641 Guide On Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment Replacement Decisions On Generators

641
GUIDE ON ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF

REFURBISHMENT/ REPLACEMENT
DECISIONS ON GENERATORS
Working Group
A1.05
December 2015
GUIDE ON ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF
REFURBISHMENT/ REPLACEMENT
DECISIONS ON GENERATORS
WG A1.05
Members
B. Moore, Convenor (US), R. Ilie, Secretary (IL),

S. Salem (US), T. Lee (AU), M. Sasic (CA), H. Piriz (AR), N. Kilpatrick (US), H. Shimada (JP),
J. Weidner (DE), K. Mayor (CH), V. Skundric (RS)
Copyright © 2015"
"Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers
right of use for personal purposes. Unless explicitly agreed by CIGRE in writing, total or partial
reproduction of the publication and/or transfer to a third party is prohibited other than for
personal use by CIGRE Individual Members or for use within CIGRE Collective Member
organisations. Circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden for all
persons. As an exception, CIGRE Collective Members only are allowed to reproduce the
publication".
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it
accept any responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied
warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”.
ISBN : 978-2-85873-344-6
Guide on Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment/ Replacement Decisions on Generators
Guide on Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment/

Replacement Decisions on Generators
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
Risk Management and Financial Models .................................................................................... 4
The Financial Perspective .......................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: Risk Management and Financial Models ................................................................... 7
The Increased Lifetime Method .................................................................................................. 7
The Ranking Method................................................................................................................... 8
Other Cost Estimation Methods .................................................................................................. 9
The Impact of Insurance on the Decision to Repair or Replace a Failed Generator ................ 10
Generator Financial Model ....................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Operation Impact on Generator Risks ...................................................................... 19
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 19
Reactive Capability Curve Limits .............................................................................................. 19
Unbalanced Armature Currents ................................................................................................ 19
Loss of Synchronism................................................................................................................. 19
Loss of Field .............................................................................................................................. 20
Over-Excitation (Over-Fluxing) ................................................................................................. 20
Motoring .................................................................................................................................... 20
Abnormal Frequencies .............................................................................................................. 21
Inadvertent Energization ........................................................................................................... 21
High-Speed Reclosing .............................................................................................................. 21
Improper Synchronizing ............................................................................................................ 21
Load Cycling and Repetitive Starts........................................................................................... 22
Extended Turning-Gear Operation ........................................................................................... 22
System Emergency Conditions ................................................................................................. 22
References ................................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 4: Major Generator Component Risk Areas ................................................................. 25
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25
Reliability Data .......................................................................................................................... 25
Stator Winding .......................................................................................................................... 26
Bushings ................................................................................................................................... 29
Stator Core ................................................................................................................................ 29
Casing ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Rotor Winding ........................................................................................................................... 31
Collector and Brushes............................................................................................................... 32
Rotor Forging ............................................................................................................................ 33
Retaining Rings ......................................................................................................................... 34
Fans .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Cooling Systems ....................................................................................................................... 34
Seal-Oil System ........................................................................................................................ 35
Bearings and Lube-Oil System ................................................................................................. 35
Excitation System ..................................................................................................................... 36
Page 2
Chapter 5: Repair versus Replacement Considerations ............................................................ 43

Generator Stator Winding ......................................................................................................... 43
Generator Stator Core .............................................................................................................. 46
Whole Generator Replacement ................................................................................................ 49
Rotor Field Winding .................................................................................................................. 50
Rotor Shaft Forging................................................................................................................... 53
Recommendations to Minimize Rotor Shaft Fatigue Cracking ................................................. 56
Retaining Rings ......................................................................................................................... 57
Complete Generator Assessment and Life Extension .............................................................. 60
References ................................................................................................................................ 61
Chapter 6: On-Line Monitoring for Risk Assessment ................................................................. 64
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 64
Generator Protection................................................................................................................. 64
Generator Operational On-Line Monitoring .............................................................................. 65
Specialized On-Line Monitors ................................................................................................... 66
Partial Discharge Testing/Monitoring of Stator Winding Insulation .......................................... 66
Shorted Turn/Coil Detector in Rotor Winding (Air-Gap Flux Monitor) ...................................... 67
Vibration Monitoring of Stator End Winding .............................................................................. 68
Condition Monitors .................................................................................................................... 69
Cost-benefit evaluation issues of On-Line Monitoring .............................................................. 70
References – Chapter 6: ........................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 7: Multiple Component Maintenance/Replacement Decision ....................................... 72
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 73
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this work is to provide a guide for refurbishment or replacement decisions for generators and
their critical components. The guide is to help both electrical power plant managers and maintenance decision
makers, who are faced with repair or replace decisions on their generator equipment. The guide will also help
planning for essential maintenance actions, providing guidance on investing in monitoring and diagnostic
systems to help optimize maintenance activities based on financial risk assessment. Repair, retrofit, refurbish,
replace, rebuild, renovation, and rewind are common terms found in literature referring to the key maintenance
activities performed on generators to extend their life and/or upgrade their components. This guide applies to
larger turbo-generators. For the purposes of this Guide, a large generator should be considered
approximately 100 MW and larger.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Generators are crucial elements of electrical power systems and their performance and reliability of supply are
critical. However, their technical complexities, high capital costs and long life expectancy pose unique
decision making challenges to asset managers. Maintenance management is concerned with preserving a
plant in the condition it was originally intended, whereas asset management concern is modifying, replacing or
disposing of assets as requirements change. Therefore, the challenge plant managers are facing is how to
balance the cost of managing assets against the risk of service level reduction such as reducing costs through
avoidance or deferral of essential maintenance.
This guide is designed to help generator asset managers perform economic evaluations of proposed solutions.
A list of key parameters has been established covering technical, operational, economical, environmental and
other strategic aspects. Some approaches, models, flowcharts, and examples have been included to illustrate
the criteria and steps used in the decision-making processes. The focus will be on the incremental impact of
maintenance/replacement strategies, up-front investments, and monitoring and diagnostic systems on the
economic evaluation. The guide is divided into eight parts. The major sections are briefly introduced below.
Risk Management and Financial Models

Demands for higher rates of return and cost of service reductions are resulting in increased equipment
utilization, deferred capital expenditures and reduced maintenance allocations in many areas. The immediate
cost savings of postponing investments and reducing budgets are readily quantifiable. However, the costs
associated with the consequences of these actions such as increasing maintenance, repairs and failure rates
can only be approximated using risk analysis techniques. Methods and approaches for managing the risk for a
single generator and a number of generators are discussed.
Operation Impact on Generator Risks

Generator abnormal operating conditions can cause risks that may not necessarily involve a fault in the
machine, but likely will affect its normal life expectancy. This section includes descriptions of some of the most
typical operational issues and their impact on the generator. This list was mainly selected based on a technical
literature survey. The most important information pertaining to the generator operation will be found in the
manufacturer’s operation book.
Page 4
Major Component Risk Areas

An excellent summary of the major components of the generator are provided in this section including various
failure mechanisms that can occur during operation. The referenced papers are extensive, providing a
resource of information not found in too many other documents. All major components of the generator are
included: stator core, stator winding, rotor shaft, and rotor winding. Also included are some smaller specialty
components including retaining rings, fans, slot wedges and generator auxiliaries.
Repair vs. Replacement Considerations

Besides the substantial technical and financial data specific to the generator in question; demographics,
condition, utilization and performance of the generator population should be taken into consideration. These
decisions cannot be made in a vacuum and, therefore require a good understanding of corporate risk
tolerance, current investment strategy, and regulatory environment. Repair versus Replacement decisions
also need to consider possible life extension, performance and capacity improvements due to progress in
design and new materials. Major components of the generator are discussed in this chapter with respect to
repair versus replacement considerations.
On-line Monitoring for Risk Assessment

On-line monitoring is a risk mitigation tool. The challenge is being able to quantify the benefits and payback of
such systems. The guide reviews some examples of on-line monitoring, including discussion on cost and
benefits.
Multiple Component Maintenance Replacement Decisions

With large utilities managing more than one generating unit, a number of maintenance projects are competing
for the maintenance budget simultaneously. Some maintenance optimizations use decision analysis process
to maximize Net Present Value (NPV) for a number of maintenance projects simultaneously. Net Present
Value or NPV is defined as “the value in the present of a sum of money, in contrast to some future value it will
have when it has been invested.” This will be discussed.
The Financial Perspective

Electrical power generation was largely developed in a regulatory environment that permitted long-term
investment. In some countries, nuclear plants were primarily built for national security of supply reasons. The
expected long-term stability of costs was also an important consideration in favor of nuclear. As the world is
moving towards liberalized electrical power markets, a power station should remain on line if its operating
costs are competitive with those of alternatives. In the past, the practice of electric utilities was to perform
maintenance of generating units during low-load seasons, and the timing was influenced by such
considerations as system risk and product cost. In the deregulated scenario it is unlikely that maintenance will
be centrally planned or even coordinated. Generator owners will tend to keep the units running when the
market price of electric energy is high and perform maintenance only when market price is low.
Under such circumstances, the decision about when to maintain a generator will be driven by profit incentives
rather than by the optimal cost of maintenance and repair. It needs to be understood that decisions to
maintain or replace are not made in a vacuum. Other plant equipment may demand all or most of a Capital
Improvement Budget and the result may not be optimum for the generator. In the United States, the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 requires electric utilities to select the least-costly way to meet electricity demand. Some
Page 5
nuclear power plants were shut down because of the availability of cheap electricity from hydropower in
Canada. An economic analysis for decision-making on generator life management, providing minimal
maintenance or retiring, requires developing a set of competing scenarios and then testing them against
sensitivity studies. A long-term business plan is required, but short-term cash flow is also important, especially
for small electric companies. The choice should be determined based on the best scenario for both long and
short terms.
Plants temporarily shut down for profit reasons still need a certain maintenance level. Engineers operating an
electric power plant, in many cases, are mainly concerned with the reliability of the equipment, with the
financial aspect playing a second role. A set of adjusted “mothballing procedures” should be available which
can be used according to the planned off-line times (few months up to many years) of the plant.
However, in the new economic environment involving deregulation, high amount of renewable energy and
globalization of electric energy supply, the reliability and financial aspects of system operation have become
equally important. Deregulation of electricity market is increasing competition and eliminating monopolies and
guaranteed sales at fixed rates. Therefore, power plant owners endeavor to reduce the cost of plant life
management. Life extension is generally an attractive option from an economic point of view for existing
nuclear power plants as a result of lower marginal costs of those plants. Up-rating the power output of nuclear
plants is recognized as a highly economical source of additional generating capacity. The refurbishment of the
plant turbo-generator, combined with utilizing the benefits of initial margins in reactor designs and digital
instrumentation and control technologies can increase plant output significantly, by up to 15-20%. Both
reliability and cost should be considered in the selection of maintenance alternatives. Maintenance engineers
are finding themselves competing more and more for financial resources. In the past, engineering analysis
alone was adequate to convince management that maintenance expenditures were necessary. Nowadays,
corporate resources in many industries have tightened, and engineering analysis alone can no longer justify
allotment of maintenance resources.
Converting maintenance cost and engineering expenditures into cash flows enables maintenance to compete
with other parts of the business. Through decision/financial analysis, selection and timing of repair and
refurbishment projects can produce positive NPV for generator owners. Engineers need to examine the
critical inputs to the prioritization of the predictive maintenance plan, such as probability of failure with time,
loss of production costs, repair versus replacement cost of key components, and budgetary cost constraints.
Engineering departments need to quantify the savings and increase in NPV where maintenance optimization
has been used and highlight the long-term and short-term implications of key component maintenance to get
the most valuable prioritization of maintenance projects. This leads the asset manager of the utility to a risk
based maintenance strategy for the generator fleet.
As the reliability of large generators is very high, many users expect at least 30 years of service from most
major generator components, and life extensions can often be achieved below the equipment replacement
costs. Since many deteriorating mechanisms take years to result in faults, a five year interval between major
inspections has been found effective in preventing most in-service failures. However, the increased
competition in the power generation market and the better-than-expected equipment condition at the five-year
inspections has led to the practice of extending the interval between inspection outages, thereby lowering the
outage and maintenance costs. The extension of the periods between major generator inspections could result
in an increase in the risk that the development of some failure mechanisms will go undetected for longer
periods of time. The new peak load operation of plants serving the highly flexible grid demands could result in
shorter maintenance intervals because of faster aging and wear of some components. This has been taken in
consideration at the new equation for calculation of equivalent operating hours EOH published by the
organization of power plant operators VGB in 2010 (VGB R167 - Overhaul Recommendations for Turbine
Generators).
The increased competition among generator manufacturers may lead to lower first cost, but also less reliable
generators. The competitive marketplaces—with the perception that plant ownership is likely to change during
the life of the plant—means that some power producers are not insisting on a 30-year life for generators.
Page 6
Chapter 2: Risk Management and Financial Models

In a deregulated market where the customers demand a high reliability, and with system owners demanding
higher profits, there is a need for better asset management methods that also take into account the risk
involved for postponing reinvestment. The fact that the grid-monopoly regulator in some countries (e.g.
Norway) has introduced penalties for Energy Not Served (ENS) supports this view. Therefore, there are many
incentives to keep the reinvestments up at a level that secures the long-term reliability of the system, where
the risks involved are managed. The need for a risk-based attitude to justify, and prioritize, reinvestments has
been identified, and this part of the guide describes two macro-economic methods. Such methods make it also
possible to address the desired risk profile in the utility, i.e. the risk aversion profile of the utility regarding
reinvestments. The following two methods are proposed in this guide:
1. Increasing the technical lifetime of a generator or a group of generators where the associated average
anticipated risk is acceptable. This method is called: “The increased lifetime method”.
2. Identifying the components that need increased condition monitoring or other actions to be within an
acceptable risk level according to a ranking system. This method is called: “The ranking method”.
The Increased Lifetime Method

If a utility decides to increase the service period for one or several generators, the utility must also expect that
future failure rates for these components will increase. This means increased future costs for maintenance and
repair. Therefore, the decision criteria for a utility, whether or not to postpone reinvestments in the generators,
will be the minimization of overall costs related to reinvestment, maintenance, repair and ENS penalties, if
applicable. The basis of the method is first to perform a risk management analysis that introduces a linkage
between cost savings from postponed reinvestments and the losses or consequences for maintenance down
time, repair, and for some utilities also compensating for ENS. This is based on actual, i.e. experienced, failure
rates, which are then compared with a theoretical and calculated increased failure rate that balances the cost
savings in postponing reinvestments.
The Net Present Value (NPV) is used here as a decision criterion. This criterion insures that there will be a
maximum return for the invested corporate dollar when decisions are being looked at over multiple years.
Aging equipment includes timing, and the time value of money is an important consideration in any decision
analysis. Sometimes engineers use reliability as a criterion for decision-making. Reliability has to be tied to
financials. Reliability and NPV analysis can produce the same or very similar results when the equipment of
concern is in demand a high percentage of the time. However, for not-highly-utilized equipment NPV will guide
the decision toward highest value, rather than highest reliability, since highest reliability is not always needed.
In the case of maintenance, the Net Present Value is created by looking at the choice between two
maintenance decisions. The first possible decision is doing nothing different. That is, run the equipment as it
is, performing normal routine maintenance. This we call the base case, where reinvestment is postponed. The
consequence of shutdown or de-rating as a result of keeping the aging equipment operating will be
considered. The intent of the maintenance action is to avoid this consequence. The second possible decision
is to take a mitigating maintenance action to avoid the potential consequences of failed equipment and
shutdown. This we call the alternative case. It is the cost of taking maintenance action. Here, we look at the
cost of the maintenance action, plus the consequence of a shutdown that might still occur due to the
maintenance action not being perfect.
The main concern the decision makers have is not whether a component will fail, but what the failure will mean
to the business profit. This risk is the product of probability of occurrence and the consequence of occurrence
of failure. This same formulation is called the “expected value of the consequence” in financial terms.
Page 7
The Ranking Method

The relevance of a preventive or corrective action on a functional sub-set of a power plant, in this case the
plant generators, is based on considering two factors:
- GSI (Global Strategic Impact) is a number expressing the impact of a possible failure of a given generator;
the more important the possible failure consequences are, the greater the GSI number.
- GTC (General Technical Condition) is a number expressing the probability of failure of a given generator; the
more the intrinsic condition of the piece of equipment is subject to a potential failure and damage, the greater
the GTC number.
Finally, by combining these two notions, a grade is defined which represents the level of criticality of the
generator:
Global Criticality of Generator (C) = GSI x GTC
The GSI is calculated by taking into account five main impacts, which can be differently weighted:
SI1-Safety of property and persons

Generators may have a direct impact on public safety in case of failure. At a minimum, they can represent a
serious hazard to persons (employees, third parties) and property located in their immediate vicinity in case of
significant damage (fire, explosion).
SI2-Safety of the electrical system

Generators may be particularly important for the system reliability according to the network configuration,
location of services to the system in terms of continuity and ability to react (energy supply, voltage control,
connection) which are all of great value.
SI3-Environment
A generator failure can sometimes have serious consequences on the environment. The consequences are a
function of its location (near a waterway, indoor, etc…) and of the peripheral equipment such as a recovery
container and/or a covered oil ditch.
SI4-Competitiveness
The potential economic consequences of the failure of the generator are quantified by the following:
- RC - Rebuilding Cost (cost of the maintenance operation needed to overhaul the equipment:
investigations, repair, and replacement).
- LPC - Loss of Production Cost as cost of the generator’s statistical unavailability multiplied with
the power of generators linked to it.
- ENS - Energy Non Served cost (direct loss of sales and possible penalties)
SI5-Company Image
The direct impact of the failure of a generator (fire, explosion, ENS) can jeopardize the utility image. The GTC
(General Technical Condition) is calculated by taking into account the criteria that characterize the risk of
failure for a generator at any given time.
Page 8
The number and content of these criteria may be changed. An outline of these is given below:
TC1-The Generator’s State of Health

