Generator On-line Monitoring at R.H.

Saunders GS :
Interpretation and Application
By David Casselman, Ontario Power Generation, Cornwall ON, Canada,
Keith Eastman, Ontario Power Generation, Cornwall ON, Canada,
and Marc R. Bissonnette, VibroSystM, Longueuil QC, Canada
ABSTRACT
The expertise of R.H. Saunders GS Production staff in analyzing and interpreting data
from the generator on-line monitoring systems installed in the 1980s & 1990s, will
result in significant competitive advantages for the facility in the advent of an open
market in Ontario. These include increased energy production and revenues,
improved reliability and capacity availability factor, as well as reduced risk of
generating equipment damage and lowered maintenance costs. This technology
can be installed in most hydroelectric facilities. However, to achieve the full potential
from generator on-line monitoring, personnel must be trained in data interpretation
and application.
Introduction
The generator On-Line Monitoring (OLM) systems described in this paper were first
installed at R.H. Saunders GS in 1989, in response to decreased generator air gaps
and indications of rotor/stator contact on generators G1 & G14. Since then, the
monitoring equipment has operated reliably and the dynamic readings have provided
valuable information of in-service generating equipment behavior and performance.
Condition monitoring equipment is becoming common throughout the hydroelectric
generation industry. Many monitoring products are offered that claim analysis
capabilities of hydroelectric machines. However, effective analysis of this information
is still in its infancy; many utilities do not have knowledgeable and experienced staff
capable of interpreting this information to the greatest extent possible and using OLM
equipment to its maximum capability.
This is not the case at R.H. Saunders GS where Production staff has developed an
expertise related to the analysis of the plant OLM information that is recognized within
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and worldwide. They pro-actively assimilate,
interpret, analyze and apply information provided from the OLM systems. Their efforts
have resulted in avoidance of production losses and forced unit outages, increased
energy production, revised maintenance programs and improved maintenance as
well as overhaul planning processes. The result is an increase of the station
capacity availability factor with financial benefits estimated at several million dollars
during the past fifteen years.

Waterpower XII - Copyright HCI Publications, 2001 - www.hcipub.com

History
The St. Lawrence River Power Project, opened in 1958, is an international hydroelectric generating complex. It is operated jointly as two separate stations of sixteen
units each by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and New York Power Authority (NYPA).
R.H. Saunders GS, OPGs second largest hydroelectric station, consists of an equal
number of General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse machines. It is a run-of-the-river
plant with a capacity of 1030 MW providing economical base load to a grid consisting
primarily of nuclear and thermal generated power. This makes R.H. Saunders GS a
vital component in Ontarios power grid.

FIGURE 1 Aerial view of

R.H. Saunders GS in foreground

FIGURE 2 Cross-section of
powerhouse

Generator/turbine assemblies first showed signs of operating problems in 1972.

Since then, many problems have surfaced: stator distortion resulting in reduced air
gaps, deformation of throat ring liners resulting in runner scrubbing, misalignment
and distortion of the generator/turbine components, as well as movement and
cracking of the surrounding concrete structure.
Adhoc measures were undertaken to address equipment and structural issues.
The generating units were re-centered, steel throat liners were grinded to re-establish
adequate runner clearances, and all stators were modified (Figure 3) with soleplate
keyways to allow for radial movement.
Several studies, laboratory tests, instrumentation and monitoring programs were
conducted. In 1991, progressive concrete expansion due to Alkali-Aggregate
Reaction (AAR) was positively identified as the root cause of the generating unit and
structural problems. In addition, investigations and tests unveiled cyclic (seasonal)
temperature variations of the structure and embedded components (Figure 4)

FIGURE 3 Modified soleplate and

keyway of a Westinghouse
designed stator

FIGURE 4 Trend graph of turbine

clearance showing cyclic seasonal
variations

In 1993, a concrete rehabilitation program was implemented to mitigate the effect of

AAR. Other major overhaul projects undertaken at R.H. Saunders GS during the last
ten years included generator rewinds, runner blade upgrades and transformer
replacements. These programs have resulted in increased generator maximum
output from 57 MW to 66 MW.
GENERATOR ON-LINE MONITORING
An EPRI research contract was conducted at R.H. Saunders GS in 1987 to assess
various hydrogenerator monitoring techniques and to evaluate recorded data benefits.
At the time, no complete machine monitoring system for hydrogenerators existed; the
various instrumentation technologies were not compatible and had to be used
separately. Overall, the study concluded that the information provided was nice to
have but overwhelming and instrumentation costly to install.
The study included comparison of two air gap measuring technologies: an optical
system and the stator-mounted capacitive system from VibroSystM. Results from the
capacitive system proved to be more reliable under all machine operating conditions.
From the EPRI study, new OLM requirements were drawn by Ontario Hydro (now OPG)
which became the original basis of the ZOOM1 Machine Condition Monitor. The
AGMS2 would be extended to allow monitoring and correlation of other parameters
for comprehensive machine analysis and diagnostics. It would integrate existing and
third-party instrumentation as much as possible and would customize to the monitoring
needs of each machine.
Following this first hand experience, the capacitive technology was adopted by Ontario
Hydro to be implemented at other generating stations. It was installed on all sixteen
generators at R.H. Saunders GS in 1989, to continuously monitor the evolving
rotor/stator air gaps.

