Meeting Minutes, 2015Asset Health Focus Community

Table of ContentsMeeting on 6 January 2015.........................................................................................................................2

Meeting on 13 January 2015.......................................................................................................................2

Meeting on 27 January 2015.......................................................................................................................3

Meeting on 10 February 2015.....................................................................................................................4

Meeting on 24 February 2015.....................................................................................................................5

Meeting on 3 March 2015...........................................................................................................................6

Meeting on 10 March 2015.........................................................................................................................7

Meeting on 17 March 2015.........................................................................................................................8

Meeting on 24 March 2015.........................................................................................................................9

Meeting on 31 March 2015.......................................................................................................................10

Meeting on 7 April 2015............................................................................................................................14

Meeting on 14 April 2015..........................................................................................................................16

Meeting on 21 April 2015..........................................................................................................................16

Meeting on 28 April 2015..........................................................................................................................18

Meeting on 5 May 2015............................................................................................................................19

Meeting on 12 May 2015..........................................................................................................................21

Meeting on 26 May 2015..........................................................................................................................22

Meeting on 9 June 2015............................................................................................................................23

Meeting on 23 June 2015..........................................................................................................................25

Meeting on 7 July 2015.............................................................................................................................27

Meeting on 21 July 2015...........................................................................................................................29

Meeting on 22 July 2015...........................................................................................................................30

Meeting on 4 August 2015........................................................................................................................30

Meeting on 11 August 2015......................................................................................................................31

Meeting on 18 August 2015......................................................................................................................34

Meeting on 1 September 2015..................................................................................................................35

Meeting on 6 October 2015......................................................................................................................37

Meeting on 20 October 2015....................................................................................................................37

Meeting on 3 November 2015...................................................................................................................38

Meeting on 17 November 2015.................................................................................................................39

Meeting on 1 December 2015...................................................................................................................39

Meeting on 6 January 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson

Meeting Agenda:

Interlaken Agenda. Circuit breaker and bushings nameplate. Test result modeling.

Discussion Summary:

C37.04 for circuit breaker nameplate. Change modeling applies to assets as well. The lifecycle activities that happen with the assets

result in change of the model around the asset. Good representation of this history is very important to asset health analytics. The means to achieve this modeling need to be considered together with the change modeling effort that’s ongoing. This will be the main topic at Interlaken for asset health.

Jay’s NWIP and document on Real network vs modeled network. These are the starting point for discussion.

Integration strategy on how information flows between asset and network sides.

Meeting on 13 January 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown

Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Interlaken Agenda.

Discussion Summary:

What are the priority topics to pursue? Items: Asset templates, lifecycle activities, planning/catalog, testing, criticality/AHI/risk (includes

one particular analytics output – AHI). Svein’s priorities:

o Highest priority: Lifecycle activities/process.o Priority 2: Catalog data & testing.

IRM primer for WG13? Eric and Gerald reporting on Wednesday on the use cases. This could be extended to discuss IRM as well? Greg’s recommendation to add a session to review IRM and actors list with WG13.

Meeting on 27 January 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley Jim Hortsman Remy Younes Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski Roger Sarkinen Luc Vouligny Xiaofeng Wang Frank Wilhoit

Meeting Agenda:

Planning this year’s work.

Discussion Summary:

Working with TC8 on coordinating their business use cases with the TC57 system use cases. Expanding IRM to cover WG13 and possibly WG16 (once we coordinate with them). Condition Based Maintenance (from AHFC work) and asset aspects of DER are going to be

subjects for the next edition 61968-4. What is the sequence?

o Finish breaker modeling first, then procedure and test results.o What about analytics? This is an important topic, but running this is parallel might be

too complicated.o Should we try first 45 mins on the first bullet and 15 mins on analytics, with analytics

being a report out of the requirements investigation. Need to be able to mash up CIM classes on the fly as required by analytics. This is complicated

by the limitations of the XML data exchange. Need a flexible model to give power back to the developer/business analyst. Change of

paradigm. With NOSQL and like technologies, there is less emphasis on schema and more emphasis on doing clever things with the data. In such an environment, self-description by analytics systems is very important.

Meeting on 10 February 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley Fook-Luen Heng Jim Hortsman Chris Kardos Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny Xiaofeng Wang

Meeting Agenda:

Circuit breaker templates and test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Walk through of test results modeling. DGA attributes: O2 + Argon? What is this for? Ask Doble oil lab guys. Are the DGA and Oil Quality test results complete? There are some things on the online monitoring side that don’t have an equivalent on the lab

test side; and vice versa.

Create a table that lists attributes, details, does it apply to lab, and does it apply to online monitor.

Pat mentioned an example (Southern Company?) where the online monitoring DGA results vs. lab test results were completely different. Hunch is higher confidence attributed to lab results. Online monitoring value is mainly in the alarm.

Audit trail on the measurement is really important. What device took the measurement, what the calibration history is, etc.

Meeting on 24 February 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Mark Easley Jim Hortsman Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

DGA and Oil Quality test results modeling.o The attributes and how to group them together.o Oil Quality attributes are from multiple tests. How to capture this?o Quote from survey response by TVA: “DGA indicates current-day problem; Oil Quality

indicates future problem (e.g., sludge gets in to paper, causes problems in a few years).” The relationship between ProcedureDataSet and Asset.

o Currently tenuous due to the many-to-many relationship of Asset and Procedure. Attributes that are available from Procedure (lab & field tests) as well as Meas (online

monitoring). How to synchronize them?o Field/lab test and online are related but treated differently. o Quote from survey response by Southern Company: “Because Online DGA is not a

certified test via a Gas Chromatograph we treat this data as an alarm point which triggers further investigation via syringe and Lab testing.”

o In the case of online monitoring of bushing PF, the field tests are the baseline.

Discussion Summary:

How best to categorize the test results?o Mirroring TOA would be a good idea.

How to capture test details along with the test results in cases where a result set is coming from multiple tests.

o What is value of capturing test details? o If everyone is using the same set of tests, there may not be any.o First step is making sure we have the means to capture test results in CIM.

The association between Asset and ProcedureDataSet.o Need to have a direct association. The current linkage through Procedure is not

sufficient. Is the current path of sub-classing ProcedureDataSet the best way, because it will result in

many, many new classes? (The alternative is key-value pair like Meas.) o The advantage of current approach is that the data are explicitly modeled and very

useful for data exchanges.o From the perspective of building profiles, this would make it easy to building profile. In

backend design, efficient representations are possible. Profile with many optional attributes is not a good solution? It is not precise and

difficult to validate so thus implement. But this is the current practice.

o The question is do we want to have generic or more explicit profiles. Having an explicit model such as this allows more flexibility in profiling and implementation.