This criterion quantifies the observations relating to the generator’s “state of health”. This state of health
should consider two aspects: an external state of health and an internal state of health.
TC2-Technological Risk
This criterion estimates the influence of the generator’s specific technology: fragility, durability and ability to be
repaired and maintained, against a risk of failure. The known feedback on the behavior of similar generators
may help to quantify this risk.
TC3-The Weight of the Past

The age is specifically the subject of this paragraph even though it is also indirectly linked to the two
paragraphs above.
TC4-Operating Conditions
The generator’s operating conditions is integrated into this paragraph through the parameters of the number of
switching on/off cycles, the electrical environment, and the load factor.
A first collation of data according to decreasing global criticality C = GSI x GTC can be established for a whole
population of generator. This first rating gives a general perspective of the generators and of their close
environment.
Other Cost Estimation Methods

There are other widely-used simple methods such as payback period or revenue requirement method that
could also be used for cost estimation. The Revenue Requirement method was proposed by IEEE Std 493-
2007. The essence of the Revenue Requirement method (RR) is that for each alternative plan being
considered, the Minimum Revenue Requirements (MRR) are determined. This reveals the amount of product
needed to be sold to achieve minimum acceptable earnings on the investment involved plus all expenses
associated with that investment. These MMR for alternative plans may be compared directly. The plan having
the lowest MRR is the economic choice. MRR are made up of and equal to the summation of the following:
a) Variable operating expenses
b) Minimum acceptable earnings
c) Depreciation
d) Income taxes
e) Fixed operating expenses
These MRR may be separated into two main parts, one proportional and the other not proportional to
investment in the alternative.
Page 9
The Impact of Insurance on the Decision to Repair or Replace a Failed

Generator
Insurance Loss Statistics
Loss statistics collected by FM Global for the recent 10 year period from 1999 to 2009 show that there have
been a total of 79 utility generator failures on a worldwide basis (Table 2.1). These failures resulted in a total
gross loss cost of $441 million. Utility generators are defined by FM Global as generators used for the primary
purpose of generating electricity for export to the electrical grid. This definition is to differentiate these
generators from industrial generators which generate electricity for in-house use or as a byproduct of
generating steam for process use. The information in this section of the report is provided by FM Global. FM
Global is a Fortune 1000 company which specializes in providing property insurance for commercial and
industrial properties for over 175 years. FM Global international power generation book of business consists of
over 1000 power stations in six continents with a total capacity of about 280 GW. The majority of FM Global
clients are in North America where FM Global insures about 20% of all the power generation companies in the
US.
Damaged Part No. of Losses Total Gross Loss 2009 US$
Stator leads 6 $80,968,381
Generator Shaft 2 $66,269,568
Rotor Forging 4 $65,117,035
Rotor Winding 10 $77,445,263
Stator Winding 15 $47,734,054
Stator Core 9 $26,178,171
Stator Cooling System 3 $25,719,449
Clutch 1 $18,162,948
Surge Capacitor 1 $9,380,476
Exciter 5 $8,012,535
Other 18 $6,150,081
Bearing 1 $3,526,887
Circuit Breaker 2 $3,222,644
Retaining Ring 2 $3,040,062
Grand Total 79 $440,927,553
Table 2.1: FM Global Loss Experience from 1999 to 2009 for utility generators on a worldwide
basis.
These failures involved different components of the generator and the following table and charts show the
number of failures as well as the Gross Loss Cost associated with each component. The Gross Loss Cost is
the total financial loss experienced by the generator owner and includes the cost to repair or replace the
generator, as well as the costs associated with peripheral damage to other equipment and buildings resulting
from the generator failure. The Gross Loss Cost also includes any loss of profit due to the generator failure. All
Page 10
Gross Loss Cost values are reported in US dollars indexed to 2009. FM Global’s ten year loss experience
shows that the highest number of failures involved the stator winding (19% of all losses) followed by the rotor
windings (13% of all losses). Failures that resulted in the highest loss cost were associated with the rotor
windings ($77.4 million) followed by the rotor shaft ($66.2 million) and the rotor forging ($65.1 million). Failures
involving the stator windings also resulted in significant loss cost ($47.4 million)
Unfortunately there were a significant number of failures (18 failures totaling $6.2 million) where there was
insufficient information to determine which component failed. Most of these failures did not result in severe
damage to the generator and the total business impact is less than the insurance deductible.
Of the 61 failures where there was sufficient information to conduct an analysis, 3 of these failures were open
cases where the client was still settling the claim with the insurance company and could not be discussed.
Of the remaining 58 failures, FM Global found that there were only 3 cases (5% of the total failures) where the
generator owners chose to replace the failed generator rather than to repair it. The overwhelming majority of
generator owners (95% of all cases) chose to repair the failed unit rather than to replace it.
As discussed in earlier sections of this report, the extent of damage sustained during a generator failure plays
a significant role in the decision to repair or replace the failed generator. And as a general rule it is cheaper
and quicker to repair damage sustained by a generator rather than to replace the entire generator.
However some factors such as the age of the machine and the type of insurance coverage may influence a
generator owner to replace a generator rather than to repair it.
Utility Generator Losses from 1999 to 2009

No. of Losses
Stator leads
18 Generator Shaft
1
2
2 Rotor Forging
Rotor Winding
6 Stator Winding
5
1 Stator Core
2
1 Stator Cooling System
3 4 Clutch
Surge Capacitor
Exciter
9
10 Other
Bearing
Circuit Breaker
15
Retaining Ring
Figure 2.1: FM Global Loss History for Utility Generators arranged by the damaged
component and the number of losses.
Page 11

No. of Losses by %
1% Stator leads
22% Generator Shaft
3%
Rotor Forging
3%
Rotor Winding
6% 8% Stator Winding
1% Stator Core
3%
1% Stator Cooling System
4% 5% Clutch
Surge Capacitor
Exciter
11%
13% Other
Bearing
Circuit Breaker
19%
Retaining Ring
component and the percentage of losses.

Gross Loss Cost in US$
Stator leads
$66,269,568 Generator Shaft
Rotor Forging
$80,968,381
Rotor Winding
$3,040,062 Stator Winding
$65,117,035
$3,222,644 Stator Core
$3,526,887 Stator Cooling System
Clutch
$6,150,081
Surge Capacitor
$8,012,535
Exciter
$9,380,476 $77,445,263 Other
$18,162,948 Bearing
$25,719,449 $47,734,054 Circuit Breaker
$26,178,171 Retaining Ring
component and the Gross Loss Cost.
Page 12

Gross Loss Cost by %
Stator leads
15% Generator Shaft
Rotor Forging
17%
Rotor Winding
1% 15% Stator Winding
1% Stator Core
1% Stator Cooling System
Clutch
1%
Surge Capacitor
2%
Exciter
2% 18% Other
4% 6%
Bearing
6% Circuit Breaker
11%
Retaining Ring
component and the percentage of Total Gross Loss Cost.
This section will show how the type of insurance coverage held by the generator owner can become a key
factor in the decision to repair or replace a failed generator. FM Global’s loss experience will be used to
present examples of how insurance has played a role in the generator owner’s decision to repair or replace
the failed unit.
Time Element or Business Interruption coverage

Insurance to cover the loss of profit or the business impact resulting from the failure of a generator can be
purchased. This is commonly called Time Element or Business Interruption coverage. Over 30% of FM Global
power generation clients purchase some form of Business Interruption Coverage.
If Time Element or Business Interruption coverage is provided, the cost to the insurance company of a
generator failure can be significant. In general, FM Global has found that the business interruption impact of a
generator failure is at least 4 times higher than the actual property damage sustained. So it is reasonable for
the insurance company to try to reduce this cost by choosing the fastest option for returning a failed generator
to service even though that option may be more expensive.
As a general rule, the insurance company will “spend a dollar to save a dollar”. In these cases, the cost of a
new generator plus the lead time to obtain the new generator is compared to the cost of repairs as well as the
time to carry out the repairs. If the difference in cost is equal to or less than the savings in business
interruption which can be achieved by replacing the generator, the insurance companies may prefer to pay for
a replacement generator even though it is the costlier option.
Page 13
There were 3 cases in FM Global’s 10 year loss experience where the insurance company chose to pay for
the higher cost of a replacement generator because it could be delivered to the client more quickly than it
would take to repair the generator.
In FM Global’s experience, it is almost always faster to repair a generator than it is to replace it. Some
examples where this is not true are when there are suitable generators available in the surplus equipment
market, or when the damage to the generator is so extensive that a replacement generator is a quicker option
compared to shipping the damaged generator to a repair facility and then returning it after the repair is
complete. The location of the client also plays a factor. Clients located in remote areas usually find that the
lead times for transporting damaged parts to repair centers are significant.
Time Element or Business Interruption coverage can also have an opposite influence on the decision to repair
or replace a generator. In FM Global’s 10 year loss experience, there were 5 cases where it was calculated
that it would be cheaper to repair the generator.
Extra Expense Coverage

In some cases, the insurance company will spend more than a dollar to save a dollar. This is called Extra
Expense Coverage. If this coverage has been purchased by the generator owner, the insurance company will
pay to expedite the repair or replacement of a generator. This may take the form of paying to transport
replacement generators or damaged parts by air rather than by land or sea, paying a premium to expedite the
manufacturing process of the replacement generator, paying for special facilities to be constructed on site to
perform a repair of a generator in-situ or paying to transport failed components to repair facilities overseas that
are able to perform the repair more quickly than local facilities. There is a limit to this coverage and the
insurance company will not pay more than this limit.
Depreciation Insurance
If the generator owner purchases Depreciation Insurance, also known as Repair or Replace Coverage, the
generator owner is entitled to replace the failed generator with a modern, functional equivalent or to carry out
repairs using modern materials and design practices to bring the failed generator back to the capability it had
at the time of failure.
This is regardless of the generator’s value at the time of failure.
For example, this type of insurance coverage allows the owners of a 60-year-old generator to replace their
failed generator with a new unit even though the failed 60-year-old generator has a depreciated value
equivalent to scrap. Without this coverage, the owner would have only been covered for repairs or
replacement up to the depreciated value of the generator.
The decision to repair or replace the generator under this insurance coverage is driven by cost and the
insurance company will pay for the lesser of the cost to repair or to replace the failed generator.
It is important to note that insurance should not be used to fund asset replacement or to replace a good asset
replacement policy. Insurance will only cover the direct losses sustained from the failure of the unit. There are
many other non-insurable risks such as loss of reputation, loss of market share, loss of investor confidence,
peripheral damage due to a forced outage, as well as the impact on plant reliability and availability which are
not covered by insurance.
It goes without saying that allowing old equipment to fail unexpectedly is not a prudent course of action and
steps should be taken to develop a good asset replacement policy for old equipment.
Page 14
Betterment
Finally, it should be noted that insurance policies respond to make the policy holder whole. Or in other words,
insurance will return the policy holder to the condition they were in before the loss occurred. But the insurance
policy will not pay for work that would make the replacement or repaired generator better that what it was
before the failure.
Typically, the insurance company will pay to repair or replace a failed generator with Class B insulation to an
equivalent Class B insulation specification. The insurance company will not pay for a repair or replacement
that ultimately results in the generator having Class F insulation. Even so, generator owners often use
generator failures as an opportunity to upgrade or improve their equipment. Sometimes generator owners see
this as an opportunity to increase the capacity of their generator. The insurance company will not prohibit
generator owners from taking this engineering or business decision. However, the difference in cost to
upgrade or up-rate the generator is calculated, and the insurance company will only pay for the repair or
replacement minus this difference.
Having said this, there are cases where the existing technology or materials used to construct the generator is
no longer available or has been superseded by better technology or materials. In these cases, the insurance
company will generally accept a repair or replacement with the improved technology or material even though it
results in an upgrade or an up-rating of the generator. Some examples would be the industry-wide
replacement of asphaltic insulation systems with thermoset insulation systems, the widespread availability of
higher quality core steels, improved generator design practices and improved excitation systems.
If the failure was due to a problem caused by the original design, it is almost a certainty that the insurance
company will make sure that any repair eliminates this problem and would not insist that the repair be done
strictly to the old specification to avoid betterment. It should be noted that some insurance companies like FM
Global will use the opportunity of a generator repair or replacement to incorporate loss prevention measures
for the generator. For example, the insurance company may recommend the installation of partial discharge
sensors as part of the stator rewind, or they may recommend corrective repairs for existing problems, such as
vibration sparking.
It is also not unusual for the insurance companies to work with the generator owner to ensure that as many
modifications or improvements as recommended by the generator OEM are completed as part of the repair or
replacement. A common example of this would be the replacement of 18-5 or 18-4 retaining rings with 18-18
material if a rotor rewind is being carried out.
Conclusion
FM Global’s loss experience for utility generators over a 10-year period from 1999 to 2009 shows that there
had been 79 utility generator failures, resulting a total gross loss cost of $441 million.
Of these failures, 3 were on-going claims, which could not be discussed. And 18 failures did not have sufficient
information to conduct a proper analysis. However, these failures were of a low severity, and it can be
assumed that the owners in these cases most likely chose to repair the generator.
Of the remaining 58 failures, there were only 3 cases where the decision was made to replace the generator
rather than to repair it. All three decisions were influenced by the type of insurance coverage purchased by the
generator owner. The owners in these cases had purchased business interruption coverage, and it was
calculated that there was enough business interruption savings to replace the failed generator with a new unit
even though a replacement was costlier than a repair.
There were 5 cases where the opposite decision was made. In these cases the clients had also purchased
business interruption coverage, but it was quicker to repair the generator than to replace it with a new unit so
the decision was made to repair the generator.
Page 15
It is reasonable to say that it is quicker and cheaper to repair a failed generator rather than to replace it. This is
evidenced by FM Global’s loss experience where 95% of all cases resulted in a decision to repair the
generator and there were only 3 cases which resulted in a decision to replace the generator.
However, these 3 cases show that under certain circumstances, the insurance coverage can strongly
influence a generator owner’s decision to either repair or replace a failed unit.
Understanding how insurance plays a role in this decision is an important part of generator owner’s risk
management and asset management plans.
Generator Financial Model

Financial Inputs
The projected inflation rate and corporate discount rate is the first set of financial assumptions that affect the
time value of money. Projected inflation rate is used to account for the eroding value of the dollar over time,
and the corporate discount rate is used to ensure that any investment is expected to have a return that is at
least equal to the planned return for the business shareholders.
Another factor in the financial input is the income tax rate. The composite income tax rate has a large effect
on the value of a maintenance decision. For income tax, the financial loss consequence can be viewed as a
business loss, and a significant portion can be written off. If the maintenance cost is classified in as an
expense category, the impact on the maintenance cost can be significantly reduced for the same reason.
Engineering Inputs and Decision Model

Whether the decision model is based on the increased lifetime method or the ranking method, the following
generator data are essential for any financial risk assessment model:
• Age including service hours

• Operating condition and operating mode (base load or cyclic duty)
• Main design features and design problems
• History of failure
• History of inspection and inspection reports
• Monitoring and diagnostic systems and monitoring reports/trends
• Maintenance strategy
• Availability of essential spare parts
• Insurance value
• Type of cooling
Mathematical models are used to estimate the probability of failure of an aging generator. Maintenance can
increase the time to failure only if failures do not happen randomly but are the consequences of deterioration
occurring as the generator ages. Hence, any mathematical model that represents the benefits of a given
maintenance policy must relate the results of maintenance to the deterioration process. The area of
probabilistic fracture mechanics can describe the probabilistic models. This technique establishes a damage
propagation mechanism mathematical model with a failure criterion. This model is then integrated over the
range of input distributions with a "Monte Carlo" program. This integration produces a probability of failure
verses time curve. Other techniques are less rigorous and fully quantitative for obtaining the probability of
failure versus time. These methods are good for obtaining preliminary engineering inputs for the decision
analysis. Trending of failure history data on plant generators or on similar generators at other plants is an
example. A method used for this analysis is linear regression using the Weibull distribution function. This
Page 16
function was derived to express the reliability of equipment with time. Structured interview for future failure
projection with plant personnel most familiar with the equipment is another quantitative method. This method,
developed by cognitive psychologists in the decision analysis over the last 15 years, is called a probabilistic
assessment interview, or expert elicitation.
The Bayesian update analysis is a classical method of combining failure history projections with failure history
data or plant personnel structured interviews. The Bayesian analysis uses new information to revise
probabilities based on the old information, or to calculate future probability distributions based on previous
occurrences and new information, such as expert opinions. This method can be used to combine failure
history projection data and plant personnel interview projections, using a weighted averaging technique based
on the normalized product of the two projections for each year. Using such technique provides better
projection of the future failure probability.
Mathematical models can be enhanced to accommodate various factors: maintenance schemes based on
condition monitoring instead of periodic inspection, several deterioration processes taking place concurrently,
the impact of load changes or cyclic loads on aging, the possibility that maintenance can damage rather than
improve the condition if not done correctly, and recognition of the possibility of postponing maintenance if load
conditions do not allow removal of a unit from service.
Constraints
In order to have a realistic decision model, constraints should be added. Maintenance/repair budget limit is
one of the main constraints. In many electrical utilities there is a corporate policy to use a forced rate limit as a
performance rate. This constraint should be incorporated in the model as well.
Availability and Cost of Essential Spares play a role in influencing the decision to repair or replace the
generator. Some utilities find it cost effective to keep spare stator bars and other essential spares such as a
complete rotor assembly in their stock to reduce the cost of downtime of unplanned outage.
An Example of Generator Stator Rewind/Maintenance Decision