FIGURE 5 Generator section showing

probe locations

FIGURE 6 ZOOM annunciating lights

(bottom row) on control room alarm panel

The existing AGMS equipment was enhanced and expanded to a ZOOM system
during the major generating unit rehabilitation programs with the addition of:
Shaft run-out
Blade tip clearance
Split phase currents (red, white & blue)
Stator and rotor currents
Power output
Stator voltage
Wicket gate position
As a result of experience gained evaluating parameter information, efforts are now
concentrated to specifically review and evaluate three on-line monitoring parameters:
rotor/stator air gap, shaft run-out and runner blade/throat ring clearance. These three
parameters are extremely useful in providing information about the generator/turbine
assemblies:
Generator air gap polar plots are routinely observed to determine
air gaps as well as rotor and stator core centres;
Shaft run-out and air gap trends indicate potential
electrical/mechanical/hydraulic imbalances, bearing problems, and
unit alignment;
Runner blade clearance trending indicates throat ring roundness,
runner centre and unit alignment.
Evaluation of this OLM information provides the overall condition and performance of
the generating units as well as identifies potential operational problems. Specific
examples of operational benefits are illustrated.

CASE STUDIES
Case 1 New Maintenance Guidelines
New maintenance guidelines have been developed based on analysis of the
generator/turbine OLM trending information (Table 1). For example, routine unit
inspections and maintenance downtime have been reduced by at least five days for
each planned unit outage. In addition, several types of unit inspections have been
extended from one to three years or eliminated. Other benefits of OLM are:
non-intrusive maintenance with reduced risks and safety issues, as well as
elimination of human errors in manual readings and in data recordings thus ensuring
greater accuracy and reliability.
TABLE 1 Comparison of Unit Maintenance Downtime / Before vs. After OLM

Duration

Labour

Generation
Losses
1

Before OLM
(mid-1980s)

OLM-assisted
(mid-1990s)

Gains

2 weeks x unit
x year
= 32 wk/yr
7 electricians
+ 10 mechanics
= 544 pers./wk/yr

1 week x unit
every 3 years
= 5.3 wk/yr
7 electricians
+ 10 mechanics
= 90 pers./wk/yr

Over a 2
month/year period
instead of 6
Staff assigned to
other jobs;
Reduced annual
staff requirement
Approximately
200 TWh/yr of
power generation

@ 57 MW
x 80% 3
= 245 TWh/yr

@ 66 MW
x 80%
= 47 TWh/yr

2
Pre-refurbishment unit capacity
Post-refurbishment uprated unit capacity
3
Average capacity factor

Case 2 Returning Units to Service

Previously, generator balancing required a
three-day outage and Head Office staff on site.
Experience gained with the OLM system
correlating shaft displacement now allows
Production staff to do this activity alone in less
than one day (Figure 7).

FIGURE 7 Signature graph

showing unit balancing at different
phases during a one day period

Case 3 Avoiding Unnecessary Maintenance

During G1 inspection in early 1990s, manual readings of rotor roundness revealed a
177 mils value which would normally require 1000 hours to shrink fit the rotor rim
(Figure 8). Previous on-line air gap results indicated a satisfactory rotor roundness
value of 73.5 mils (Figure 9). The plant electrical supervisor requested a second
manual measurement which unveiled that the first set of readings was off-centered.
In addition to the financial and labour savings, the unnecessary rounding would have
incurred future problems and expenses to retrofit.

FIGURE 8 Polar plot of

manual readings

FIGURE 9 Polar graph of generator

air gap from ZOOM system

Case 4 Close Call on G1

In November 1991, an air gap alarm prevented G1 from an imminent rub that would
have incurred a prolonged and expensive outage for repairs (Figure 10). Instead, the
study of alarm measurement data leading to the incident enabled Production staff to
quickly diagnose the problem and return the unit to service less than a month later,
just before the peak demand season (Figure 11). The faulty unit was kept in-service
until its planned overhaul the next summer.