Lab/field test currently modeled as Procedure/ProcedureDataSet, while online results as Measurement/MeasurementValue. Is this a good dichotomy?

o Just because this is how we do things today isn’t necessarily the reason to model it that way. Need to think ahead on how things could evolve? Having two different ways of modeling same/similar results leads to complications.

o Do the test results need to inherit from ProcedureDataSet? The test results can stand alone at the top and can be related to Procedure or Measurement, whichever is the source of the data.

o A new IdentifiedObject for AssetData or some such from which to inherit the datasets. The “AssetData” can then be associated with Procedure and Measurement.

Meeting on 3 March 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

The relationship between ProcedureDataSet and Asset.o Currently tenuous due to the many-to-many relationship of Asset and Procedure.

Use of ProcedureDataset children.o Need to keep the data separate from the means of obtaining the data, since same data

can come from multiple means. Description of general asset component

o A way to specify that a "manufacturer X model Y" pump is used on a breaker mechanism, for instance, without creating an Asset instance for each pump.

Modeling analytics results.

Discussion Summary:

ProcedureDataSet and Asset used to have an association, but was removed during a previous cleanup. Can be restored if makes sense.

In order to keep data separate from the means of obtaining the data, there are two possible modeling directions.

o Option 1: A top level class and child classes for measurement results. These can then associate with the means of obtaining the data – i.e., Procedure and/or Measurement.

o Option 2: Do what Part 9 did but inheriting from Measurement/MeasurementValue, thus able to use its mechanisms for keeping data and means separate. As in Part 9, enumerate the measurements – e.g., DGA attributes table, fluid test attributes tables, particle content attributes table, etc.

Invite Dave Haynes to the next TC57 asset health meeting to discuss Part 9 approach.

Meeting on 10 March 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Elizabeth Bray Pat Brown Mark Easley Herb Falk David Haynes Fook-Luen Heng Jim Hortsman Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

DGA and oil results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Model the dataset independently of the means through which they were obtained, and then just associate the means/context/source from which it was obtained.

DGA values.o Should we put the inputs and outputs in separate classes?o Sounds like a good idea.o In metering, derived values are exchanged all the time – like estimated value. The way

you tell the difference is through quality code that is attached to the reading to mark up if it is derived or not.

Other uses for quality code – problem with the measurement because register overflowed, or the number is suspect for whatever reason, indicate with quality code. Quality is enumerated and allow multiplicity of zero to many.

Chat comment from Luc Vouligny: In the section "Unusual Attributes" of the "DGA and Oil Quality Attributes" document, Jocelyn Jalbert from our company says that the oil temperature when the sampling is taken is missing. Also missing are the methanol and ethanol concentration.

The metering approach is flexible and versatile in being able to attach quality indicators, annotations, and measurement methods/standards for each attribute. On the other hand, the explicitly modeled classes are clearer.

Are there other places from where we should be capturing oil attributes. As for grouping, different labs/scientists may do this differently? Should look to see if there are

other groupings. Action Items:

o Check with Doble oil lab guys on whether there should be any supplementary source we should be looking at other than TOA4?

o Identify a contact within Delta-X/TOA to engage on modeling and whether they have looked at CIM.

Meeting on 17 March 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson David Haynes Chris Kardos Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Meter reading model.

Discussion Summary:

For meter, started by collecting use cases. What has to be exchanged (CIM classes)? The readings are exchanged as MeterReadings payload. MeterReading contains Readings, which

consist of value, ReadingQualities, ReadingType, etc. ReadingQuality concept could be used to distinguish between online vs laboratory etc. ReadingType is typecast as string, has 18 attributes, has many constructs around time, such as

time intervals, statistical qualifiers like average, etc. Annex C of 61968-9 has more description. This 18-part string becomes the Names.name for the ReadingType.

The ReadingType within Reading in MeterReadings is included by reference. The units enumeration in 61970, did they harmonize with 61968-9? The 61968-9 added to the

61970 units enumeration and over time may have diverged. Is it possible to inherit from enumerated classes? If so, could be a good way of, once

harmonized, maintaining things going forward. Metering time constructs: Interested in both current value (energy) and over time value (kW-

Hr). Able to express intervals as well as average over time (sliding window). Grouping of Readings is not there yet, we’ll have to come up with as a layer on top – similar to

EnvironmentalValueSet. Limits and alarms associated with measurements are modeled as EndDeviceEvents. EndDeviceEventType has enumerations similar to ReadingType. isCoincidentTrigger relates Reading to EndDeviceEvent. MeterConfig profile with root class Meter has all the attributes corresponding to the meter. Real meter vs. virtual meter: ServicePoint (demarcation point where homeowner owns

everything downstream and utility owns everything upstream) vs UsagePoint. But want to able measure things at points other than demarcation point, such as power at a feeder, for which UsagePoint was created. UsagePoint has a ServicePoint flag that indicates whether it is also a service point.

Don’t need a Location for UsagePoint.

Meeting on 24 March 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Chris Kardos Svein Olsen

Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Since the exact modeling strategy is not known yet, for now we are capturing the attributes in a spreadsheet.

Would be a good idea to disseminate it to the companies from where the attributes came in order to get comments/feedback.

As a first step, provide this to Doble oil lab guys & get their feedback; invite them to participate in the next meeting as well.

Questions to ask the Doble oil lab guys:o Should we model the outputs as well (e.g., the gas ratios)? Does someone care about

just the outputs and not the inputs and so they need to be exchanged?o Different tests for the same attribute, such as the dielectricBreakdown?o Additional sources besides TOA4?o How relevant are the attributes that are not on TOA4. For instance, there are many Fluid

Test Variables collected over time in the informative class that are not on TOA4. Should do the same for insulation testing. SFRA and PD etc. are waveforms. Thermography & inspections. Action Items:

o Provide spreadsheet to Doble oil lab guys for feedback & invite them to attend next meeting.

o Get a contact for DeltaX Research.o Think about non-scalar test results such as SFRA, PD, Thermography, and inspections &

suggest a strategy for modeling them.

Meeting on 31 March 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Gerald Gray David Haynes Chris Kardos

Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Meter reading model – continuation.

Discussion Summary:

Some features of meter reading appealing to address asset condition requirements, such as enumerated attributes, being able to indicate source of data, time concepts such as sliding window.

As an example, oil attributes for DGA can come from online monitoring, lab test, field test with a portable analyzer, or factory test.

Reason: why was the reading taken? Source in BaseReading: where is the reading coming from. MeterReading and Reading? MeterReading collects Readings? They have a many-to-many

relationship. When timestamp in MeasurementValue is populated, it overrides the others? MeterReading is a collection of individual Readings. How does part 9 handle peak and average? That’s within ReadingType – macroPeriod would be

the averaging period, aggregate would be min/max/average etc.