Figure 2.5 shows the decision analysis influence diagram of an increased lifetime method. The year to
perform the maintenance or repair action is included in the model to express the condition of the equipment, or
probability of failure, as a function of time.
The objective here is to determine a maintenance action year to maximize NPV, while not exceeding either of
the constraints of maintenance budget limit or forced outage rate limit. The diagram shows generator stator
rewind versus maintenance decision optimization analysis. The first step of this optimization analysis is to
select those components in the generator that present the greatest economic risk to the system.
Using generator historical data and age, probability of failure could be assessed. Monitoring and inspection
data such as partial discharge analysis, temperature measurement, water leak measurement (for liquid-cooled
generators), or visual inspection data are the input to the remaining life model. The constraints for this model
are the budget limit and the forced outage rate limit, if applicable.
Page 17
Monitoring Constraint:
Generator
cost
Age
Budget
Limit
Minor
Decision Insurance Inspection Cost
Value
Maintenance
Major Cost
Run vs.
Inspection cost
inspect/
rewind
Robotic Outcome
Inspection Cost
Net
Stator Rewind Present
Cost Value
Availability of
Essential Parts
Temperature /
PDA / water leak Forced
Visual measurement / Outage
Inspection history of failures Cost
and findings Generator
Damage
Cost
Estimated
Remaining Probability of
Forced
Life Model Failure
Outage Constraint:
Hours
Forced
Outage
Rate Limit
Figure 2.5 Generator Stator Rewind/Maintenance Decision
Page 18
Chapter 3: Operation Impact on Generator Risks
Introduction
Generator abnormal operating conditions can cause risks that may not necessarily involve a fault in the
machine, but likely will affect its normal life expectancy. The following is a list with succinct descriptions of
some of the most typical operational issues and their impact on the generator [1]-[5]. This list was mainly
selected based on a technical literature survey. The most important information pertaining to the generator
operation will be found in the manufacturer’s operation book.
One system-related problem that often arises but is seldom recognized as such is damage to the generator
from grid-induced torsional vibrations. The complexity of the torsional vibrations issue is beyond the scope of
this work and it is briefly mentioned here only in context of lines reclosing. Some introduction references on
this subject are [6]-[12].
Reactive Capability Curve Limits

The reactive capability curve specified by the manufacturer defines the continuous operation generator limits.
Operation at excessively high field current (lagging power factor) beyond the limits of this curve will result in
overheating the rotor winding. Operating with reduced field current (at leading power factor) beyond the curve
limits may result in overheating the ends of the armature core and affect the unit stability against the network.
Between rated lagging to rated leading power factors, the reactive capability curve gives operation limits from
the point of view of stator winding heating (maximum armature current) [13]-[15].
Some generators, often connected to medium voltage networks, may be required to operate in synchronous
compensator regime in order to improve the local power factor. Prolonged operation in this regime of high
excitation currents and relatively high terminal voltages can induce certain specific faults, and the generator
may be more sensitive to existing issues like vibrations due to field shorted turns. Contrarily, other generators
may operate close to unit power factor in order to improve the system voltage stability.
Unbalanced Armature Currents

The most common causes of unbalanced currents in a generator are system asymmetries, unbalanced loads,
unbalanced system faults and open phases. These system conditions produce negative-phase-sequence
currents that induce a double-frequency current in the surface of the rotor, the retaining rings, the slot wedges,
and to a smaller degree, in the field winding. These rotor currents may cause high and possibly dangerous
temperatures in a very short time. Permissible unbalanced-load operation (i.e. negative-phase-sequence
current) is specified by manufacturers and / or standards [16]-[18]. It is a common practice to provide negative-
sequence protection for generators.
Loss of Synchronism
Generator loss of synchronism may be caused by prolonged fault clearing times, low system voltage, low
machine excitation, high impedance between the generator and the system, etc. Operation out-of-synchronism
with excitation maintained places severe type of duty on the generator, producing heavy surge currents in the
stator windings that may exceed the machine short-circuit requirements and causing serious damage to the
winding. Such operation also produces torque reversals that create high mechanical stresses of magnitudes
that may be several times those produced by rated torque [19]. High-induced voltages and currents in the rotor
Page 19
circuit may cause flashover of the collector rings and of the commutator of an associated exciter, and may
cause damage to solid-state exciter components and systems. Large generators are normally protected using
out-of-step (pole-slipping) relays.
Loss of Field
The generator excitation may be completely or partially lost following incidents like accidental tripping of a field
breaker, field open / shorted circuit, flashover of the slip rings, voltage regulator failure, etc. When a generator
loses its excitation, it will over-speed and operate as an induction generator. The results will be an increase in
stator current associated with low voltage at the generator terminals and high slip-frequency currents induced
in the rotor. Furthermore, the generator will be operating in the under-excitation regime; thermal damage of the
stator core ends and steady-state stability problems may be encountered. The rotor currents will flow both
through the rotor winding and the rotor body, with dangerous overheating of wedges and retaining rings
occurring within a very short time (rotors without amortisseur windings are particularly vulnerable) [20], [21].
Protection is commonly provided to prevent or minimize the duration of this mode of operation, by the loss-of-
field relay. Turbine over-speed protection will prevent mechanical damage should rotor speed increase above
the tripping threshold due to loss of field.
Over-Excitation (Over-Fluxing)
Over-excitation of a generator or transformer connected to the generator terminals will occur whenever the
ratio of the voltage to frequency (V/Hz) applied to the terminals of the equipment exceeds 105%. In this case,
saturation of the magnetic core of the generator / transformer may occur, causing stray flux in non-laminated
components and excessive eddy currents in the generator laminations. This may cause severe overheating,
eventual breakdown in insulation and excessive field current [22]. One of the primary causes of excessive
V/Hz on generators and transformers is operation of the unit under regulator control at reduced frequencies
(during start-up and shutdown). Over-excitation may also occur following a complete load rejection incident.
Manufacturers generally provide over-excitation capability limits for their equipment. The over-excitation
condition can be prevented using a V/Hz limiter in excitation control and / or suitable V/Hz protection.
Motoring
Motoring of a generator occurs when the energy supply to the prime mover is cut off while the generator is still
online. When the generator motoring occurs, it will act as a synchronous motor and drive the prime mover, but
the primary concern is the turbine that may be damaged. Since there is no steam flow through the turbine
during motoring, the heat of the windage losses is not carried away and the turbine is over-heated. The turbine
manufacturer should be consulted for recommendations concerning motoring of turbines.
Motoring regime pose usually no danger to the generator if proper cooling, bearing lubrication and especially
proper excitation are maintained. If, contrarily, the excitation is lost when turbine input steam is lost, the
generator will act as an induction motor, probably exceeding the reactive capability curve under-excited
(leading) limits. This will cause rapid overheating of the stator core ends and possible serious damage [23],
[24]. It is likely that loss-of-field relay on the affected generator will not activate under the circumstances of
simultaneous loss of turbine input steam (rotor saliency and residual magnetism will give the effect of there
being some field current). Anti-motoring (reverse power) dedicated protection should therefore be provided.
The main danger to other generators is that the terminal voltage may be too low or they will be forced into a
loading in excess of rating.
Page 20
Abnormal Frequencies
The operation of generators at over-frequency (overspeed) can result from load rejection (line fault clearing,
system load over-shedding). Under-frequency operation can result from mismatch between system loading
and generation (e.g. following insufficient load shedding or system separation) [25].
At reduced frequencies, there will be a reduction in the output capability of a generator. Thermal damage may
occur if short time thermal capability is exceeded. The turbine is much more restrictive than the generator at
reduced frequencies because of possible mechanical resonances in the low-pressure turbine blades and
resulting cumulative effects during the machine life. Turbine manufacturers and standards provide time limits
in specified frequency bands for abnormal frequency operation [26]. It is usually recommended that some form
of under-frequency protection be provided for steam and gas turbine generators.
Destructive overspeed may occur if the unit is disconnected from the power system unless the prime-mover
power is shut off. Steam turbines are particularly vulnerable and even failure of steam valves to close
completely could provide sufficient steam flow into the turbine to overspeed the unit. Steam and gas turbines
are always equipped with redundant overspeed protections. In order to prevent potential overspeed of the unit,
sequential tripping schemes are used that avoid unit breaker opening until it is known that turbine valves are
closed (and that the unit is indeed motoring). While some of the devices used in sequential tripping schemes
are the same as those used in anti-motoring protection, the two functions should not be confused [2].
Inadvertent Energization
Energization of the turbo-generator stator when at standstill or on turning gear, is an extreme hazardous
incident. The generator will accelerate like an induction motor and the stator current may be as high as 3 to 4
pu of the machine rating. While the machine is accelerating, high currents induced in the rotor surface, rotor
wedges and retaining rings may cause significant damage in only a matter of seconds. Other effects may be
heating of the stator core ends, overheating of turbine blades and casing, etc. Energization may occur
accidentally because of operating errors, breaker head flashovers, control circuit malfunctions, etc. If the
generator is accidentally back-fed from the station auxiliary transformer, the current will be much lower and
extensive generator damage will be less likely. Inadvertent or accidental energizing of off-line generators has
occurred often enough to warrant installation of dedicated protection to detect this condition [21], [27], [28].
High-Speed Reclosing
High-speed reclosing of transmission lines at or near a generating station following a fault has the potential for
causing major shaft fatigue damage to a turbine generator. Of particular concern is the possibility of an
unsuccessful reclosing during a persistent fault that may reinforce the torsional oscillations and shaft torques
caused by the original disturbance. In order to minimize the potential detrimental effects of high-speed
reclosing, several practices are used, like single-phase reclosing (the remaining connected phases hold the
machine in synchronism, helping to maintain stability) or sequential reclosing (reclose initially from the remote
end of a line and block reclosing at the generating station if the fault persists) [29]-[37].
Improper Synchronizing
Improper synchronizing of a generator to a system may result in damage to the generating unit. The damage
incurred may be slipped couplings, increased shaft vibration, changes in bearing alignment, loosened stator
windings, loosened stator laminations, and fatigue damage to shafts and other mechanical parts. In order to
avoid such damages, the generator manufacturer will generally provide synchronizing limits in terms of
breaker closing angle and voltage matching [38], [39]. Automatic synchronizing may be used to minimize
Page 21
these risks, and a synchro-check relay is highly recommended. Special care has to be taken to avoid tripping
the unit when wire connections are changed.
Load Cycling and Repetitive Starts

During load cycling the turbo-generator continues to run at rated speed, but the power drawn varies, as
required, between the maximum (full load) and some minimum (partial load). In two-shift operation, the unit is
run alternately on the shaft turning gear, for example for half a day or one week, and on line, either at full load
or on cycling load.
This type of duty is characterized by cycles in both load and speed.
The life expectancy of a given machine will be normally greater when the machine is operated at constant load
conditions rather than when the machine is subject to frequent load cycles or start–stop cycles. The change in
centrifugal force-induced stresses from standstill to rated speed (or excursions to overspeed in some cases)
occurring over many cycles may cause fatigue and cracking in some metallic and insulating components
depending upon the specific design.
Load cycling represents a long-term onerous mode of operation. When load is increased suddenly, the
conductors will rise in temperature faster than core and other components and this will induce thermo-
mechanical stresses. These thermo-mechanical stresses within the stator winding can affect the reliability of
the machine. Due to different thermal expansion coefficients of the material used, forces will develop resulting
in cracking of the stator bar insulation, loosening bars in the slots and weakening of the stator end-winding
support system. Over time this is a major cause for stator winding ageing, and - eventually - failure. Other
problems are loosening of stator wedges, looseness of the stator core, cracking of conductors, weakening of
frame support systems, leakage of hydrogen through gasket degradation, separation (disassociation) of
copper and main insulation in stator bars, etc. [40]-[46]. The copper field end-windings may sometimes
permanently deform.
By far more onerous than load cycling is the complete start-and-stop operation (two-shift operation). It
stresses all those elements enumerated above to the extreme. Retaining rings are significantly stressed during
start–stop operation, the rotor teeth at the slot exits may suffer cracking. [47], [48].
Extended Turning-Gear Operation

Long periods of turning-gear operation may induce production of copper dusting in the rotor field conductors.
The rotor field coils are rather heavy, and when radial clearances are present in the slot, slow rotation of the
rotor results in coils relative movement (specifically in those designs with double copper conductors) and
eventually leads to copper dusting. Copper dust has the potential to create shorted turns in the rotor field [49].
System Emergency Conditions

