars
OR
Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 115% of baseline for
single-cell VLA or VRLA jars}
AND
Float Voltages: Less than +/- 0.5% difference from manufacturers
data
AND
Specific Gravity: Less than - 0.005 difference from manufacturers
data
AND
Temperature: Cell variance less than +/- 2 F
AND
Connection Resistance: Less than 110% of baseline (VLA or
VRLA) excluding long jumpers.*
3
Minimal Deviation from Normal:

{Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 115% of baseline for
multi-cell VRLA jars
OR
Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 125% of baseline for
single-cell VLA or VRLA jars}
AND
Float Voltages: Less than +/- 1% difference from manufacturers
data
2
E8-7
AND

Specific Gravity: Less than - 0.010 difference from manufacturers
data
AND
Temperature: Cell variance less than +/- 4 F
AND
Connection Resistance: Less than 120% of baseline (VLA or
VRLA) excluding long jumpers.*
Significant Deviation from Normal:

{Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 125% of baseline for
multi-cell VRLA jars
OR
Impedance/Internal Resistance: Less than 135% of baseline for
single-cell VLA or VRLA jars}
AND
Float Voltages: Less than +/- 2% difference from manufacturers
data
AND
Specific Gravity: Less than - 0.015 difference from manufacturers
data
AND
Temperature: Cell variance less than +/- 5 F
AND
Connection Resistance: Less than 150% of baseline (VLA or
VRLA) excluding long jumpers.*
1
Extreme Deviation from Normal:

{Impedance/Internal Resistance: Greater than or equal to 125% of
baseline for multi-cell VRLA jars
OR
Impedance/Internal Resistance: Greater than or equal to 135% of
baseline for single-cell VLA or VRLA jars}
OR
Float Voltages: Greater than or equal to +/- 2% difference from
manufacturers data
OR
Specific Gravity: Greater than or equal to - 0.015 difference from
manufacturers data
OR
Temperature: Cell variance greater than or equal to +/- 5 F
OR
Connection Resistance: Greater than or equal to 150% of baseline
(VLA or VRLA) excluding long jumpers.*
0

* Connection resistance is not an indicator of battery capacity unless the resistance cannot be
E8-8
reduced by cleaning and re-torquing to manufacturers recommendations.

The impedance test is a primary indicator of battery capacity. Regardless of the results of other
routine tests (or age or visual inspection) or the Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition Index score, if the
impedance test shows degradation per utility standards then an immediate capacity test as
described in Tier 2 is indicated.


E8.11 TIER 1 PLANT BATTERY CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the condition indicator scores from the tables above into the Plant Battery Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. Multiply each condition indicator score
by the Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition
Index.


E8. 12 PLANT BATTERY DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Plant Battery Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and
measurement results used to evaluate the battery condition. The more current and complete the
inspections, tests, and measurements, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing
frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for performing the specific
inspection, test, or measurement.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to arrive at a Plant Battery Data Quality Indicator
Score.


E8-9

Table 5 Plant Battery Data Quality Scoring

Results Data Quality Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed within the normal testing time interval and
the results are reliable.
10
Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed <150 percent of the normal testing time
interval and the results are reliable.
7
Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed 150 and <200 percent of the normal testing
time interval, or some of the results are not available or
are of questionable integrity.
4
Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements were
completed 200 percent of the normal testing time
interval, or no results are available or many are of
questionable integrity.
0

Enter the Plant Battery Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Plant Battery
Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E8-10
E8.13 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements generally require specialized equipment or training,
may be intrusive, or may require an extended outage to perform. A Tier 2 assessment is not
considered routine. Tier 2 inspections are intended to affect the Plant Battery Condition Index
established using Tier 1 but also may confirm or refute the need for more extensive maintenance,
rehabilitation, or battery replacement.

For Tier 2 assessments performed, apply the appropriate adjustment factor and recalculate the
Plant Battery Condition Index using the Plant Battery Condition Assessment Summary form at
the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate
if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.

Test T2.1: Battery Capacity Test

The battery capacity or load test is generally regarded by hydro powerplant engineers as the only
conclusive test for determining plant battery condition. The capacity test determines the
batterys ability to provide power over a predetermined period of time. If the battery cannot pass
the test, replacement of the entire battery should be considered, possibly even required, in the
interest of preventing the problems described above. Replacement of a failing battery should
take place before the battery is required to respond in an emergency.

The impedance test (see Tier 1) identifies batteries and cells that might not have sufficient
capacity. The capacity test is clearly indicated for batteries that do not pass the utilitys
impedance test.

Despite popular myth, the capacity test in not destructive to the battery. A healthy battery will
not be negatively affected by a load test. Capacity testing is supported by IEEE, NFPA, battery
manufacturers, and most utility maintenance experts. It is the only effective way to measure the
batterys ability to meet an emergency demand.

Whether the capacity test is regularly scheduled or triggered by Tier 1 tests, this guide assumes
that test results are current and accurate. In some cases, it may be necessary to conduct the
capacity test to complete this assessment. If Tier 1 tests score highly (i.e., a Tier 1 Condition
Index of Good) and Tier 1 tests are current (i.e., a high Data Quality Indicator) and a Capacity
Test has been performed recently, conducting the Capacity Test may not be necessary. The
utilitys maintenance practice should be consulted.

Results of the Battery Capacity Test are applied to Table 6 to arrive at an appropriate Condition
Indicator Score.
E8-11

Table 6 Battery Capacity Test

Test Results Adjustment to Tier 1 Condition Index
90% capacity No Change
80 and <90% capacity Subtract 5.0
<80% capacity Subtract 10.0

Note: New batteries often start with a capacity that may be as low as 90% of rated. This capacity
will increase to 100% over the first 1 to 3 years of charging. This must be taken into account
when applying Capacity Test results to Table 6.

Test T2.2: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific battery problems. When conclusive results
from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to
the Plant Battery Condition Index.


E8.14 PLANT BATTERY CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Plant Battery Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Plant Battery Condition Index to arrive at the Net Plant Battery Condition Index. Attach
supporting documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be
appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E8.15 PLANT BATTERY CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by a battery expert, the Plant Battery Condition Index is suitable for use in a risk-
and-economic analysis model. The condition index may be deemed sufficient in itself for
decision-making regarding plant battery alternatives, in which case the Plant Battery Condition
Index may be directly applied to Table 7.

Table 7 Plant Battery Condition Index-Based Alternatives

Plant Battery Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat this condition
assessment process as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation. Accelerate testing and plan for battery
replacement.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Replace battery immediately.
E8-12
PLANT BATTERY
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Battery Identifier: ______________ Type: _________________
Location: ___________________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: _________
No. of Cells: ____________ Voltage: __________________

Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Visual Inspection
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.833
2
Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.833
3
Routine Testing
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.667


Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)


Plant Battery Condition Index-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat this condition
assessment process as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation. Accelerate testing and plan for battery
replacement.
0 and <3.0 (Poor) Replace battery immediately.
E8-13
PLANT BATTERY
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: ________________________ Location: ________________________________________
Battery Identifier: ______________ Type: _________________
Location: ___________________ Manufacturer: ____________________ Yr. Mfd.: _________
No. of Cells: ____________ Voltage: __________________


Tier 2 Plant Battery Condition Summary

Adjustment to Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test Condition Index
T2.1 Capacity Test
(If capacity test is not required, enter zero)

T2.2 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Plant Battery Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Plant Battery Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the
Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition Index:

Tier 1 Plant Battery Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Plant Battery Adjustments __________ = ________________

Net Plant Battery Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)


E9-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E9: Crane Condition Assessment


E9.1 GENERAL

Cranes are key safety components to support the power train at hydroelectric powerplants.
Crane failure can have a significant economic impact due to the high cost of emergency repairs
and lost revenues during an extended outage. A crane failure risks an even greater impact to
personal safety if an accident as a result of equipment failure should occur.

Determining the present condition of a crane is an essential step in analyzing the risk of failure.
This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Crane Condition Index which may be used to
develop a business case addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and other factors.

E9.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to hydroelectric
powerplant cranes. The condition assessment primarily focuses on overhead and gantry cranes
used at the intake deck, generator/turbine room, and tailrace decks of hydroelectric powerplants.
The appendix can be used to evaluate monorail hoists used for handling draft tube
bulkheads/gates.

This appendix is not intended to define maintenance practices or describe in detail inspections,
tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies, procedures, and guidelines must
be consulted for such information.


E9.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS, AND CRANE CONDITION
INDEX

This appendix describes the condition indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the initial basis for assessing the condition of the crane. The following indicators are
used to separately evaluate the condition of the crane:

Physical Condition
Design Criteria
Maintenance Requirements
Age

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
E9-2
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Crane Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the condition indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the overall Crane Condition Index. Given the
potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator is used as a means of
evaluating and recording confidence in the final Crane Condition Index.

Additional information regarding crane condition may be necessary to improve the accuracy and
reliability of the Crane Condition Index. Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1 condition indicators,
this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements that may be
applied to the Crane Condition Index, depending on the specific issue or problem being
addressed. Tier 2 analyses are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is readily
available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be
deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either
increase or decrease the score of the Crane Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator score
may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional
information or test data.

The Crane Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective actions and/or
follow-up Tier 2 testing. The Crane Condition Index is also suitable for use as an input to the
risk-and-economic analysis model.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate placing the crane out of service and requiring corrective action
before returning the crane into service, regardless of the Crane Condition Index score.


E9.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in the equipment being inspected. The more basic tests may be conducted by
qualified staff that is competent in these routine procedures. More complex inspections and
measurements may require an expert.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Details of the inspection, testing, and measurement methods and intervals are described in
technical references specific to the electric utility.


E9.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to results that are
E9-3
compared to industry-accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels on this
equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a similar
environment.


E9.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some Condition
Indicators affect the Crane Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than other indicators.
These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among design and maintenance personnel
with extensive experience.


E9.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every crane is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this appendix cannot quantify
all factors that affect individual condition. It is important that the Crane Condition Index arrived
at be scrutinized by experts. Mitigating factors specific to the utility may determine the final
Crane Condition Index and the final decision on replacement or rehabilitation of the system.


E9.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 Condition Indicator score is less than 3 or where a Tier 2 analysis results in
subtractions to the Crane Condition Index. Test reports, facility review reports, special exams,
photographs, O & M records, and other documentation should accompany the Crane Condition
Assessment Summary Form.


E9.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are weighted and summed to
determine the Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score the Condition Indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means
of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Crane Condition Index.


E9.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 includes those inspections, tests, and measurements that are routinely accomplished as
part of normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing
E9-4
data. Tier 1 results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and summed to
arrive at a Condition Index. A Tier 1 analysis may indicate abnormal conditions that can be
resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. In this case, the identified corrective
action should be completed immediately; after which, adjustments can be made to the Condition
Indicator and Condition Index. The Tier 1 results may also indicate the need for an additional
investigation, categorized as a Tier 2 analysis.


E9.11 TIER 1 CRANE CONDITION INDICATORS

Condition Indicator 1 Physical Condition of Crane

The known physical condition of the crane is a helpful indicator of crane reliability. This
indicator is based on maintenance records and the most recent inspection reports only. Use the
score of the worst component of the crane regardless of the overall or general condition of the
crane. Results of the crane physical inspection are analyzed and applied to Table 1 to arrive at a
Condition Indicator Score.

Table 1 Crane Physical Condition

Results
Condition 1
Indicator Score
Excellent Condition:
Crane surfaces and coatings are free of corrosion;
No structural damage or cracks; no loose bolts or rivets found;
Couplings are tight and properly aligned;
Moving parts are lubricated;
Gearbox oil is free from contaminants and moisture;
No groove wear on drums or sheaves;
Bearings have no wear and are well lubricated;
Oil seals do not leak;
Gears are properly aligned and have no wear;
Hoist ropes have no broken strands or deformation;
The rope is laying properly on the drum;
Limit switches are properly set and functioning properly;
Brakes have no wear and operate properly; there is no record of loads
slipping with the brakes applied;
No unusual noises or binding of any mechanism during operation;
Electrical components are clean and function properly;
Controls function properly;
Motors are clean and current draw is within limits; motor brushes and
rings show minimal wear;
Hooks or grapples are free of nicks, gouges and cracks and swivel freely;
hook latches function properly;
All wheels contact the rails, run smoothly and show no signs of wear;
Below-the-block lifting devices are in good condition;
Spare parts are readily available.
3
E9-5

Good Condition:
Crane surfaces and coatings have minor defects or corrosion;
No structural damage or cracks; no loose bolts or rivets found;
Couplings are tight and properly aligned;
Moving parts are lubricated;
Gearbox oil has minor contaminants noted;
No groove wear on drums or sheaves;
Oil seals do not leak;
Gears are properly aligned and have no wear;
Hoist ropes have no broken strands or deformation;
The rope is laying properly on the drum;
Limit switches are properly set and functioning properly;
Brake pads have 50% of the lining left and operate properly;
No unusual noises or binding of the mechanism during operation;
Electrical components are clean and functional;
Controls function properly;
Motors are clean and current draw is within limits; motor brushes and
rings show minimal wear;
Hooks or grapples are free of nicks, gouges and cracks and swivel freely;
hook latches function properly;
All wheels contact the rails, run smoothly and have minimal wear;
Below-the-block lifting devices are in good condition;
Spare parts are somewhat available.
2
Fair Condition:
Crane surfaces and coatings have minor defects or corrosion;
Minimal structural damage with no cracks;
Couplings are tight and properly aligned;
Gearbox oil has minor contaminants or water is noted;
Some groove wear on drums or sheaves;
Oil seals have minor leaks;
Gears are misaligned but no major wear or damage to the gears;
Hoist ropes have broken strands within the allowable limit of ASME
B30.2;
Limit switches are properly set and functioning properly;
Brakes pads have 20% of the lining left and operate properly;
Some unusual noises are noted during operation;
Electrical components are dirty;
Controls have minor problems;
Motor current draw is excessive;
Hooks have minor defects and some wear;
All wheels contact the rails but have some wear noted;
There are multiple trouble reports on record such as repairs to the
electrical controls;
Spare parts are somewhat difficult to obtain.
1
E9-6

Poor Condition:
There are serious concerns with the cranes condition such as:
Operational restrictions or limits have been placed on the crane;
Major corrosion on the critical components;
Indication of frame skewing or 10% loose fasteners;
Wire rope corrosion, broken strands or deformation;
Brake pads have <20% of the lining left;
Significant lubricating oil contamination;
Unusual noises or vibrations during operation;
Control problems;
Motors often trip out, vibrate or run hot; brittle or asbestos containing
wiring insulation;
Hooks and grapples have increased throat opening or are bent; have
cracks, nicks or gouges or abnormal wear;
Wheels do not contact rail or racking and binding of wheels occur during
travel; wheels are worn extensively;
Frequent trouble reports;
Spare parts are very difficult to obtain.
0

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate placing the crane out of service and requiring corrective action
before returning the crane into service, regardless of the Crane Condition Index score.

Condition Indicator 2 Design Criteria

This condition indicator only addresses the conformity of the crane design to current and future
needs and to the requirements specified in current regulations and codes. Use the score of the
most severe design criteria deficiency regardless of the overall or general condition of the crane.

