2 - 1=
2.8814 m
Asset Management
Of
Aging
Infrastructure
40:31.8963024
40:31.8934210 1 2
48.81 V
Sample_Volt_2
1 -73.45 V
2 -32.88 V
-105.0 V
286.0 kA
PRIMARY
FOCUS AREA
FOCUS SEGMENTS
Application Research
Product Evaluation
Hardware/
Equipment
Testing
Sample_Curr_Z
1 119.5 kA
2 165.5 kA
Engineering Analysis &
Support
Equipment Spec. & Test
Protocol Development
-128.9 kA
40:31.832
20.00 ms/div
40:31.954
New
Technology/
Research
New Product
Development
Research
System Enhancements
Asset Management
Reliability
Condition Assessment
Forensics
27 kV
36 kV
Operation, Installation,
Design
System
Analysis
Power Quality/Grounding
Safety
Training/Education
About NEETRAC
• Membership based
center in the School of
Electrical and Computer
Engineering at Georgia
Tech
• Self supporting
• Began in 1996 with
transfer of Georgia
Power Research Center
to Georgia Tech
• Consortium focus
• 32 Staff (engineers,
technicians, admin.)
• $6,000,000+ operation
2
Why NEETRAC?
•
•
•
•
•
Largest T&D Research & Testing Center in the US.
Significant engineering resources with over 450 man years of relevant experience.
Participate in a collaboration with top Utilities & Manufacturers.
Collaborative provides for significant leverage of your R&D dollar.
Significant capabilities/facilities




•
•
•
•
High voltage, high current
High power (through partnership with S&C)
Mechanical (tensile, compression, vibration)
Environmental (salt fog, UV)
Provide a venue for proprietary and collaborative R&D.
Neutral venue for proprietary material and equipment evaluation.
Initiate and improve industry standards for products, technologies and practices.
Conduct projects that are of key interest to our Members.






Reliability & efficiency improvement - including smart grid technology
Systems analysis
Technology development
Asset optimization
Cost Reduction
Safety
3
NEETRAC Mission & Vision
(T&D)
Mission
To provide a venue where NEETRAC Staff, NEETRAC
Members and the Georgia Tech Academic community can
collaborate to solve problems in the Electric Energy
Transmission & Distribution arena.
Vision
We will build on our expertise to become the leading national
Center for collaborative applied and strategic research and
development for Electric Energy Transmission and
Distribution.
Preferred locally, respected globally.
4
NEETRAC Membership
2013 / 2014
1. 3M
2. ABB
3. Ameren Services
4. American Electric Power
5. British Columbia Hydro
6. Borealis Compounds LLC
7. Con Edison
8. Cooper Power Systems
9. Dominion Virginia Power
10. Dow Chemical Company
11. Duke/Progress Energy
12. Entergy
13. Exelon
14. FirstEnergy
15. Gresco Utility Supply
16. Hubbell Power Systems
17. Landis + Gyr
18. MacLean Power Systems
19. NRECA
20. NSTAR
21. PacifiCorp
22. Pacific Gas and Electric
23. PPL Electric Utilities
24. Prolec GE
25. Prysmian Cables & Systems
26. Public Service Electric & Gas
27. S&C Electric Company
28. San Diego Gas & Electric
29. Smart Wire Grid
30. South Carolina Electric & Gas
31. Southern California Edison
32. Southern Company
33. Southern States
34. Southwire
35. TE Connectivity (formerly Tyco)
36. TVA
37. Viakable
38. We Energies (2013/2014)
Blue Text Indicates Utility Members
5
Ameren Services
American Electric Power
BC Hydro
Consolidated Edison
Member Map
Dominion Virginia Power
Utility Members
Duke Energy
Entergy
Exelon
FirstEnergy
NRECA Member Coops
Hawaii
19
1
Alaska
NSTAR Electric & Gas
17
Pacific Gas & Electric
2
PacifiCorp
24
PPL Electric Utilities