First edition has 11 attributes for ReadingType, but this resulting in same attribute being used to indicate more than one dimension. This was rectified in the subsequent edition by increasing to 18 attributes. Have been happy with how ReadingType has shaped up, including the shorthand notation.

Commodity vs. kind attribute in ReadingType: Commodity is the category & kind is the specific measurement. For instance electricity is a commodity & voltage is a kind.

The intentions of Part 9 ReadingType enumeration is to be a superset of what’s out there including 61850, since revenue metering has many esoteric details not found in SCADA measurements.

Maybe subclass MeterReading to describe context metadata, like sample details, date, lab details etc.

If don’t need all the attributes in ReadingType, could compose the ReadingType.name string with only the attributes we need, so it won’t have to be an 18-part string.

BaseReading.value is a String. Is this used also for float and integer data? Yes, wanted one type to capture all data, including ISO 8601 date-time value. String seemed to be a good type because it can accurately capture the information, so everything is typecast to string.

o In the first edition, everything was float, but it introduced rounding errors.o EXI (Efficient XML Interchange) works best if the types are explicitly broken out, so may

have to revisit this.

Pat’s Notes:

Online monitoring has both instantaneous and averaged values

MeasurementValue.timeStamp overrides other time information

BaseReading.timePeriod is for individual readings

MeterReading.valuesInterval is a way of grouping readings and can be used to apply to all Readings taken at a certain time

ReadingType.macroPeriod defines period

ReadingTypd.aggregate is statistical operation

.commodity would be “variable”

.kind is related to “variable” – further describes what appears in commodity

.measuringPeriod is time chunking

Svein - What do you like about -9, what would you have done differently?

Chris – likes leveraging name for doing “.” delimited ReadingType attribute

First edition had 11 attributes and some of them were being used for more than one concept – needed to break them out, so then 11 expanded to 18, maybe in next edition may have to have a 19th

Dave – one of the benefits in the “.” separated list is that the enumeration lists can be translated into various languages

Jerry – yup, Dave & Chris are the experts

Some of attributes of ReadingType may be filled in by a MDMS or Head End, some by meter (depends on intelligence of meter)

In first example that David showed us on spreadsheet

electricitySecondaryMetered power phaseC kVAr

electricitySecondaryMetered - .commodity

power - .kind

phaseC - .phases

kVAr - .units, .multiplier

Example for ch4 “variable” for asset health

indicating ch4 (micro L/L)

indicating - .accumulation

ch4 - .commodity

micro - .multiplier

L/L - .unit

David – history of modeling of currency – started it off as generic, but found it needed to be explicitly identified – is not part of unit of measure – is its own enumerated list – wanted to leverage a list maintained by other entity – made it a separate attribute

At the beginning, intent was to take 61850 description of characteristics of data ‘types’ and create a superset

Use of string

when folks went to implement Edition 1, had XML issues with float, so moved to string in Edition 2

string is used when the content of value is variable (sometimes a date, sometimes an analog)

AI - Dave will send Gowri the Names.name value calculation spreadsheet

Meeting on 7 April 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Jim Dukarm Mark Easley Herb Falk Margaret Goodrich David Haynes Jim Horstman Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Is the referenced ASTM standard correct for Gas Variables?o There are different reporting temp for the gases depending on where they’re coming

form. ASTM for DGA has a reporting temp of 0 C. IEC counterpoint to that uses reporting temp of 20 C. Online monitors have reporting temp that they use. The reporting temp is what the gas volumes are normalized to. Need an attribute for reporting temp.

o With online monitors, each one “invents” its own reporting method, not necessarily ASTM or DGA.

o When comparing gas variables, have to ensure same reporting temperature or do gas law calculation to normalize for reporting temp.

o Lab results are typically as of temperature 0 C and atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, not the ambient conditions found in the transformer.

o Online monitors usually say what their reporting temp are.o Theoretically, reporting pressure also matters, but can’t imagine why anyone would

report for anything other than 1 atmosphere.o CIGRE technical bulletin:o For ASTM D3612, there are three gas extraction methods, A, B, and C. People care about

this; the data accuracy is different. Another variable is test method. Are butane, carbon, carbon3, carbon4, isobutene useful?

o They are used in Europe, but not used here because they are extremely soluble and gum up the oil.

o “Acetylene on steroids” Total dissolved gas in ppm vs in percent?

o It’s a large number, so would have 9.1%, as opposed to 91,345 ppm.o TOA4 went percent long time ago for this, but a good proportion of the users entering

ppm anyway.o This is not necessarily calculated quantity by adding up the reported gases.

Total Dissolved Combustible Gas is distinct from TDG.o This is usually the sum of combustible gases reported.

Percent is preferable for TDG and TDCG. The gas ratios are outputs, calculated from the gas values. Hydran:

o Original gas in oil monitor, invented by Hydro Quebec, originally thought to monitor hydrogen, but upon test seemed to capture some of CO, C2H2, and C2H4 as well, so rebilled as fault gas sensor.

o In TOA4, this is a calculation, a predicted hydran, that people can compare to their Hydran value.

oxygenPlusArgon vs. Oxygen will be different only in about the sixth decimal place, since Argon concentration in the air is less than 1%.

Dielectric breakdown:o There are five different methods for evaluating, and the numbers that they report are

different, so need multiple attributes.o There may be more methods as well.o Perhaps have a dielectric breakdown attribute, multiple of which can be instantiated,

with a separate list of methods that it can associate with.o Gap size and temp are part of measurement standard, so once you know the method,

it’s already part of it. But these aren’t convertible through a calculation. So you would only compare results from the same method.

PF:o Some monitors report tan-delta and not PF. They are slightly different and need

different fields? Oxidation inhibitor questions (Fluid Test Variables):

o Need to ask Lance Lewand about this. Static Electrification:

o Unitless?o Question for Lance.

Color number:o Qualitative measurement, determined by comparing to reference color slides.o If it’s between two colors (2 and 2.5, for operational purposes treat as 2.25, and would

be L2.5). So okay to model this as float.

Visual Exam:o ASTM D1524-94 has descriptions, but people like to add their own text as well.

Meeting on 14 April 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown David Haynes Chris Kardos Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Meter reading model – continuation.

Discussion Summary:

Use the argument numerator-denominator positions (positions 10 & 11) to indicate gas ratios (with the kind as gasRatio).

Meeting on 21 April 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Jim Dukarm Mark Easley Herb Falk David Haynes Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Lance Lewand Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Susan Richter

Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Spreadsheet has ASTM test numbers, but not IEC test numbers. Need these.o Units are different.o ASTM uses STP (standard temp-pressure, 0 degrees C, 760mm mercury pressure); IEC is

NTP (Normal Temp-Pressure, 25 degrees C, 760mm)o Method A, B and C are different, but if done correctly should provide same results.