Design factors that may apply are:

Crane capacity criteria (Can the crane lift the heaviest load without exceeding its rated
capacity?);
Crane duty criteria (Is the crane being used, or will be used, for more severe duty than for
which it was designed? Is there an upcoming powerhouse rehabilitation requiring heavy
crane usage?);
Different handling needs (Is the crane being used, or does it need, to lift bulkier or
different types of equipment than for which it was designed?);
Regulations and crane codes requirements (Does the crane meet present standards and
regulations, or are there deficiencies?).
E9-7
Table 2 Design Criteria Scoring

Results
Condition 2
Indicator Score
Heaviest lift <100% of rated capacity.
Crane usage is appropriate for its duty classification.
Crane configuration is adequate for handling intended loads.
Crane has no regulation and code violations.
3
Heaviest lift <100% of rated capacity.
Crane usage is slightly higher than appropriate for its duty
classification.
Crane configuration is adequate for handling intended loads.
Crane has no regulation and code violations; however may
not have features required in new regulations and codes that
are not required for older cranes.
2
Heaviest lift is 100 and <110% of rated capacity.
Crane usage is moderately higher than appropriate for its duty
classification.
Crane has minor handling deficiencies, may need
modifications to handle loads properly.
Crane has minor regulation and code violations. Also, may
not have features required in new regulations and codes that
are not required for older cranes.
1
Heaviest lift 110% of rated capacity.
Crane usage is considerably higher than appropriate for its
duty classification.
Crane has serious handling deficiencies, needs modifications
to handle loads properly.
Crane has major regulation and code violations.
0

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate placing the crane out of service and requiring corrective action
before returning the crane into service, regardless of the Crane Condition Index score.

Condition Indicator 3 Maintenance Requirements

This condition indicator addresses the amount of maintenance that the crane currently requires.
A lack of maintenance will be reflected in the Condition Indicator for Physical Condition. The
Maintenance Requirements Indicator is broken into 3 categories: Small, Moderate and
Extensive.

Small: A small amount of routine annual preventative maintenance is required for the
crane.
Moderate: Moderate levels of maintenance would include some corrective maintenance.
Excessive: Excessive maintenance is intended to include labor-intensive items. Frequent
repairs or abnormal wear to components would be considered excessive.
E9-8
Table 3 Maintenance Requirements Scoring

Results
Condition 3
Indicator Score
Small 3
Moderate 2
Excessive 1

Condition Indicator 4 Age of Crane

Age is a factor to consider when assessing the condition of a crane. Rate the system on the
oldest (not rehabilitated or refurbished) major component (mechanical equipment, crane
structure, electrical equipment). Use the year a component was last completely rehabilitated or
refurbished; otherwise, use the year it was put into service.

Results of the age analyses are applied to Table 4 to arrive at an appropriate Crane Age Indicator
Score.

Table 4 Age of Crane

Results
Condition 4
Indicator Score
<20 years 3
20 and <35 years 2
35 years 1


E9.12 TIER 1 CRANE CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Crane condition indicator scores from Tables 1-4 above into the Crane Assessment
Summary Form at the end of this document. Multiply each indicator score by its respective
Weighting Factor, and sum the total scores to arrive at the Tier 1 Crane Condition Index. This
index may be adjusted by the Tier 2 Crane inspections, tests, and measurements described later
in this document.


E9.13 TIER 1 CRANE DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Crane Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test and measurement
results used to evaluate the crane condition under Tier 1. The more current and complete the
results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal testing frequency is defined as the
organizations recommended frequency for performing crane periodic inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to
arrive at a Crane Data Quality Indicator Score.

E9-9
Table 5 Crane Data Quality

Results
Crane Data Quality
Indicator Score
The last crane periodic inspection was performed within the normal
inspection frequency and results are reliable.
10
The last crane periodic inspection was performed <36 months past
the normal inspection frequency and results are reliable.
7
The last crane periodic inspection was performed 36 and <60
months past the normal inspection frequency OR some of the results
are not available or are of questionable integrity.
4
The last crane periodic inspection was performed 60 months past
the normal inspection frequency OR many results are of
questionable integrity or no results are available.
0

Enter the Crane Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the Crane Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this document.


E9.14 TIER 2 CRANE INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements require specialized personnel to inspect the cranes
and interview plant O & M staff. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered routine. Tier 2
inspections may affect the Crane Index established using Tier 1.

A team consisting of the Plant O & M Representative and Technical Support Staff should
perform Tier 2 assessments.

The tasks to be performed for Tier 2 are summarized below:

1. Technical support staff will be responsible to:

Visit the plant to perform a physical inspection of the crane being evaluated and
interview O & M staff.
Determine current condition of the crane.
Review and, if necessary, adjust the Tier 1 Condition Index based upon the
inspection and comparison with the condition of other similar cranes.

2. Plant O & M Representative will be responsible to:

Provide necessary assistance and information to Technical Support staff.
Assist in the assessment process.

For each Tier 2 test performed, add or subtract the appropriate amount to/from the appropriate
Tier 1 Condition Indicator and recalculate the Crane Condition Index using the Crane Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data Quality
E9-10
Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during
the Tier 2 assessment.

Note: As in Tier 1 evaluations, any single condition that is severe enough could justify
corrective action even if the overall condition index does not indicate as such.


E9.5 TIER 2 CRANE CONDITION INDICATORS

The Tier 2 evaluation is divided up into sections:

Structural Integrity
Mechanical Integrity
Electrical Integrity
Operation
Miscellaneous Deficiencies
Maintenance Escalation
Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Test T2.1: Structural Integrity

The physical deterioration of the crane structure is likely to be from one or more of the following
factors evaluated here:

Corrosion
Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities
Field Repair and Modification
Miscellaneous Damage or Condition

Test T2.1.1: Corrosion

Corrosion typically causes the most damage to cranes. Special attention should be paid to
critical areas such as welds, member interfaces, and connectors. Corrosion nodes should be
chipped off to reveal the true extent of metal deterioration.

E9-11
Table 6 Corrosion

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Corrosion has not caused significant loss of cross sectional
area for structural members, corrosion buildup has not caused
separation in adjacent members, localized corrosion has not reduced
weld areas significantly, protective coatings in good condition, little
or no cavitation.
Add 1.0
Moderate Small amounts of cross sectional area have been lost in
some members, there is isolated plate separation caused by
corrosion, some pitting, some weld area reduction in some welds,
protective coating in fair condition.
No Change
Severe Significant cross sectional area loss in critical members,
widespread plate and/or member separation, significant weld size
loss due to corrosion, significant pitting protective coating in poor
condition.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.1.2: Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Yielding and fracture of structural members and weldments can compromise structural integrity
and deserve special attention. They can occur from a variety of causes including, but not limited
to: impact, fatigue loading, material defect, and design overload.

Fractures usually occur where there are local stress raisers. This occurs where there is a local
geometry change. Examples of this are bolt/rivet holes, sharp inside corners, corrosion pits, and
weldments. Cracking of weldments or base metals is particularly problematic where thick
members are welded together or there are dimensioning errors. Improper welding techniques
and welding in an inaccessible area can also lead to problematic discontinuities. Welding
discontinuities take many forms and are usually identified by visual inspection. Weldments can
also be tested by nondestructive methods if necessary.

Table 7 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good No visible yielding or buckling, there is little to no cracking
near welds and/or stress concentrators. Any cracks have not
propagated significantly.
Add 1.0
Moderate May be slight yielding; cracking near stress
concentrators or welds is intermittent with little or no propagation.
Can justify the use of nondestructive testing on some welds.
No Change
Severe Significant yielding or buckling in critical members,
cracking in a sequence of welds, crack propagation in many cracks.
Usually justifies the use of nondestructive testing on most welds.
Subtract 1.0

E9-12
Test T2.1.3: Field Repair and Modification

Cranes that have been significantly modified in the field without proper engineering and quality
control may be structurally compromised. Improper repairs include, but are not limited to:

Replacing parts with lesser quality or strength parts than the crane was engineered for
(bolts, skin plates, picking eyes, structural steel, etc.);
Protective coatings that are improperly formulated or applied;
Cutting of beam webs or flanges;
Improper welding/rewelding.

Table 8 Field Repair and Modification

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good No field repairs or modifications done without proper
engineering analysis.
No Change
Moderate Some minor repairs, not likely to cause failure. Subtract 0.5
Severe Major modifications that severely compromise the
structural integrity of the crane.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.1.4: Miscellaneous Damage or Condition

Any damage or condition that is not explicitly in the categories of corrosion, yielding, fracture,
design discontinuities, improper field repair and modification, or unforeseen loadings.

Table 9 Miscellaneous Damage or Condition

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good No Change
Moderate Subtract 0.5
Severe Subtract 1.0


Test T2.2: Mechanical Integrity

The integrity of the following mechanical components of the crane is evaluated here:

Wire Rope/Chain
Drums and Sheaves
Gearbox, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets
Bearings, Bushings, and Couplings
Wheels
Hooks and Load Blocks

E9-13
Test T2.2.1: Wire Rope/Chain

Wire ropes and chain carry the load and must be in serviceable condition. Failure or these
devices could cause significant economic and life safety impact.

It is important to examine the entire length of wire rope, especially the underside of the rope that
commonly comes in contact with the hoist drum or sheaves as the top of the rope can be in good
condition while the bottom side can be severely worn. Other problems with wire rope include
but are not limited to: corrosion (loss of cross sectional area) and broken wires, strands, and
cores from abrasion, fatigue, deformation, and material defect.

Traditionally, tests have been visual, but there is now a non-destructive test method called
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) test that can be performed on wire rope that will reveal
deficiencies not easily identified by visual inspections. MFL may be justified for critical
applications such as emergency closure cranes and hoists.

Hoist chain is difficult to inspect and is not usually cost effective (if thought to be defective) as it
can be easily replaced relatively inexpensively.

Table 10 Wire Rope/Chain

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Wire rope in good condition with no significant loss in cross
sectional area, no broken wires, corrosion is superficial. Rope
greased sufficiently. Chain in good condition, withstands proof
loads.
No Change
Moderate Few broken wires, no broken strands or cores.
Corrosion and or lubrication could be better. Wire rope in
serviceable condition. Minor wire kinking or crushing. Chain in
marginal condition but withstands proof loads.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Broken core or strands, neglected cable with significant
corrosion, 15% or more reduction in cross sectional area reduction at
any point in cable. Wire kinked or crushed severely. Chain in poor
condition usually justifying replacement.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.2.2: Drums and Sheaves

Hoist drums and sheaves should be checked for wear and general operating condition. Structural
deficiencies should have already been noted in the Structural Integrity section.

E9-14
Table 11 Drums and Sheaves

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Hoist drum in good condition, no major deficiencies. Wire
rope is correctly secured to drum, wire rope is not over spooled
when load blocks are in 100% up condition.
Add 0.5
Moderate Drums and sheaves in service able condition with
normal wear.
No Change
Severe Drum highly worn in groves, alignment incorrect, sheaves
worn.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.2.3: Gearbox, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets

Gearbox should be operated through a full operation cycle and be observed for abnormal sounds
that may indicate internal problems. Opening, draining, cleaning and inspection of gearbox
internals may be justified. Lube oil may be sampled to test the condition. External leakage
should also be noted.

Table 12 Gearbox, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Gearbox in good working condition. Gearbox internals (if
inspected) are in good working order, gear tooth wear is minimal
with even wear pattern, bushing and bearings are in good shape, and
seals dont leak externally. External gearing and chain sprockets are
in good shape.
Add 0.5
Moderate Gearbox is serviceable. Gearing (if inspected) is in good
shape, no cracking, moderate tooth wear and/or uneven wear pattern.
Some metal accumulation in bottom or gearbox. Gearbox, gearing,
and chain sprockets serviceable for 7 to <10 years.
No Change
Severe Gearbox in poor condition. Extreme wear and/or cracking
on teeth, substantial metal accumulation in gearbox, dirty or
insufficient gear lube, seals leak extensively, bearings or bushings in
poor condition. Gearbox, gearing, and chain sprockets serviceable
for 0 to <7 years.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.2.4: Bearings, Bushings, and Couplings

Bearings, bushings, and couplings are subject to normal wear and tear and are subject to a finite
life span. Bearing and bushings (those inside gearbox were inspected as part of the Gearbox and
External Gearing section) should be inspected where possible for wear, damage, installation
error, and manufacture malfunction. Since this section rating could encompass many bearings
and bushing, the rater should rate the overall condition of all the bearings, noting individual
bearings, bushings, or couplings that need immediate repair.

E9-15
Table 13 Bearings, Bushings, and Couplings

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Bearings, bushings, and couplings are in good shape and
need little or no attention.
Add 0.5
Moderate Some repair needed on individual bearings, bushings,
and couplings.
No Change
Severe System wide poor condition of bearings, bushings, and
couplings, easier to overhaul everything than attempt individual
repair to select bearings, bushings and couplings.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.2.5: Wheels

Wheels are subject to normal wear and tear and are subject to a finite life span. Since this
section rating could encompass many wheels, the rater should rate the overall condition of all the
wheels, noting individual wheels that need immediate repair.

Table 14 Wheels

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Wheels are in good shape and need little or no attention. Add 0.5
Moderate Wheels have wear, but still serviceable. No Change
Severe Wheels need replacing. Subtract 0.5

Test T2.2.6: Hooks and Load Blocks

Hooks and load blocks are subject to normal wear and tear and are subject to a finite life span.
Since this section rating could encompass several hooks and load blocks, the rater should rate the
overall condition of all the hooks and load blocks, noting individual hooks or load blocks that
need immediate repair.

Table 15 Hooks and Load Blocks

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Hooks and load blocks are in good shape and need little or
no attention.
Add 0.5
Moderate Some repair needed on individual hooks and load
blocks.
No Change
Severe Major repairs or replacement required. Subtract 0.5


E9-16
Test T2.3: Electrical Integrity

The integrity of the electrical system of the crane is evaluated under these focus areas:

Incoming Power Source
Power and Ancillary Systems Components
Control System Components
Availability of Spare Parts

Test T2.3.1: Incoming Power Source

The cranes incoming power source should be evaluated for overall condition and performance.
Systems and equipment included in this part of the evaluation include the power supply feeder,
runway conductors and collectors, and cable reel mechanisms, diesel generator sets or other
devices used to transfer power to the crane.

Table 16 Incoming Power Source

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Power source functions continuously on the entire length of
the cranes runway. No power loss or nuisance trips due to loss of
contact with power source or excessive voltage drop observed.
Cable reel has enough cable available to service the entire runway
from available outlets, and no splices or damaged areas are noted in
the cable. Diesel generator set functions properly.
Add 0.5
Moderate Power source functions continuously on 75% of the
cranes runway, and the <25% of non-continuous operation occurs
on sections of the runway where the crane does not perform frequent
service. Cable reel mechanism is problematic or cable appears
worn, but continues to deliver uninterrupted power to the crane.
Diesel generator set requires routine to frequent maintenance.
No Change
Severe Power source does not function continuously on the entire
length of the runway. Nuisance trips are frequent. Runway
conductors are misaligned, have excessive insulated expansion gaps,
or experience excessive sag due to environmental or loading
conditions. Cable reel mechanism is severely worn or damaged.
Diesel generator set requires frequent maintenance or is poorly
suited to the duty required.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.2: Power and Ancillary Systems Components

The integrity of the power and ancillary systems should be evaluated independently of other
factors. Power system components as related to this assessment include power disconnect
switches, breakers, and other power protective devices; power conductors, conduit, and raceways
resident on the crane; and motors, brakes and motion control resistors. Ancillary systems include
lighting equipment and other low-voltage (120 VAC) devices such as load cells and wind meters.
E9-17
Table 17 Power and Ancillary Systems Components

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Main power disconnect switch is operational and acts to
remove power from the entire crane. Breakers and power contactors
are sized appropriately and operate properly. Power conductors are
in good overall condition, with no excessive wear, splices or
damaged portions. Motors, brakes, and resistors do not exhibit
excessive heating, whining, or grinding, and are adequate for their
use. Lighting system adequately illuminates the crane, and other
low-voltage equipment functions as designed.
Add 0.5
Moderate Main power disconnect may or may not operate
properly, but other safety measures are in place to remove power
from the crane. Breakers and power contactors operate properly.
Wiring is excessively worn or aged but does not pose safety hazard.
Motors, brakes, and resistors function properly. Lighting system
may or may not illuminate adequately, but can be marginally
corrected by replacing lamps. Other low-voltage equipment
functions as designed.
No Change
Severe Main power disconnect does not operate properly. Several
breakers or power contactors are not functioning properly or
contacts are welded. Power and lighting conductors are damaged or
severely aged, posing safety hazard. Motors exhibit excessive
heating, whining, or grinding. Brakes fail to release completely, fail
to hold the load while set, are missing parts, chatter, or show signs of
excessive heating. Resistors are not functioning as designed, as
evidenced by missing speed points or nuisance tripping during
dynamic braking. Lighting system offers poor illumination and can
not be corrected by replacing lamps. Low voltage equipment does
not function properly.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.3: Control System Components

The integrity of the control system should be evaluated independently of other factors. Control
system components as related to this assessment include operators control apparatus; control
panels and enclosures; control conductors, conduit, and raceways resident on the crane; and limit
switches and other control devices.