Under extreme emergency conditions, a power system may experience large disturbances in voltage, current,
power flow, and frequency, even to the point that some generators may not remain synchronized with the
system. It may be necessary for the operator to decide quickly whether and when to trip a given generator
from the system. By keeping the generator connected to the system, the operator would support the power
system and possibly prevent its collapse, but would accept unusual risk of damage to the equipment. It is not
possible to anticipate all of the contingencies that extreme system emergencies can produce, nor is it possible
to discount the hazards of interaction of two or more simultaneous stress conditions.
Page 22
References
[1] IEEE Std 67™-2005, IEEE Guide for Operation and Maintenance of Turbine Generators, IEEE Power
Engineering Society, 8 May 2006.
[2] IEEE Std C37.102™-2006, IEEE Guide for AC Generator Protection, IEEE Power Engineering
Society, 16 February 2007.
[3] G. Klempner, I. Kerszenbaum, Handbook of Large Turbo-Generator Operation and Maintenance,
WILEY-IEEE Press, Book, 2008.
[4] FIST 1-12, Abnormal Operations Generic Technical Guidelines for Power Stations, United States,
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March 2003.
[5] Glebov, Abnormal Operating Conditions and Parameters of Modern High-Power Turbo-Generators,
CIGRE WG 11.03, ELECTRA No. 36, 1974.
[6] M. Bogman, G. Cotto, G. Ziegler, The Effects of HV Network Faults and Switching Operations on
Large Turbine-Generators, CIGRE WG 01 of SC 34, ELECTRA No. 98, 1985.
[7] D. Lambrecht, Problems of Torsional Stresses in the Shaft Lines of Turbine Generators, CIGRE WG
01 of SC 11, ELECTRA No. 143, Aug. 1992.
[8] J. Huster, L. Eckert, F. Pohle, Calculation and Measurement of Torsionals in Large Steam Turbosets,
ABB Review, 6/1998.
[9] Calvaer, K. Johansson, K. Reichert, Operation and Planning Problems Related to the Torsional
Stresses on Turbine-Generators, CIGRE SC 31 and 32, ELECTRA No. 81, 1982.
[10] EPRI Tutorial 1011679, Steam Turbine-Generator Torsional Vibration Interaction with the Electrical
Network, Nov. 2005.
[11] EPRI Report 1013460, Torsional Interaction Between Electrical Network Phenomena and Turbine-
Generator Shafts, Nov. 2006.
[12] J. Stein, Torsional Vibration Explained by an Electrical Engineer, EPRI European TGUG
Meeting/Workshop and Vendor Exposition, Madrid, Spain, June 22-25 2009.
[13] R. Joho, Stressing Turbine Generators beyond their Established Thermal Limits - Report on
Questionnaire, CIGRE WG A1.01.03, 2004.
[14] M. Adibi, L. Milanicz, Reactive Capability Limitation of Synchronous Machines, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, Feb. 1994.
[15] T. Crawley, Validation of Generator Reactive Capability, IEEE Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 13 - 17 July 2003.
[16] M. Tari, S. Nagano, Negative Phase Sequence and Harmonic Current Capability of Turbo Generators,
CIGRE WG 11.01, ELECTRA No. 181, Dec. 1998.
[17] Y. Ichida, E. Zaima, T.Watanabe, M. Tari, Study on Negative-Sequence Current Capability of Large
Turbine-Generator, Paper 11-304, CIGRE Session 1996.
[18] Jack, R. Stoll, Negative-Sequence Currents and Losses in the Solid Rotor of a Turbogenerator, IEE
Proceedings on Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 127, Pt. C, No. 2, March 1980.
[19] D. Lambrecht, T. Kulig, The Impact of Electrical Disturbances in Particular of Generator Out-of-Step
Operation on Turbine generator Shafts, Association des Ingénieurs de Montefiore, Liège, Modern
Power Stations, 1985.
[20] L. Rux, S. Patterson, Overheating and Resulting Damage Caused by Misoperation of a Synchronous
Generator, Proceedings of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 2001.
[21] C. Mozina, Power Plant “Horror Stories”, Inaugural IEEE PES 2005 Conference and Exposition in
Africa, Durban, South Africa, 11-15 July 2005.
[22] Guide for Generator Overfluxing, CIGRE Working Group A1.01-22, intermediate work, 2008.
[23] S. Adams, R. Longwell, R. Zawoysky, Motoring Damage & Field Forcing Repair, EPRI Utility
Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, 16 Jan. 2001.
[24] Nieves, E. Viedas, J. Valero, Effects of Motorization on Non-Salient Pole Electric Generators,
Proceedings of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, Spring 2006.
[25] T. Younkins, Power Plant Partial Load Rejections - The Union Electric System Disturbance,
Pennsylvania Electric Association System Operation Committee, Valley Forge, USA, May 29 1980.
[26] IEEE Std C37.106™-2003, IEEE Guide for Abnormal Frequency Protection for Power Generating
Plants, IEEE Power Engineering Society, 16 June 2003.
[27] J. Probst, Lack of Communication – €30M Loss, Schadenspiegel 2/2003.
[28] C. Mozina (chairman), Inadvertent Energizing Protection of Synchronous Generators, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 1989.
[29] El-Serafi, S. Faried, Effect of Sequential Reclosure of Multi-Phase System Faults on Turbine-
Generator Shaft Torsional Torques, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4. Nov. 1991.
Page 23
[30] Taylor (chairman), Single-Pole Switching for Stability and Reliability, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. PWRS-1, No. 2, May 1986.
[31] Bowler, P. Brown, D. Walker, Evaluation of the Effect of Power Circuit Breaker Reclosing Practices on
Turbine-Generator Shafts, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 5,
Sept./Oct. 1980.
[32] J. Boyle, L. Edwards, Reclosing on the TVA 500 KV Transmission System to Minimize Large Turbine
Generator Shaft Torques, Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 1983.
[33] El-Serafi, S. Faried, Effect of Controlling the Sequential Interruption of a System Fault on Turbine-
Generator Shaft Torsional Torques, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vo1.6, No.1, Feb. 1991.
[34] D. Walker, S. Adams, R. Placek, Torsional Vibration and Fatigue of Turbine-Generator Shafts, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 11, Nov. 1981.
[35] D. Souque, D. Vielpeau, Torsional Stresses on Turbo-Generators Caused by Planned Steady-State
Switching Operations. Application to Adjustment of Automatic Reclosing Control Devices, Association
des Ingénieurs de Montefiore, Liège, Modern Power Stations, 1985.
[36] C. Taylor et al., Effects of Single- and Three-Pole Switching and High-Speed Reclosing on Turbine-
Generator Shafts and Blades, IEEE Transaction on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-103,
No. 11, Nov. 1984.
[37] J. Joyce, T. Kulig, D. Lambrecht, Torsional Fatigue of Turbine-Generator Shafts Caused by Different
Electrical System Faults and Switching Operations, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-97, No. 5, Sept./Oct. 1978.
[38] M. Canay, Stresses in Turbogenerator Sets due to Electrical Disturbances, Brown Boveri Review, Vol.
62, Sept. 1975.
[39] W. Strang (chairman), Generator Synchronizing Industry Survey Results, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 1, Jan. 1996.
[40] R. Jeffreys, N. Kurtz, Design Considerations for Cyclic Duty and Life Extension of Generators with
Particular Emphasis on Evaluation of Winding Insulation, Association des Ingénieurs de Montefiore,
Liège, Modern Power Stations, 1985.
[41] R. Fenton, B. Gott, Aging of Machines with Respect to Load or Field Current Cycling, CIGRE WG
11.01, ELECTRA No. 163, Dec. 1995.
[42] W. McDermid, Experience with Thermal Cycling of Stator Coils and Bars, IEEE International
Symposium on Electrical Insulation, 2006.
[43] M. Kang, T. Kim, J. Lee, Electrical Degradation of Stator Bars for Large Turbine Generator after 1000
Thermal Cycles, CIGRE SC A1 & D1 Joint Colloquium, Oct. 24 2007.
[44] EPRI Report 1004796, Cyclic Operation of Combined Cycle Plants: Design, Maintenance, Reliability
and Cost Impacts, Feb. 2004.
[45] EPRI Report 1001507, Damage to Power Plants Due to Cycling, July 2001.
[46] EPRI Report 1008351, Effects of Flexible Operation on Turbines and Generators, Dec. 2004.
[47] E. Dali, Sh. Feigis, Faults Detection in Two-Shift Generators and Their Repair, MedPower - IET &
IEEE Conference, Eilat, Israel, 2006.
[48] R. Ilie, Experience of a Flux Probe User, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, San Antonio, USA, June
2007.
[49] G. Klempner, R. Nold, Ontario Hydro Experience with Copper Dusting in Large Steam Turbine Driven
Generator Rotors, EPRI Utility Motor and Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment
Conference, San Francisco, USA, Dec. 7-9 1993.
Page 24
Chapter 4: Major Generator Component Risk Areas
Introduction
Many known deterioration mechanisms, in different generator components, may turn into major risk concerns.
Some risks are related to a specific machine design, others are of generic nature. In the following pages of this
chapter are succinct descriptions of some principal risk areas. The failure mechanisms described below have
been mainly selected based on a technical literature survey.
More complete breakdown of numerous generic risks of different generator components can be found in
dedicated works [1]-[7]. The standard IEEE Std. 67 [1] gives general recommendations for turbo-generator
maintenance, pointing out major risk areas. Other studies concentrate on generic failure mechanisms of
certain generator parts, like electrical insulation [9], [10]. Some detailed works analyze the risks of only one
machine category (as [11] for air-cooled generators), or only one failure mechanism (like cooling water leaks
[12], [13], or cooling water flow restrictions [14]). Irreplaceably sources of knowledge about failures and risks
are the manufacturer's manuals and recommendations, their technical information letters or customer advisory
bulletins.
The direct water-cooled generators have been intensely developed, reaching today rated powers of 2200 MVA
[15]. New indirect hydrogen-cooled machines also extend the boundaries with ratings in the 700 MVA domains
[16]. Many other new generators, rated as high as 500 MVA [17], utilize air-cooled systems instead of the
traditional hydrogen. To simplify auxiliary equipment and lower costs (primarily driven by purchaser demands
for lower first costs rather than lower lifetime costs), some of these machines are aggressively designed, run
hotter and are more stressed. Furthermore, air-cooled generators often use a global vacuum pressure
impregnation (VPI) stator – bonded copper, insulation and core - meaning that they cannot be easily rewound.
Trying to reduce the costs, manufacturers may diminish the insulation thickness, which, together with smaller
copper cross section, enables narrower stator slots and smaller core diameter. The result is a cheaper
machine but with higher stresses on active components [18]-[20].
Most failures result from the gradual deterioration of components, until they no longer have the electrical
and/or mechanical strength to withstand normal operating stresses or the transients occurring during abnormal
regimes. However, some generator failures occur regardless of the original condition, monitoring activities or
maintenance standards. These catastrophic events can be initiated by loose objects in the machine or severe
operating incidents [21].
Reliability Data
Some old reliability surveys regarding large turbo-generators, as shown in Table.4.1, appeared in technical
literature [22], [23], or have been collected by insurance companies [24]. However, sometimes the extent of
the statistical population is unclear; absolute failure rates (that can be translated in real costs) are unknown
and details of fault causes are limited or questionable. NERC (GADS) [25] attempts to maintain a
comprehensive generation availability database, offering for each cause (code) average numbers of
occurrences per unit-year and, even more important, average MWh lost per unit-year. Nevertheless, the
NERC information is not failure mechanism oriented. From [9] pp.131, it can be deduced that in air-cooled
generators the stator winding seems to be a major cause of problems and, contrarily, rotors are probably a
greater source of failures in hydrogen-cooled machines. A few examples of well-known major failure
mechanisms are: water leaks in stator winding insulation, stator end-winding vibrations, loose stator cores,
shorted rotor turns, field grounds, field main lead or pole cross-over cracks, field copper dusting, retaining ring
failures, brush failures / collector ring flashover [26], [27].
Page 25
Table 4.2 shows sample data from actual availability reports, based on NERC codes, collected during 30
years from the large turbo-generators of one utility. The lack of significant correlations between Fig. 4.1 and
Fig. 4.2 is prominent, not only regarding reliability data, but also in the components tree and even in generator
boundaries. Statistics are as credible as the persons who fill in the failure reports, and sometimes they are
affected by non-technical influences. The best statistics are those consistently maintained by generator
specialists, intimately familiar with utility or manufacturer generators fleet, their particular characteristics and
their individual history.
The failure components tree is usually based on damage location. A similar traditional approach is adapted
henceforth too, as shown in the components root tree from Fig. 4.1; under each location, few major failure
mechanisms are mentioned. A CIGRE brochure that published hydro-generators reliability data [28] adopts a
different method, considering the failures from different point of views (damage, root cause, nature) and further
classifying them by: insulation, thermal, mechanical and bearing categories. There are also sources that
concentrate in reliability data for a particular concern (e.g. conditional probability of developing a clip-to-strand
water leak before next planned outage [26]).
Stator Winding
The technical writing gives plentiful examples of stator winding risks [1], [9], [29]-[39], parts of them cited below
in context of specific failure mechanisms.
Loose Bars in Slots

This is one of the most likely failure processes in turbo-generators [40], [41], closely dependent on the stator
slot wedge system, the purpose of which is preventing the problem. Loose bars can be a result of the
insulation shrinkage as it thermally ages, slot ripple springs that lose their ability to tighten the bars [42] or
loose wedges for any other reason. Oil in machine affects the friction between the slot support parts and can
strengthen the bars vibration. The loose bar issue is unlikely to occur in global VPI stators.
Bars in stator slots are subject to high mechanical forces; they vibrate and mechanically wear in contact with
the laminations. The bar vibration first abrades the semi-conductive coating (placed to prevent partial
discharge between bars and core), then the insulation itself. Related phenomena are vibration sparking (as the
bar coating picks up electrical charges and then discharges while contacting the core [43], [44]), and
afterwards classic partial discharge when the semi-conductive coating is abraded away and the bar surface is
not grounded any longer. Partial discharges are generated by the high electrical field mainly at coils exposed
to higher voltage near phase terminals. The PD activity slowly erodes the main insulation. If the stator bars
are not well fixed in the slot and if the surface resistance of the semi-conductive slot coating is too low,
vibration sparking could occur. The flux induced axial voltage can drive a current loop in the conductive slot
coating, which is broken and closed by bar vibration. The energy of these small contact arcing is much higher
than PD and therefore spark erosion of the main insulation is a relatively fast growing damaging process
leading to ground fault within a few years only
Insulation Thermal Deterioration

This is probably one of the most common reasons of stator windings failure, leading to brittle insulation and
lower mechanical strength. Operation at high temperatures is caused by operation incidents (overload,
negative sequence currents,under-excited operation), poor design / manufacturing, cooling issues (dirty
windings, clogged heat exchangers), etc. In the deteriorated / delaminated insulation, partial discharge may
occur and will eventually erode through insulation. Because of insulation abrasion, the sub-conductors may
start vibrating and broken strands, strand shorts or turn faults can occur. In direct water-cooled machines, loss
or severe reduction of liquid flow can have major consequences resulting in thermal deterioration of the
windings insulation [45]-[48]. In direct hydrogen-cooled generators, blocking the gas flow may produce melted
conductors and severe faults [49].
Page 26
Thermal (Load) Cycling

It is most likely to occur in machines with long stator cores experiencing many rapid starts and stops or rapidly
changing loads. Girth cracking and tape separation were special variations of thermal cycle deterioration in
asphalt mica insulation of lengthy, older machines [50]. With conventional epoxy–mica insulated bars (fully
cured before insertion in the stator), a fast increase of stator current the copper will expand axially. At the
same time, the epoxy–mica insulation is at a much lower temperature, the consequence being an expansion
difference and axial shear stress between the copper and the bar insulation. Many thermal cycles will fatigue
the bond and the copper will break away from the insulation. To avoid accelerated electrical aging due to
partial discharge activity at the delaminated copper-to-insulation interface an inner-potential semi-conductive
tape (inner corona protection) could be applied, which transfers the high voltage potential from the copper
conductor into the main insulation.
In large global VPI windings, if the load is rapidly reduced, the copper will cool and shrink, as will the
insulation, when the winding cools. However, the stator core retains its dimensions and, thus, there are shear
stress not only between the copper and the insulation, but also between the insulation and the stator core.
After many fast load cycles, the coil may break away from the core and partial discharges will occur; in
addition, the coil will vibrate, abrading the ground insulation. The usual root cause of this risk is inadequate
design. The remedies consist of injecting conductive epoxy into the slots between the coils and the core or
complete stator rewinding [51]-[54].
Semi-conductive / Grading Coating

Such failures involve the deterioration of the semi-conductive coating on a stator bar in the slot, in the absence
of coil vibration. The coating essentially becomes nonconductive (too high resistance), and electrical slot
discharges will occur between the bar and the core. It is far more likely to occur in air-cooled machines, when,
in addition, partial discharges will create ozone that chemically attacks epoxy, rubber compounds, and steel.
The root cause of this risk is poor manufacturing procedures in making the coating and ensuring its
appropriate resistance [55]. A related risk applies to the silicon carbide stress control coating just outside of
the slot. It must be electrically connected to ground by an overlap of the silicon carbide coating and the semi-
conductive coating. If the overlap region becomes nonconductive, discharges can result between the two
different coatings [56], [57].
Inadequate Insulation Impregnation

In conventional bars, it is a result of deficient resin-rich or VPI processes. The impregnation seals the winding
against dirt and moisture, improves heat transfer to the core, holds the windings tight in the slot and prevents
partial discharge activity. Similarly, the VPI process is intended to eliminate voids within the ground-wall and
prevent conductor movement. VPI coils are often dissected and evaluated to assure proper impregnation.
GVPI (Global VPI) stators impregnation quality control is performed by capacity measurement during resin
impregnation process. In addition the cured stator insulation is controlled with PD measurement. [58].
Winding Contamination
Contamination may lead to many problems, including increased thermal deterioration (due to blocked
ventilation), chemical attack and electrical tracking. Electrical tracking originates from contamination, which
mixes with moisture or oil to produce a partly conductive coating on the stator winding and enables currents to
flow over the surfaces of the insulation. These currents degrade the insulation and eventually cause its failure.
In the end-windings of stators, currents can flow between two adjacent coils from two different phases [59].
One important contamination source may be water ingress into the generator from various sources (or
excessive water contain in the cooling gas) [60], [61], which, by the way, can induce stress corrosion cracking
on retaining rings. Also contamination of ferrous magnetic material can cause erosion of windings and other
components. With air-cooled generators, it is important to check the environment in which they are operating.
Local air pollution such as might occur from nearby steel works or chemical industries can cause end winding
contamination and creep discharge activity
Page 27
Inadequate End-Winding Spacing

Sufficient space has to be left between adjacent coils in the end-windings, to ensure sufficient cooling and to
prevent partial discharge activity. If the spacing is too small, partial discharges may lead to phase-to-phase
faults. Air-cooled machines are more likely to suffer than high-pressure hydrogen-cooled machines (with much
higher PD inception voltage and breakdown strength). Poor design and manufacture is the most likely cause
of these problems, especially in the new air-cooled machines, economized to place the end-windings into a
smaller volume. The issue may be temporarily improved by injecting a conformable insulating material into the
affected areas or installing better insulation (Nomex sheets) between phase leads [51]. The inclusion of mica
sheet will add further longevity to this repair.
End-Winding Vibrations
The coils vibrate at double frequency and, if the end winding is not adequately supported, the insulation will
gradually abrade. The problem is most likely to occur on long end-windings with adjacent resonant
frequencies. End-winding vibration is one of the most common failure mechanisms of large turbo-generators
[62], [63]. Global VPI stators are less likely to suffer from high end-winding vibration. Resonant vibration of
series loop / phase connections may lead to fatigue of the copper conductor. The bar insulation may
eventually fatigue crack just outside of the slot; even partial cracks outside the core may become sites for
partial discharge initiation because the grading system is distorted.
Winding shorts and cracked strands are also frequently observed as cause of failure. As both phenomena are
extremely difficult to observe from external parameters, these faults can develop unnoticed until it leads to a
catastrophic failure (earth fault or phase to phase fault).
In water-cooled stators, the double frequency end-winding vibrations can fatigue crack the brazed connections
or water nozzles and lead to water leak. In direct hydrogen-cooled windings, end-winding vibration can lead to
broken copper strands [64]. Possible reasons for end-winding vibrations are inadequate design, poor
manufacturing, high transients (e.g. out-of-phase synchronization), high temperatures (e.g. load cycling) or
excessive oil in the end-winding.
Stator Coolant Water Leaks

This problem is only associated with large turbo-generators with directly water-cooled stator windings, through
hollow copper strands. The water leaks into the insulation, degrading it over time [65], [66]. In cases of old
leaks, the ground bar insulation may be wet and damaged. However, the literature mentions very few cases of
in-service short circuits as a result of water leaks [67]. In many cases, leaks develop at the end of the bar, in
the region termed the clip, being caused by poor brazing via a process called crevice corrosion [68], [69]. This
risk may be reduced by adequate periodical testing, epoxy injection in the braze connection areas, global
epoxy repair as a preventive maintenance, leaking clips replacement with modern materials and methods, or
full rewinding [70], [71]. To avoid such problems, some manufacturers use mixed-strand coil construction with
solid copper and hollow stainless steel conductors for water-cooled windings [72]. One OEM does not insulate
the water chambers and bar connections to get early indication of pressure increase by hydrogen gas ingress
into the water cooling circuit.
Poor Electrical Connections