Dissipation factor & power factor seem to have different units on the spreadsheet. Is there a de-facto rule on what unit is chosen?

o In TOA4, a data attribute may be broken down to multiple fields in order to accommodate differences in standards, units, etc.

Dielectric breakdown, the numeric magnitude is different between different methods of measurement.

Lance: Doble has a document that compares and contrasts ASTM and IEC. Many different ways to measure the same thing, e.g., hydrogen. But at the end of the day, the

concentration is what’s important. The intended use of these numbers is important. Repeatability, magnitude, date when sample is from, etc. are additional metadata that’s not part of the core number, but should be recorded if needed.

Metadata items for these tests:o Detection limit.

How do you treat things like <1, <2, where the less than number is the detection limit.

In TOA, Anything with less than sign used to be taken as zero. But now accept that as a text information, since it is a detection limit and is an important piece of information. For calculations, it is taken as zero, but for reporting it is reported as the less than number.

For PCB testing, detection limit is <2 ppm, but some labs can see below that and report a number. Most cannot see below this & would say less than when a detection limit is encountered.

How many decimal places to report for a particular quantity? o Repeatability – within the lab, if same person is doing the test, how close those results

are (much tighter than reproducibility).o Reproducibility – between labs, different techs.o Precision – number of decimal places.o Bias – something can have a positive or negative bias, for instance something can always

be reported a little higher than ground truth.

These attributes may apply to different sub-sets of measurements, since different labs have different characteristics on different sets of things.

In the case of TOA, data migration is a challenge, because each utility has its own way of using it, they use fields in ways not intended.

Meeting on 28 April 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson David Haynes Chris Kardos Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Meter reading model – continuation.

Discussion Summary:

Period of time a reading is valid for. Statistical model used in assessing that. Bushing monitoring: powerFactor (daily)

o cumulative and continuousCumulative are very specific meter concept that is done in response to regulations; indicating or summation might be the appropriate value.

o Aggregate vs. accumulation – the latter to provide clues to the recipient on how it looks on display. Is it like a speedometer (indicating) or odometer (rolls over).

o macroPeriod is 24 hrs starting from midnight; if want an arbitrary 24 hrs, may need new value called 24hrs. The timestamp of the Reading is the end of the 24 hour period.

o Is it useful to know the number of readings that went into the average? Probably not. But if needed, the 3rd position can be used to indicate the periodicity of averaged quantity – i.e., measuringPeriod = sixtyMinute.

o specifiedRollingBlock (measuringPeriod). Gas ratios.

o Unitless, but if need to be more descriptive, could create a new value for position 17 (unit) called gasRatioUnit, which would be dimensionless but would indicate it’s a volumetric concentration ratio. See value 65, Power factor, which is dimensionless. Or perhaps volumeRatio and massRatio as new dimensionless values for unit.

Power factor @ reporting temp.

o If measured at arbitrary temps & the temperature reported, that would be a separate reading. On the other hand if the reading is standards based as in very specific temperatures, would create specific position values.

o In metering world, there is a concept called coincident reading. It could be extended to include case where PF of x is coincident with temp of y.

Meeting on 5 May 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Jim Dukarm Mark Easley Fook-Luen Heng Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Repeatability and reproducibility?o The gas measurements have to be treated sample by sample as a collection.o If purpose to trend gas concentration over a period of time for a particular equipment –

diagnostic calculations, the fine points don’t matter that much. But for data portability want to know the context data. Also, for purposes of standards using large database & doing statistical analysis doing the whole thing, then have to make sure reporting temps are normalized etc.

o In ASTM and IEC standards, they indicate levels for repeatability and reproducibility. These are ideal cases and may not hold in the lab. Method reproducibility vs. effective reproducibility.

o At what point can the real reproducibility determined? It is a statistical estimation done on a population of equipment, by a consistent team of samplers and analyzed at a particular lab.

o If one customer has samplers that aren’t competent, may significantly impact repeatability and reproducibility.

o In the case of TOA4, calculate reproducibility number along with all the other statistical calculations for the population and report that number – a database-wide parameter.

o The important information would be analytical lab info, test method, extraction method, sampling team, etc. If these are known, data can be statistically analyzed for the same set in order to determine repeatability and reproducibility.

Detection limit & precision.o May vary situationally.o TOA4 currently doesn’t have a field called detection limit. Currently it’s stored as text

when something like “< 2” is reported, which is mathematically used as 0.o For monitored data, more of an important issue, since the monitors have tightly

controlled conditions and no human hands. Therefore, the detection limit is consistent & monitors are able to typically get an extra digit of precision because of the controlled conditions.

o Precision is indicated as +/- x. Lot of times it’s contextual (inferred from the data) and not explicitly specified.

Reporting temp.o CIGRE Bulletin 409. Reporting temp for different monitors is Table 10 on Page 15.

Do we need version of the standard to also be captured?o Yes. That’s part of the standard specification.o Also the method. A, B and C methods in ASTM for instance; by vacuum, by

displacement, and by partition in IEC 60567. The gasses are not extracted one by one, but as a mixture and then

chromatograph is applied. Therefore there isn’t a gas-by-gas extraction variance.

o Also, “Serveron,” “Kelman” etc., because they typically have their own method. And the version/model etc. as well, since the methods could change/improve between these.

Do the same enumerations apply to total dissolved gas percent and total combustible gas percent as the rest of the gas concentrations? Yes.

Is there a standard for butane, carbon, carbon3, carbon4, isobutene? These are things typically measured in Europe.

o These are mentioned in IEC standards. ASTM doesn’t.

Meeting on 12 May 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson

Chris Kardos Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Meter reading model – continuation.

Discussion Summary:

Part 4 breakout during the WG14 breakout meetings.o Gowri Rajappan, Henry Dotson, Jerry Gray (?), John Simmins (?), Part 9/100 folks – David

Haynes, TC8 has agreed to use the IRM. One of the breakout session is to consolidate actors & use cases.

One of the use cases will be in the asset health area. Coincident readings – explicit coincidence vs. inferred coincidence.

o What is the power factor coincident with peak demand? If not using an explicit coincidence indication, needs two queries.

Coincident readings in Part 9: ‘The MeterReading class has an optional Boolean element called “isCoincidentTrigger.” The element doesn"t have to be used in a message, but if it is, there are rules for its interpretation. If any instance of a MeterReading message is marked with the isCoincidentTrigger Boolean set to “true”, then all other MeterReadings within the same MeterReadings message are considered to be coincident with the so marked MeterReading. Only one MeterReading element within a single MeterReadings message may have its isCoincidentTrigger Boolean set to “true”. If the isCoincidentTrigger Boolean is absent, it is defined to be “false”. It is recommended that the “trigger” MeterReading should have a timeStamp if this information is available.’