It should be noted that live, 480 VAC, operator controls are considered somewhat of a potential
safety hazard. While no safety standard prohibits 480 VAC operator controls on cab-operated
cranes, there is an OSHA, as well as ASME, restriction against pendant controls having greater
than 150 VAC or 300 VDC control circuit voltage. To be conservative, it is recommended that a
crane that has operator control circuit voltage of greater than 150 VAC or 300 VDC be
prohibited from receiving better than a Moderate rating for the Control System Components
evaluation.

E9-18
Table 18 Control System Components

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Operators master switches and other control switches
operate properly, with no dead speed points. Control panels and
enclosures are clean, undamaged, and function as designed. Control
panels and enclosures have adequate environmental ratings for their
service (indoor, outdoor). Control wiring is in good overall
condition. Limit switches and other control devices function as
designed.
No Change
Moderate Operators switches have one or two dead speed
points but function as designed otherwise. Control panels and
enclosures are dirty, slightly damaged, or do not have an adequate
environmental rating for their service, but continue to function as
designed. Control wiring is aged or worn but does not pose a safety
hazard. Hoist and travel limit switches and other control devices do
not function as designed, but may be replaced or repaired.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Operators switches have more than two dead speed
points or otherwise do not function properly. Control panels are
dirty, damaged, do not have an adequate environmental rating, or
otherwise do not function as designed. Control wiring is severely
aged or worn and poses a safety hazard. Limit switches or other
control devices do not function properly and can not be replaced or
repaired.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.4: Availability of Spare Parts

Spare parts are essential to maintaining the health and integrity of the cranes power, ancillary,
and control systems components. As cranes age, their control systems may become
technologically outdated, rendering spare parts impossible to find on short notice, or at all.
Because powerhouses often do not have mobile cranes or other alternative methods available for
moving large loads, it is essential for powerhouse cranes to have new spare parts available from
multiple vendors.

Spare parts addressed in this section include breakers, contactors, motors, electric brakes, limit
switches, conductor and collector systems, control system electrical or electronic devices, and
operators control switches.
E9-19

Table 19 Availability of Spare Parts

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good All motors, brakes, electronic devices, and 75% of other
spare parts of the types listed above are available and are either
stored on-site or are readily available from three or more domestic
vendors. Spare parts are not special-order items.
No Change
Moderate All motors, brakes, electronic devices, and 75% of
other spare parts are not available on-site but are readily available
from two or three domestic vendors. Spare parts are not special-
order items.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Any hoist motor or hoist brake is not available on-site or
from one or more vendors. Electronic devices and other spare parts
are not available on-site, are not available by more than one
domestic vendor, or are not available at all. Spare parts are special-
order items only. Spare parts are available by international vendors
only.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.4: Operation

Operation of crane in this section is concerned with overall system operation including
misalignment, speed, and reliability.

Table 20 Operation

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Acceptable All hoists and travel drives operate smoothly, no
vibrations or unusual noises, no control problems, no racking or
binding.
No Change
Marginal At least one hoist or travel drive operates with some
vibration or unusual noises, some control problems, or some racking
or binding.
Subtract 0.5
Unacceptable At least one hoist or travel drive with severe
vibration or unusual noises, severe control problems, or severe
racking or binding.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.5: Miscellaneous Deficiencies

Any deficiencies not previously listed in the previous sections should be noted, the Tier 2 rater
should use their judgment to assess a negative condition assessment adjustment to the Crane
condition.

E9-20
Table 21 Miscellaneous Deficiencies

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Deficiency will not affect the safety or functionality of
crane.
No Change
Moderate May affect the function of crane. Subtract 0.5
Severe Will severely affect performance or structure of crane to
the point where there is risk of significant economic or life loss.
Subtract 1.0


Test T2.6: Maintenance Escalation

Maintenance escalation for equipment is normal. Usually equipment is engineered for some
finite service life rarely shortened but often exceeded. Maintenance history should be examined
to determine maintenance escalation. Findings may justify performing a cost benefit analysis
based on increased maintenance costs and anticipated downtime. A risk assessment based on
safety may also be justified.

Table 22 Maintenance Escalation

Rating
Adjustment to
Condition Index Score
Good Maintenance escalation is less than expected. Add 0.5
Moderate Maintenance escalation is in keeping with estimates, but
is manageable by the project staff. No anticipated significant risk of
system failure.
No Change
Severe Maintenance escalation is dramatic, required maintenance
has increased beyond the capacity of the project. Anticipated
significant risk of system failure.
Subtract 0.5


Test T2.7: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific crane problems. Some of these diagnostic
tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When conclusive results from
other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to the
Crane Condition Index.


E9.16 TIER 2 CRANE CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Crane Condition Assessment
Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from the Tier 1
Crane Condition Index to arrive at the Net Crane Condition Index. Attach supporting
documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if
additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.
E9-21
E9.17 CRANE CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by a crane expert, the Crane Condition Index is suitable for use in a risk-and-
economic analysis model. The condition index may be deemed sufficient in itself for decision-
making regarding crane alternatives.

Table 23 Crane Condition-Based Alternatives

Generator Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E9-22
CRANE
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _______________________________ Location: _________________________________
Name of Crane: ________________________________________________________________
Crane Manufacturer: __________________________ Yr. Installed: _______________________
Type of Crane: ________________________ Capacity of Crane: _________________________
Function of Crane: ______________________________________________________________

Tier 1 Crane Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score x Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Physical Condition
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 1.2
2
Design Criteria
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
3 1.0
3
Maintenance Requirements
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.8
4
Age
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
3 0.333
Tier 1 Crane Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)

Crane Condition Index-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Repeat Tier 1 assessment during next periodic
inspection.
3.0 and <7 (Fair) Schedule Tier 2 assessment within 2 years.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Perform crane repairs, if possible, and repeat Tier
1 assessment. Otherwise, schedule Tier 2
assessment as soon as possible.
E9-23
CRANE
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _______________________________ Location: _________________________________
Name of Crane: ________________________________________________________________
Crane Manufacturer: __________________________ Yr. Installed: _______________________
Type of Crane: ________________________ Capacity of Crane: _________________________
Function of Crane: ______________________________________________________________

Tier 2 Crane Condition Summary

No. Tier 2 Test (Table No.)
Adjustment to
Tier 1 Crane
Condition
Index
Structural Integrity:
T2.1.1 Corrosion (6)
T2.1.2 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (7)
T2.1.3 Field Repair and Modification (8)
T2.1.4 Miscellaneous Damage or Condition (9)
Mechanical Integrity:
T2.2.1 Wire Rope/Chain (10)
T2.2.2 Drums and Sheaves (11)
T2.2.3 Gearbox, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets (12)
T2.2.4 Bearings, Bushings, and Couplings (13)
T2.2.5 Wheels (14)
T2.2.6 Hooks and Load Blocks (15)
Electrical Integrity:
T2.3.1 Incoming Power Source (16)
T2.3.2 Power and Ancillary Systems Components (17)
T2.3.3 Control System Components (18)
T2.3.4 Availability of Spare Parts (19)
Miscellaneous Tests and Conditions:
T2.4 Operation (20)
T2.5 Miscellaneous Deficiencies (21)
T2.6 Maintenance Escalation (22)
T2.7 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Crane Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)

E9-24
To calculate the Net Crane Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10), subtract the Tier 2
Adjustments from the Tier 1 Crane Condition Index:

Tier 1 Crane Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Crane Adjustments __________ = ______________

Net Crane Condition Index

Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)

E10-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E10: Compressed Air System Condition Assessment


E10. 1 GENERAL

Compressed air systems are key components at hydroelectric power plants. Compressed air
system failure can have a significant economic impact due to the high cost of emergency repairs.

Determining the present condition of a compressed air system is an essential step in analyzing
the risk of failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at a Compressed Air System
Condition Index which may be used to develop a business case addressing risk of failure,
economic consequences, and other factors.


E10. 2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The condition assessment methodology outlined in this guide applies to hydroelectric power
plant compressed air systems. The condition assessment primarily focuses on the compressors,
air dryers, air tanks, control panels, and piping. Air systems covered are 175 psi (high
pressure) for governor air supply and <175 psi (low pressure) for station service air supply with
desiccant or refrigerant air dryers.

This appendix is not intended to define compressed air system maintenance practices or describe
in detail inspections, tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies and
procedures must be consulted for such information.


E10. 3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS,
AND COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX

The following indicators are used to separately evaluate the condition of the compressed air
system:

Physical condition
Operation run time
Maintenance requirements
Age of compressed air system

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
E10-2
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the Compressed Air System
Condition Index.

The Compressed Air System Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective
actions and/or follow-up testing. To the extent that Tier 1 tests result in immediate corrective
actions being taken by plant staff, the condition indicator scores should be adjusted to reflect
corrective actions taken and the modified scores used to revise the overall Compressed Air
System Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator, the Data Quality Indicator, is used to reflect the quality of
the information available for scoring the condition indicators. In some cases, data may be
missing, out-of-date, or of questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the
accuracy of the associated condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the overall
Condition Index. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator
is used as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the Compressed Air System
Condition Index.

Additional information regarding compressed air system condition may be necessary to improve
the accuracy and reliability of the Compressed Air System Condition Index. Therefore, in
addition to the Tier 1 condition indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of Tier 2
inspections, tests, and measurements that may be applied, depending on the specific issue or
problem being addressed. Tier 2 tests are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is
readily available, it may be used to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternately, Tier 2 tests
may be deliberately performed to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may
either increase or decrease the score of the Compressed Air System Condition Index. The Data
Quality Indicator score may also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the
availability of additional information or test data.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate corrective maintenance actions, regardless of the Compressed Air
System Condition Index score.


E10. 4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in compressed air system diagnostics. The more basic tests may be conducted
by qualified staff that is competent in these routine procedures. More complex inspections and
measurements may require a compressed air system diagnostics expert.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be performed on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Details of the inspection, testing, and measurement methods and intervals are described in
technical references specific to the electric utility.


E10-3
E10. 5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
plant staff and experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to
results that are compared to industry accepted levels; or to baseline or previously acceptable
levels on this equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a
similar environment


E10. 6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some condition
indicators affect the Compressed Air System Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree than
other indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among design and
maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E10. 7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every compressed air system is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this guide
cannot quantify all factors that affect individual condition. It is important that the Compressed
Air System Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by experts. Mitigating factors specific to
the utility may affect the final Compressed Air System Condition Index and the final decision on
replacement or rehabilitation of the system.


E10. 8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., less than normal) or where a Tier 2
test results in subtractions to the Compressed Air System Condition Index. Test reports,
photographs, O & M records, and other documentation should accompany the Compressed Air
System Condition Assessment Summary form.


E10. 9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are then weighted and summed
to determine the Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score a condition indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated during the
Tier 1 assessment as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Compressed Air
System Condition Index.
E10-4
E10.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 tests include those inspections, tests, and measurements that are routinely accomplished as
part of normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing
data. Tier 1 test results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and
summed to arrive at a Condition Index. Tier 1 tests may indicate abnormal conditions that can
be resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. To the extent that Tier 1 tests result
in immediate corrective maintenance actions being taken by plant staff, then adjustments to the
condition indicators should be reflected and the new results used when computing the overall
Tier 1 Condition Index. Tier 1 test results may also indicate the need for additional
investigation, categorized as Tier 2 tests.


E10. 11 COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM CONDITION INDICATORS

Condition Indicator 1 Physical Condition

Compressed air system problems can often be detected during the course of physical inspections.
Problems such as serious air, oil, and water leaks, excessive vibration and abnormal noise while
operating, corrosion, warping, belt tension, or failures on control panels may be observed. The
known physical condition of the compressed air system is a major indicator of overall system
reliability. This indicator relies heavily on maintenance records and past inspection reports.

Qualified personnel should make a determination of scoring that encompasses as many
inspection factors as possible under this indicator. Table 1 provides guidance for assigning an
appropriate Condition Indicator Score.

E10-5
Table 1 Physical Condition Scoring

Physical Condition
Inspection Results Indicator Score
Excellent Condition: Inspection results are normal.
No major air, oil, and water leaks.
No excessive vibration or abnormal noise during operation.
No evidence of heat, corrosion or warping.
No significant condensation or water problems in the compressed
air.
No loose or broken fasteners, no cracks in castings or sheet metal
shrouding.
Drive belt tensions are correct; belts are in good working condition.
No failures, alarms, abnormal changes in normal operating levels on
gauges or indicators and control panels.
Normal lubricating oil level and color.
Lubricating oil is not contaminated.
Air filters are clean.
No excess oil vapours or carbon residue in the air lines.
Pressures are maintained at the expected set point.
3
Good Condition: Inspection results show some deterioration of the
criteria mentioned above.
2
Fair Condition: Inspection results show significant deterioration of the
criteria mentioned above.
1
Poor Condition: Inspection results show extensive deterioration of the
criteria mentioned above.
0

Condition Indicator 2 Operation Run Time

This condition indicator measures the compressor run time and compares it with expected run
time to assess compressor performance and system integrity. It is assumed that an increase in
run time indicates a reduction in performance due to worn compressor components (i.e., cylinder
wear, ring wear, check valve leakage, or similar wear related effects). The information used to
score this indicator should be gathered through normal maintenance activities.

E10-6

Table 2 Operation Run Time Scoring

Operation Run Time
Amount of Operating Hours Indicator Score
Compressor operating hours match the air consumption required (100%). 3
Compressor operating hours are somewhat increased but no change of air
consumption required and no major air leaks ( 100 and <120%).
2
Compressor operating hours are moderately increased but no change of
air consumption required and no major air leaks ( 120 and <150%).
1
Compressor operating hours are significantly increased but no change of
air consumption required and no major air leaks ( 150%).
0

Condition Indicator 3 Maintenance Requirements

Assess the level of maintenance required for this equipment. This condition indicator addresses
the amount of maintenance that the compressed air system currently requires. It does not address
failure to perform maintenance since a lack of maintenance will be reflected in the condition
indicator for Physical Condition. The Maintenance Requirements indicator has 3 levels:
Minimal, Moderate, and Extensive, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Maintenance Requirements Scoring

Maintenance Condition
Amount of Required Maintenance Indicator Score
Minimal level: A small amount of routine preventive maintenance
is required for the compressed air system.
3
Moderate level: Some corrective maintenance is necessary. 2
Extensive level: Frequent repairs, abnormal wear to components,
and/or labor-intensive maintenance is required.
1

Condition Indicator 4 Age of the Compressed Air System

Assess the age of the components and enter the age in Table 4. If design life information is
available, use the design life instead of age in Table 4.

Use Table 4 to arrive at an appropriate Compressed Air System Age Indicator Score.

E10-7
Table 4 Age Scoring

Age
Age of the Equipment Indicator Score
<25 years 3
25 and <35 years 2
35 and <45 years 1
45 years 0


E10.12 TIER 1 COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Compressed Air System Condition Indicator Scores from the tables above into the
Compressed Air System Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.
Multiply each indicator score by its respective Weighting Factor, and sum the Total Scores to
arrive at the Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Index. The index may be adjusted by the
Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements described below.