30
Public Service Electric & Gas
24
South Carolina Electric & Gas
3
48
12
32
29
Southern California Edison
Tennessee Valley Authority
3M
ABB
Borealis Compounds
Cooper Power Systems
Dow Chemical Company
Gresco Utility Supply
Hubbell Power Systems
Landis+Gyr
MacLean Power Systems
Prolec GE
Prysmian Cables & Systems
S&C Electric
Smart Wire Grid
Southern States
Southwire
TE Connectivity
Varentec
Viakable




















12
41
6
35
 


9
12
45
1

17
28
1
1
21
2
30
7
32
32
29
50
20
6
31
19
17


2
D
C
34
26
Manufacturing Members
Southern Company
2
1
29
23


54
25
American Samoa - 1
Virgin Islands - 1
12
75
17
Copyright GTRC 2012

NRECA Member US Co-Ops = 1,048
NOTE: Percentage of US Electric Customers
Served by NEETRAC Member Utilities: 64%
Collaborative Focus Areas (T&D)
PRIMARY FOCUS AREA
FOCUS SEGMENTS
Application Research
Hardware/Equipment Testing
Product Evaluation
Engineering Analysis & Support
Equipment Spec. & Test Protocol Development
New Product Development
New Technology/Research
Research
System Enhancements
Asset Management
Reliability
Condition Assessment
Forensics
Operation, Installation, Design
System Analysis
Power Quality/Grounding
Safety
Training/Education
7
At a Glance
NEETRAC
Membership
Utilities (53%)
Manufacturers (47%)
Scope
Distribution (47%)
Substation (18%)
Transmission (35%)
Operation
Full Access
Resources
Internal (90%)
External
Project
Timescale
Collaborative (60%)
Proprietary (40%)
Short (0.9 yrs, $10k)
Medium (2.7 yrs, $100k)
Application
(Analysis / Studies)

Research

Testing

Support
(Consulting / Emergency)

8
Electric Delivery Industry
The Issues
• The economic significance of
electricity is staggering.
• Total asset value is close to $1
trillion.
• The only practical way to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil is to
increase and optimize our use of
electric energy.
• This requires a new approach to
the generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity.
• If left as is, the grid will not be able
to provide the level of reliable
service needed.
Electric Delivery Industry
The Solution
• Deploy new technologies
• Optimize the use of existing assets
– Diagnostics
– Asset Management
– Utilization enhancements
• Understand the existing grid
–
–
–
Aging
Knowledge preservation
Training/education
• Increase grid intelligence
–
–
–
–
Sensors
Communications
Computing
Cyber Security
The grid must be viewed as the
sum of its parts!
The Grid as the Sum of
Its Parts
Aging Assets
• Much of the country’s electric utility infrastructure is older
than it’s “design life”
–
–
–
–
Underground Cable & Accessories
Overhead Lines, Connectors, Poles
Power Transformers
Breakers
• Can’t (and shouldn’t) replace parts simply because they
are old
– Not enough money
– Not enough capacity
– Not necessary
• The key is condition assessment combined with asset
management decisions that are appropriate for your
system.
11
The Grid as the Sum of
Its Parts
Optimizing Assets
• Some parts of the system are under utilized
• Some are over utilized
• The key is to know the difference
– Utilize available capacity where possible
– Recognize limitations to prevent overloads
• Knowledge preservation is an issue
•
•
– Industry has lost a lot of the talent needed to assure system is
operated properly
The introduction of new technologies is important
Understanding the performance of new components is also important
12
Example Projects
• Asset Optimization
• Knowledge Preservation
• Performance/Condition Assessment
13
Asset Optimization Smart Wires
Smart Wires - Overview
• Brings new GT technology to market
• Collaboration with our utility and manufacturing members
• Leverages Federal funding for commercialization /
development
• Potential significant positive impact on overloaded
transmission grids without building new transmission lines
138kV
0°
j1 6 
675A
j2 4 
450A
138kV
 7 .7 5 °
Smart Wires - Function
Line Inductance
• Functions as a current limiter to divert current from
overloaded lines to underutilized ones
• Increases line impedance by injecting magnetizing
inductance of the Single-Turn Transformer
• Each module is triggered at a predefined set point to reflect
a gradual increase in line impedance
Smart Wires – Timeline
2004
• Smart Wires was proposed by Prof. Divan while at Soft Switching Technologies.
• The proof of concept project was co-funded by TVA and a demonstration unit was designed,
built and tested at Soft Switching in 2004.
2008
• Smart Wires – Phase 1, was completed at Georgia Tech / NEETRAC in 2008 with funding
($200K) from TVA, Department of Energy, Con Edison and ABB.
2009
• Zenergy Power acquires license for Smart Wires
• SmartWires Focused Initiative (SWFI) launched ($250K) - members set design spec
• Georgia Tech and Zenergy identify a mass-manufacturable core design
2010
• Principals of Zenergy Power form Smart Wire Grid to continue commercialization
2011
• Smart Wire Grid acquires license for Smart Wires
• SWFI members meet to refine design spec and offer candidate lines for field demonstration
2012
• ARPAe funding ($486K) approved for NEETRAC for commercialization / development
• 99 units deployed on 161 kV TVA pilot line in October
Smart Wires - Phase 1
Prototype
Complete module with the casing
Electrical
• Operating Level : 161 KV, 1,000 A
• Conductor: Drake (795 Kcmil)
• Injection: 10 kVA, 750 A
Mechanical
• Target weight per module: 120 lb
Smart Wires - Fault Current
Testing – 63 kA
Smart Wires –
Corona Testing (265 kV)
Smart Wires - Impulse
Testing – 750 kV
Smart Wires – Operations
Testing
600A at 97kV L-G
>130 Operations
Smart Wires Aeolian Vibration
Smart Wires - Slip Test
Smart Wires - TVA Pilot
October 2012
Smart Wires - TVA Pilot
October 2012
Concept