This can be a significant risk taking into consideration the many electrical connections (brazed or soldered) in
a typical generator stator winding. If the resistance of the connections is too high, or cooling of the connections
is poor, overheating of the joints thermally degrades the insulation, eventually causing failures [73] including
two phase failures if it is in the phase split area.
Page 28
Bushings
Stator high-voltage bushings and standoff insulators are subjected to continuous forces due to vibration, as
well as thermal expansion and contraction of the leads. Some of the bushings have ducts allowing for
hydrogen cooling, others are water-cooled. They are susceptible to damages (cracks, leaks, components
looseness, dirt and tracking residues) arising from sudden load changes or excessive vibrations. Some
generators may use flexible braided leads to make the connection to the bushing and their normal mode of
failure is fatigue cracking, resulting in increased temperature of the conductor [74]. The connection of the
windings to the armature leads (bushing well) normally have small amounts of viscous sealant oil at the
bottom of the well, purposed to eliminate the leak of gas through the mounting flanges of the high-voltage
bushings. The bushing flange gaskets age with time, temperature, and vibration effects and may leak, the
thick liquid sealant being then forced out by the higher hydrogen pressure inside the machine. If the sealant is
lost altogether, then the hydrogen may leak as well [75].
Stator Core
The integrity of the insulation between stator steel laminations is critical for reliable generator service. Core
lamination insulation shorting will lead to hazard overheating. The affected zone may grow until the
temperature results in catastrophic core steel melting. It can occur from a variety of aging and failure
mechanisms that can be thermal, electrical, mechanical, design, or operational related [76].
Thermal Deter i oration

Core overheating (general or local) will cause accelerated aging of the core insulation if its thermal rating is
exceeded for an extended period. The most common causes of this are loss of cooling water for gas, blockage
of cooling-gas passageways due to the accumulation of oil, dirt, etc. When core temperatures exceed design
limits, permanent deformation of some components can occur. Consequently, the core will loosen. This core
looseness will lead to insulation failure through abrasion.
Electrical Degradation
Several electrical processes can lead to deterioration. Excessive fluxes in specific areas of stator cores induce
elevated eddy current losses, which can cause overheating. For instance, during leading power factor (under-
excitation) operation, this flux and heat can be quite high in large machines. Another failure mechanism may
result from stator winding ground faults in or just outside the slot region - the energy and heat produced by
these faults are often sufficient to melt and fuse the core laminations at the core surface [77]. Back-of-core
burning may occur due to current transfer between the stator frame key-bars and the iron core. Obviously, this
occurs at the back of the core, where the key-bar system makes contact with the core in the dovetail area.
High flux density and magnetic saturation will produce large leakage flux and key-bar currents which can
induce burning. An alternative design includes the case where all stator frame key bars are insulated from the
iron core except only one key bar for grounding purpose.
Page 29
Mechanical Degradation
The most common causes of mechanical degradation in cores are inadequate manufacture, relaxation of the
core support structure, vibration caused by the natural frequency being too close to the twice-power frequency
(100 or 120 Hz), back-of-core looseness, unbalanced phase loading and mechanical damage. When the
laminations become loose they can move relative to one another under the influence of mechanical vibration
and / or electromagnetic forces, and the insulation degrades due to abrasion, leading to shorting and
overheating. The eddy currents that flow as a result of this shorting create excessive heat that can eventually
lead to core melting and lamination fracture [78]-[81]. The above-mentioned back-of-core burning is also
mechanically influenced: any core vibration could cause intermittent contact between the core laminations and
the stator frame and cracking of key-bar insulation, if this is present. This can lead to arcing, overheating, and
core melting in the local area [82], [83].
Core pressure is an integral element of core integrity. Adequate core pressure is achieved through core
pressure plates, finger plates, building bolts and through bolts.
Casing
Stator Frame and Support

This massive part is exposed to mechanical stresses during normal operation (vibrations, temperatures
changes if operated with cycling load or many starts) and during operational incidents (load rejection, short
circuit, incorrect synchronization). Frame cracks can occur (usually in welds), as well as damage of the
interface between the frame and the active core (key-bar area). Other miscellaneous hardware (like gas
guides or baffles, gas diffusers attached to the stator housing, studs or bolts) may cause extensive damage to
the windings and rotating elements if broken inside the generator. Moisture inside the generator may induce
corrosion / rust on the non-painted components of casing and frame.
Bearing Insulation
One of the most important operational and maintenance issues related to bearings in generators is control of
shaft voltages and currents. During the normal operation of the generator, voltages and, hence, currents are
induced in the shaft. These shaft voltages and, in particular, the resultant currents, have to be kept to low
values; otherwise, subsequent bearing failures may occur. Control of shaft voltages is achieved, among
others, by bearing insulation. Generators normally have the non-drive-end bearing insulated; however, there
are machines with both bearings insulated. Some generators use double insulation, made up of sandwich
forms, in order to facilitate the insulation integrity testing. It is important to verify during inspections that the
bearing insulation is not contaminated with carbon dust or accidentally bridged with chunks of metal touching
the bearing pedestal, temperature or vibration sensors, non-insulated oil piping, and so forth [84].
Page 30
Rotor Winding
The technical literature provides many examples of rotor winding issues [1], [9], [85]-[88], parts of them
mentioned below regarding specific risks.
Insulation Thermal Deterioration

High temperatures, together with mechanical forces experienced in operation, lead to cracks and gaps in the
ground / turn insulation and electrical failure. The root causes of such risks are overload operation, inadequate
cooling, long over-excitation periods, stator winding negative sequence currents (leading to circulating currents
in the rotor pole face and rotor wedges). In operation, the first indication of thermal aging may occur only at an
advanced stage of deterioration as a shorted turn alarm or higher bearing vibration. Although a few turn shorts
can often be tolerated, they cause unbalanced heating of rotors in service and excessive vibrations due to
thermal bowing of the forging.
Thermal (Load) Cycling

During operation, the temperature of the rotor components increase and they suffer an axial thermal
expansion. When the unit is shut down, the rotor cools and the components contract to their original position
(provided there are no movement restrictions and the copper has not passed its elastic limit). This expansion–
contraction cycle may repeat hundreds or thousands of times during the unit life. The axial movement of the
copper tends to abrade the ground insulation. Components wear, due to repeated movement, results in
mechanical aging due to thermal cycling. The end-winding spacer blocks may move, causing coils
displacement, which can damage the insulation and give rise to inter-turn or even earth faults. End winding
deformation and cracking of (brazed) joints are also common phenomena on all sizes of generators, especially
if used for start-stop operation. Peaking units are more susceptible to thermal cycling damage compared to
base loaded units because of the higher number of start-stop cycles. The most common symptoms are
shorted turns following insulation migration or distortion of the field coil ends and blocking of ventilation holes
[86].
Abrasion Due to Unbalance or Turning Gear Operation

Operating machines may exhibit high rotor vibration due to mechanical, thermal, or magnetic imbalances,
which are caused by component movement or turn shorts. This vibration may lead to insulation abrasion. At
normal operating speed, centrifugal forces prevent relative movement between turns. However, during very
low speed operation at turning gear, these centrifugal forces are negligible and relative lateral movement
between un-insulated turns will take place. This relative movement between two adjacent copper turn surfaces
results in abrasion - particularly when there are two or more sub-turns that are not insulated from one another
– this can produce copper dust and can lead to turn-to-turn short circuits or even earth faults [89], [49].
Winding Contamination
Contrary to stator winding, the rotor insulation is designed for much lower voltages, however the field windings
of many large turbo-generators are made with exposed copper that is not encapsulated (the conductors are
not completely enclosed or sealed by molded insulation). Therefore, numerous interfaces of live copper and
ground can be potentially bridged to create a turn-to-turn or ground short. Carbon dust from the brushes or
Page 31
copper dust from abrasion are primary sources of pollution, that in combination with moisture (water from
cooler leaks, oil mist from seals and bearings) can produce a partly conductive surface [59].
Pole Connector and Main Lead (J-Strap) Failures

Fatigue cracking can occur with rotors having one solid pole-to-pole connector. The root cause is normally the
original design that misses flexibility to accommodate radial and circumferential movement of the rotor end
winding [91]. In certain designs, the rotor terminal assembly is comprised of an insulated copper stud with
flexible copper connectors brazed to one end (serve to connect DC bus in the rotor bore to the field winding).
The copper packets of thin copper leaves may fail in fatigue, slightly above the region connected to the stud,
and open the field circuit. The worst case result will be a forced outage due to loss of field relay operation.
Other rotor models have a solid one-piece main lead that connects to the top of the #1 coil (J-Strap). Fatigue
cracking of this main lead can occur in the bottom portion of the J, resulting in ground faults and rotor forging
damage [92].
Collector and Brushes
Slip / Collector Rings and Related Parts

Collectors and brushes are moving parts that operate in a very noisy and windy atmosphere, being subject to
wear and requiring reasonable attention and periodic care. Carbon-brush collectors have historically been an
operation / maintenance concern on turbo-generators and one of the most frequent causes of forced outages.
The root cause of collector service problems is lack of performing the relatively minor required inspection and
maintenance, the simplest one being brush wear follow-up. Collector performance is not monitored by any
control-room instrumentation but by directly looking at collectors and brushes themselves. One problem
encountered in this area is collector flashover, in which the positive collector flashes to ground due to
contamination. This creates a creepage path (a degradation of the collector shell insulation) that ultimately
results in a forced outage [93], [94]. The mechanical connection between the collector connection strap and
the bore copper lug may degrade over time to the point where arcing / burning occurs [95].
Shaft Grounding Brushes / Copper Braids

Control of shaft voltages is achieved, among others, by introducing shaft-grounding devices, which can be
copper braids or silver graphite / copper graphite brushes. Reliance only on grounding devices is not
recommended. A grounding device is required to reduce the level of voltages in the shaft to values compatible
with the small clearances encountered in bearing insulation and between shaft and seals. However, the
normal contact resistance of grounding devices does not eliminate shaft voltages to the extent that the bearing
insulation would become redundant. Grounding devices are often taken for granted - and therefore neglected -
during normal maintenance procedures. Thus, it is important they be inspected carefully and often [96]-[99]. It
is recommended that in-service measurement of shaft voltages is done on a periodic basis.
Page 32
Rotor Forging
One example of a general paper related to rotor forging issues is [100]. Several other risk issues are
mentioned in [101]-[103] or explicitly indicated below.
Central Shaft Bore

There are risks of propagation of pre-existing metallurgical defects due to low cycle fatigue resulting from
startup / shut-down cycles (or for rotors manufactured before 1959). In these cases, and for relative old
forgings in operation, it is recommended to inspect the rotor bores of these forgings.
Teeth Area
With certain older designs of body-mounted retaining rings, the area of the rotor teeth between the groove for
the retaining ring key and the end of the rotor was prone to the development of cracks. Crack also may initiate
due to low cycle fatigue, surface deterioration due to contact phenomena, and material overheating during
accidental operation regimes [86]. In the past, cracks have been found at the slot bottom radius (tooth roots) at
rotor body ends [104]. A newer issue came out, few years ago, regarding tooth tops cracks at the ends of
magnetic steel wedges in the middle 2/3 of the rotor body. The damage is the result of relative motion (fretting)
between wedge and slot dovetail. The phenomenon seems to be related to steel wedges (not aluminum),
large number of starts-stops and / or excessive negative sequence duty [105].
Pole Area / Retaining Rings Seats

The most important risk in the pole area is the overheating due to accidental operation (such as unbalanced
loading), and in a less extent the fatigue at revolution frequency due to alternating bending stresses and the
surface deterioration resulting from contact phenomena. The retaining ring seats may deteriorate due to
contact phenomena and overheat in case of accidental operation. In a less extent, they can be damaged due
to low cycle fatigue created by start-up cycles.
Unbalance / Vibrations
This issue is amply treated in the technical literature [106]-[108] and has been mentioned above in correlation
with the rotor winding problems (thermal sensitivity) as an effect of shorted turns, blocked ventilation passages
or copper turn deformation. Other causes of rotor severe vibration may be: bent rotor shaft, cracks in rotor
shaft, unbalance of rotor components (blower / fans / retaining rings unbalances, fracture of gas baffles,
insulation blocks moving [109]). Uneven tightness of the field wedges can also result in non-uniform
distribution of axial forces around the rotor. This situation is most prevalent when replacing field wedges, in an
inconsistent fit with those of the existing wedges. Similarly, unevenly spaced and fitted distance blocks can
cause a non-uniformity of forces to be transmitted to the rotor, again resulting in bowing of the rotor and a
change in its characteristics. Movement or migration of turn insulation leads to vent hole blockage or
restriction. This leads to uneven heating and bending of the rotor, resulting in rotor vibration.
Page 33
Retaining Rings
The retaining rings are used to restrain the centrifugal force of the rotor winding end turns. The retaining rings
are the most critical component in the rotor and the highest stressed component of the generator.
Considerable technology is used to design, manufacture these rings and to shrink them onto the rotor body. In
modern generators, the retaining rings are shrunken on machined fits at the ends of the rotor forging and are
made from nonmagnetic material (to minimize leakage flux and to reduce losses). Many nonmagnetic retaining
rings presently in service on medium and large units are made of an 18Mn-5Cr alloy and are very susceptible
to stress corrosion cracking in the presence of moisture (while in service or while the rotor is removed from the
stator). To avoid stress corrosion cracking problems, manufacturers are now using 18Mn-18Cr as retaining
ring material, which is highly resistant to stress corrosion cracking [69], [110]-[112]. In addition,
recommendations are made to replace old retaining rings by newer ones manufactured from 18Mn-18Cr steel
[113].
The retaining ring insulation must be mechanically strong to withstand the centrifugal loading, yet flexible
enough to absorb the discontinuities of winding surface, and has to allow end turns movement due to thermal
expansion.
Fans
Generator fans circulate cooling gas (air or hydrogen) throughout the machine to maintain the electrical
windings at safe operating temperatures. Fans vary considerably in features, dimensions, and materials, and
according to coolant direction, can be of axial or radial flow. Some machines incorporate a fan at each end
(turbine and exciter) and others use one fan only. Fans are naturally under high stresses during operation. The
fan blade itself is highly stressed, whether an axial or radial fan. For axial fans, the highest stress occurs in the
base of the blade, or in the blade root attachment to the hub. In addition to the high fundamental tensile stress,
vibratory bending stresses can lead to high cycle fatigue cracking, especially if the blade is resonant. The
highest stressed areas in a radial flow fan most often occur in the blade attachment to the side shrouds [114]-
[117].
Cooling Systems
Air Cooling System

Air-cooled generators can be equipped with either open or closed cooling systems at ambient pressure. In the
case of large machines, cooling air is re-cooled in a secondary circuit, usually by water-air heat exchangers.
The effectiveness of coolers will be reduced if sludge or other matter accumulates in the cooler tubes or if the
outer heat transfer surface of the tubes becomes dirty due to oil, dust, etc. Dirty air filters will reduce the
amount of cooling air circulated, resulting in possible overheating. They will also allow the entrance of dirt and
grit that may damage the machine and choke the ventilating ducts.
Page 34
Hydrogen Cooling System

Hydrogen is used for cooling in most large turbo-generators rather than air for several reasons: better heat
transfer, less friction losses, less partial discharges, higher breakdown voltage. Although a very useful
medium, hydrogen is very dangerous if not handled correctly: danger of explosion appears if the mixture of air
and hydrogen reaches the explosive range [118], [119]. One important generator risk is related to moisture in
the hydrogen gas, which may adversely affect critical components (insulation tracking, stress-corrosion
cracking on retaining rings, etc.) [120]. Most manufacturers use hydrogen dryers, but some of them rely on
seal-oil vacuum treatment to extract the moisture from the hydrogen. Lead carbonate deposit on the outer heat
transfer surfaces of the cooler tubes is a symptom of excessive moisture in hydrogen. The lead comes from
the solder used in the older style spiral fin coolers.
Water Cooling System

In directly water-cooled generators, the water cooling system is used to provide a source of suitable water to
the stator winding. Water-cooling systems are generally used in machines rated at or above 300 MVA. Proper
operation of the system involves tracking many parameters, like: stator cooling water inlet and outlet
temperatures, water pressure, stator winding differential pressure, water flow, etc. The stator cooling water
chemistry imposes interdisciplinary knowledge and involves monitoring of water conductivity, copper / iron
content, hydrogen content, oxygen content (some manufacturers design their generators for High-Oxygen
Systems, others use Low-Oxygen Systems), pH value, deionizer materials / resins. One common risk is
progressive plugging of stator bars due to deposits of copper oxide, leading to excessive temperatures and
limiting the generating capacity of the unit [121]-[128].
Seal-Oil System
As previously mentioned, most large generators use hydrogen under high pressure for cooling the various
internal components. To keep the hydrogen inside the generator, various places in the generator must be
sealed to prevent hydrogen leakage to atmosphere. All hydrogen-cooled generators utilize a pressurized oil
seal to prevent hydrogen from escaping between the shaft and the casing of the generator. This usually
consists of a thrust-bearing type of seal or ring-type seal around the shaft with oil pumped into a gap between
the bearing surface and the shaft at a pressure higher than the hydrogen pressure. There are various
configurations of hydrogen seals and systems for supplying, regulating, draining, and treating the seal oil – i.e.
the seal-oil system [129]. Seal oil units perform a continuous regulating function with respect to various
pressures sensed at several points in the seal oil system. Oil flow rates at the hydrogen seals are based on
the ability of the seal oil unit to regulate pressures. An inability of the seal oil unit to sense pressure, react to
pressure change, or control flow limits will result either in loss of the hydrogen from the generator or in flooding
of the generator with oil.
Bearings and Lube-Oil System
All large turbo-generators use friction (sleeve) type bearings. However, the actual design of the bearing can be
very different among manufacturers. Severe vibration, lack of sufficient flow of oil, deficient cooling, and
Page 35
external pollutants such as foreign materials and shaft currents can result in bearing failures [130], [131].
Damaged / accidentally bridged bearing insulation or neglected shaft grounding devices may destroy the
bearing surfaces by pitting.
The lubricating-oil (lube-oil) system provides oil for all of the turbine and generator bearings and is the source
of seal oil for the seal-oil system. Oil pressure, temperature, and bearing-metal temperature readings should
be obtained to look for any abnormal readings, which can help to identify abnormalities. Inspection of the used
oil may shed some light on the condition of the bearing [132]. Dirt, discoloration, and acidity are reasons for a
change in the oil. Metal particles in the oil are an indication of bearing problems.
Excitation System
The excitation system provides magnetizing current to the generator field. The applied field voltage (and, thus,
field current) controls the generator reactive power output and terminal voltage. Excitation response time must
be fast enough to control the generator during system disturbances or transients. The excitation should be
capable of short time field forcing, meaning two to three times the rated field voltage. The thyristor supply, if
any, imposes additional stresses on the excitation circuits [133].
There are three basic excitation system types: rotating (generator driven or independent), static (solid state)
and brushless (shaft mounted). If provided, the rotating exciters are in fact small generators (DC or AC, in
normal or inverted construction), with their own major risk areas that may directly influence the unit availability.
Moreover, the brushless machines are normally fixed on the same generator shaft with an additional pilot
rotating exciter.
EPRI Report AP-2071 Allianz Handbook Reliability of Rotating Machines

Component Failure Data for of Loss Prevention CIGRE WG 08 of SC 11
Coal Units, 1981 VDI VERLAG, 1987, pp 43 1989
Failure Mode Description Relative Location of Damage Number Component %

Frequency of cases Number
(%) % of Events
Rotor Windings 1.9 Rotor windings 23 Field winding 6

Rotor Collector Rings 1.9 Other rotor components 38 Rotor and attachments 4
Brush Rigging 1.9 Stator windings 33 Stator winding 5
Stator Winding/Bushings 9.2 Stator core 3 Stator core and frame 1
Stator Core Iron 0.3 Casing 3 Excitation and brushgear 32
Generator Main Leads 3.7 Auxiliary systems 38
Lube Oil System/Bearings 3.7 Miscellaneous 14
Exciter 20.3
Voltage Regulator 11.1
H2 Cooling System 7.4
Generator Control 11.1
Miscellaneous 27.7
Table.4.1: Examples of large turbo-generators reliability surveys.
Page 36
Sample Generating Availability Data Report

Fossil, All Fuel, All MW Sizes and Gas Turbine, All MW Sizes
1980-2009 Data Based on 924 unit-years
NERC System/Component Average no.