E10.13 TIER 1 COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Compressed Air System Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection, test,
and measurement results used to evaluate the compressed air system condition under Tier 1. The
more current and complete the results are, the higher the rating for this indicator. The normal
testing frequency is defined as the organizations recommended frequency for performing the
specific test or inspection.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to
arrive at an appropriate Compressed Air System Data Quality Indicator Score.

E10-8
Table 5 Compressed Air System Data Quality Scoring

Compressed Air System Data Quality
Results Indicator Score
All Tier 1 inspections, tests and measurements
were completed within the normal testing
frequency (e.g., within the last <3 years) and
the results are reliable.
10
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 1 and <4
years past the normal testing frequency and the
results are reliable.
7
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 4 and <7
years past the normal testing frequency, or
some of the results are not available or are of
questionable integrity.
4
One or more of the Tier 1 inspections, tests
and measurements were completed 7 years
past the normal frequency, or no results are
available or many are of questionable integrity.
0

Enter the Compressed Air System Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 5 into the
Compressed Air System Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E10-9
E10. 14 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MESUREMENTS

If the Compressed Air System Condition Index is fair or poor, Tier 2 evaluations may be
warranted. The Tier 2 evaluations are intended to be quantitative performance tests for the
compressor and dryer. Tier 2 analysis improves assessment of the status or condition of air
system components and should help equipment maintenance personnel assess the need for more
extensive corrective maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.

After Tier 2 assessments are performed, apply the appropriate adjustment factors as indicated in
the tables below. Recalculate the Compressor Condition Index using the Compressor Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this document. An adjustment to the Data Quality
Indicator score may be appropriate if additional or newer information or test results were
obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.

Test T2.1: Compressor Performance Testing

Compressor performance testing is intended to assess how well the compressor is working.
Measurements usually require special test equipment that will vary depending on the utility or
plant.

Test T2.1.1: Compressor Air Flow

Compressor air flow measurements indicate the functionality of the compressor while it is
running, and exclude the effects from other system components that will bias the run time data.

Table 6A Compressor Air Flow Scoring

Measured Results Adjustment to
Air Flow Q
read
Rating Criteria Compressor Condition Index
Q
read
1

>0.9 Q
nom
2
No change
0.8 Q
nom
Q
read
0.9 Q
nom
Subtract 2.0
Q
read
<0.8 Q
nom
Subtract 6.0
1. Q
read
is the air flow rate read from a flow meter connected to the discharge port of the compressor.
Most compressors are rated in SCFM, cubic feet per minute of standard air, and the data from the
meter must be normalized (converted) into SCFM.
2. Q
nom
is the rated output for the compressor, based either on service records or on manufacturers
output rating.

Test T2.1.2: Compressor Air Temperature

Compressor air temperature measures the effectiveness of the after coolers and/or excessive
output temperatures while running.

E10-10
Table 6B Compressor Air Temperature Scoring

Measured Results
Air Temperature (last stage) Adjustment to
T
read
Rating Criteria Compressor Condition Index
T
read
1

<1.1 T
nom
2
No change
1.1 T
nom
T
read
1.2 T
nom
Subtract 1.0
T
read
>1.2 T
nom
Subtract 4.0
1. T
read
is the temperature measurement taken at the discharge from the after cooler. It should be
compared to historical data for the same compressor.
2. T
nom
is the discharge air temperature when the compressor was new or in just-refurbished
condition.

Test T2.1.3: Compressor Motor Current

Compressor motor current provides information about the motor condition and input shaft power
requirements.

Table 6C Compressor Motor Current Scoring

Measured Results
I Current Drive Motor
between Phases Adjustment to
Rating Criteria Compressor Motor Condition Index
I <3% I
nom
No change
3% I
nom
I 5% I
nom
Subtract 1.0
I >5% I
nom
Subtract 4.0

Test T2.1.4: Compressor Lube Oil Analysis

If Tier 1 testing indicates potential compressor problems that are not easily diagnosed, an oil
analysis test program can provide additional information to help identify potential failure modes.
As the compressor wears during normal operation, metallic particles up to roughly 15 microns in
size will accumulate as a suspension in the oil. The particle size distribution and shape,
oxidation, the nature of constituent elements found and especially the rate of change in the
particle accumulation rate from one test to the next, are all important indicators of the type of
wear occurring.

Oil analysis tests should be performed by taking samples and sending them to a commercial oil
analysis laboratory. The laboratory should be consulted for guidance when planning the testing
procedure, and the results evaluation procedure should be adjusted to suit the equipment. If time
E10-11
allows, the analysis is enhanced if you run one sample, operate the machine for a measured
amount of time, and then run another sample.

Ferrography (analysis of the size, shape, concentration and size distribution of magnetic
particles) should be specified in the oil analysis purchase order. Techniques and guidelines for
the Ferrography evaluation process are found in the Wear Particle Atlas prepared for the
Advanced Technology Office, Support Equipment Engineering Department, Naval Air
Engineering Center, Lakehurst, NJ . Total Acid Number (ASTM D664), Viscosity (ASTM
D445/446) and Water (ASTM D4928) should be included. The test report should include an
Equipment Condition Rating (ECR) based on a three category classification system, with
categories similar to Normal, Marginal, and Abnormal (Critical).

A Normal ECR reflects that all contaminant tests return values and findings that fall within the
bounds of normal equipment operating conditions, and the oil properties are within a range of
5% above the upper bound and 5% below the lower bound for new oil properties. A Marginal
ECR reflects test results and findings that indicate the presence of wear particles or contaminants
that are not found in equipment in good operating condition, or inadequate oil properties, but
does not conclusively indicate an in-progress or imminent failure. An Abnormal or Critical ECR
reflects a condition that requires immediate attention.


Table 6D Compressor Lube Oil Analysis Scoring

Adjustment to
Oil Condition Rating Compressor Condition Index
Normal No Change
Marginal Subtract 1.0
Critical Subtract 4.0

Test T2.2: Air Dryer Performance Testing

Air dryer equipment may be desiccant type with or without external heated blowers for purging,
or it may be refrigerant type. The function of the dryer is to depress the dew point temperature to
a low enough level that moisture will not condense out in the downstream equipment that uses
the compressed air. The following tests assess the condition of the dryer by looking at two
factors: the dew point temperature depression and thinning of the tank walls due to corrosion and
wear.

Test T2.2.1: Air Dryer Dew Point

The dew point temperature depression is the difference between the design dew point of the air
entering the dryer and the average dew point of the air leaving the dryer. The loss of dew point
depression is measured as the rise in dew point temperature over the life of the dryer expressed
as a percentage of the original design dew point temperature depression. Dew point temperature
E10-12
measurements are computed from temperature, pressure and humidity (hygrometer)
measurements.

Table 7A Air Dryer Dew Point Scoring

Measured Results
Air DewPoint DP
read
Adjustment to
Rating Criteria Air Dryer Condition Index
80 % DewPoint
read
1
<DP
expected
2
100 % DewPoint
read
No change
65% DewPoint
read
DP
expected
80 % DewPoint
read
Subtract 2.0
DP
expected
<65 % DewPoint
read
Subtract 4.0
1. DewPoint
read
is the reading of dew point temperature depression taken during Tier 2 testing.
2. DP
expected
is the normal dew point temperature depression from the manufacturers specifications
or from historical maintenance records of the equipment.

Test T2.2.2: Air Dryer Wall Thickness

Thinning of the tank walls is measured by non-destructive testing methods, including ultrasonic
thickness gauges. Dryer tank wall thickness includes the desiccant tanks and any locations
where abrasive wear may have concentrated local effects, such as the outside of the elbows on
the tank outlets. Wall thickness measurements should be made for all desiccant tanks at several
locations on each tank and piping. Similarly, the air receiver tanks can have loss of wall
thickness and should be measured at several locations. The measurement showing the greatest
amount of material loss should be used for scoring, both for dryer tanks and for air receiver
tanks.

Table 7B Air Dryer Wall Thickness Scoring

Measured Results
Thickness T
read
Adjustment to
Rating Criteria Air Dryer Tower Condition Index
T
read
1
>60 % T
nominal
2
No change
T
read
60 % T
nominal
Subtract 4.0
1. T
read
is the wall thickness reading.
2. T
nominal
is the wall thickness for the dryer tank in new condition.


E10-13
Test T2.3: Air Receiver Tank Wall Thickness

Table 8 Air Receiver Tank Wall Thickness Scoring

Measured Results
Air Tank Thickness T
read
Adjustment to
Rating Criteria Air Tank Condition Index
T
read
1
>60 % T
nominal
2
No change
T
read
60 % T
nominal
Subtract 4.0
1. T
read
is the current or most recent thickness measurement for the receiver tank.
2. T
nominal
is the wall thickness of the air receiver tank in new condition.

Test T2.4: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific compressed air system problems. Some of
these diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature. When
conclusive results from other diagnostic tests are available, engineering judgment or relevant
experience may be used to make an appropriate adjustment to the Compressed Air System
Condition Index.


E10.15 TIER 2 COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX CALCULATIONS

Enter the Tier 2 adjustments from the tables above into the Compressed Air System Condition
Assessment Summary form at the end of this guide. Subtract the sum of these adjustments from
the Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Index to arrive at the Net Compressed Air System
Condition Index. Attach supporting documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality
Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information or test results were obtained during
the Tier 2 assessment.


E10.16 COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

After review by a compressed air system expert, the Compressed Air System Condition Index is
suitable for use in a risk-and-economic analysis model. The condition index may be deemed
sufficient in itself for decision-making regarding Compressed Air System Condition-Based
Alternatives, in which case the Compressed Air System Condition Index may be directly applied
to Table 9.
E10-14

Table 9 Compressed Air System Condition-Based Alternatives

Generator Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E10-15
COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________ Location: ______________________________________
System Working Pressure: ________________ psi

Use of Compressed Air System: Governor Oil Pneumatic Tanks
Generator Braking System
Air Circuit Breakers
Service Air
Turbine Depression
Turbine Air Injection
Other

Compressor: Manufacturer: _____________________________ Number of Stages: _________
Cooling System Type: _____________________ Motor: ________________ HP
Year Installed: ________________________ Nominal Flow: ____________ scfm
Nominal Temperature: _______________ Nominal Pressure: ________________
(last stage) (last stage)


Air Dryer: Manufacturer: _____________________ Type of Regeneration: ______________
Year Installed: ____________________
Nominal Wall Thickness Dryer Tank: _________________
Dew Point Expected: _______________


Air Receiver: Manufacturer: _____________________ Year Installed: ____________________
Safety Valve Model: ________________ Valve Adjustment Pressure: _________
Nominal Wall Thickness Receiver Tank: ____________________
E10-16

Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Physical Condition
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.7
2
Operation Run Time
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1.20
3
Maintenance Requirements
(Score must be 1, 2, or 3)
1.00
4
Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.4

Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)

Compressed Air System Condition-Based Alternatives

Generator Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat condition
assessment as needed.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Consider using appropriate Tier 2 tests. Repeat
condition assessment process as needed.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
Immediate evaluation including additional Tier 2
testing. Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Begin replacement/rehabilitation process.
E10-17
COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________ Location: ______________________________________
System Working Pressure: ________________ psi

Tier 2 Compressed Air System Condition Summary

Adjustment to
No. Tier 2 Test Tier 1 Condition Index
T2.1.1 Compressor Air Flow
T2.1.2 Compressor Air Temperature
T2.1.3 Compressor Motor Current
T2.1.4 Compressor Lube Oil Analysis
T2.2.1 Air Dryer Dew Point
T2.2.2 Air Dryer Wall Thickness
T2.3 Air Receiver Tank Wall Thickness
T2.4 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Tier 2 Adjustments to Compressed Air Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)



Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)


To calculate the Net Compressed Air System Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10),
subtract the Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Index:

Tier 1 Compressed Air System Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Compressed Air System Adjustments __________ = ____________

Net Compressed Air System Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)
E11-1
September 2006

Hydro Plant Risk Assessment Guide

Appendix E11: Emergency Closure Gate and Valve Condition
Assessment


E11.1 GENERAL

Emergency closure gates and valves are key safety components in the power train at
hydroelectric powerplants. Unexpected failure can have a significant economic impact due to
the high cost of emergency repairs and lost revenues during an extended forced outage. Failure
of emergency closure equipment can also affect life safety.

Determining the present condition of an emergency closure gate and valve is an essential step in
analyzing the risk of failure. This appendix provides a process for arriving at an Emergency
Closure Gate and Valve Condition Index which may be used to develop a business case
addressing risk of failure, economic consequences, and other factors.


E11.2 SCOPE / APPLICATION

The condition assessment methodology outlined in this appendix applies to hydroelectric
powerhouse emergency closure equipment. The condition assessment primarily focuses on the
gates, valves, and associated operators (i.e., hoists, hydraulic cylinders, and valve operators).
The appendix does not apply to closure systems that are not used for emergency purposes.

In recognition that many organizations have facility safety review programs, it is intended that
the assessments described herein fully utilize information provided by such reviews to avoid
duplication of work and to minimize outage time. This information may be available in the form
of comprehensive facility reviews, special examinations, maintenance databases, and operational
reports. If the assessment requires an additional physical inspection, then it should be
coordinated with the organizations existing review program.

This appendix is not intended to define maintenance practices or describe in detail inspections,
tests, or measurements. Utility-specific maintenance policies, procedures, and guidelines must
be consulted for such information.


E11.3 CONDITION AND DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND EMERGENCY
CLOSURE SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX

This appendix describes the condition indicators generally regarded by hydro plant engineers as
providing the initial basis for assessing the condition of the emergency closure system. The
E11-2
following indicators are used to separately evaluate the condition of the gates or valves and their
associated operator:

Age
Physical Condition Gates/Valves
Physical Condition Operators
Operations History
Maintenance History

These condition indicators are initially evaluated using Tier 1 inspections, tests, and
measurements, which are conducted by utility staff or contractors over the course of time and as
a part of routine maintenance activities. Numerical scores are assigned to each condition
indicator, which are then weighted and summed to determine the overall Emergency Closure
System Condition Index.

An additional stand-alone indicator is used to reflect the quality of the information available for
scoring the condition indicators. In some cases, data may be missing, out-of-date, or of
questionable integrity. Any of these situations could affect the accuracy of the associated
condition indicator scores as well as the validity of the overall Emergency Closure System
Condition Index. Given the potential impact of poor or missing data, the Data Quality Indicator
is used as a means of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Emergency Closure
System Condition Index.

Additional information regarding gate, valve and associated operator condition may be necessary
to improve the accuracy and reliability of the Emergency Closure System Condition Index.
Therefore, in addition to the Tier 1 condition indicators, this appendix describes a toolbox of
Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements that may be applied to the Emergency Closure
System Condition Index, depending on the specific issue or problem being addressed. Tier 2
analyses are considered non-routine. However, if Tier 2 data is readily available, it may be used
to supplement the Tier 1 assessment. Alternatively, Tier 2 tests may be deliberately performed
to address Tier 1 findings. Results of the Tier 2 analysis may either increase or decrease the
score of the Emergency Closure System Condition Index. The Data Quality Indicator score may
also be revised during the Tier 2 assessment to reflect the availability of additional information
or test data.

The Emergency Closure System Condition Index may indicate the need for immediate corrective
actions and/or follow-up Tier 2 testing. The Emergency Closure System Condition Index is also
suitable for use as an input to the risk-and-economic analysis model.

Note: A severely negative result of ANY inspection, test, or measurement may be adequate in
itself to require immediate corrective action, regardless of the Emergency Closure System
Condition Index score.


E1.4 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted and analyzed by staff suitably trained
and experienced in the equipment being inspected. The more basic tests may be conducted by
E11-3
qualified personnel that are competent in these routine procedures. More complex inspections
and measurements may require an expert.

Inspections, tests, and measurements should be conducted on a frequency that provides the
accurate and current information needed by the assessment.

Details of the inspection, testing, and measurement methods and intervals are described in
technical references specific to each electric utility.