Prototype

Testing

Redesign

Pilot

Commercialization

Optimized Asset!
Asset Optimization
Buss Ampacity Program
Project No. 11-002: Bus Ampacity and Temperature Prediction Software
27
Buss Ampacity Program
• Developed software tool to predict substation bus ampacity
• Current techniques are patchwork approaches based on an
IEEE standard.
• Covers a wide variety of geometric and environmental
scenarios for substation buses
• Realizes additional emergency switching capacity by
performing load transient analysis.
• Tool can be used to design substation buses as well as
optimize their capacity during system emergencies.
Project No. 11-002: Bus Ampacity and Temperature Prediction Software
28
Buss Ampacity Program
Project No. 11-002: Bus Ampacity and Temperature Prediction Software
29
Buss Ampacity Program
Project No. 11-002: Bus Ampacity and Temperature Prediction Software
30
Buss Ampacity Program
Project No. 11-002: Bus Ampacity and Temperature Prediction Software
31
Cable Diagnostic Focused
Initiative
Assessing the Condition of Our Aging
Cable System Infrastructure
Diagnostic
Providers
NEETRAC
Members
Dept of
Energy
CDFI
Non
NEETRAC
Members
Supporters
32
Is Age a Useful
Metric?
• We know things change with time
• Often used as a selection criteria
• Talks to the issues associated with End Of Life & Asset
Management
• BUT, We know that just because something is old it is not
at the end of its useful life
• Old Units have often been
well seasoned by experience
• But, we know old units are
likely to yield more issues
and concerns
• Is there a way to quantify this?
33
Bathtub Curve
0.08
Infant Mortality
Shape=0.5
0.07
Ageing
Shape=2
Failure Rate
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
Ideally we would spot the upswing
failure data
Normal Operation
from
Shape=1
0.02
0.01
0.00
Is there a way for Diagnostic Testing
to show us similar information?
0
20
40
60
Time in Service - Age (yrs)
80
100
34
Establishing the Index
Case No.
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
New Cable
Features at 80%
Features 95%
Failed Cable*
Utility test 2007
Utility test 2010
STD
TU
Tan δ
TuTu
Rank
[E-3]
0.00
0.05
0.50
3.60
0.00
0.00
[E-3]
0.00
5.00
80.00
247.00
0.80
1.80
[E-3]
0.10
4.00
50.00
316.00
2.80
6.00
[E-3]
0.00
3.00
58.00
17.00
0.00
0.60
[%]
0.10
82.0
93.9
97.6
79.0
84.5
Gather
Data
99.9
99
95
95
Percentage [%]
90
80
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
New Cable - Case 1
5
80 % of individual features - Case 2
95 % of individual features - Case 3
1
Failed cable - Case 4
0.1
0
20
40
60
PCA Distance Normalized [%]
80
Use diagnostics to
determine when a
system/unit passes
a meaningful
threshold, then
evaluate that
threshold against
actual performance
100
35
CDFI
Example Application
Evergreen
12 Ckts
1986 Vintage
Glenwood
15 Ckts
1976 & 1981 Vintage
A ction Required
13.3%
Further Study
26.7%
No A ction Required