FIGURE 10 Plot of G1 at time of alarm

FIGURE 11 Plot of G1 at return in service

Case 5 Stator Centering to Prevent Rotor/Stator Rubs

Analysis of OLM air gap data prevented generators G1 (1996), G5 (1997) and G10
(1996) from imminent rotor/stator rubs that could have severely damaged the
generators and resulted in extensive forced outages and energy production losses.
Review of the air gap trending data enabled Production staff to identify the excessive
air gap reduction, remove generators from service and re-centre stator cores prior to a
potential catastrophic rotor/stator failure. A rub would have resulted in a minimum
outage of one year to re-stack or replace the stator core along with associated costs
for equipment repair/replacement and production losses.
In addition, generators G2, G9 & G14 have also been removed from service, based on
the evaluation of air gap trending (Figure 12), to re-establish stator core centre and
improve rotor/stator air gap (Figure 13). Before the advent of OLM, each generator
was checked every six months, during routine unit outages, as a preventive action to
monitor the effects of concrete expansion. Air gaps were manually measured to
check stator core off-centre and the stators were visually inspected for evidence of
rubbing. These activities have been eliminated. Air gap trending permits to plan this
work at the most appropriate time with regards to production requirements.
45

420

Display Upstream
Zoom 2 X

440

45

400
A
i 380
r

315

360
G
a
340
p

225

320
(
m
300
i
l
s 280
)
260

135

240
220
200

2001-02-14
19:00:00

G3 Vibration at Generator and Turbine Guide Bearings

0.010
+ 6.8 mils
over 1 week

0.008
GGB 0
0.006

0.004

0.002

TGB 0

.9
8
4.
08
.9
8
13
.0
8.
98
25
.0
8.
98
3.
09
.9
8
8.
09
.9
8
15
.0
9.
98
16
.0
9
16 .98
St .09
ud .9
In 8
s
7. p.
11
.9
8. 8
11
.9
8
9.
11
.9
8
16
.1
1.
98
23
.1
1.
98
7.
12
.9
8
17
.1
2.
98
28
.1
2.
98

.9
8

07
19
.

07

06
.9

11
.

.9
8

0.000

06
.9

Case 7 Turbine Bearing Runout Analysis

In 1998, G3 turbine bearing runout interpretation revealed a hydraulic imbalance of
the turbine area (Figure 14). Meanwhile,
generator air gap parameters remained
stable. Subsequent unit inspection and
investigation indicated that a section of
the throat ring liner had broken away from
the mass concrete and was rubbing the
runner blades. The liner was repaired and
re-anchored to the mass concrete.

FIGURE 13 Polar graph of a generator

before and after stator re-centering

6.

FIGURE 12 G9 air gap trend data

showing effect of stator re-centre

Average
Rotor Center
Stator Center

.9
8

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

05

(Top)
(Top)
(Top)
(Top)

2.

2000-12-20
2001-01-17
19:00:00
19:00:00
18 day(s)
22:36:20
01:00:10 G9 AIR GAP 45 DEG (I2)
Generator
01:00:10 G9 AIR GAP 315 DEG (I8) Generator
01:00:10 G9 AIR GAP 225 DEG (I6) Generator
01:00:10 G9 AIR GAP 135 DEG (I4) Generator

26
.

2000/10/07
2000/10/07
2000/10/07
2000/10/07

Rounout (in.)

2000-11-22
19:00:00
mils
mils
mils
mils

01

-80.490
-44.004
58.377
67.886

20
.

2000-10-25
20:00:00

BEFORE
AFTER
Cursor at 0
485.90 mils 402.49 mils
Stator Roundness
217.25 mils 91.55 mils
Stator Center Offset
89.56 mils 31.41 mils
at 351
at 277
Maximum Gap
506.60 mils 450.98 mils
Pole 8
Pole 8
at 26
at 237
Minimum Gap
214.38 mils 288.23 mils
Pole 60
Pole 64
at 147
at 126
Mean Gap
376.71 mils 377.03 mils

FIGURE 14 Graph of vibration

trend data

Case 8 G1 Runner Coupling Stud Failure

Fracture of the G1 runner coupling studs connecting the new runner blades to the
runner hub forced the unit out-of-service in 1998 (Figures 15 & 16). Power generation
was interrupted for three months to investigate the failure and initiate repairs. Initially,
the runner blade manufacturer recommended that the other nine newly refurbished
turbines be removed from service until a viable solution was implemented.
This unacceptable solution would have resulted in ten of the sixteen generating units
being out-of-service for three months.
Based on his experience with the OLM system, the plant manager proposed to add
turbine shaft run-out protection relays on each unit and keep them in-service. The
turbine manufacturer concurred after being convinced of the Production staff expertise
to interpret shaft runout trending information. As a result, R.H. Saunders GS avoided
multi-million dollar production losses.
140