E11.5 SCORING

Condition indicator scoring is somewhat subjective, relying on the experience and opinions of
experts. Relative terms such as Results Normal and Degradation refer to results that are
compared to industry-accepted levels; or to baseline or previous (acceptable) levels on this
equipment; or to equipment of similar design, construction, or age operating in a similar
environment.


E11.6 WEIGHTING FACTORS

Weighting factors used in the condition assessment methodology recognize that some condition
indicators affect the Emergency Closure System Condition Index to a greater or lesser degree
than other indicators. These weighting factors were arrived at by consensus among design and
maintenance personnel with extensive experience.


E11.7 MITIGATING FACTORS

Every emergency closure system is unique and, therefore, the methodology described in this
appendix cannot quantify all factors that affect individual condition. It is important that the
Emergency Closure System Condition Index arrived at be scrutinized by experts. Mitigating
factors specific to the utility may determine the final Emergency Closure System Condition
Index and the final decision on replacement or rehabilitation of the system.


E11.8 DOCUMENTATION

Substantiating documentation is essential to support findings of the assessment, particularly
where a Tier 1 condition indicator score is less than 3 (i.e., less than normal) or where a Tier 2
analysis results in subtractions to the Emergency Closure System Condition Index. Test reports,
facility review reports, special examinations, photographs, O & M records, and other
documentation should accompany the Emergency Closure System Condition Assessment
Summary Form.


E11-4
E11.9 CONDITION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The condition assessment methodology consists of analyzing each condition indicator
individually to arrive at a condition indicator score. The scores are weighted and summed to
determine the Condition Index.

Reasonable efforts should be made to perform Tier 1 inspections, tests, and measurements.
However, when data is unavailable to properly score the Condition Indicator, it may be assumed
that the score is Good or numerically equal to some mid-range number such as 2. This
strategy must be used judiciously to prevent erroneous results and conclusions. In recognition of
the potential impact of poor or missing data, a separate Data Quality Indicator is rated as a means
of evaluating and recording confidence in the final Emergency Closure System Condition Index.


E11.10 TIER 1 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 1 includes those inspections, tests, and measurements that are routinely accomplished as
part of normal operation and maintenance, or are readily discernible by examination of existing
data. Tier 1 results are quantified below as condition indicators that are weighted and summed to
arrive at a Condition Index. A Tier 1 analysis may indicate abnormal conditions that can be
resolved with standard corrective maintenance solutions. The Tier 1 results may also indicate
the need for an additional investigation, categorized as a Tier 2 analysis.


E11.11 TIER 1 EMERGENCY CLOSURE CONDITION INDICATORS

Condition Indicator 1 Age of Gates, Valves, and Operators

Age is an important factor to consider when assessing the condition of an emergency closure
system (gates, valves, and operator equipment). Rate the system on the oldest major component
(gate, operator, controls). Use the year a component was last completely rehabilitated;
otherwise, use the year it was put into service.

Results of the age analyses are applied to Table 1 to arrive at an appropriate Emergency Closure
System Age Indicator Score.

Table 1 Age of Gate, Valve, and Operator

Emergency Closure System
Age of the Equipment Age Indicator Score
< 20 years 3
20 and <35 years 2
35 and <60 years 1
60 years 0

E11-5
Condition Indicator 2 Physical Condition of Gates/Valves

This section is divided into two parts:

Gates
Valves

Select the primary device used for emergency closure purposes to base the evaluation on.

Gates

Typical types of closure gates included in this study are: Roller-mounted gates (Stoney,
Caterpillar, Tractor, and Coaster), Wheel-mounted gates (fixed-wheeled gates), Ring Follower
gates, Paradox gates, Ring-seal gates and Cylinder gates, i.e., any gate used for emergency
closure purposes.

The known physical condition of the emergency closure gates is a major indicator of overall
system reliability. This indicator is based on maintenance records and past inspection reports
only. Items to note from records with regard to the gates are: Have the wheels/rollers been
inspected? Do all of the wheels/rollers move freely? Whats the condition of the wheels/rollers
(corrosion, pitting)? Condition of bearings/bushings, overall structural soundness and condition
of the gate (has the gate been inspected?), corrosion or damage to the gate, condition of coating,
anode condition, condition of gate seals (nicks or abrasion on the seal or excessive leakage (50
gpm or more)), condition of sill plate and the embedded guide in the water passage (pitting,
straightness, loosening).

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 2 to
arrive at an appropriate Gate Condition Indicator Score.
E11-6
Table 2 Gate Physical Condition

Gate Condition
Results Indicator Score
Limited corrosion on gates, wheels, or rollers; wheels/rollers turn;
coating is in good condition; anodes are in good condition; no cracked
welds in structure or loose bolts/rivets; gate guides are in good
condition; sill is in good condition; leakage past seals is minimal (<25
gpm or <1.6 liters/s).
3
Moderate corrosion on the gates, wheels, or rollers; most of the
wheels/rollers turn; three-quarters of the anodes are left; no cracked
welds in the structure or loose bolts/rivets; gate guides are in good
condition; sill is in good condition; leakage past seals is minimal (<25
gpm or <1.6 liters/s).
2
Large areas of corrosion on the gates, wheels, or rollers; most of the
wheels/rollers turn; one-half of the anodes are left; no cracked welds in
the structure or loose bolts/rivets; gate guides are in good condition; sill
is in good condition; leakage past seals is moderate ( 25 and <50 gpm
or 1.6 and <3.2 liters/s).
1
Severe corrosion on the gates, wheels, or rollers; few of the
wheels/rollers turn; coating is poor; one-quarter or less of the anodes are
left; some cracked welds in the structure or loose or missing bolts/rivets;
gate guides are in poor condition; sill is in poor condition; excessive
leakage past the seals ( 50 gpm or 3.2 liters/s).
0
Valves
Types of valves generally used for emergency closure purposes are: Butterfly, Spherical, and
Cone (plug) valves.

The known physical condition of the emergency closure valves is a major indicator of overall
system reliability. For this assessment, the valve will be looked at specifically. This indicator is
based on maintenance records and past inspection reports only. Items to note from records with
regard to the valves are: Condition of the inside of the valve. Is cavitation present? Condition
of the valve seals and sealing surfaces, condition of bearings/bushings, condition of greasing
system, overall structural soundness and condition, corrosion, damage to valve, condition of
valve bypass.

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 3 to
arrive at an appropriate Valve Condition Indicator Score.

E11-7
Table 3 Valve Physical Condition

Valve Condition
Results Indicator Score
Limited corrosion on leaf/plug and water passage; coating is in good
condition; seals and seats are in good condition and properly adjusted
with no or minimal leakage, bearing/pivot point lubrication is in good
condition; the bypass is in good condition; valve is regularly exercised.
3
Moderate corrosion on leaf/plug and water passage; coating is in
adequate condition; seals and seats are in adequate condition with
minimal leakage; bearing/pivot point lubrication is in good condition;
the bypass is in good condition; valve is regularly exercised.
2
Large areas of corrosion on leaf/plug and water passage; coating is less
than adequate; seals and seats have some damage with minor leakage;
bearing/pivot point lubrication is in adequate condition; the bypass has
moderate corrosion; valve is regularly exercised.
1
Severe corrosion on leaf/plug and water passage; coating is poor; seals
and seats are damaged allowing excessive leakage; bearing/pivot point
lubrication is not functioning properly; the bypass has excessive
corrosion; there is severe chattering, vibration, or binding during
operation; the valve is either rarely exercised or is excessively
exercised (i.e., 50 cycles per year).
0

Condition Indicator 3 Physical Condition of Operators

This section will be broken into two major categories:

Gate Operators
Intake Valve Operators

Gate Operators

Typical operators for emergency closure gates are generally either a hydraulic system or an
electric-driven mechanical hoist.

The hydraulic system consists of one or more hydraulic cylinders and all the other
components typical to a hydraulic system.
The electric-driven mechanical hoist is usually either a traveling hoist, such as a gantry
crane, or a fixed hoist that is permanently installed for use with a particular gate. Both
the traveling and fixed hoist may use wire rope or chain for lifting the gate.

As appropriate, use either the Hydraulic Hoist or Electric Hoist methodology to score the gate
operator being evaluated.

E11-8
Hydraulic Hoist

Items to examine or note from maintenance records with regard to the cylinders and hydraulic
system include: seals (rod), stem packing, gate drift, corrosion on cylinder rod or case, condition
of the hydraulic control panel (relief valves, check valves, four-way valve, lower/raise valve),
gate location indicating devices, hydraulic system leaks, condition of the hydraulic pumping unit
(HPU) and accumulators, condition of attachment mounts or beams, flexible hydraulic hoses,
hydraulic couplings, general coating condition where applicable, condition of the hydraulic fluid,
and replacement parts availability. Have the hydraulics been exercised on a regular basis?

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 4 to arrive at an appropriate Gate Operator (Hydraulic
Hoist) Physical Condition Indicator Score.


Table 4 Gate Operator (Hydraulic Hoist) Physical Condition

Hydraulic Hoist Condition
Results Indicator Score
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic piping/valves/controls, and gate
position indicators are updated or in good condition with replacement
parts available; coating is in good condition; hydraulic oil is in good
condition; hydraulic system has been tested and exercised regularly; no
gate drift while suspended from the cylinder. No external oil leaks.

3
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic piping/valves/controls, and gate
position indicators are in good condition; protective coating is in
adequate condition; hydraulic oil condition is adequate; hydraulic
system has been tested and exercised regularly; no gate drift while
suspended from the cylinder.
2
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic piping/valves/controls, and gate
position indicators are in adequate condition; coating is in adequate
condition; hydraulic oil condition is contaminated or hasnt been tested;
hydraulic system has not been tested but is exercised regularly; no gate
drift while suspended from the cylinder.
1
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic piping/valves/controls, and gate
position indicators are in poor condition; coating is in poor condition;
hydraulic oil condition is contaminated or hasnt been tested; hydraulic
system has not been tested or exercised regularly; the gate drifts while
suspended from the cylinder. External oil leaks into the water.
0

Electric-Driven Mechanical Hoist

This section covers only fixed hoists. Items to examine or note from maintenance records
include: condition of wire rope/chain, condition of sockets on wire ropes, linkages, gearbox
condition, leaks, motors, brake condition and adjustment, motor controls, indicators, backup
E11-9
power supply, inspections, exercising of the system on a regular basis, wrap of rope/chain onto
drums, replacement part availability.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 5 to arrive at an appropriate Gate Operator (Electric
Hoist) Physical Condition Indicator Score.

Note: Bridge and gantry cranes that are used for emergency closure shall not be inspected or
rated using this section. Bridge and gantry cranes have specific inspection requirements that are
described in applicable Federal, State, Provincial laws and regulations. See the Crane Condition
Assessment Guide, Appendix E9.

Table 5 Gate Operator (Electric Hoist) Physical Condition

Electric Hoist Condition
Results Indicator Score
Hoist surfaces and coatings are free of corrosion; no structural damage
or cracks; couplings are tight and properly aligned; moving parts are
lubricated; gearbox oil is free from contaminants and moisture and
tested regularly; no groove wear on drums or sheaves; bearings are
checked for wear and lubrication; oil seals do not leak; gears are
properly aligned and have no wear; the hoist ropes are inspected for
broken strands, hoist chain is free of cracked, deformed, or severely
corroded links; the rope/chain is laying properly on the drum; limit
switches are properly set and functioning properly; hoist brakes have no
wear and operate properly; no unusual noises or binding of the
mechanism during operation; electrical components are clean and
function; the hoist system has been tested and exercised regularly.
3
Hoist surfaces and coatings have minor defects or corrosion; no
structural damage or cracks; couplings are tight and properly aligned.
moving parts are lubricated; gearbox oil is not tested regularly or minor
contaminates noted; no groove wear on drums or sheaves; oil seals do
not leak; gears are properly aligned and have no wear; hoist ropes have
no broken strands or evidence of corrosion; hoist chain has some
corrosion but no cracks or deformed links; the rope/chain is laying
properly on the drum; limit switches are properly set and functioning
properly; hoist brake pads have 50% of the lining left and operate
properly; no unusual noises or binding of the mechanism during
operation; the electrical components are not very clean; the hoist
system has been tested and exercised regularly.
2
Hoist surfaces and coatings have minor defects or corrosion; minimal
structural damage with no cracks; couplings are tight and properly
aligned; gearbox oil is not tested regularly or minor contaminates or
water is noted; some groove wear on drums or sheaves; oil seals have
minor leaks; gears are mis-aligned but no major wear or damage to the
gears; hoist ropes have no broken strands or evidence of corrosion;
hoist chain has moderate corrosion but no cracks or deformed links;
1
E11-10
limit switches are properly set and functioning properly; hoist brakes
pads have 20 and <50% of the lining left and operate properly; some
unusual noises are noted during operation; the electrical components
are not very clean; the hoist system has not been tested and exercised
regularly; there are multiple trouble reports on record such as repairs to
the electrical controls.
There are serious concerns with the condition such as: major corrosion
on the critical components, wire rope corrosion or broken strands;
corroded or deformed chain links; <20% of brake pads left; significant
lubricating oil contamination; unusual noises or vibrations during
operation; and frequent trouble reports.
0
Intake Valve Operators (Hydraulic or Electric)
Typical operators for emergency closure valves are:

Hydraulic Cylinders
Rotary Hydraulic
Motor-Operated Actuators

Use Table 6 for evaluating the valve operator.

Items to examine or note from maintenance records with regard to the intake valve operators
include: availability and testing of backup power system (accumulator,
engine/generator/batteries), hydraulic or motor system tested and repaired as needed, greasing
system operable, retractable seals operable, closure in event of power failure, controls are
updated or in excellent condition with replacement parts available, pressure differential
indicators up/downstream of valve is operational, linkages in good condition, wear on stem.
E11-11

Table 6 Intake Valve Operator (Hydraulic or Electric) Physical Condition

Intake Valve Condition
Results Indicator Score
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic system, gate position indicators,
and controls are in good condition with replacement parts available;
backup power is available and tested regularly; slow-down mode has
been tested and verified; pressure differential indicators
up/downstream are operational and tested; operational testing
performed on an annual basis; the system is exercised regularly.
3
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic system, gate position indicators,
and controls are updated or in good condition; backup power is
available; slow-down mode functions but could use a minor
adjustment; pressure differential indicators up/downstream are
operational but not calibrated; the system is exercised frequently.
2
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic system, gate position indicators,
and controls are in fair condition; backup power is not regularly
tested; slow-down mode functions but could use a minor adjustment;
pressure differential indicators up/downstream are operational but not
calibrated. The timed cycle of operation has changed slightly; the
system is exercised rarely.
1
Seals, stems, cylinders, hydraulic system, gate position indicators,
and controls are in poor condition; backup power is not available or
not reliable; slow-down mode and limit switches are out of
adjustment; pressure differential indicators up/downstream are not
functioning; the timed cycle of operation has changed significantly;
the system is never exercised.
0

Condition Indicator 4 Operations History

Normal operations are defined as meeting the requirements of the gate or valves operational
design criteria. Examples of deficiencies include: excessive gate drift, significant changes in
travel time and pressures, abnormal noise or vibration, changes to the configuration that would
impact the availability of emergency closure within the originally-specified time period. Backup
power or reliability of the power source is important for reliable operations of the device under
emergency situations.

Operational Criteria:

Does the existing system design meet closure rate requirements (e.g., Army Corps of
Engineers-required less than 10-minute closure for gates; less than 2-minute closure for
valves)?
Does the existing system design meet the unbalanced gate closure requirements?
Does the gate/valve position indicator work?
Does the remote closure capability (if present) operate correctly?
Does the annunciation system give adequate warning of a gate closure?
E11-12
No abnormal noises.
No leaks of hydraulic oil or lube oil.
Does the backup power system for the emergency closure function?
Does the gate/valve drift in any position? (This assumes it is not latched or dogged.)
Has the opening or closing pressures (on hydraulic systems) changed from baseline?