This could be possible mechanism for PF @ 25 degrees C & reporting temps for DGA. Feels like there should an explicit call-out of the standard used in the test.

o Otherwise, too many duplicate measurementKind attributes – excessive and confusing (co0C, co25C, co20C, co225C, etc.)

o This should be class rather than attribute, so that the same test standard object can be associated with multiple tests.

So, in essence, four mechanisms:o Implicit coincidence from the time stamp.o Explicit coincidence using isCoincidentTrigger.o Additional measurementKind that includes the context. Works only if:

One context term – e.g., just temp and not also pressure, and Only applies to few values – e.g., just dielectric breakdown and power factor,

and not every dissolved gas, which are numerous and will result in a highly duplicative list).

o Additional metadata class such as a class that describes the test standard.

Meeting on 26 May 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Chuck DuBose Jim Dukarm Herb Falk Margaret Goodrich Fook-Luen Heng Jim Horstman Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski John Simmins Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Partition coefficients – distribution of gas in the airspace above at equilibrium. The values used by the labs explain why results may vary from one lab to the next.

o AI for Gowri: follow up with Lance to get the list of attributes that are assumed/go into oil analysis.

Fluid test variables:o For dielectric breakdown, 1mm and 2mm refers to electrode gap, not thickness. Get

details. Question to ask Lance.

o PF and dissipation factor are measured at 25 C and 100 C? The standard specifies the two temps as alternatives. Most often interested in the value at 25, but the difference in the values at the two temps can tell us about the nature of contamination in the oil.

Question for Lance – do we need to be able to represent measurement at an arbitrary temp or just these two temps.

Utilities in Europe may not care about PF, just dissipation factor?o Detection limit, reproducibility, etc. are applicable to fluid test variables as well?

Yes, they apply to any type of test. If they are absolute, they will be same unit as the measurement. If relative, they

are a fraction or percent. For gas measurement, stated as relative measurement. But for some other

types of measurement, the repeatability may be absolute.o Three different standards for testing oxidation inhibitor?

Different types of inhibitors used. May want to identify the compound – DBP, DBPC, DBDS, etc, because the number could mean different depending of what component it is? Question for Lance.

Most of these are ppm by weight – mg/kg.o Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of that liquid to water at a specific temp – 4 C

(where water is at its densest)? The way this differs from relative density is, in the case of relative density, the temp can be arbitrary and has to be specified.

The fluid test variable seems to be specified @ 15 C, so this is more accurately described as relative density and not specific gravity?

o Is static electrification – what unit is it measured? Question for Lance.

o Passivator – a kind of anti-oxidant that counteracts corrosive sulfur. For instance, DBDS is a passivator. Passivator causes spurious gassing & would be noted by someone interpreting gas data.

Meeting on 9 June 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Jim Dukarm Herb Falk Gerald Gray David Haynes Chris Kardos Lance Lewand Andre Maizener Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Xiaofeng Wang

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Gap size for dielectric breakdown: 2.5mm for IEC tests. Dissipation factor for IEC: Done at 90 C; absolute value and not percentage. Static electrification. Sometimes abbreviated as ECT (Electrostatic Charging Tendency).

Measured as micro coulombs per meter cubed. Methods are Westinghouse Engineering Laboratory Procedure Number 12, 1254E & CIGRE Technical Brochure 170.

IEC 60247 includes dissipation factor, PF, permittivity; this and D924 use the same equipment, but just at different temps. Lot of people in Europe and Asia don’t know what PF is, but only dissipation factor or tan-delta, so keep them separate though they are convertible. Once you get above 5%, PF and dissipation factor start to deviate, but below they are the same?

o ASTM D924 can measure either PF or dissipation factor (one or the other). Below 5%, they are same/close, above they start to deviate.

o IEC 60247 uses dissipation factor, a synonym for tan-delta. This is what is used in Asia and Europe.

o In ASTM, dissipation factor in percent (divide absolute number by 100 to get percent), but in IEC it is reported as an absolute value. The absolute number is a ratio, unitless.

Oxidation inhibitor is usually reported as percent for ASTM tests. Generally, combination of DBP and DBPC in ASTM D2668. But in D4768, they can be separate.

Specific gravity and density:o ISO 3675 is the same as ASTM D1298. In the Annex for ISO 3675, density and relative

density are listed as the same value? But density would have a unit while relative density is unitless.

o In the transformer test community, relative density might be used (not density), which is the same thing as specific gravity.

o ISO 3675 is used in the IEC 60296 & reported as grams/milli-liter. D1298 hasn’t changed, but D1275 (corrosive sulphur) has changed & will change again; so may

also need to also capture the edition/revision in reporting? Flash point and fire point same thing or different?

o They are different. D92 is open cup method (ISO 2592). Flash and fire point for this method.

o D93 is closed cup method (ISO 2719). Cannot do fire point. If you have natural esters, would be doing fire point.

o Flash point is when you keep passing an open flame over a cup of oil, temp at which a flash occurs; fire point is temp at which fire is sustained.

o Open cup is used exclusively in US, closed cup is used exclusively in Europe. Pour point.

o D97 is the most common and oldest method, used in D3487 (spec for mineral oil). This is a manual method. There are labs that use some automated methods, too, whose numbers is dependent on the method being used and won’t coincide with the D97 value.

o ISO 3016 is the method used in IEC 60296.o Pour point test is used in many standards specifications.

D5222 is the spec for high fire point mineral electrical insulating oil. D6871 is spec for natural esters. D4652 is the spec for silicone. IEC 60867 is spec for synthetic esters. IEC 62770 is spec for natural esters. IEC 60836 is the spec for silicone. IEC 60963 is spec for polybutane.

Meeting on 23 June 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Jim Dukarm David Haynes Chris Kardos Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Do ISO 3104 and IEC 61868 also apply to kinematic viscosity? Not sure. ASTM D1169 & IEC 60247 (need to obtain this) both apply to resistivity? Probably a US-Europe

thing. Passivator:

o Chemical (powder) added to oil to suppress oxidation of copper by free sulphur compounds.

o Passivator has the tendency to increase hydrogen gassing. So if there is a high hydrogen, would want to check passivator.

o Irgamat is a common passivator.

o Unit mg/kg or mg/liter? The standard would say what unit (IEC 60666 – need to obtain this).