140
750

750

130

130
700

120

650
A
i 600
r

Generator bearing vibration acceptable:

10.60 mils pk-pk

110
100
90

G 550
a
p
500

80

(
m 450
i
l
400
s
)
350

Turbine bearing vibration low:

2.10 mils pk-pk
Rotor profiles are similar
for all sensors

70
60

121: 90.66 mils pk-pk

50
40

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
i
l
s
)

Generator bearing vibration dramatically increades:

54.36 mils pk-pk

700

120

650
A
i 600
r

110

G 550
a
p
500

90

(
m 450
i
l
400
s
)
350

100

80
Turbine bearing vibration remained low:
4.25 mils pk-pk
Rotor profiles have changed;
Sensor 121 showed shaft displacement
over 1 turn

70
60

121: 105.92 mils pk-pk

50
40

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
i
l
s
)

300

300

30

30
301: 115.43 mils pk-pk

250

301: 161.64 mils pk-pk

250

20

20
70
99,49
81,27
409,69
379,62

mils
mils
mils
mils

60
G1
G1
G1
G1

270dg
270dg
121dg
301dg

50

40
30
20
Pole:7
GEN BEARING DISPLACEMENT
1998/06/16
TURB BEARING DISPLACEMENT 1998/06/16
GENERATOR AIR GAP
1998/06/16
GENERATOR AIR GAP
1998/06/16

70

10
01:00:19
01:00:19
01:00:19
01:00:19

94,7
94,7
94,7
94,7

RPM
RPM
RPM
RPM

AUTO
AUTO
AUTO
AUTO

FIGURE 15 Signature of bearing

vibration and air gap one day before
the incident

138,07
79,66
396,21
422,96

mils
mils
mils
mils

60
G1
G1
G1
G1

270dg
270dg
121dg
301dg

50

40
30
20
Pole:7
GEN BEARING DISPLACEMENT
1998/06/17
TURB BEARING DISPLACEMENT 1998/06/17
GENERATOR AIR GAP
1998/06/17
GENERATOR AIR GAP
1998/06/17

10
10:46:17
10:46:17
10:46:17
10:46:17

94,7
94,7
94,7
94,7

RPM
RPM
RPM
RPM

CHECK
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK

FIGURE 16 Similar results following

fracture of stud; the increased shaft
displacement (+44 mils) reflects in the rotor
profile at 301 (+46 mils)

Case 9 Concrete Mitigation Program

A pro-active rehabilitation program was implemented in 1993 to mitigate the effects of
AAR-induced concrete expansion diagnosed in 1991. Slots were cut between
generators along the contraction joints of the concrete structure, using diamond wire
cutting technology. This relieved existing concrete stress, partially rounded the runner
throat liners and provided allowance for continued concrete expansion.
This was the first undertaking of its kind in a hydroelectric facility with adjacent
generators operational, and was made possible with the implementation of OLM
(Figures 17 & 18) and other instrumentation. It allowed Production staff to see the
immediate reaction and improvement of runner clearance and generator air gap.

230
B
l 220
a
d
e 210
T 200
i
p 190
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e

Slotting
Between
Units
2&3

180

Slotting
Between
Units
2&1

170
160
150

140
(
m 130
i
l 120
s
)
110

-14,55 mils
-27,77 mils
34,97 mils
17,23 mils

FIGURE 17 Typical polar plot of

runner clearance from slotting

1996-11-13
1996-11-20
19:00:00
19:00:00
18 day(s)
18:52:48
1995/12/18 17:12:33
G2 Blade Tip Clear.
1995/12/18 17:12:33
G2 Blade Tip Clear.
1995/12/18 17:12:33
G2 Blade Tip Clear.
1995/12/18 17:12:33
G2 Blade Tip Clear.