Qualified personnel should make a subjective determination of scoring that encompasses as
many factors as possible under this indicator. Results are analyzed and applied to Table 7 to
arrive at an appropriate Operations History Condition Indicator Score.

Table 7 Operations History Scoring

Operations Condition
Results Indicator Score
Meets original operational criteria, tested as required, no known
design and operational deficiencies.
2
System is functional, but may not meet all operating criteria. Tests as
required have been performed. No known design deficiencies.
1
Does not meet original operational criteria or not tested as required or
has a known design and operational deficiency.
0

Condition Indicator 5 Maintenance History

This condition indicator only addresses the amount of maintenance that the system currently
requires. A lack of maintenance will be reflected in the Condition Indicator for Physical
Condition. The Maintenance Indicator is broken into the following 3 categories:

Small It is assumed that a small amount of routine annual preventative maintenance is
required for every gate or valve.
Moderate Moderate (normal) levels of maintenance would include some corrective
maintenance.
Excessive Excessive maintenance is intended to include labor-intensive items.
Frequent corrosion repairs or abnormal wear to components would be considered
excessive.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 8 to arrive at an appropriate Maintenance History
Condition Indicator Score.

Table 8 Maintenance History Scoring

Maintenance Condition
Amount of Required Maintenance Indicator Index Score
Small 2
Moderate 1
Excessive 0
E11-13
E11.11 TIER 1 EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX
CALCULATIONS

Enter the Emergency Closure Systems condition indicator scores from the tables above into the
Emergency Closure Systems Assessment Summary Form at the end of this document. Multiply
each indicator score by its respective Weighting Factor, and sum the total scores to arrive at the
Tier 1 Emergency Closure SystemCondition Index.

E11.12 TIER 1 EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

The Emergency Closure Systems Data Quality Indicator reflects the quality of the inspection,
test, and measurement results used to evaluate the condition of the emergency closure system
under Tier 1. The more current and complete the results are, the higher the rating for this
indicator. A condition assessment schedule appropriate for scoring the Data Quality Indicator is
shown in Table 9. Alternatively, an organizations recommended or standard practice for
performing the emergency closure system tests and inspections may be substituted for the time
intervals given in the table.

Results are analyzed and applied to Table 9 to arrive at an appropriate Emergency Closure
System Data Quality Indicator Score.

Table 9 Emergency Closure System Data Quality Indicator Scoring

Data Quality
Years Since Last Condition Assessment Indicator Score
<8 years 10
8 and <17 years 7
17 and <25 years 4
25 years 0

Enter the Emergency Closure System Data Quality Indicator Score from Table 9 into the
Emergency Closure System Condition Assessment Summary form at the end of this document.


E11-14
E11.13 TIER 2 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

Tier 2 inspections, tests, and measurements require specialized personnel to interview plant O &
M staff and inspect the emergency closure system. The work may involve an outage to perform
a proper assessment. A Tier 2 assessment is not considered routine. Tier 2 inspections may
affect the Emergency Closure System Condition Index established using Tier 1.

A team consisting of the plant O & M representatives and technical specialists should perform
Tier 2 assessments. The tasks to be performed for Tier 2 are summarized below:

1. Technical specialists will be responsible to:

Visit the plant to perform a physical inspection of an emergency closure gate or
valve.
Interview plant O & M staff.
Determine current condition of the emergency closure system.
Review results and, if necessary, adjust the Tier 1 Condition Index based upon the
inspection and comparison with the condition of other similar emergency closure
systems.

2. Plant O & M representatives will be responsible to:

Provide necessary support and information to technical specialists.
Assist in the assessment process.

For each Tier 2 test performed, add or subtract the appropriate amount to/from the Emergency
Closure System Condition Index. The Tier 2 evaluation is divided into different categories:
Gates, Valves, and Gate and Valve Operators. When evaluating a particular emergency closure,
only evaluate based on the applicable evaluation criteria (i.e., do not evaluate a gate using the
valve criteria). If some evaluation criteria are unknown or cannot be inspected, do not adjust the
score. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional
information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.

Note: As in the case of Tier 1 evaluations, any single condition may be severe enough to
justify immediate corrective action even if the overall condition index does not indicate such a
response.

Test T2.1: Gates

Gates Structural Integrity

The physical deterioration of emergency closure gates is likely to result from one or more of the
following factors:

Corrosion
Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities
Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications
E11-15
Miscellaneous Damage or Other Conditions

Test T2.1.1: Gates Corrosion

Corrosion typically causes the most damage to emergency closure gates. Special attention
should be paid to critical areas such as welds, member interfaces, and connectors. Corrosion
nodes should be chipped off to reveal the true extent of metal deterioration.

Table 11 Corrosion

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Corrosion has not caused significant loss of cross-sectional
area for structural members, corrosion buildup has not caused
separation in adjacent members, localized corrosion has not reduced
weld areas significantly, protective coatings in good condition, little
or no cavitation.
Add 1.0
Moderate Small amounts of cross-sectional area has been lost in
some members, there is isolated plate separation caused by
corrosion, some pitting, some weld area reduction in some welds,
protective coating in fair condition, moderate cavitation.
No Change
Severe Significant cross-sectional area loss in critical members,
widespread plate and/or member separation, significant weld size
loss due to corrosion, significant pitting protective coating in poor
condition, severe cavitation damage.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.1.2: Gates Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Yielding and fracture of structural members and weldments can compromise structural integrity
and deserve special attention. They can occur from a variety of causes including, but not limited
to:

Impact
Fatigue loading
Material defect
Design overload

Fractures usually occur where there are local stress raisers. This occurs where there is a local
geometry change. Examples of this are bolt/rivet holes, sharp inside corners, corrosion pits, and
weldments. Cracking of weldments or base metals is particularly problematic where thick
members are welded together or there are dimensioning errors. Improper welding techniques
and welding in an inaccessible area can also lead to problematic discontinuities. Welding
discontinuities take many forms and are usually identified by visual inspection. Visual
inspection however cannot locate many weld discontinuities such as incomplete joint
penetration. Non-destructive testing on welds is the best way to determine weld condition.

E11-16
Table 12 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No visible yielding or buckling, there is little to no cracking
near welds and/or stress concentrators. Any cracks have not
propagated significantly.
Add 1.0
Moderate May be slight yielding; cracking near stress
concentrators or welds is intermittent with little or no propagation.
Can justify the use of non-destructive testing on some welds.
No Change
Severe Significant yielding or buckling in critical members,
cracking in a sequence of welds, crack propagation in many cracks.
Usually justifies the use of non-destructive testing on most welds.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.1.3: Gates Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Gates that have been significantly modified in the field without proper engineering and quality
control may be structurally compromised. Improper repairs include, but are not limited to:

Replacing parts with lesser quality or strength parts than the gate was engineered for
(bolts, skin plates, picking eyes, structural steel, etc.)
Protective coatings that are improperly formulated or applied
Cutting of beam webs or flanges
Improper welding/rewelding

Table 13 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No field repairs or modifications done without proper
engineering analysis.
No Change
Moderate Some minor repairs, not likely to cause failure. Subtract 0.5
Severe Major modifications that severely compromise the
structural integrity of the gate.
Subtract 1.0

Gates Functional Operation

Test T2.1.4: Gates Raising/Lowering Performance

This evaluation criterion is based on the overall performance of the emergency closure system.
The gate should lower and raise in a certain amount of time as specified by organizational
standards. Performance tests should be implemented where reasonable. This section is
concerned if the gate binds or hangs up in the gate slot due to dimensional alignment
deficiencies, not the gate operator itself.

E11-17
Note: If the gate performs unacceptably and the reason relates to the gate operator itself, score a
No Change for this section and make an adjustment in theGates Operators Performance
section.

Table 14 Raising/Lowering Performance

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Acceptable Gates lower as designed in time specified by
performance standards or design.
No Change
Unacceptable Gates severely bind or hang-up and/or do not raise
and lower as designed in time specified by organizational
performance standards or design specifications.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.1.5: Gates Slots, Seals, and Sealing Surfaces

Sealing problems can arise from any number of conditions. Seals degrade over time and allow
leakage. Some leakage is normal. Tier 1 assessment should have estimated leakage rate. Tier 2
assessment should be mainly concerned with the cause of leakage. Possible causes for gate
leakage include:

Seal worn or damaged
Sealing surface worn or damaged
Sealing surface corroded
Sealing surface not straight
Seal out of adjustment
Dimensional error of gate or gate slot
Damaged gate
Dam superstructure has moved over time, changing the dimensions of the intake
Obstruction(s) in gate slot
Cracked or missing concrete or grout around sealing surface
E11-18

Table 15 Slots, Seals, and Sealing Surfaces

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Seals are in good condition with less than normal leakage
(<25 gpm or <1.6 liters/s), seal surfaces are parallel (to each other)
and in good condition with minimal pitting and cavitation damage.
Seal will function adequately for 10 years.
Add 0.5
Moderate Seals and sealing surfaces are in serviceable condition
with moderate leakage ( 25 and <50 gpm or 1.6 and <3.2
liters/s). There is some small dimensional discrepancy causing
leakage. Seal will function adequately for 7 and <10 years.
No Change
Severe Large volume of leakage ( 50 gpm or 3.2 liters/s)
caused by significant damage or dimensional discrepancy. Seal
does not, or will function adequately for <7 years.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.1.6: Gates Wheels, Rollers, Roller Chains, Bearings, and Bushings

Gate rollers and bearings take on a variety of forms and suffer from wear, corrosion, and damage
over many years of service. Rollers should rotate easily without excessive play. Excessive
corrosion could lead to cracking or flat spots on rollers or wheels. Chain roller bushings should
not have excessive wear, corrosion, or play. Chain links should be structurally sound.

Slide gate bearing surfaces should be square to each other with a uniform wear pattern. Bearing
surfaces should not have abnormal gouging or deep corrosion that could compromise function.

Table 16 Wheels, Rollers, Roller Chains, Bearings, and Bushings

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Rollers rotate as designed, rollers do not have significant
corrosion damage, are not cracked, and do not have abnormal play
or flat spots. Bearings surfaces have uniform wear with no
excessive grooves. Roller chains are structurally sounds with good
bushing condition.
Add 0.5
Moderate No major damage, some roller corrosion, some small
flat spots, rollers rotate acceptably. Some uneven or moderate wear
on bearings surfaces. Moderate to significant corrosion on roller
chain links, some bushing wear. Some rollers cracked.
No Change
Severe Significant roller damage including, but not limited to,
cracking, pitting, and flat spots. Excessive play or bearing seizure
of rollers. Bearing surfaces deeply grooved, galled, or unevenly
worn. Severe corrosion and bushing wear on roller chain. Grout
cracked or missing around bearing surfaces.
Subtract 0.5


E11-19
Test T2.2: Valves

Valves Structural Integrity

The physical deterioration of emergency closure valves is likely to be from one or more of the
following factors:

1) Corrosion
2) Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue and Fabrication Discontinuities
3) Field Repair and Modification
4) Miscellaneous Damage and Conditions

Test T2.2.1: Valves Corrosion

Some major contributing factors to corrosion are: the pH and ion concentration of the river,
relative humidity of 40% or more, ineffective protective coatings (due to age, improper
formulation, or improper application), cavitation, and malfunctioning or improperly maintained
cathodic protection systems. Also, dissimilar metals in contact can cause a dielectric reaction
and cause one of the metals (usually carbon steel) to corrode at an accelerated pace. For valves,
cavitation is typically more significant than oxidation.

Table 17 Corrosion

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Corrosion has not caused significant loss of cross-sectional
area for structural elements, localized corrosion has not reduced
weld area significantly, protective coating in good condition, little
or no cavitation.
Add 1.0
Moderate Small amounts cross-sectional area has been lost in
some elements, there is isolated plate separation from corrosion,
some pitting, some weld area reduction in some welds, protective
coating in fair condition, moderate cavitation.
No Change
Severe Significant cross-sectional area loss in critical members,
significant weld size loss due to corrosion, significant pitting
protective coating in poor condition, severe cavitation damage.
Subtract 1.0

T2.2.2: Valves Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Yielding and fracture of structural members and weldments can compromise structural integrity
and deserve special attention. They can occur from a variety of causes including, but not limited
to: impact, fatigue loading, material defect, and design overload.

Fractures usually occur where there are local stress raisers. This occurs where there is a local
geometry change. Examples of this are bolt/rivet holes, sharp inside corners, corrosion pits, and
weldments. Cracking of weldments or base metals is particularly problematic where thick
members are welded together or there are dimensioning errors. Improper welding techniques
E11-20
and welding in an inaccessible area can also lead to problematic discontinuities. Welding
discontinuities take many forms and are usually identified by visual inspection. Visual
inspection however cannot locate many weld discontinuities such as incomplete joint
penetration. Non-destructive testing on welds is the best way to determine weld condition.

Table 18 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No visible yielding or buckling, there is little to no cracking
near welds and/or stress concentrators. Any cracks have not
propagated significantly.
Add 1.0
Moderate May be slight yielding; cracking near stress
concentrators or welds is intermittent with small amount of
propagation. Can justify the use of non-destructive testing on some
welds.
No Change
Severe Significant yielding or buckling in critical members,
cracking in a sequence of welds, crack propagation in many cracks.
Usually justifies the use of non-destructive testing on some welds.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.2.3: Valves Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Valves that have been significantly modified in the field without proper engineering and quality
control may be structurally compromised, depending on the magnitude of the modification or fix.
Improper repairs include, but are not limited to:

Replacing parts with lesser quality or strength parts than the valve was engineered for
Protective coatings that are improperly formulated or applied
Cutting of structural elements
Improper welding/rewelding

Table 19 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No field repairs or modifications done without proper
engineering analysis.
No Change
Moderate Some minor repairs, not likely to cause failure. Subtract 0.5
Severe Major modifications that severely compromise the
structural integrity of the valve.
Subtract 1.0


E11-21
Valves Functional Operation

Test T2.2.4: Valves Actuation Performance

Valve actuation performance is concerned with the timeframe and smoothness that an emergency
closure valve can operate within. Emergency closure valves typically have some sort of
performance standard stating that the valve must move from the completely open to completely
closed position (usually in a runaway turbine condition) within a certain timeframe (e.g., less
than 2 minutes for Army Corps of Engineers). Obviously, it is not reasonable to perform this
test; however, best efforts should be made to assess the valve actuation performance.

Note: If valve performs unacceptably and the reason relates to the valve operator itself, score a
No Change for this section and make an adjustment in the Valves Operators Performance
section.

Table 20 Actuation Performance

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Acceptable Valve actuates from fully open to fully closed in the
required timeframe.
No Change
Unacceptable Valve does not actuate from fully open to fully
closed in the required timeframe. Performance based on some
deficiency of the valve assembly.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.2.5: Valves Seals, Sealing Surfaces, and Packing

Valve seals that seal the penstock can either be made of a resilient (i.e. rubber or nylon) or metal
such as stainless steel or bronze. As with gates, some leakage is not necessarily indicative of a
defective seal, but valves usually leak less since they usually have a smaller seal length than
gates. Excessive leakage can be a sign of damage, wear, maladjustment, fabrication deficiency,
or movement of the valve or valve body. Valve shaft trunnions also have a seal or packing that
can leak for the same reasons. Packing will normally leak at a controlled rate even when new.