Corrosive sulphur:o An industry bugaboo right now.o The chemical form of sulphur in lot of oils is very active & dissolves copper in the

winding, and this copper could end up in the paper insulation, etc, creating dangerous conditions.

o The standards are work in progress, so subject to lots of changes. Right now, only Boolean result (corrosive/non-corrosive), but working towards more possibilities.

o Lance has done research in the area. Free water: Boolean result, whether there is a free water or not. Sediment exam: String result, from a visual exam. There might be some standardized values like

light, medium, heavy, etc. Lance question. ASTM D1524. Appearance: string result, from a visual exam. FQ Water:

o This is a TOA4 field, based on a common lab practice (but not a standard). There is a water field & FQ water field.

o Was the can used for oil sampling contaminated? Was it open too long & contaminated by environmental factors.

o Measure water content & compare with syringe oil (official water figures is based on oil drawn with a syringe).

o If there is a big departure, then the can was contaminated. TOA4 test is, if the two numbers are within +/- 10 ppm, it’s okay.

o Micro-liters/liter. ASTM D1533 to confirm.o There is change is test method occurring as well, from Karl-Fischer to directly dipping

moisture probe in the oil sample (simpler and more accurate). PF ratio: ratio of PF at 100 C to PF at 25 C. Refractive index:

o Could be useful in evaluating the quality of some kinds of fluids (silicone fluids), but not really for mineral oils?

o Not supported in TOA4. Labs: Weidmann is the largest North American chain of labs; Laborelec is the premier European

oil lab. Sediment and sludge: Qualitative measurements that may or may not have standard responses;

TOA4 doesn’t support. Trace metal (fault metal analysis): spectrometer, ppb. Microscopic analysis: Qualitative reported as string, observation under a microscope. Carbonyl: byproduct of normal oxidation of mineral oil; chemically active, polar (increase the

solubility of water in oil) and acidic. Quantitative measurement is an indicator of oil quality. Petroleum origin: geographic origin of oil is of interest. The origin tells what the refiner had to

do to it to get it up to par.

Oxidation: carbonyl-related?

Meeting on 7 July 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Henry Dotson Jim Dukarm David Haynes Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Lance Lewand Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny Rolland-Remy Younes

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Oxidation inhibitor: DBDS is not an oxidation inhibitor, but is an additive with units of mg/kg (ppm).

What type of automatic methods (types of equipment) should be listed for pour point? There are quite a few, Lance would get back with a list.

Kinematic viscosity: ISO 3104 (exact same as D445) & IEC 61868 (like D445). D445 only covers 0 degrees C up, whereas IEC 61868 covers the whole range (negative temps), but the results are going to be the same. For viscosity, there are five different temps they are typically measured & results vary per temp, so temp needs to be reported as well. -40 C, -30 C, 0, 40C, 100C.

If IEC doesn’t have a standard, they go to ISO and use an available ISO standard. If ISO standard not available, IEC makes it own. As for ASTM standards, US Military and Russians sometimes co-publish these standards. Russia has a completely different set of standards.

IEC 60666. Is this passivator total content? There are at least two that can be analyzed for and each one is reported individually (Irgamat 39 and BTA). TTA is Irgamat 39 in solid form. There is a third one Irgamat 30 for which people are trying to figure out how to analyze.

For fluid color index, the correct term is L <space> number. L is not always needed. The numbers go up in half increments – 0.5, 1.0, etc. If the number falls between two, use L <space> higher

number. It’s not correct to report an in-between number like 1.7. Calls for enumeration, goes from 0.5 to 8.0.

There is another test for color (D2129) for silicones & it has a different set of values. Lance to get us the range on this. This is called a platinum-cobalt standard.

Corrosive sulphur. o Up until 2006, it was one method. In 2006, there were a rash of transformer failure.

New method formed (Method B) – increased the temp, so more searching. Now changing D1275 again – eliminate method A & Method B will be the standard test.

o IEC 62535 is not the same as D1275. Has two methods. One of them, the Copper foil test, which uses much smaller volume than D1275, is not commonly used. Doble CCD test is also widely used, and is different from D1275. Lance to provide more information.

o ISO 5662 is the same as old D1275, but has been withdrawn.o DIN 51353 is a German standard. Part of it is D1275. o Two fields: Corrosive/Non-corrosive & tarnish level of the copper coupon.o DIN method only has corrosive/non-corrosive, since they use silver & don’t get the color

gradations that you get with copper. Visual exam

o Idea is to pick up any free water, things floating around, etc.o Ongoing work removes it from D1524 & make it just a visually based test.o Text string seems to be the best for this.

D4176 is actually used in lubrication industry, but is being looked at for D1524. For now, can disregard.

Oil quality index: ST Meyers-specific that is used only by those who subscribe to this. Sediment and sludge:

o D1698 is going to be withdrawn, was originally devised when oils had really poor quality in the 90’s, not so much anymore.

o IEC 60422 is distinctly different from the ASTM method. This is not going to go away.o There is a qualitative Doble test for sludge that IEEE has adopted. Lance to provide

reference. Result is present/not present.o Sludge precipitation test is a much more valuable test than D1698.

Microscopic analysis not standardized tests, each lab uses its own. Different amount of stuff on the filter depending on how much oil is filtered. Text field.

D2144 is for carbonyl – infrared fingerprinting, which actually covers a whole bunch of things. Oxidation test:

o D2112 (measures stability in hours).o D2140 (measures as acidity and sludge for two specified period – 72 and 164 hrs - % for

sludge).o IEC 61225 A, B & C. A very rarely used & probably going to be eliminated; Method B %

sludge, oxidation, induction time,…; Method C is the most commonly used – % sludge, Acid mg-koh/gm, volatile acids mg-koh/g, total acid, dissipation factor @ 90C.

o Length of aging – three aging times; 164 hrs, 332 hrs, 500 hrs. The different aging is for oils with different inhibitor concentrations.

o Tests not used for in-service oils, only for new oils. Large utilities would be interested in this.

Meeting on 21 July 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Jim Dukarm David Haynes Fook-Luen Heng Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Lance Lewand Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

“petroleumOriginSludge, petroleumOriginAcidity, petroleumOriginVolatileAcids & petroleumOriginDissipationFactor” – sludge, acidity, etc. have nothing to do with petroleum origin, especially in transformer oil testing.

Petroleum origin: is usually termed hydrocarbon type. ASTM D2140. There is also Brandes test, which is a UK Ministry of Defense test O5-50 (65) - similar to D2140 & looks at the same thing, but come up with a slightly different number.

Furans, Degree of Polymerization (DP), Methanol, Ethenol & tensile strength – these belong in a “paper degradation” category.

Furan also has an IEC method – IEC 61198 – in addition to ASTM D5837. IEC is mass/mass & ASTM is mass/vol.

o Total furan is a calculation, add up the five furfural/furans (hydroxymethylfurfural, furfulalcohol, furfural, acetylfuran, methylfurfural).

DPo DP can be direct measurement (from the paper – IEC 60450 and ASTM D4243) and

o Calculated (comes from furfural, Chendong equation – there is also an ST Meyers equation). There are numerous equations for calculated, but they cannot be directly compared, it varies. There is no standard for this. Chendong is the most commonly used, so keep just this.