100.0%
No A ction Required
60.0%
36
Other Applications - IR
Thermography
100
95
Percent
80
80
60
40
Have to combine:
•
•
20
0
2
Absolute Temperature
Temperature Difference
3
4
5
6
7
8
Health Index for Connectors via Infra Red Thermography
9
37
Other Projects
Porcelain
Cutouts
27 kV
36 kV
Paper Cable Knowledge Preservation
BASIC FACT
MODULE
• Data to have at hand
• Where to look for
information
Global picture of
With Iso• Tx
Without Iso Tx
Loc
Fr-W1
Vexp-oc
CONTEXT
Vexp-cc
* MAP
V
MODULE exp-oc
the industry
• Clusters of
Vexp-cc
utilities*based on
similarities
• Who looks like
0.6
me
19.7
15.2
0.6
KBS 22.5
17.6
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
Fr-W2
Deck-W1
20.3
LITERATURE
5.5
DATABASE
*Closed circuit voltage is same as exposure current
All
CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
measurements
in Volts
MODULE
(V)
• Cause/Diagn
ostic/
Remediation
• Visualization
tool for life
usage
• Relevant
literature
on paper
cable
systems
Boat Dock
Exposure
Voltage
38
Other
Projects
Pole Fires
Transformer QA
39
Other Projects
Automatic Splices
MV Cable
Ground Jumpers
40
Other Projects
Interruption
Tests
Polymer Cutouts
Tracking Wheel
80% WS
100%
WS
100%
BIL*
AC
Flashove
r
Elevated
AC WS
Steep
front
Elevated
AC WS
A-11
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A-15
P
P
F*
P
P
P
F
A-16
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A-17
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Sample
Hydrophobicity
41
Asset Management
Integration of
Asset Selection
and
Prioritization
80
50
Asset
Prioritization
Level 0 - Reactive Maintenance: Run to failure
50
Pine Poles
20
5
5.613
2
2.345
1
0.5
0.37
0.2
0.1
0.05
1
252
Level 1- Ratios - Snapshot: Cost-Benefit analysis considering current assessment of
cost, criticality, and asset condition
95
60
Level 2 - Ratios – Dynamic: Cost-Benefit analysis considering failure trends
and evaluation of long terms benefits
Asset
Selection
(projects)
40
Level 3 - Asset Modeling: Use of diagnostics to estimate
probability of failure
Asset
Prioritization
20
Level 4 - Probabilistic Integration: Assessment
of population at risk
Percent of Reject Poles
Level 5 - Condition Based Prioritization:
Optimization of resources and benefits over
time
10
100
Age of Reject Poles (years)
Number Rejected (%)
20
15
10
5
Now
Ladder of Asset management
Evolution of Asset
Management
Concepts
0
10
20
30
40
Years in the Future
50
60
Wood Poles
42
Summary
1. Grid performance is only as good as the performance of
its components.
2. We must understand the performance of aging
components (diagnostics/condition assessment), and:
3. We must also assure that new components have the
desired performance characteristics.
4. New technologies are needed to optimize grid capacity.
5. We have much to learn about developing and deploying
viable health indices in effective asset management
programs.
43