Note: If sealing problems are related to bushing or bearing wear or damage, assess a condition
adjustment based on the next section, Valves Bearings and Bushings, so that the same problem
is not scored twice.
E11-22

Table 21 Seals, Sealing Surfaces, and Packing

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Seals are in good condition with less than normal leakage
(<12.5 gpm or <0.8 liters/s), seal surfaces are parallel (to each
other) and in good condition with minimal pitting and cavitation
damage. Seal will function adequately for 10 years.
Add 0.5
Moderate Seals and sealing surfaces are in serviceable condition
with moderate leakage ( 12.5 and <25 gpm or 0.8 and <1.6
liters/s). There are some small dimensional discrepancies or
cavitation damage. Seal or seal surface can be adjusted for a better
seal. Seal will function adequately for 7 and <10 years.
No Change
Severe Large volume of leakage ( 25 gpm or 1.6 liters/s)
caused by significant damage or dimensional discrepancy. Seal
will function adequately for <7 years. Shaft trunnion seals or
packing leak excessively. Seal or seal surface cannot be adjusted
for a better seal.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.2.6: Valves Bearings and Bushings

Valve bearings and bushings tend to have a limited amount of wear since they do not experience
very many cycles per year of operation. Deficiencies are usually from improper installation,
manufacturing or material defect, and/or lack of preventative maintenance. Bushings are very
difficult to inspect while installed; usually the poor condition of a bushing is not known until
total failure. A grade of moderate should be given unless bearings and bushings can be inspected
directly.

Table 22 Bearings and Bushings

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Bearings and bushings are in good shape with no apparent
eccentric wear or misalignment.
Add 0.5
Moderate Bearings and bushings are worn in accordance with
their age and are still in serviceable condition.
No Change
Severe Bearings and bushings are wearing eccentrically and/or
are not installed concentrically with shaft. Apparent manufacture
or material defect. Total failure.
Subtract 0.5

E11-23
Test T2.3: Gates and Valves Operators

Operators Structural Integrity

Gate and valve operators are usually hydraulic cylinders, hydraulic hoists, or electric-driven
hoists. This section is concerned with the structural integrity of the gate and valve operators
including:

Corrosion
Anchoring
Yielding, Fracture and Fatigue and Fabrication Discontinuities
Improper Field Repair and Modification
Miscellaneous Damage and Condition

Note: Bridge and gantry cranes that are used for emergency closure shall not be inspected or
rated using this section. Bridge and gantry cranes have specific inspection requirements that are
described in applicable Federal, State, Provincial laws and regulations. See Appendix E9: Crane
Condition Assessment.

Test T2.3.1: Operators Corrosion

Some major contributing factors to corrosion are: the pH and ion concentration of the river,
relative humidity of 40% or more, ineffective protective coatings (due to age, improper
formulation, or improper application), cavitation, and malfunctioning or improperly maintained
cathodic protection systems. Also, dissimilar metals in contact can cause a dielectric reaction
and cause one of the metals (usually carbon steel) to corrode at an accelerated pace.

Table 23 Corrosion

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Corrosion is mainly superficial, hoist drums and sheaves
are in good shape, little or no pitting, welds have not been reduced
in area, corrosive protective coating is in serviceable condition.
Add 1.0
Moderate There is some pitting and more sever corrosion.
Protective coating needs some attention in the near future.
Corrosion will not affect structural integrity for 7 and <10 years.
No Change
Severe Metal is deeply pitted and/or has reduced metal cross-
sectional area significantly in structural elements such as lifting
beams, anchor bolts, shafts, etc. Corrosion will likely effect
structural integrity in <7 years.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.2: Operators Anchoring

For inspection purposes, it is very difficult to adequately assess if anchoring was properly
designed and is adequate, however, portions of the anchoring can be inspected for failure.

E11-24
Table 24 Anchoring

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Operators are solidly anchored with original equipment,
concrete is not spalled near anchors, all anchors are present and in
good condition. Epoxy or grout is in good shape.
Add 1.0
Moderate Some deficiencies including a small amount of concrete
spalling or missing grout or epoxy. Anchor bolts are present and in
marginal condition. No apparent movement of operators.
No Change
Severe Operators have visibly moved. Anchor bolts are loose,
missing, or yielded. Additional anchors installed by project to help
secure the operator, spalling and/or epoxy bonds broken.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.3: Operators Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities will be consistent with those found
in gates and valves. See descriptions in the corresponding Gates and Valves sections.

Table 25 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No visible yielding or buckling, there is little to no cracking
near welds and/or stress concentrators. Any cracks have not
propagated significantly.
Add 1.0
Moderate May be slight yielding; cracking near stress
concentrators or welds is intermittent with small amount of
propagation. Can justify the use of non-destructive testing on some
welds.
No Change
Severe Significant yielding or buckling in critical members,
cracking in a sequence of welds, crack propagation in many cracks.
Usually justifies the use of non-destructive testing on some welds.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.4: Operators Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Valves that have been significantly modified in the field without proper engineering and quality
control may be structurally compromised, depending on the magnitude of the modification or fix.
Improper repairs include, but are not limited to:

Replacing parts with lesser quality or strength parts than the valve was engineered for
Protective coatings that are improperly formulated or applied
Cutting of structural elements
Improper welding/rewelding

E11-25
Table 26 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good No field repairs or modifications done without proper
engineering analysis.
No Change
Moderate Some minor repairs, not likely to cause failure. Subtract 0.5
Severe Major modifications that severely compromise the
structural integrity of the valve.
Subtract 1.0

Hydraulic Operators Functional Operation

Test T2.3.5: Hydraulic Operators Actuation Performance

The operating performance of the gate or valve in this section is concerned with overall system
performance directly affected by the gate or valve operator itself. Such issues can include
misalignment, speed, and reliability.

Note: If the gate or valve performs unacceptably, and the reason does not relate to the gate or
valve operator itself, score a No Change for this section and make an adjustment in the
corresponding Gates Raising/Lowering Performance or Valves Actuation Performance
section.

Table 27 Actuation Performance

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Acceptable Gate or valve actuates from fully open to fully closed
in the required timeframe.
No Change
Unacceptable Valve does not actuate from fully open to fully
closed in the required timeframe. Performance based on some
deficiency of the hydraulic system.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.6: Hydraulic Operators Pistons

Dirty hydraulic fluid can cause piston rod to gouge or wear prematurely, especially for pistons
near the bottom of the hydraulic system. Chrome plated piston rods can corrode. Ceramic-
coated pistons with an improperly applied coating can corrode underneath and chip off, which
will cause a failure of the piston seals. Ceramic coatings are also brittle and can crack if the
piston rod is flexed or impacted.

Without taking piston apart, it is difficult to determine the condition of the internal parts. A drift
test can be performed to estimate the performance of the unit. Cylinders that suspend loads
under pressure naturally leak fluid through the internal seals over time, which causes the gates to
drift; the hydraulic system automatically corrects this. This cycle is repeated many times,
sometimes thousands of times per month, causing undo wear on a small a length of the piston
stroke.
E11-26
Drift Test -- suspend the working load for one hour on a hydraulically isolated piston and
determined the hydraulic fluid leaked through piston rings. The following performance
estimates are rules of thumb:

N = V/(Dt) in terms of volume leaked [units = ml/(cm-h) = cm
2
/h]
or
N = LD/(4t) in terms of length drifted [units = ml/(cm-h) = cm
2
/h]
where
N = piston drift number
V = fluid volume leaked (1 ml = 1 cm
3
)
D = internal piston stroke diameter (cm)
t = test time (hours)
L = length of drift (cm)

Note: 11.64 ml/(cm-h) = 1 oz/(in-h)

For resilient piston rings, leakage for a properly working piston should be very small [N <2
ml/(cm-h)]; for cast iron rings, leakage is much more, on the order of N 40 ml/(cm-h). For
multistage cylinders, the piston drift number applies to each stage individually; e.g., a 3-stage,
telescoping cylinder with cast iron piston rings will have an allowable leakage limit of N =3
times 40 ml/(cm-h) 120 ml/(cm-h) of cylinder drift.

Table 28 Pistons

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Normal internal leakage, N <40 ml/(cm-h) for cast iron
piston rings, N <2 ml/(cm-h) for resilient piston rings and packing.
No noticeable scoring, cracking, or chipping on piston rods,
corrosion minimal. No external leakage into a sensitive
environment.
Add 0.5
Moderate Some internal leakage, N 40 and <200 ml/(cm-h) for
cast iron piston rings and packing, N 2 and <10 ml/(cm-h) for
resilient piston rings. Some piston rod wear with no external
leakage into a sensitive environment.
No Change
Severe Large volume of internal leakage N 200 ml/(cm-h) for
cast iron piston rings and packing, N 10 ml/(cm-h) for resilient
piston rings and packing. Significant piston rod wear and danger of
failure or significant external leakage into a sensitive environment.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.7: Hydraulic Operators Hydraulic Systems

This rating adjustment applies to the entire hydraulic system other than the pistons themselves.
Since hydraulic systems can be relatively simple or fairly complex, the rater must use their best
judgment to rate the overall condition of the hydraulic system.
E11-27
Table 29 Hydraulic Systems

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Overall condition indicates the need for little or no
attention, leakage is minimal; valves, solenoids relays, and heat
exchangers are in working condition. Fittings, lines and hoses are
in good condition. Hydraulic fluid is clean and uncontaminated.
Replacement parts are in stock or readily available.
Add 0.5
Moderate Some attention required but system in service able
condition. Some hoses and fittings worn and/or leaking. Some
components are not working optimally. Hydraulic fluid is dirty.
Replacement parts are hard to obtain.
No Change
Severe System frequently needs repair; spare parts unavailable or
very hard to find. Major leakage. Dirty or contaminated fluid.
Overall condition poor.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.8: Hydraulic Operators Electric Motors

Motors powering hydraulic systems may be tested in accordance with IEEE 112 if the motors a
suspected of being deficient. IEEE 112 contains a multitude of tests, some which may not need
to be performed. If the motor(s) is not tested, the score will not be adjusted.

Table 30 Electric Motors

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Performance passes given performance tests. No Change
Moderate Some non-critical performance tests are failed (e.g.,
efficiency) but motor is in still serviceable condition.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Motor fails one or more critical test. Is deemed not
serviceable and in need of repair or replacement.
Subtract 1.0


E11-28
Test T2.3.9: Hydraulic Operators Electric Controls

Table 31 Electric Controls

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Control wiring is clean, with no excessive soil, fatigue, or
wear apparent on insulation or jacket material. Wiring is securely
connected to devices, or is loosely connected but can be corrected
without spare parts or special tools. Control devices (pushbuttons,
contactors, switches, coils) are clean and function as designed.
Control enclosures are clean, with no excessive soil, corrosion, or
physical damage.
No Change
Fair Control wiring, enclosures, and devices are clean and in good
overall condition, but spare parts are no longer available. Wiring
insulation or jacket is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) compound.
Subtract 0.25
Moderate Control wiring has minor wear, fatigue, or soil apparent
on insulation or jacket material. Some control wiring appears
loosely connected to devices, and cannot be corrected, or cannot be
corrected without spare parts or special tools. Control devices
(pushbuttons, contactors, switches, coils) are not clean or do not
function as designed. Control enclosures have some soil, corrosion,
or physical damage.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Control wiring has wear, fatigue, or soil apparent on
insulation or jacket material. Control wiring has become
disconnected from corresponding devices, and cannot be corrected.
Control devices (pushbuttons, contactors, switches, coils) do not
function. Control enclosures have excessive soil, corrosion, or
physical damage.
Subtract 1.0

Electric Operators Functional Operation

Test T2.3.10: Electrical Operators Actuation Performance

The operating performance of the gate or valve in this section is concerned with overall system
performance directly affected by the gate or valve operator itself. Such issues can include
misalignment, speed, and reliability.

Note: If the gate or valve performs unacceptably, and the reason does not relate to the gate or
valve operator itself, score a No Change for this section and make an adjustment in the
corresponding Gates Raising/Lowering Performance or Valves Actuation Performance
section.

E11-29
Table 32 Actuation Performance

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Acceptable Gate or valve actuates from fully open to fully closed
in the required timeframe. (Takes <2 minutes for valves and <10
minutes for gates if requirement is not known.)
No Change
Unacceptable Gate or valve does not actuate from fully open to
fully closed in the required timeframe. (Takes 2 minutes for
valves and 10 minutes for gates if requirement is not known.)
Performance based on some deficiency of the electric-powered
gate or valve operator.
Subtract 1.0


Test T2.3.11: Electrical Operators Electric Controls

Table 33 Electric Controls

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Control wiring is clean, with no excessive soil, fatigue, or
wear apparent on insulation or jacket material. Wiring is securely
connected to devices, or is loosely connected but can be corrected
without spare parts or special tools. Control devices (pushbuttons,
contactors, switches, coils) are clean and function as designed.
Control enclosures are clean, with no excessive soil, corrosion, or
physical damage.
No Change
Fair Control wiring, enclosures, and devices are clean and in good
overall condition, but spare parts are no longer available. Wiring
insulation or jacket is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) compound.
Subtract 0.25
Moderate Control wiring has minor wear, fatigue, or soil apparent
on insulation or jacket material. Some control wiring appears
loosely connected to devices, and cannot be corrected, or cannot be
corrected without spare parts or special tools. Control devices
(pushbuttons, contactors, switches, coils) are not clean or do not
function as designed. Control enclosures have some soil, corrosion,
or physical damage.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Control wiring has wear, fatigue, or soil apparent on
insulation or jacket material. Control wiring has become
disconnected from corresponding devices, and cannot be corrected.
Control devices (pushbuttons, contactors, switches, coils) do not
function. Control enclosures have excessive soil, corrosion, or
physical damage.
Subtract 1.0

E11-30
Test T2.3.12: Operators Electric Motors

Motors powering electric-operated systems may be tested in accordance with IEEE 112 if the
motors a suspected of being deficient. IEEE 112 contains a multitude of tests, some which may
not need to be performed. If the motor(s) is not tested, the score will not be adjusted be given.

Table 34 Electric Motors

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Performance passes given performance tests. No Change
Moderate Some non-critical performance tests are failed (e.g.,
efficiency) but motor is in still serviceable condition.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Motor fails one or more critical test. Is deemed not
serviceable and in need of repair or replacement.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.3.13: Electrical Operators Electric Brakes

Table 35 Electric Brakes

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Brake and enclosure are clean, with no significant soil,
corrosion, or physical damage. Brake actuator (coil or thruster) is
clean, with no significant soil, corrosion, or physical damage, and
functions as designed. Thruster unit has no leaks. Brake torque
rating is 125% of motor torque rating, and if field-adjustable, is
set to 100% or greater torque rating. Brake wheel and pads are in
contact with each other for 80% of the wheel surface and exhibit
minimal wearing.
No Change
Fair Brake, enclosure, actuator, wheel, and pads are clean and in
good overall condition, but spare parts are no longer available, or
brake pads contain asbestos.
Subtract 0.25
Moderate Brake and enclosure have some soil, corrosion, or
physical damage. Brake actuator (coil or thruster) has some soil,
corrosion, or physical damage, or does not function as designed.
Thruster unit, if present, exhibits minimal leakage. Brake torque
rating is 100 and <125% of motor torque rating. Brake wheel
and pads are in contact with each other for 50 and <80% of the
wheel surface and exhibit moderate wearing.
Subtract 0.5
Severe Brake and enclosure have extensive soil, corrosion, or
physical damage. Brake actuator (coil or thruster) has extensive
soil, corrosion, or physical damage, or does not function as
designed. Thruster unit, if present, exhibits leakage. Brake torque
rating is <100% of motor torque rating. Brake wheel and pads are
in contact with each other for <50% of the wheel surface or exhibit
Subtract 1.0
E11-31
extensive wearing.
Extreme Brake does not release, or is not able to hold load (slips). Subtract 1.5

Test T2.3.14: Electrical Operators Wire Ropes and Chains

Wire ropes and chain carry the load of emergency closure gates and must be in serviceable
condition. Failure or these devices could cause significant economic and life safety impact.

Hoists that are difficult to inspect often are not. It is important to examine the entire length of
wire rope, especially the underside of the rope that commonly comes in contact with the hoist
drum or sheaves as the top of the rope can be in good condition while the bottom side can be
severely worn. Other problems with wire rope include, but are not limited to: corrosion (loss of
cross-sectional area) and broken wires, strands, and cores from abrasion, fatigue, deformation,
and material defect.

Traditionally, tests have been visual, but there is now a non-destructive test method called
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) test that can be performed on wire rope that will reveal
deficiencies not easily identified by visual inspections. MFL may be justified for critical
applications such as emergency closures.