Cause Cause Code Description occurences
Code per unit-year
4500 Rotor windings 0.030

4510 Rotor collector rings 0.002
4511 Rotor, General 0.001
4520 Stator windings, bushings, and terminals 0.114
4530 Stator core iron 0.003
4535 Stator, General 0.024
4540 Brushes and brush rigging 0.032
4550 Generator bearings and lube oil system 0.020
4555 Bearing cooling system 0.001
4560 Generator vibration 0.013
4570 Generator casing 0.003
4580 Generator end bells and bolting 0.003
4600-4609 Exciter 0.288
4610-4619 Hydrogen cooling system 0.473
4620 Air cooling system 0.012
4630 Liquid cooling system 0.030
4640 Seal oil system and seals 0.008
4700-4750 Controls 0.168
4800-4899 Miscellaneous 0.103
Table 4.2: SAMPLE AVAILABILITY REPORT BASED ON NERC CODES.
STATOR WINDING
BUSHINGS
STATOR
STATOR CORE
CASING
ROTOR WINDING
COLLECTOR and BRUSHES
ROTOR ROTOR FORGING
RETAINING RINGS
FANS
COOLING SYSTEMS
SEAL OIL SYSTEM

AUXILIARY
COMPONENTS BEARINGS & LUBE OIL SYSTEM
EXCITATION SYSTEM
Fig. 4.1 Large turbo-generator components root tree.
Page 37
References
[1] G. Klempner, I. Kerszenbaum, Handbook of Large Turbo-Generator Operation and Maintenance,
WILEY-IEEE Press, Book, 2008.
[2] C. Maughan, Generator Reliability as Influenced by Engineering Design Parameters, Electrical
Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing & Coil Winding Conference, Cincinnati, USA, Oct.
16-18 2001.
[3] C. Maughan, Root-Cause Diagnostics of Generator Service Failures, IEEE International Symposium
on Electrical Insulation, Indianapolis, USA, Sept. 19-22 2004.
[4] W. Moudy, Deterioration Mechanisms in Recent Air Cooled Turbine Generators, Proceedings of
PWR2006: ASME Power, Atlanta, USA, May 2-4 2006.
[5] L. Mamikonyants, V. Pikulsky, F. Polyakov, Service Life Prolongation and Reliability Increase of Long
Operating Turbogenerators, Paper A1-211, CIGRE Session 2006.
[6] J. Timperley, Machine Failure Analysis, DOBLE Revolutionary Machines Seminar, Hollywood, USA,
Nov. 5 – 8 2007.
[7] CIGRE Brochure 386, Generator Maintenance, Inspection and Test Programmes, Working Group
A1.07, August 2009.
[8] IEEE Std 67™-2005, IEEE Guide for Operation and Maintenance of Turbine Generators, IEEE Power
Engineering Society, 8 May 2006.
[9] G. Stone, E. Boulter, I. Culbert, H. Dhirani, Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines, WILEY-IEEE
Press, Book, 2004.
[10] DOBLE Engineering Company, Reference Book on Rotating Machinery Insulation, 2004.
[11] EPRI Report TR-107723, Large Air-Cooled Generators Driven by Combustion Turbines, Generic
Issues, Jan. 1997.
[12] EPRI Report TR-107681, Preventing Leakage in the Strand to Clip Connections of Water-Cooled
Generator Stator Windings, Dec. 1996.
[13] EPRI Report TR-111180, Preventing Leakage in Water-Cooled Stator Windings (Phase 2), Nov.
1998.
[14] EPRI Report 1006684, Prevention of Flow Restrictions in Generator Stator Water Cooling Circuits,
Feb. 2002.
[15] R. Gray, L. Montgomery, R. Nelson, J. Pipkin, S. Joki-Korpela, F. Caguiat, Designing the Cooling
Systems for the World’s Most Powerful Turbogenerator - Olkiluoto Unit 3, IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, June 18-22 2006.
[16] H. Ito, K. Enomoto, H. Shimada, T. Hayashi, T. Osawa, S. Nakayama, M. Kakiuchi H. Katayama,
Generator Replacement Experiences with Innovative Technology, EPRI European TGUG
Meeting/Workshop and Vendor Exposition, Madrid, Spain, June 22-25 2009.
[17] R. Joho, J. Baumgartner, T. Hinkel, C. Stephan, M. Jung, Type-Tested Air-Cooled Turbo-Generator in
the 500 MVA Range, Paper No.11-101, CIGRE Session, 2000.
[18] G. Stone, New Stator Windings Using Thinner Groundwall Insulation, IRIS Power Diagnostic News,
Summer 2002.
[19] Simmonds, Condition Assessment of 170 MVA Air Cooled Turbogenerator, Annual International DOBLE
Client Conference, 2009.
[20] B. Moore, Refurbishment of Large Air-Cooled Generators, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Toronto,
Canada, June 2006.
[21] K. Rodseth, D. Nicholls, L. Mthombeni, Executive report on the Koeberg “Bolt-in-the-Generator” Incident,
Energize Magazine, Sept. 2006.
[22] R. Jeffreys (Convener), Reliability of Rotating Machines, CIGRE Working Group 08 of Study Committee
11, ELECTRA No.126, 1989.
[23] EPRI Report AP-2071, Component Failure and Repair Data for Coal-Fired Power Units, October 1981.
[24] Allianz Handbook of Loss Prevention, VDI VERLAG, Book, 1987.
[25] North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Generating Availability Reports, Generating
Availability Data System (GADS), 2004-2008.
[26] J. Kapler, J. Stein, Probability of Failure Assessment on Generators with Extended Periods Between
Maintenance Outages, EPRI Conference on Utility Generator Predictive Maintenance, Phoenix, USA,
1998.
[27] EPRI Report 1014783, Plant Support Engineering: Main Generator End-of-Life and Planning
Considerations, June 2007.
[28] CIGRE Brochure 392, Survey of Hydrogenerator Failures, Working Group A1.10, Oct. 2009.
[29] R. Fenton, B. Gott, C. Maughan, Preventive Maintenance of Turbine-Generator Stator Windings, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 7, No.1, March 1992.
Page 38
[30] C. Maughan, Partial Discharge as a Concern on Turbine-Generators, EPRI Steam Turbine- Generator
Workshop and Vendor Exposition, Nashville , USA, August 25-27 2003.
[31] B. Vakser, B. Nindra, Insulation Problems in High Voltage Machines, IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 1994.
[32] F. Emery, Stator Coil Insulation for Modern Air-Cooled Generators, IEEE Electrical Insulation
Conference and Electrical Manufacturing and Coil Winding Conference, Cincinnati, USA, 16-18 Oct.
2001.
[33] R. Rehder, V. Mulhall, V. Moore, D. McLaren, All Stator Windings Are Not Created Equal, IEEE
International Conference on Properties and Applications of Dielectric Materials, Beijing, China, 12-16
Sept. 1988.
[34] C. Maughan, G. Stone, Electrical Failure Mechanisms on Large Generator Stator Windings, Annual
International DOBLE Client Conference, 2008.
[35] C. Maughan, Partial Discharge Capability as a Stator Winding Evaluation Tool, International Conference
of DOBLE Clients, 2006.
[36] G. Stone, M. Sasic, D. Dunn, I. Culbert, Recent Problems Experienced with Motor and Generator
Windings, Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, 14-16 Sept. 2009.
[37] J. Wood, Mechanical Stresses in Rotating Machines and Insulation Design Considerations, IEE
Colloquium on Mechanical Influence on Electrical Insulation Performance, Feb. 28 1995.
[38] J. Timperley, Root Cause Analysis of Machine Stator Failures, Annual International DOBLE Conference,
2006.
[39] G. Stone, Problems with Modern Air-Cooled Generator and Motor Stator Windings, Proceedings of the
International Conference of DOBLE Clients, Spring 2004.
[40] J. Timperley, Inspection and On-Line Diagnostic of a 450 MVA Steam Turbine Generator with Fatal
Internal Stator Bar Defects, International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 2004.
[41] G. Stone, C. Maughan, D. Nelson, R. Schultz, Impact of Slot Discharges and Vibration Sparking on
Stator Winding Life in Large Generators, IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, September/October 2008.
[42] J. Bernard, 20 Year's Experience in Wedging Stator Bars with Top Ripple Spring in Belgium, Proceedings
of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1994.
[43] Wilson, Slot Discharge Activity in Stator Winding Insulation, Proceedings of the International Conference
of DOBLE Clients, 1996.
[44] M. Liese, Vibration Sparking, an Ignored Damage Mechanism of High Voltage Windings, IEEE
International Conference on Electrical Machines, Vilamoura, Portugal, Sept. 6-9 2008.
[45] B. Ojha, D. Sood, Experiences of Stator Conductor Oxidation Build up for 500 MW Generators, Paper
A1-201, CIGRE Session 2004.
[46] J. Stein, B. Syrett, R. Chetwynd, J. Sharp, Study Identifies Cooling Problems with Water Cooled
Generators, Power Engineering Magazine, Nov. 2003.
[47] C. Un Yi, I. Soon Hwang, Stator Cooling Degradation by Corrosion Products: A Literature Review and
Remedy Assessment for Kori Nuclear Units 3 and 4, EPRI Utility Motor and Generator Predictive
Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, San Francisco, USA, Dec. 7-9 1993.
[48] R. Yusoff, B. Moore, A Forced Outage: Emergency Repair of an Overheated Generator, Power
Engineering International, March 2009.
[49] E. Ponce de León, Experiences with Hydrogen Direct Cooling Stator Windings, IRIS Rotating Machine
Conference, 2000.
[50] J. Kuzawinski, G. Wolff, A New Look at Reliability of Asphalt-Mica Insulation in Large Conventionally
Cooled Turbine Generators, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-89, No. 6,
July/Aug. 1970.
[51] G. Griffith, S. Tucker, J. Milsom, G. Stone, Problems with Modern Air-Cooled Generator Stator Winding
Insulation, IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2000.
[52] J. Nurse, Modern Global Vacuum and Pressure Insulation Systems for Large High Voltage Machines,
IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing and Coil Winding Conference,
Rosemont, USA, 22-25 Sept. 1997.
[53] R. Schultz, Premature Failure of a 18 kV Air Cooled Generator, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference,
Long Beach, USA, 2008.
[54] G. Stone, Examples of Premature Stator Winding Failure in Recently Manufactured Motors and
Generators, Insucon International Conference, Birmingham, UK, 2006.
[55] J. Wood, R. Hindmarch, Deterioration of Slot Stress Control Materials on Generator Stator Conductors
by Non Mechanical Mechanisms, IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Toronto,
Canada, June 3-6 1990.
Page 39
[56] V. Kogan, F. Dawson, G. Gao, B. Nindra, Surface Corona Suppression in High Voltage Stator Winding
End Turns, IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing and Coil Winding
Conference, Sept. 18-21 1995.
[57] R. Tremblay, C. Hudon, T. Ggodin, M. Belec, J. Banville, D. Nguyen, Improvement in Requirements for
Stress Grading Systems of Stator Windings at Hydro-Quebec, Paper A1-101, CIGRE Session 2006.
[58] M. Belec, S. Li, D. Nguyen, L. Lepine, C. Guddemi, D. Lessard-Deziel, T. Schwartz, L. Lamarre,
Investigation and Diagnosis of a 184 MVA Air-Cooled Generator Heavily Affected by Slot Partial
Discharge Activity, Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing & Expo ,Nashville,
USA, Oct. 22-24 2007.
[59] G. Stone, E. Goodeve, Keeping Stator and Rotor Windings Clean, IRIS Power Diagnostic News, July
2008.
[60] E. Borkey, T. Reynolds, Water Contamination in Hydrogen-Cooled Generators Lurks as Serious
Operational Threat, Power Engineering, Aug. 2003.
[61] H. Perrin, Generator Failure - Water Way to Go, Middle East Energy, March 2008.
[62] B. Yamin, Analyses of Typical Fault on Stator End-Windings of Turbine-Generator and Available
Countermeasures, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, San Antonio, USA, June 2007.
[63] J. Jensen, J. Linn, A Permanent Solution to Generator Vibration Problems, POWER Magazine, April 15,
2006.
[64] E. Robles, J. Lopez, A. Medina, Description of a Violent Failure of a 346 MVA Generator, Proceedings
of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1996.
[65] J. Stein, G. Helmberger, R. Longwell, Water-Cooled Stator Windings - Industry Experience with Leaks,
Proceedings of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1996.
[66] P. Jain, U. Bhakta, S. Sanyal, Hydrogen Leakage Due to Stress Corrosion Cracking of Stator
Conductors in 210 MW Generator: A Case Study, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 15,
No. 1, March 2000.
[67] Kreiselman, Generator Stator Bar Ground Fault at Israel Electric, EPRI Utility Generator Predictive
Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, Jan. 15-19, 2001.
[68] E. Floyd, R. Halpern, B. Syrett, Effects of Water Chemistry on Crevice Corrosion, Annual International
Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1999.
[69] W. Moore, Corrosion of Generators, Corrosion: Environments and Industries, Vol. 13C, ASM Handbook,
ASM International, Book, 2006, p 497–498.
[70] Kreiselman, Generator Stator Total Rewind after a Stator Bar Ground Fault at Israel Electric, Med Power
– IET Conference, Israel, 2006.
[71] P. Frazza, D. David, The Rewinding of 4 Water-Cooled Stator Windings, Proceedings of the
International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 2002.
[72] J. Oliver, J. Michalec, B. Zimmerli, R. Joho, N. Krick, A. Huber, Generator Winding Design - Amos 3 with
25 Years Experience, IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2002.
[73] Showalter, J. Edmonds, In-service Winding Failure of Newly Installed Replacement Stator, IEEE Electric
Machines and Drives Conference, Seattle, USA, May 9-12, 1999.
[74] D. Sood, P. Anil Kumar, Experiences of Air Cooled Generator Stator Flexible Failures, Paper A1-111,
CIGRE Session, 2008.
[75] H. Dhirani, B. Wallace, B. Weber, P. Tandon, Hydrogen Leakage from Generator Terminal Bushings,
EPRI Utility Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, Jan.
15-18, 2001.
[76] P. Tavner, A. Anderson, Core Faults in Large Generators, IEE Proceedings Electric Power Applications,
Vol. 152, No. 6, Nov. 2005.
[77] M. Horton, G. Slovisky, B. Moore, Riverbend 4 & 5 Stator Core and Coil Failure, EPRI International
Workshop on Maintaining the Integrity of Generator Cores, San Antonio, USA, 2001.
[78] J. Edmonds, A. Daneshpooy, S. Murray, R. Sire, Turbogenerator Stator Core Study, IEEE International
Symposium on Diagnostics for Electric Machines, Power Electronics and Drives, SDEMPED 2009, 6-8
Sept. 2007.
[79] J. Timperley, Core Failure of 722 MVA Generator, Proceedings of the International Conference of
DOBLE Clients, 2003.
[80] M. Hoffer, Core-Initiated Failure of a 475 MVA Generator, Proceedings of the Annual International
Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1997.
[81] B. Ojha, S. Yadav, D. Sood, 500 MW Generator Noise and Vibration Problem, Paper 11-304, CIGRE
Session 2002.
[82] J. Stein, A. Spisak, Generator Core Investigation and the Importance of Good Lamination Contact at the
Back of the Core, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Santa Monica, USA, June 2003.
Page 40
[83] Hitachi Generator Global Service, Generator Back-of-Core Burning (Core Inspection Practice), EPRI
European TGUG Meeting/Workshop and Vendor Exposition, Madrid, Spain, June 22-25 2009.
[84] J-L. Drommi, J. Herigault, Experience Feedback on Insulated Bearing of Large Turbo Generators, IRIS
Rotating Machine Conference, Santa Monica, USA, June 2003.
[85] R. Rotzinger, R. de Pietro, R. Booth, Risk Analysis on Turbogenerator Rotors and Recommendations,
EPRI Utility Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, Jan.
15-19, 2001.
[86] R. Zawoysky, K. Tornroos, GE Generator Rotor Design, Operational Issues, and Refurbishment
Options, GER-4212, GE Power Systems, 2001.
[87] J. Guillard, Study of Rotor Winding Integrity, CIGRE Working Group 11.01, ELECTRA No. 169, Dec.
1996.
[88] M. Miller, General Concepts Related to Turbine Generator Insulation Materials Used in Rotor Windings,
IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference, Montreal, Canada, 31 May - 3 June 2009.
[89] F. Reidelberger, M. Bresney, Inter-Layer Brazing Solution to Eliminate Generator Field Copper Dusting,
unknown source.
[90] G. Klempner, R. Nold, Ontario Hydro Experience with Copper Dusting in Large Steam Turbine Driven
Generator Rotors, EPRI Utility Motor and Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment
Conference, San Francisco, USA, Dec. 7-9 1993.
[91] J. Trainor, B. Moore, Innovative Repair Approach to Rotor Pole-to-Pole Connector Failures, IRIS
Rotating Machine Conference, San Antonio, USA, June 2007.
[92] EPRI Report 1013458, Main Generator Rotor Maintenance Lessons Learned, Nov. 2006.
[93] C. Maughan, Carbon Brush Collector Maintenance on Turbine-Generators, IEEE Electrical Insulation
Conference and Electrical Manufacturing Expo, Nashville, USA, 22-24 Oct. 2007.
[94] D. Cutsforth, Power Plant Collector Rings and Related Parts, unknown source.
[95] M. Bresney, In-Situ Collector Connection Failure & Repairs, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, San
Antonio, USA, June 2007.
[96] S. Higgins, Shaft Earthing Brush Comparison Carried out on ESKOM’s Generators, IRIS Rotating
Machine Conference, San Antonio, USA, June 2002.
[97] J. Bothwell, Rotating Machinery: Controlling Shaft Voltages and Shaft Voltage Case Studies, POWER
Magazine, May 1, 2007.
[98] G. Buckley, R. Corkins, R. Stephens, The Importance of Grounding Brushes to the Safe Operation of
Large Turbine Generators, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 3, No. 3, Sept. 1988.
[99] P. Nippes, E. Galano, Shaft Electrical Profile Provides Early Warning of Problems, EPRI Utility
Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, Jan. 15-19,
2001.
[100] J. Guillard, Study of Revalidation of Rotor Forgings, CIGRE Working Group 11.01, ELECTRA No. 168,
Oct. 1996.
[101] K. Schöllhorn, G. Ebi, K. Steigleder, Fretting Fatigue Cracking of a 936 MW Turbo-Generator Rotor,
Failure Analysis and Refurbishment, unknown source.
[102] F. de Bobadilla, S. Soto, N. Kilpatrick, Root Cause Evaluation of a Generator Rotor Crack, EPRI
[103] D. Rosario, T. Khalid, Generator Shaft Keyway Cracking Failure Investigation, EPRI Steam
Turbine/Generator Workshop, Denver, USA, August 22-24 2005.
[104] G. Klempner, Ontario Hydro Experience with Generator Rotor Forging Cracks at the Winding Slot Tooth
Roots, IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives Conference, Seattle, USA, May 9-12 1999.
[105] H. Ito, Fretting Fatigue of Slot-dovetails in Turbo-Generator Rotor (From O&M Issues Discussed in
Recent EPRI Meetings), IEEE International Conference on Electric Machines and Drives, May 15-15
2005.
[106] B. Moore, Improvements for Generator Rotor Unbalance, International Joint Power Generation
Conference, Baltimore, USA, August 24-26, 1998.
[107] R. Zawoysky, W. Genovese, Generator Field Thermal Sensitivity - Theory and Experience, EPRI Utility
Motor and Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, San Francisco, USA,
Dec. 7-9 1993.
[108] N. Misra, D. Sood, Failure Analysis of Generator Rotors - Causes and Preventions, Paper A1-205,
CIGRE Session, 2006.
[109] L. Mock, Diagnosis and Repair of Severe Rotor Vibration during Deceleration of a Simple Cycle Frame 7
Gas Turbine, Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1998.
[110] J. Heard (Convener), Report on the Mechanical Properties of Turbine Generator Rotor Endrings,
CIGRE Working Group 11.01, ELECTRA No. 117, 1988.
Page 41
[111] R. Zawoysky, GE Generator Rotor Retaining Rings: Experience and Fleet Data, GER-3930, GE Power
Systems, 1995.
[112] EPRI Report TR-102949, Generator Retaining Ring Moisture Protection Guide, Sept. 1993.
[113] B. Guigues, J. Hodge, M. Liese, J. Petty, Turbine Generator Rotor End Rings: Guidance for
Replacement with 18:18 Material, CIGRE SC 11, ELECTRA No. 139, Dec. 1991.
[114] B. Moore, Case Histories of Generator Rotor Fan Failures & Methods of Repair, Energy Tech Magazine,
Feb. 1, 2004.
[115] S. Moussavi Torshizi, S. Yadavar Nikravesh, A. Jahangiri, Failure analysis of gas turbine generator
cooling fan blades, Engineering Failure Analysis 16, 2009.
[116] V. Ostovic, Acoustic Resonance in Electric Machines, IEEE Industry Applications Conference, Thirty-
Sixth IAS Annual Meeting, 2001.
[117] P. Heikkinen, D. Singh, Catastrophic Failure and Subsequent Repairs of a 75,206 KVA Turbine
Generator, Proceedings of the International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 2006.
[118] Neville, Lessons Learned from a Hydrogen Explosion, Power Magazine, May 1 2009.
[119] D. Petty, Experience with Generator Hydrogen Supply and Purging Systems, CIGRE Working Group
11.01, ELECTRA No. 176, Feb. 1998.
[120] D. Smith, Adequate Cooling of Generators is Essential, Power Engineering, Sept. 2002.
[121] E. Floyd, C. Carpenter, R. Jones, R. Svoboda, On-Line Chemical Cleaning of a Water Cooled Generator
Stator, Annual International Conference of DOBLE Clients, Boston, USA, April 12-16 1999.
[122] C. Guillaumin, M. Berlamont, J. Maujean, O. Menet, D. Vermeeren, EDF/GEC Alsthom: Experience with
Treatment of the Cooling Water Circuit of Generator Stators, EPRI Workshop, Atlanta, USA, June 5-6,
1995.
[123] G. Perboni, C. Borrione, Copper Corrosion in the Stator Cooling Circuits, unknown source.
[124] R. Svoboda, H. Sandmann, H. Seipp, C.Liehr, Water Chemistry in Generator Water Cooling Systems,
International VGB-EPRI Conference on Interaction of Non-Iron Based Materials with Water and Steam,
Piacenza, Italy, June 1996.
[125] M. Mitch, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Stator Cooling Water Chemistry, Proceedings of the
[126] J. Heard (convener), Summary Report to Questionnaire Corrosion in Water Cooled Generator Windings,
CIGRE Working Group 11.01, ELECTRA No. 96, 1984.
[127] EPRI Report 1004004, Generator Cooling System Operating Guidelines, Dec. 2001.
[128] R. Svoboda, D. Palmer, Behaviour of Copper in Generator Stator Cooling-Water Systems, 15th
International Conference on the Properties of Water and Steam, Berlin, Germany, Sept. 7 - 11, 2008.
[129] J-L. Drommi, Electricite de France Experience with Hydrogen Leaks in Large Turbo Generators, EPRI
Utility Generator Predictive Maintenance and Refurbishment Conference, New Orleans, USA, Jan. 15-
19, 2001.
[130] EPRI Report TR-113059-V1, Bearing Technology Topics, Sept. 1999.
[131] L. Branagan, Fluid-Film Bearings: Fundamentals, Damage Mechanisms and Assessment, EPRI
[132] D. Walsh, Lubrication Challenges Facing the Power Generation Community – Issues and Strategies for
Trouble Free Operation, Annual International DOBLE Client Conference, 2007.
[133] Nagy, P. Korondi, Z. Süto, T. Ruzsányi, J. Móricz, Voltage Stress of the Rotor Winding in Turbine-
Generator Furnished by Thyristor Exciter, Paper 11-205, CIGRE Session 1998.
Page 42
Chapter 5: Repair versus Replacement Considerations
Generator Stator Winding
Introduction
Fundamental maintenance of stator windings may be required in various circumstances, like faults, unit life
extension or plant uprating. The essential maintenance may consist of repairs, partial / complete rewinding of
stator bars or even machine replacement, as exemplified in the references mentioned below.
Individual stator bars or entire stator windings will need repair or replacement depending upon the severity and
extent of damage. The decision depends on many factors [1]-[3], for instance:
• The extent of the failure damage