Unitless. Methanol & ethanol in ppb – no official standard yet, but ASTM and IEC standards for this are in

draft. ASTM is mass/mass & IEC be the same since it is using the ASTM document. Tensile strength: TAPPI T494 method. Units can be either English (pounds/inch) or SI

(kilonewtons/meter). Metal Elements:

o Confirm if this is ppm or ppb.o Copper, lead, iron, zinc, aluminum, silver are particulate in ppb. ASTM D3635,

specifically for copper. The others don’t have a test standard. Need to capture both dissolved and particulate for these.

o Dissolved vs. particulate metals: particulate metals are anything greater than 0.45 microns.

o

Meeting on 22 July 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Lance Lewand Gowri Rajappan

Meeting Agenda:

Oil analysis modeling.

Meeting on 4 August 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley Herb Falk Fook-Luen Heng

Jim Horstman Anuja Nakkana Gowri Rajappan Nada Reinprecht

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Some attributes to model:o Lab identity.o Equipment used.o Sampling team identity.o Test standard or online monitor type.o Gas extraction method.o Override of standards-specified value.

Describing sample characteristic needs captured. How many of the attributes do the utilities need to have?

o This is a superset. It’s valuable to have the information available, though many attributes/measurements not done always.

Do we need grouping of groupings? Using isCoincidentTrigger in MeterReading. The test procedure would be Procedure & the Work item would make reference to the

procedures to be conducted as part of the work trip. Switching order: determined work needs to be done, created switching plan (list of activities

that need to be done), switching order is then implementation of the plan.

Meeting on 11 August 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Jim Dukarm Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Svein Olsen Jim Horstman Anuja Nakkana Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Luke van der Zel

Meeting Agenda:

Transformer modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Four views of transformer: HV Side, Right Side, LV Side, Left Side. Bushings:

o 7 bushings in the transformer shown – 3 HV, 3 LV & 1 neutral.o Three winding transformers would have 3 sets of bushings + possibly neutral.o Core is grounded at one point. Some transformers ground not to the main tank, but

bring it out through a small additional bushing (size of a spark plug). Allows for confirmation of grounding & maintenance measurements.

HV side:o Surge arrester. Surge arrester counter for monitoring – not a general rule that it’s

always installed. o Fans could be monitored – on/off & current.o Pumps could be monitored.o HV bushing – monitoring, many offline electrical tests. Looks very similar to arrester –

the way to tell apart is it connects directly to the tank. Offline tests for PF & two capacitances (C1, C2); PD level in a bushing seldom

done in the field. More and more utilities putting online monitoring in bushing.

o Things like winding resistance easy to document/work with.o Things like frequency response analysis not as easy to document/work with.

Right side view:o Can see HV and LV conductors in profile.o LV side has more current & so thicker wires.

LV side:o Red skirts: animal guards.o LV bushings are smaller.o One of the bushings is neutral bushing. Some utilities use a Hall effect sensor to measure

geomagnetic-induced current – measure of how much transformer is put under strain by thunderstorms.

o On Load Tap Changer (OLTC) – monitor position, load start current, how many times it’s passed through neutral, how often it’s operating (to see if it’s “hunting”, never settling).

LTC tank typically don’t have temp gauges. Should be the same temp as main tank. Products available where magnetic

thermocouple on main tank & LTC tank; alarm on difference. Some utilities do thermography scans.

o Valve for taking oil samples.

o Control box – they handle not only the heaters & instrumentation, but also wires from CT come in and the current measurements sent to SCADA for protection purposes.

o Temp gauges – top oil temp and hot spot – usually both gauges have two handles, present & maximum since last reading (reset by drag handle).

Is there just one main tank on a transformer?o Larger transformers could have a tank per phase.

Left side:o Nitrogen blanket – bottle for replenishing that. Pressure typically kept at 1.5

atmospheres – positive pressure relative to surroundings.o Cabinet with regulator & alarm switch. Monitoring pressure.o Possibly acoustic emission measurement sensor.

Radiators & fans:o Degree of fouling?o How many fans are running.o Sometimes during maintenance the radiators could be disconnected & forget to

reconnect.o Sometimes when there is a drop in oil level, the oil flow through radiator is inhibited.o Oil flow has diagnostic value as well – which way the oil flows.

Commonality with pole top transformer?o From a maintenance perspective, very little in common, since pole-tops are designed for

run to failure.o A thumb rule for maintaining vs. run to failure: does it have a fence around it?

On a pole-top, monitor from a loading perspective. Commercial & industrials would maintain/monitor smaller transformers – e.g., dry type

transformers in data centers. Autotransformer:

o From the outside, you can’t tell, except perhaps that it will likely not have a LTC.o Need to the look at the nameplate winding configuration to identify.

Factory tests:o Somewhat standardized, agreed on between the vendor & buyer.o Basic electrical tests (PF, turns ratio, capacitance, leakage resistance).o Frequency response for mechanical damage during transportation.o Heating test to see if there is a measureable change in DGA if transformer is heated.

Field tests:o Electrical tests would be repeated.o Frequency response for mechanical damage.o Oil processing and filling.

Nameplate is a function of the design. The factory tests only confirm that it’s according to design and aren’t put on the nameplate, but hypothetically it’s possible that the nameplate is changed on the basis of a radically different factory test result (PF for instance).

Meeting on 18 August 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Jim Dukarm Luan Heng Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Lance Lewand Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

Test results modeling – oil analysis.

Discussion Summary:

Online monitored items: DGA, Water, Online PF (Doble H3S), Online dielectric strength (Weidemann-INCON Centurion); there used to be a monitor out of Asia for furans etc. 15 years ago.

Water content online monitoring:o Aluminum oxide sensors.o Can be detected by IR as well.o Capacitance sensor measures % relative saturation & converts to ppm through calc. May

be sufficient to support ppm (mg/kg) for data exchange.o Calculated relative saturation (from water content and oil temp) could be flaky.o Besides the above three, others may be available as well.

Some standards – sludge precipitation is IEEE Standard 62, D149 is dielectric strength, D150 power factor / dissipation factor, D3426 is impulse.

Particle count – now absolute count is specified by standards; old data are typically not absolute count, but still useful since can do distribution of particle sizes, median size, etc.

Test standard for carbon, metal, and fibre? The document that Lance provided (“Doble Lab Capabilities”) lists some standards that pertain to carbon and metal.

Total PCB could be measured or calculated; when calculated, the things it is calculated from may not be reported.

Oil sample temp source – could be top oil temp gauge or IR gun pointed at the just-collected sample or other means. The reporting on this is flaky. Check with some utilities (TVA?) on what they do.

Meeting on 1 September 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley Ken Elkinson Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski John Simmins Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

Transformer modeling.

Discussion Summary:

Bushing – pass through an energized conductor through a grounded tank.o HV set, LV set, and a seventh bushing (ground).