1996-11-27
19:00:00
170dg
350dg
260dg
80dg

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

FIGURE 18 Trending graph of

runner clearance response

Case 10 Increased Turbine Efficiency and Reduced Cavitation

Original overhaul planning specified runner clearances be enlarged to allow
AAR-induced movement of the throat ring liners and to prevent blade rubbing.
However, this reduced turbine efficiency and increased cavitation activity. Additional
investigations of the thermal effect and post concrete slotting effects on runner
clearances enabled the senior plant engineer to recommend a reduction in runner
clearance from 250 mils to 160 mils. The revised clearance has increased generator
production output (+0.1% efficiency) and reduced runner blade and throat ring liner
cavitation. Thus, it has extended the frequency of runner blade/throat ring liner
cavitation repairs from three to five years while reducing the time required to
implement repairs.
Case 11 Overhaul Program Schedule
The major unit overhaul, rewind and runner blade replacement programs are nearing
completion in 2001. G12 is the last unit to be overhauled. Review of the OLM
information assisted with the efficient planning and scheduling of generating unit
overhaul sequence based on prevailing condition of the generators and coordination
with the concrete slotting program. It helped tailor the scope of work for each unit and
reduce downtime. Meanwhile, it allowed a minimal forced outage factor on other units
throughout the program.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF MONITORING SYSTEMS
R.H. Saunders GS experience in analyzing OLM information has received recognition
from within OPG and worldwide. We continuously work with the OLM system
manufacturer, VibroSystM, to add new software features and make suggestions for
providing additional information that will be beneficial to determining how equipment
is performing. For example, polar view of turbine blade tip clearances inside the
throat ring, shaft run-out orbit plots and frequency harmonic plots have been
developed based on our collaboration to provide more precise dynamic condition
monitoring.

FINANCIAL BENEFITS
Effective interpretation of OLM data by R.H. Saunders GS Production staff has
increased the availability factor at the plant. The benefits in additional power
generation can quickly add up to hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars
annually.
Spending just five minutes a day to check critical machines, half an hour a week to
overview all parameters, and one day a month to record a complete set of data for
trending (total 1.5 day per month for one person) generates a lot of spare time to
many people for other tasks, not to mention revenues.
CONCLUSION
The OLM system has proven to be an extremely valuable tool. OLM results analysis at
R.H. Saunders GS by Production staff experienced in data interpretation falls in line
with OPGs less intrusive maintenance approach. It has reduced the risk of
equipment damage, lowered maintenance costs, and increased reliability statistics,
capacity availability factor, energy production and revenues. Based on the cases
illustrated, our experience shows that the money and labour invested in OLM
equipment has been paid back manyfold. This initiative places R.H. Saunders GS in
a more competitive position as it enters into the open market.

REFERENCES
Casselman D., Curtis G.R. & Mohino A., R.H.Saunders Generating Station: Crisis
Management, Hydrovision Conference 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina
Case Study: R.H. Saunders GS On-line Machine Condition Monitoring Contributes to
Significant Operations & Maintenance Savings, Water Power & Dam Construction,
June 1999, page 18.
Eastman K.T., Ho M.S. & Adeghe L.N., Innovative Techniques to Mitigate Concrete
Expansion R.H. Saunders GS, Hydrovision Conference 1998, Reno, Nevada
Kee D.C., Liscio L., Ho M.S. & Eastman K.T., Rehabilitating R.H. Saunders:
Enhancing Value, Special Report, Hydro Review, Volume XVII, No. 7, December
1998, pages 44 51.
Goodeve T.E., Pollock G.B. & Bissonnette M.R., Vital Signs Monitoring of Hydraulic
Turbine/Generators, CEA Spring 1992 Meeting, March 1992, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Pollock G.B. & Lyles J.F., Vertical Hydraulic Generators: Experiences with Air Gap
Monitoring, IEEE/PES 1992 Winter Meeting, January 1992, New York, NY, USA.

Urban D.A., G1 Loss of Rotor to Stator Air Gap at R.H. Saunders GS: A Success
Story, Ontario Hydro Internal Memorandum, December 1991.
AUTHORS
David Casselman, Production Manager, R.H. Saunders GS, Ontario Power
Generation, has thirty one years of hydroelectric, transmission and retail maintenance
and operating experience. David has extensive experience with generator/turbine
on-line monitoring equipment.
Keith T. Eastman, P.Eng., M.Eng., Senior Plant Engineer, R.H. Saunders GS,
Ontario Power Generation, has twenty two years of hydroelectric and transmission
technical field services experience. He was a team leader involved with all phases of
the Concrete Rehabilitation Project.
Mr. Marc R. Bissonnette, P.Eng., is an Electrical Engineering graduate of the University
of Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, Canada) in 1986. Since 1987, he has been involved with
the ongoing development and marketing of monitoring systems for large rotating
machines. Mr. Bissonnette is presently Sales Manager for VibroSystMs Machine
Condition Monitoring Division.
Ackowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr. Dean MacIntosh of Ontario Power Generation and
Mr. Rjean Beaudoin of VibroSystM for their contribution to this paper.

1
2

ZOOM: Zero Outage On-line Monitor

AGMS: Air Gap Monitoring System