Hoist chain is difficult to inspect and is not usually cost effective (if thought to be defective) as it
can be easily replaced relatively inexpensively.

Table 36 Wire Ropes and Chains

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Wire rope in good condition with no significant loss in
cross-sectional area, no broken wires, corrosion is superficial.
Rope greased sufficiently. Chain in good condition; withstands
proof loads.
No Change
Moderate Less than 12 randomly broken wires in one lay and/or <
4 broken wires in one strand in one lay. Less than 1/3 diameter loss
from wear or corrosion in outside individual wires and/or <10%
loss in cross-sectional area at any point in rope. No crushing or
kinking. Chain in marginal condition with <10% loss in cross-
sectional area; withstands proof loads. Wire ropes or chains
should be replaced as soon as reasonably possible.
Subtract 0.5
Severe 12 or more randomly broken wires in one lay and/or 4
broken wires in one strand in one lay. 1/3 or more diameter loss
from wear or corrosion in outside individual wires and/or 10%
loss in cross-sectional area at any point in rope. Wire crushed or
kinked; evidence of heat damage. Chain in poor condition with
10% loss in cross-sectional area. Wire ropes or chains should be
changed immediately before emergency closure is used.
Subtract 1.0

E11-32
Test T2.3.15: Electrical Operators Power Screws

Power screws are typically made of carbon or stainless steel with bronze mating nuts to avoid
galling. They should be exercised and inspected for such things as: wear on mating surfaces
(both screw and mating nut), straightness of screw, thread damage, corrosion, surface finish
condition, and brake condition (if equipped).

Table 37 Power Screws

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Power screw in good condition, no major deficiencies. Add 0.5
Moderate Power screw in serviceable condition, no deficiencies
that could compromise safety.
No Change
Severe Serious wear, defect or damage that could compromise
proper operation of the gate or valve.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.16: Electrical Operators Drums and Sheaves

Hoist drums and sheaves should be checked for wear and general operating condition. Structural
deficiencies should have already been noted in the Structural Integrity section.

Table 38 Drums and Sheaves

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Hoist drum in good condition, no major deficiencies. Wire
rope is secured to drum correctly; wire rope is not over spooled
when gate is in the 100%-up condition.
Add 0.5
Moderate Drums and sheaves in service able condition with
normal wear.
No Change
Severe Drum highly worn in grooves, alignment incorrect,
sheaves worn, cathodes not working correctly or used up.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.17: Electrical Operators Gearboxes, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets

A gearbox should be operated through a full operation cycle and observed for abnormal sounds
that may indicate internal problems. Opening, draining, cleaning, and inspection of gearbox
internals may be justified. Lube oil may be sampled to test the condition. External leakage
should also be noted.
E11-33

Table 39 Gearboxes, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Gearbox in good working condition. Gearbox internals (if
inspected) are in good working order, gear tooth wear is minimal
with even wear pattern, bushing and bearings are in good shape,
seals do not leak externally. External gearing and chain sprockets
are in good shape.
Add 0.5
Moderate Gearbox is serviceable. Gearing (if inspected) is in
good shape, no cracking, moderate tooth wear and/or uneven wear
pattern. Some metal accumulation in bottom of gearbox. Gearbox,
gearing, and chain sprockets serviceable for 7 and <10 years.
No Change
Severe Gearbox in poor condition. Extreme wear and/or cracking
on teeth, substantial metal accumulation in gearbox, dirty or
insufficient gear lube, seals leak extensively, bearings or bushings
in poor condition. Gearbox, gearing, and chain sprockets
serviceable for <7 years.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.3.18: Electrical Operators Bearings and Bushings

Bearings and bushings are subject to normal wear and tear and are subject to a finite life span.
Bearing and bushings (those inside gearbox were inspected as part of the section on Gearboxes,
External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets) should be inspected where possible for wear, damage,
installation error, and manufacture malfunction. Since this section rating could encompass many
bearings and bushing, the rater should rate the overall condition of all the bearings, noting
individual bearings or bushings that need immediate repair.

Table 40 Bearings and Bushings

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Bearings and bushings are in good shape and need little or
no attention.
Add 0.5
Moderate Some repair needed on individual bearings or bushings. No Change
Severe System wide poor condition of bearings and bushings,
easier to overhaul everything than attempt individual repair to
select bearings and bushings.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.4: Miscellaneous Deficiencies

Any deficiencies not listed in the previous sections should be noted. The Tier 2 rater should use
their judgment to assess a negative condition assessment adjustment to the Gate, Valve, or
Operator condition.

E11-34
Table 41 Miscellaneous Deficiencies

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Moderate May affect the function of emergency closure system. Subtract 0.5
Severe Will severely affect performance or structure of the
emergency closure system to the point where there is risk of
significant economic or life loss.
Subtract 1.0

Test T2.5: Annunciation

Inspection of annunciation is concerned with any sensor that indicates position, condition, level,
or status of the emergency closure gate, valve, or operator. Remote controlled plants may have
more elaborate controls than a manned facility. Annunciation to be checked includes, but is not
limited to:

High/low level indicators
Gate or valve position indicators
Hydraulic pump run time indicators

Table 42 Annunciation

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Annunciation is in proper working order. No Change
Moderate Annunciation works for the most part, fulfilling the
requirements of the project. Any discrepancies can be easily fixed.
Subtract 0.25
Severe System wide failure of annunciation possibly
compromising function or safety of the facility. Annunciation does
not fulfill the current needs for emergency closure systems.
Subtract 0.5

Test T2.6: Maintenance Escalation

Maintenance escalation for equipment is normal. Equipment is engineered for some finite
service life that is rarely shortened but often exceeded. Maintenance history should be examined
to determine maintenance escalation. Findings may justify performing a cost benefit analysis
based on increased maintenance costs and anticipated downtime. A risk assessment based on
safety may also be justified.
E11-35

Table 43 Maintenance Escalation

Adjustment to
Results Condition Index Score
Good Maintenance escalation is less than expected. Equipment
age is less than expected service life.
Add 0.5
Moderate Maintenance escalation is in keeping with estimates
and is manageable by the project staff. No anticipated significant
risk of system failure.
No Change
Severe Maintenance escalation is dramatic, required maintenance
has increased beyond the capacity of the project. Anticipated
significant risk of system failure.
Subtract 0.75

Test T2.7: Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests

Additional tests may be applied to evaluate specific emergency closure gate and valve problems.
Some of these diagnostic tests may be considered to be of an investigative research nature.
When conclusive results from other diagnostic tests are available, they may be used to make an
appropriate adjustment to the Emergency Closure Gate and Valve Condition Index.


E11.15 TIER 2 EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM CONDITION INDEX
CALCULATIONS

Tier 2 scoring adjusts the Tier 1 score. There are four different scoring sheets; hydraulic-
operated gates, electric-operated gates, hydraulic-operated valves, and electric-operated valves.
Choose the one that best describes the particular emergency closures. Action may be required
for a low overall score or for a low score in any one major category (Structural Integrity,
Functional Operation, etc.). Note that any adjustments cannot lower any major category score to
less than 0 or more than the highest possible Tier 1 weighted score. Attach supporting
documentation. An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if
additional information or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E11.16 TIER 2 EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM DATA QUALITY INDICATOR

An adjustment to the Data Quality Indicator score may be appropriate if additional information
or test results were obtained during the Tier 2 assessment.


E11.17 EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM CONDITION-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The Emergency Closure Systems Condition Index either modified by Tier 2 tests or not may
be sufficient for decision-making regarding emergency closure systems alternatives. The Index
is also suitable for use in a risk-and-economic analysis model. Where it is desired to consider
alternatives based solely on generator condition, the Emergency Closure System Condition Index
E11-36
may be directly applied to the Emergency Closure Systems Condition Index-Based Alternatives
table.

Table 44 Emergency Closure Systems Condition Index-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat Tier 1
assessment during next outage.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
OR
Condition Indicators #2 or #3 with
weighted scores of 1 or less
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Schedule Tier 2 assessment within <4 years.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
OR
Condition Indicators #2 or #3 with
weighted scores of 0
Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Schedule Tier 2 assessment within <2
years.

E11-37
EMERGENCY CLOSURE GATES & VALVES
TIER 1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________________ Location: _______________________________
Unit: ___________________ Type of Gate or Valve: __________________________________

Tier 1 Emergency Closure Gates & Valves Condition Summary
(For instructions on indicator scoring, please refer to condition assessment guide)

No. Condition Indicator Score Weighting Factor = Total Score
1
Age
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
0.8
2
Physical Condition Gates
or Valves
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1
3
Physical Condition Operators
(Score must be 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1
4
Operations History
(Score must be 0, 1, or 2)
0.4
5
Maintenance
(Score must be 0, 1, or 2)
0.4

Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index
(Sum of individual Total Scores)
(Condition Index should be between 0 and 10)


Tier 1 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7 or 10)



Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________


(Attach supporting documentation.)

E11-38

Emergency Closure System Condition Index-Based Alternatives

Condition Index Suggested Course of Action
7.0 and 10 (Good)
Continue O & M without restriction. Repeat Tier 1
assessment during next outage.
3.0 and <7 (Fair)
OR Condition Indicators #2 or #3 with
weighted scores of 1 or less
Continue operation but reevaluate O & M practices.
Schedule Tier 2 assessment within <4 years.
0 and <3.0 (Poor)
OR Condition Indicators #2 or #3 with
weighted scores of 0
Consultation with experts. Adjust O & M as
prudent. Schedule Tier 2 assessment within <2
years.
E11-39
EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________________ Location: _______________________________
Unit: ___________________ Type of Gate: __________________________________

Part I: Determine Adjustment to Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index.
Emergency Closure System Gates with Hydraulic Operators

Adjustment to
Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test (Table No.) Condition Index
Gates (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.1.1 Corrosion (11)
T2.1.2 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (12)
T2.1.3 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (13)
T2.1.4 Raising/Lowering Performance (14)
T2.1.5 Slots, Seals, and Sealing Surfaces (15)
T2.1.6 Wheels, Rollers, Roller Chains, Bearings, and Bushings (16)
Hydraulic Operators (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.3.1 Corrosion (23)
T2.3.2 Anchoring (24)
T2.3.3 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (25)
T2.3.4 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (26)
T2.3.5 Actuation Performance (27)
T2.3.6 Pistons (28)
T2.3.7 Hydraulic Systems (29)
T2.3.8 Electric Motors (30)
T2.3.9 Electric Controls (31)
Miscellaneous Tests and Conditions:
T2.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies (41)
T2.5 Annunciation (42)
T2.6 Maintenance Escalation (43)
T2.7 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


E11-40
Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Go to Part II.

E11-41
EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________________ Location: _______________________________
Unit: ___________________ Type of Gate: __________________________________

Part I: Determine Adjustment to Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index.
Emergency Closure System Gates with Electric Operators

Adjustment to
Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test (Table No.) Condition Index
Gates (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.1.1 Corrosion (11)
T2.1.2 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (12)
T2.1.3 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (13)
T2.1.4 Raising/Lowering Performance (14)
T2.1.5 Slots, Seals, and Sealing Surfaces (15)
T2.1.6 Wheels, Rollers, Roller Chains, Bearings, and Bushings (16)
Electric Operators (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.3.1 Corrosion (23)
T2.3.2 Anchoring (24)
T2.3.3 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (25)
T2.3.4 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (26)
T2.3.11 Actuation Performance (32)
T2.3.12 Electric Controls (33)
T2.3.13 Electric Motors (34)
T2.3.14 Electric Brakes (35)
T2.3.15 Wire Ropes and Chains (36)
T2.3.16 Power Screws (37)
T2.3.17 Drums and Sheaves (38)
T2.3.18 Gearboxes, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets (39)
T2.3.19 Bearings and Bushings (40)
Miscellaneous Tests and Conditions:
T2.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies (41)
T2.5 Annunciation (42)
T2.6 Maintenance Escalation (43)
T2.7 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
E11-42
Tier 2 Adjustments to Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Go to Part II.

E11-43
EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________________ Location: _______________________________
Unit: ___________________ Type of Valve: __________________________________

Part I: Determine Adjustment to Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index.
Emergency Closure System Valves with Hydraulic Operators

Adjustment to
Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test (Table No.) Condition Index
Valves (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.2.1 Corrosion (17)
T2.2.2 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (18)
T2.2.3 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (19)
T2.2.4 Actuation Performance (20)
T2.2.5 Seals, Sealing Surfaces, and Packing (21)
T2.2.6 Bearings and Bushings (22)
Hydraulic Operators (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.3.1 Corrosion (23)
T2.3.2 Anchoring (24)
T2.3.3 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (25)
T2.3.4 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (26)
T2.3.5 Actuation Performance (27)
T2.3.6 Pistons (28)
T2.3.7 Hydraulic Systems (29)
T2.3.8 Electric Motors (30)
T2.3.9 Electric Controls (31)
Miscellaneous Tests and Conditions:
T2.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies (41)
T2.5 Annunciation (42)
T2.6 Maintenance Escalation (43)
T2.7 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
Tier 2 Adjustments to Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


E11-44
Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Go to Part II.

E11-45
EMERGENCY CLOSURE SYSTEM
TIER 2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Date: _________________________________ Location: _______________________________
Unit: ___________________ Type of Valve: __________________________________

Part I: Determine Adjustment to Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index.
Emergency Closure System Valves with Electric Operators

Adjustment to
Tier 1
No. Tier 2 Test (Table No.) Condition Index
Valves (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.2.1 Corrosion (17)
T2.2.2 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (18)
T2.2.3 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (19)
T2.2.4 Actuation Performance (20)
T2.2.5 Seals, Sealing Surfaces, and Packing (21)
T2.2.6 Bearings and Bushings (22)
Electric Operators (Structural Integrity and Functional Operation):
T2.3.1 Corrosion (23)
T2.3.2 Anchoring (24)
T2.3.3 Yielding, Fracture, Fatigue, and Fabrication Discontinuities (25)
T2.3.4 Improper Field Repair and/or Modifications (26)
T2.3.11 Actuation Performance (32)
T2.3.12 Electric Controls (33)
T2.3.13 Electric Motors (34)
T2.3.14 Electric Brakes (35)
T2.3.15 Wire Ropes and Chains (36)
T2.3.16 Power Screws (37)
T2.3.17 Drums and Sheaves (38)
T2.3.18 Gearboxes, External Gearing, and Chain Sprockets (39)
T2.3.19 Bearings and Bushings (40)
Miscellaneous Tests and Conditions:
T2.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies (41)
T2.5 Annunciation (42)
T2.6 Maintenance Escalation (43)
T2.7 Other Specialized Diagnostic Tests
E11-46
Tier 2 Adjustments to Condition Index
(Sum of individual Adjustments)


Tier 2 Data Quality Indicator
(Value must be 0, 4, 7, or 10)



Go to Part II.

E11-47
Part II: Calculate the Net Emergency Closure System Condition Index

To calculate the Net Emergency Closure System Condition Index (Value should be between 0 and 10),
subtract the Tier 2 Adjustments from the Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index:

Tier 1 Emergency Closure System Condition Index __________

minus Tier 2 Emergency Closure System Adjustments __________ = __________

Net Emergency Closure System Condition Index


Evaluator: __________________________ Technical Review: __________________________

Management Review: _________________ Copies to: _________________________________

(Attach supporting documentation.)
E11-48
Appendix A: Structural Deficiency Pictures













































Root opening
Incomplete penetration in CJ P weld can
usually only be identified by non destructive
testing methods
Notch from burning machine example
of fabrication or improper field
modification
E11-49

































Porosity
Crack at flange diaphragm plate
E11-50

































Mi i fill t
Missing fillet weld
Improper profile
Cavitation & corrosion onweld
E11-51














Undercut
from
corrosion
Substantial loss of weld
area from corrosion
Moderate loss of weld
area from corrosion
Weld performed by non-
qualified welder