Theory behind electrical testing: treat each winding as one unit.o Assessing the insulation between windings and windings to ground. Short the HV

bushings together & the LV bushings together (and tertiary together, if present), so that they are electrically the same point.

o Most common tests measure capacitance and PF.o Measure capacitance – changes indicate movement of the winding.o Measure PF – changes indicate degradation of insulation & contamination (water,

foreign particles, etc.) Typical factory tests.

o DGA one of the most important. Reasons: relatively easy to do, even on transformers in service; provides lots of information about what’s going on inside the transformer tank. Overheating of paper, loose connections, etc., all have a signature in dissolved gases. Can be trended as well – step change, gradual change, etc., which is meaningful.

o Ratio/polarity/phase relation – factory and field.o Winding resistance – can be done in factory or field. Relatively simple test.o No-load losses and excitation current – factory or field.

o Switching impulse & lightning impulse tests – strictly factory due to the high voltages involved.

o Induced voltage/PD – both factory and field.o Heat run test – temps it can withstand with no adverse effects.

In case of transformers that are remote, tests may only be done once every several years (e.g., 7 years).

Typically, DGA every 6 months, capacitance and PF every 5-7 years. Tests while transformer in service – DGA, PD, IR & online monitoring.

o Online monitors for bushings, DGA, temps, PD (probes at different spots, can monitor PD on bushing as well), GIC.

o There are online IR available now as well. Tests while transformer out of service – PF/capacitance, exciting current, turns ratio, insulation

resistance, SFRA, leakage reactance. o Leakage reactance – percent change in impedance. SFRA is more sensitive and detects

physical changes in core, windings, and leads. Through fault – an electrical disturbance or problem in the system wherein a very high current

or voltage beyond rating is applied to the transformer. Common causes are lightning or tree branches or animals causing fault to ground or phase-to-phase fault. The forces involved in the through faults can cause transformer components to buckle and move.

How do you know when a through fault has occurred or how many a transformer has seen? Ideally, should have a fault database; microprocessor relays are good sources for identifying the occurrence of through fault.

LTC testing.o DGA.o Exciting current test could be done for each step for the LTC on each phase.o Traversal through zero.o Acoustic monitoring.

Various components that are tested – per tank, two windings inside the tank, LTC outside tank, bushings. Many of these can be associated to the tank.

Insulation testing on LTC? If oil filled, DGA. Exciting current – phase-to-phase; H1-H2, H2-H3, H3-H1, X1-X2, etc. Turns ratio - done in pairs: H1-H2/X1-X2, etc. H1/X1/Y1 (HV bushing, LV bushing, Tertiary bushing) is a North America terminology. Who designates bushing “location” (H[1,2,3])?

o The “location” is designated and labeled on the nameplate of the transformer, but the bushings themselves may get swapped between the locations.

Strategy for recording online monitoring – crucial to record upon changes.

Meeting on 6 October 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley David Haynes Luen Heng Svein Olsen Gowri Rajappan Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny Jim Waight

Meeting Agenda:

Transformer modeling.

Discussion Summary:

In a bank of single-phase transformers, all would have the same cooling class? Things such as kVA rating and voltage rating should reside at the transformer level & not

endinfo? Is it modeled in endinfo right now in order to populate the wires package?

Meeting on 20 October 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Jim Horstman Anuja Nakkana Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson

Meeting Agenda:

Transformer modeling.o Pump needs to be added.o Neutral bushings – how to model these.o Winding should be modeled per-phase or in aggregate?o Does core need to be modeled?o LTCController. Any other controller box?

o How much is a three winding transformer different?o HVDC transformers.o Autotransformer.o Autotransformer with tertiary.

Discussion Summary:

From a use case perspective, which objects would be requested for a work management vs. asset health vs. network.

Current AM systems don’t capture this level of detail. With IoT, it is going to move in the direction of data being available. But are vendors going to start providing the information? Distribution transformer – may just be a single thing. They are typically run to failure, so can be

modeled as a single asset. What do people do from a work/asset management & capture the things needed for these use cases in the model.

o But if it can be caught before it fails with some minimal monitoring, which is becoming practical with IoT, and analytics, that’s a use case of interest.

From a DER perspective, anything needs to be captured.

Meeting on 3 November 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Mark Easley Herb Falk Jim Horstman Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

CIM model updates.

Discussion Summary:

For concepts needed in the Measurement-related classes, making subclasses with the necessary attributes is probably best approach to get it into CIM for Edition 2.

Additional meeting on Friday.

Meeting on 17 November 2015

Meeting Attendees:

* Pat Brown Mark Easley Ken Elkinson * Herb Falk * Margaret Goodrich David Haynes * Luen Heng Jim Horstman Chris Kardos * Andre Maizener * Anuja Nakkana Svein Olsen * Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson * Tomasz Rogowski John Simmins * Luc Vouligny Jim Waight

Meeting Agenda:

CIM model updates.

Discussion Summary:

MeasurementValueSource and RemoteUnit changes affect WG13 & needs their approval. Once all the changes collected, get a time in WG13 Wednesday meeting in December to discuss.

Look into MIMOSA is a standard for management assets and test result & ISA 95 and 88.

Meeting on 1 December 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Margaret Goodrich Luen Heng

Jim Horstman Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski Luc Vouligny

Meeting Agenda:

CIM model updates.

Discussion Summary:

AH_CIM_14 (Make ProcedureDataSet child class DiagnosisDataSet normative).o DiagnosisDataSet seems to describe forensic analysis result type of thing. Can this

mechanism be extended to describe results of analytics such as transformer loading and aging where the results aren’t asset health or risk score?

Meeting on 15 December 2015

Meeting Attendees:

* Pat Brown * Mark Easley Ken Elkinson Herb Falk Margaret Goodrich David Haynes * Luen Heng * Jim Horstman Chris Kardos Andre Maizener Anuja Nakkana * Svein Olsen * Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson * Tomasz Rogowski John Simmins * Luc Vouligny Jim Waight

Meeting Agenda:

CIM model updates.

Discussion Summary:

Discussion of analytics instance diagrams.o Impact score – this computed by an analytic as well.

May have a table of impact, pre-computed based on number of customers affected, dollar value for safety/environment risk, etc.

Need explicit modeling of impact, since this information may need to be exchanged. Likelihood needs to be explicitly modeled as well?

Meeting on 29 December 2015

Meeting Attendees:

Pat Brown Margaret Goodrich Gowri Rajappan Greg Robinson Tomasz Rogowski

Meeting Agenda:

CIM model updates.

Discussion Summary:

AnalyticScore child class of Document (AH_CIM_6). Check the model for AH_CIM_10 (AssetWaveformValue). Battery model (AH_CIM_15).