• Cost in parts and labor
• Spares availability
• Time to repair (outage duration restrictions)
• Operational history (base / cycling load, start-stop duty, operational events)
• Future operation required regime
• Age and maintenance history
• Probability that the repair will stop or slow down a failure mechanism
• Desired reliability, life extension
• Additional potential advantages (e.g. increased output or efficiency).
What solution the user will select - repair, partial or full rewinding - often depends on a complex economic /
engineering evaluation. For large machines that are critical to plant production; an extensive cost/benefit
analysis should be carried out to determine the best repair method. Several examples of detailed decision
considerations are detailed in [4]-[15].
Various essential maintenance solutions for stator windings are mentioned below, starting from the relative
inexpensive and fast ones, up to the most costly and time-consuming - but also most reliable – works.
Specific Repair on Individual Failure Mechanism

Some specific repair procedures are recommended by certain manufacturers for particular failure
mechanisms.
One example includes stator coolant leaks in water-cooled bars (crevice corrosion mechanism). The specific
repair can be performed by water clip replacement (slightly different alternatives are proposed by different
manufacturers [16]), or can be done by epoxy injection, precisely performed between the strands at the braze,
without removing the bar [2].
Another repair example involves a thermal (load) cycling failure mechanism in air-cooled Global VPI stators,
and consists of injecting conductive epoxy or conducting RTV (CRTV) into the slots between the coils and the
core [17].
Page 43
Cutting Out Stator Coils (Omitted Turns)

On smaller units, if damage is limited, a possible strategy is to isolate the damaged bars from the rest of the
winding, in order to quickly return the machine back to service. The omitted-turns solution may achieve the
required time to order a new winding. This should only be done under the guidance of the original
manufacturer, as isolation of bars will increase the harmonic content of the air gap flux waveform, resulting in
excessive rotor surface heating if the harmonic levels are too high. This technique will limit the generator
output and should be regarded only as a temporary expedient used to return the unit to service [2].
Repair of Bar Insulation

In some situations where spare bars are not available and it is critical to return the unit to service, stator bar
re-insulation can be considered. In this option, the damaged ground insulation is stripped and re-applied [18],
[19]. This can only be considered if the internal bar structure is undamaged. If the local damage is in the
overhang part, in many cases a qualified repair is possible. If this is not possible, the failed bars must be
removed from the stator without degrading the internal bar structure. If the bar is mechanically overstressed
during removal, there is a risk of causing electrical shorts between strands. Careful testing is needed after the
bar is removed and during the repair to assure the bar is suitable for return to service.
Partial Rewind
If the damage is not extensive and spare bars are available or can be manufactured quickly, a partial rewind
may be a good repair option [20]. In considering a partial vs. a full stator rewind, it is important to consider that
if the failed bar is a bottom bar, a significant number of top bars will need to be removed to get at the bottom
bar. There is a possibility of damage to top bars during removal, so some top bars will need to be included in
the order for the necessary bottom bar replacement.
The bars to be used in a partial rewind should be carefully specified. Their overall design should be fully
interchangeable with the original bars. A few well-formulated threshold requirements are recommended to be
included in the specification, in order to verify the manufacturer experience with similar generators (i.e. having
the same or higher rated voltage, same cooling method, same or higher output). A good specification should
also include important data, for example: machine rating (continuous and peak capabilities), stator cooling
details, insulation system requirements (e.g. insulation class), etc. The specification should state the
manufacturer’s responsibility in providing bars suitable for use in the existing generator, because the
purchaser is typically not able to specify essential dimensional requirements of the unit. Special attention
should be paid to required routine tests (or acceptance tests) of the finished bars. It is advisable that the
manufacturing process will include bar geometry verifications in a jig or core template set up in the factory,
sometimes called a dummy stator core, used to check dimensions during manufacturing.
In Global VPI generators, the replacement of stator bars in the field can be a difficult and risky task. While
removal of the existing individual bars may be possible, there is potential risk of damaging the stator core in
the process. In these generators, replacement of a top bar involves many destructive efforts such as cutting of
the end-winding and individually removing bar strands and slot insulation. There exists well established
procedures for stator bar replacement including also a bottom layer bar. Nevertheless, if bottom bars fail, it
could be an option that the entire winding has to be burned out and the stator has to be completely rewound
[3]. Asking the OEM for a spare stator could be a faster option in many cases.
Complete Rewind
If a stator winding has been destroyed as a result of a failure, or the deterioration is widespread, then a full
rewind may be the best option, permitting the owner to have the winding returned to "as new" condition. While
it is the most costly and time-consuming solution, it ensures that the future reliability of the unit is maximized
Page 44
and provides the greatest flexibility to the designer for providing up-rates and efficiency improvements [21],
[22].
An average stator full rewind time is around 6-8 weeks, from initial unit shut-down to restart [23]. This time
frame does not include the up-front lead time to manufacture replacement stator bars, and therefore the total
forced outage time will be much longer if suitable spare bars are not available in sufficient quantity for the
repair. Conversely, if a scheduled generator stator rewind is well-prepared beforehand, and the stator bars
have been procured in advance, it is possible to complete the bar replacement in 30 days or even less, [25].
Therefore, the ready availability of spare bars, after a winding failure occurs, can reduce total forced outage
time significantly [4].
As mentioned above, the rewinding of Global VPI stators impose special challenges and normally the entire
winding has to be burned out, potentially involving damage to the stator core [7].
Having a well-developed full rewind specification already developed prior to bid is important if the user hopes
to ensure that a long life is obtained from the rewound stator [26]-[28]. The specification should cover, as a
minimum, the following: voltage, current, and temperature ratings, applicable turbo-generator international
standards, losses limits vs. existing winding, quality control tests during bars manufacture and installing
process, etc. If the purchaser has no previous experience with a new supplier, a sample bar insulation test
(voltage endurance test) may be required. Voltage Endurance Testing can be done according to International
Standards like IEC 60034-18-32 or Kema Specification S13/14 (2009), or IEEE 1043 and IEEE 1553.
Full Rewind following Winding or Core Failure:

Some examples of stator winding failures that finally involve a total rewind are ground fault or short-circuit
following insulation deterioration, leakages or blocked hollow strands (in case of water-cooled windings),
maintenance high potential test failure, etc. Catastrophic rotor failures, severe operating incidents or loose
metallic objects in the machine can also implicate a stator rewind.
Various core severe faults and repairs require dismantling and assembling back of the stator winding, i.e. a full
rewind (though sometimes, a part of the existing bars can be reused). Some examples are back-of-core-
burning [29] or stator core restack to eliminate localized hot spots following lamination insulation breakdown
and their growing in size and intensity [30]. Details about stator core fundamental maintenance are included in
the section below called “Generator Stator Core.”
Full Rewind for Reliability Improvement / Life Extension:

Sometimes, even without any serious failure, the refurbishment of an existing generator may be an attractive
cost alternative. If a systematic failure mechanism is known, it is often possible to change the design of the
winding to reduce the risk of the same failure process happening again. A total rewind will normally permit an
upgrade of the end-winding support and wedging system or may solve hazardous material issues, like
removing old asbestos-based insulation. Thus, the generator is modernized for a specified extended design
life with accompanying technical and commercial assurances [31]-[39], sometimes even including a complete
new stator insert (active core and winding) [40]. An opposite strategy stipulates that the rewind engineering /
economical decision should be based on deterioration found by tests or visual inspection and not on age alone
[41].
Full rewind for Capacity Increase (Uprating):

Contrary to modernization (meaning replacement or improvement of components in order to improve
availability and reduce labor-intensive maintenance), the definition of uprating is the replacement or
Page 45
improvement of components required to increase the unit kVA output. (Note: the term upgrading is used in
some areas to mean "uprate" and in others to mean "modernization.")
Modern insulation systems need less insulation thickness, allowing more copper to be inserted in existing
slots. Also, newer materials may allow the machine to be operated at higher temperatures. A rewind can
reduce stator winding losses significantly, thereby increasing efficiency and power output. A generator uprate
offers a cost effective means of increasing capacity in most cases (often 10%, and sometimes up to 15%) and,
therefore, increasing revenues when combined with a boiler and steam turbine retrofit [42]-[46]. Before
implementing an uprating project, it is very important to properly analyze the existing stator winding and its
insulation design; all components related to the generator should be reevaluated, like rotor, excitation circuit,
bus ducts, main unit transformer, high voltage switchyard, stator core end zone design, etc. Older designs
typically have reserve capacity for additional uprating potential. This is true for both the stator core and the
winding.
Full Rewind towards Operation Regime Change:

Turbogenerators operated cyclically in order to meet peak-load demand are, unlike machines in continuous
base-load service, exposed to additional pulsating stresses. Consequently, they suffer from accelerated
materials fatigue. The materials used, and also the design and manufacturing of the component parts of peak-
load generators, must therefore meet requirements that are both extensive and stringent. As the demand for
peak-load generators grows, utilities may convert their base-load machines in fossil-fuel steam power plants
for peak-load duty.
In order to guarantee the dielectric and mechanical behavior of the stator winding during cyclic operation,
certain conditions must be met, like avoiding separation between the copper and the insulation, low
temperature gradients across the conductors, hot-spot conductors' temperature lying well below the
temperature limit for the insulation class, etc. Fitting these requirements may impose the need for a stator
complete rewind [47], [48]. Also a new stator core with better cooling and improved end-core design may be
required.
Generator Stator Core
Introduction
As generators age, and reliability decreases, owners are eventually faced with major refurbishment decisions.
Since the stator winding and insulation system has a typical life of 30 to 40 years, a common choice is to
rewind the generator with additional copper and modern insulation materials. Putting more copper into the
existing generator stator core slot often achieves a significant unit uprate. The generator core, thought to have
a much longer life, is evaluated and typically put back into service with minor repairs as needed. Sometimes,
however, there are significant generator core problems that require careful evaluation and consideration.
Correcting the problem, depending upon its scope and nature, or depending upon the ultimate goal, can range
from a localized repair, to a full core replacement.
The text below examines three generator core related problems. The first section deals with minor core
repairs, including shorting of the iron laminations due to a mechanical rub or abrasion. Also discussed are
some other core problems that fall into the minor category. The second case history describes a major core
repair consisting of a partial core re-stack. Damage, due to a coil failure, was the driving factor. The third
situation involves an owner that elected to completely replace the entire generator core. Reasons for replacing
Page 46
the core are discussed, in addition to the cost/benefit analysis of laser cutting the laminations versus stamping.
Before each of these case histories are presented, background information on generator cores is given. This
includes general design considerations, function, common materials, operating stresses and typical failure
modes.
Minor Core Repair

Localized Iron Damage on the Core Surface:
Sometimes during a generator refurbishment project that includes a stator rewind, localized areas of damage
on the core surface are found. These occur when the inter-laminar insulation between two or more lamination
sheets is damaged and the laminations are shorted together. Removal often occurs by smearing of the steel,
due to rubbing or abrasion by the rotor, foreign object or a heavy tool. It can also occur during the coil and
wedge removal and installation process, if necessary care is not exercised. The shorted areas that are most
accessible are also the easiest to repair. Sometimes, small, local damage areas to the core are barely
noticeable during a visual inspection. Hot spots, representing areas of shorted iron, will show up best upon
doing a core loop test, or an EL Cid test. A loop test showing a 5 degree Centigrade elevated temperature
above the average core temperature warrants investigation and repair if possible. An El Cid test value greater
than 100 milliamps, at 4% of full core excitation level, likewise, warrants investigation. Deep seated faults
deserve special review. Local iron damage can best be repaired by grinding away the smeared metal down to
the area where the inter-laminar insulation is intact. It is important to grind with the lamination to prevent
further smearing. Etching, with an acid solution, can also effectively remove the smeared metal and restore
the inter-laminar resistance between adjacent laminations .
Damage Beneath the Core Surface:

Shorted laminations beneath the core inner diameter, either at the bottom of the slot or deep into the back
iron, are the most difficult to repair. Localized hot spots (due to shorted laminations) near the surface are
generally visible within a few minutes of starting a core loop test. Areas with elevated temperature readings
that are deeper, well below the iron’s visible surface, naturally show up after a longer period of time due to the
time it takes for the heat to transfer through the iron. Loop tests are usually only run for about 1 hour, since
after that time, the entire core becomes overheated and hot spots become less distinguished. Elevated
temperature readings or a high level of El Cid test values in iron that is inaccessible presents a more difficult
dilemma. Usually, if high El Cid test values are found, a core loop test is done to corroborate the El Cid test,
and vice versa. The author has seen a unit returned to normal operating service with El Cid values of 900
milliamps, with no apparent visible damage. Incidentally, a core loop test showed no elevated temperatures.
Regardless of the test results, elevated readings indicating damage down deep are not easily repairable.
Often, an owner will decide to return the unit to service, with the plan to re-inspect at the next scheduled
shutdown. Installation of temperature sensors at the local damaged core area and at the sound core part
nearby, could be performed to monitor the defect area and shut down the generator before core burning take
place.
In summary, minor core damage that consists of a few damaged laminations can be easily repaired if
accessible. During a stator rewind, more areas of the core are accessible with the coils removed from the slot.
At this time, damage at the bottom of the slot or along the core teeth can be addressed. Even more
substantial damage, but damage that is localized, can be repaired without a full restack. In some cases, a few
coils may have to be removed to gain proper access. There have been cases of an entire stator core tooth
packet melted away during a fault. The core is repaired by providing a G-10 material substitute (Glass Epoxy
Composite) to provide support for the coil.
Page 47
Partial Core Restack

More significant damage to the core involving a large area of melting, can sometimes be addressed through a
partial core restack. If the damage covers a large area, but the area is at one end of the generator or the
other, a partial restack may be possible. The advantage with the partial restack is that the generator does not
have to be upended in a vertical position.
A partial restack done to address significant core damage at one end of the stator, consists first of all,
removing the stator winding, then removing all of the damaged laminations in the area of the failure, then
restacking the core with new core laminations - keeping the stator in the horizontal position. This does take
special tooling and effort to assure significant tightness of the core during the restack. It is challenging to work
in this situation with tools and laminations overhead, without the benefit of gravity. The time and cost savings
in not having to upright the generator is significant, however.
Complete Core Restack

In the case of severe damage throughout the core or hot spots in many areas of the core, a complete core
restack may be necessary. Before doing a core restack, both the EL CID and Core Loop Tests should be
done and show good correlation that a localized repair or partial restack cannot be done. For very old
machines beyond 50 years of age, there may be benefits in a complete restack to utilize new steel with lower
losses, better strength, and more reliable lamination insulation. New design of stepped core ends with better
cooling and more homogeneous flux distribution could increase capacitive load (under-excitation). A complete
restack may be warranted also to install a larger coil slot, which allows additional copper and may facilitate a
significant stator winding uprate. Advantages in changing out the core include increased reliability due to
improved C-5 lamination insulation, harder alloyed steel, lower loss iron, and the freedom to open up the slot
putting more copper in the stator coil winding.
Laser Cutting Cost Advantage:

In emergency situations, when responding to a forced outage, laser cut laminations can be supplied both in a
complete or partial restack. They offer a quick turnaround, since a new punching die does not have to be
manufactured. The laser cutter can utilize the shape and dimensions of an original core lamination. For
partial core restacks or smaller machines, providing laser cut laminations is an advantage. For large
machines in which a complete core restack is required, stamped laminations will likely offer the lower cost
solution.
Improved Inter-laminar Insulation:

New steel should have a C-5, ceramic based inter-laminar insulation coating on each side. Although laser
cutting promises “zero” burr, it is advisable to sand and recoat the edges of the laser cut lamination to assure
proper insulation integrity. A typical older coating might yield a Franklin Test value of 4.8 amps. Modern C-5
inorganic insulation coating would give a typical Franklin value of about 0.5 amps.
Improved Material Hardness:

On old machines with over 40 years of service, core lamination steel hardness can be as low as 35 measured
on the Rockwell B scale. Today's alloys would typically measure in the range of 80 Rockwell B, providing
Page 48
significantly more durability, handling stability and resistance to deformation. Typically, older steels were hot
rolled to their final thickness, while today’s processing techniques cold rolls to the final thickness.
Improved Core Losses with New Steel:

In terms of losses, older steels typically contain much less silicon, meaning higher losses. One unit,
constructed in the late 1920’s, had a lamination steel silicon content of 1.72% with a core loss of 2.65 Watts/lb.
Today’s silicon content would typically be around 3.2%, with a considerably lower core loss of 1.45 Watts/lb.
For one unit, new core iron would represent an 8% savings in the overall losses.
The electromagnetic design of the core will be based on either grain oriented or non-grain oriented magnetic
steel. Extreme care should be taken if a decision is made to switch from one type of steel to another for either
a full or partial core restack.
In summary, a full restack of the core is necessary if significant damage is noted over large areas of the unit.
Typically, a full restack is done with the uprighting of the generator in the vertical position. One OEM has
developed a process where a complete core restack can be done on a planned basis, leaving the unit in the
horizontal position. The core laminations are pre-stacked, pressed and cured together with epoxy resin in the
OEM’s shop to core part rings called donuts. These donuts can be set up into the stator frame with special
tools in horizontal position and pressed together. A careful review of the damage, costs and benefits should
be done to determine the work scope involving the stator core. Typically, with forced outage situations, the
least involved workscope is the best approach. On a planned basis, a full core restack as part of a needed
stator rewind may offer benefits that outweigh the total costs. Careful consideration and evaluation should be
given to older stator cores when performing a generator rewind, uprate or general refurbishment of the unit.
Advances in core iron materials and insulation could provide increased reliability as part of a core
replacement. New iron also gives increased flexibility on changing the slot size, and hence the coil size.
Additional uprating may then be possible.
Whole Generator Replacement
When faced with the necessity of a major generator rebuild, utilities start looking for a replacement machine
that can be moved to the power plant quickly and installed in place of the damaged unit. After extensive failure
of the stator winding or stator core, the long rebuild works can be performed at manufacturer facilities or
sometimes at the site or another off-site location. During that time, the unit may continue to generate power
with a temporary installed generator. Even though a temporary arrangement is possible, significant but
worthwhile work may be needed to install this replacement generator [49]-[51].
A case history [74] of a generator replacement involved 6 off 350 MW turbo-generators for a thermal power
station, which had been in operation base-load for nearly 30 years. The unit aged and developed various
problems including shorted laminations in the stator core, overheating and cracks in the stator core press
plate, looseness at the stator core end portion, excessive vibration and cracks in the ground wall insulation at
the stator coil end portion, blocking of hollow strands in the stator bars and rotor vibration by thermal
sensitivity. A desire to uprate the generator from 350MW to 400MW existed. In the existing turbo-generator,
hydrogen gas was used to cool the rotor and stator core, and de-ionized water was used to cool the stator
winding. In addition, in order to satisfy the transportation weight limit, the original stator had been built as two
pieces - an inner cage and the outer frame. Another option could be a pool contract of several utilities running
the same type of generator and having bought one spare generator. If a generator of the pool partners fails,
the pool generator could be used and the failed generator has to be repaired and will become the new pool
Page 49
spare generator. This is a successfully and economically used strategy for large generators to achieve
minimum outage time and maximum availability.
In order to solve the existing problems and to increase the capacity, various solutions and alternatives were
evaluated. These included partial repairs, rewind, core restack and whole generator replacement. For the
whole generator replacement option, a conversion from water cooled stator to hydrogen cooled posed several
advantages which made this option look most attractive. A generator which is cooled with only hydrogen gas
has the following advantages to a water-cooled generator; easy maintenance by simplification of the cooling
system, no risk of inherent problems for water-cooled stator bars such as water leakage and plugging of
hollow conductor and no operating power of the water cooling unit.
The overall evaluation for not only the solutions of the problems of the existing machine, but also the life cycle
cost in the future 30 years of operation, maintainability improvement, etc., led to the conclusion that
replacement with a generator solely cooled with hydrogen gas was the optimum solution.
Rotor Field Winding
Turbine driven generators are typically reliable machines with overall low forced outage rates and high
availability. Over time, however, generators age due to repeated load and speed cycling, reducing the
remaining life of the rotor insulation system. Inevitably, due to this repeated stress, the insulation fails and the
rotor needs to be rewound by reinsulating the rotor coils and reinstalling them back into the rotor.
A common question during this rewind period is, “Does the rotor copper coils need to be replaced with new
copper, or can the old copper be used?” The straight forward answer is, “Original or old copper can be reused
in about 95% of the rewind cases.” Copper maintains its original properties very well. Fortunately, electrical
conductivity doesn’t deteriorate over time. The original copper can simply be removed from the existing
forging, cleaned, reinsulated and reinstalled. There are, however, special cases (the other 5%), when the
copper should be replaced. This section discusses these special cases, and all the factors involved in
deciding on replacing the old copper with new copper. By knowing the factors involved in requiring new
copper, the reader can decide, with confidence, to reuse the original copper when the circumstances are right.
Background
For background purposes, it is beneficial to summarize some of the key properties of the most used types of
copper for rotor rewinds. For rotor winding coils, most commonly used is CDA (Copper Development
Association) 107, a high conductivity oxygen free copper with silver added for additional strength. Sometimes
this product is called silver bearing copper. Other key components involved in the rotor rewind are radial
leads, axial leads, pole to pole crossovers, and coil to coil crossovers. CDA 101 is often used for these
components, with a few exceptions. Finally, there is a higher fatigue resistance copper, CDA 655, used in
certain instances when the rotor turns are more susceptible to fatigue cracking. Key properties of these
particular coppers are listed in table 5.1.
Page 50
CDA 107 CDA 101 CDA 655
(Hard (Quarter Hard (Half Hard

Temper) Temper) Temper)
Electrical Conductivity
(IACS) 100% 101% 7%
Tensile Strength 50 38 78
(ksi)
Yield Strength 45 30 45
(ksi)
Hardness 50 25 87
(Rockwell B)
6
Fatigue Strength N/A N/A 1 x 10 cycles
@ 30 ksi (207
MPa)
Table.5.1: Examples of large turbo-generators reliability surveys.
CDA 655 copper is sometimes used in isolated top winding turns, to resist fatigue cracking in the area
between the rotor body core and the spindle mounted retaining ring. Note the lower conductivity values (only
7%), compared to CDA 107 or CDA 101 material (100%). Thus, 655 cannot be used as part of the electrical
circuit, due to its poor conductivity.
As mentioned above, copper retains its electrical conductivity over time, a property that is key to reliable
service. This reliable service can be interrupted, however, when some type of physical distortion or physical
property change occurs in the copper. These changes can interrupt the flow of current, impairing the field’s
ability to be excited and generate a voltage in the stator. It is in these instances that the copper needs to be
replaced. In all other cases, the original rotor copper windings can be removed, reinsulated and reinstalled, as
part of a rotor rewind.
The following situations usually require the original copper to be replaced with new copper:
Soft Copper
The original copper is too soft. Some companies maintain a minimum hardness threshold of Rockwell 35 F.
Below this value, the copper is too soft and will readily distort during future operation. The copper should be
replaced if the hardness measures below 35 F Rockwell. Depending upon the turn cross section, in most
cases copper this soft can be readily bent my manual pressure. Soft copper that leads to excessive distortion
can lead to significant turn to turn or coil to coil shorting, leading to a reduction in the field output. New copper
is typically specified between 65 F and 85 F. This level of hardness assures adequate resistance to copper
distortion and deformation.
Page 51
Excessive Distortion due to End Turn Elongation or Foreshortening

Excessive distortion of the end turns is discovered upon removal of the retaining rings. This is often the case
with two conditions; end turn elongation, or coil foreshortening. End turn elongation, especially present in the
corners of the end turns, can occur due to improper distance block spacing, or the lack of a slip plane between
the inner diameter of the retaining ring, and the top turns in the end turn area. It can be so severe, that one
coil can short to another, severely affecting performance.
A small amount of end turn elongation can be repaired, but with excessive amounts, a new copper rewind is
usually preferred. Repair is accomplished by selective heating and cooling to shrink, bend and form the
copper back to its original shape, or by splicing new formed sections into their proper location. Excessive
amounts of splicing are undesirable, due to the introduction of additional brazed joints, representing a potential
weak spot in the rewound machine.
Coil foreshortening is a condition where certain turns actually shrink in length, due to repeated thermal and
speed cycling. Foreshortening usually affects the entire coil stack, gradually displacing all turns.
Foreshortening is a more complicated phenomena, and was more prevalent before the use of higher strength,
silver bearing copper. Essentially, as the rotor comes up to speed, large rotational forces lock the copper
2
turns into position. When full rotational forces are present, the breaker is closed, the rotor is energized and I R
heating begins. Since the coils are locked into place from the large rotational forces, compressive strains,
beyond the yield point, are set up in the copper turns. This is more prevalent in the top turns because of the
higher rotational loadings on it (due to the weight of the copper turns below). As the breaker is opened, and
the machine brought off line, the rotational forces are dissipated, and the unit cools off. As the rotor winding
cools, the turns shrink back to a smaller length, due to the axial compressive forces present. Additional details
of this process are described elsewhere.
With excessive coil foreshortening, the winding would normally be replaced with new copper, but sometimes
this condition is discovered only after the retaining rings are removed, and an extremely tight schedule can
demand that the original copper be repaired and reused.
Excessive Copper Fatigue as Evidenced by Cracking

Rotor original copper should be replaced if excessive fatigue life has been expended from the original rotor
copper, as usually evidenced by cracking. In a case where a small number of cracks (less than 5 % of the
total number of turns) is present, the coils can be repaired. With significant amounts of turns cracked (greater
than 10% of the total number of turns), however, the copper has used up its fatigue life and should be
replaced. Between 5% and 10% is a grey area, primarily influenced by schedule factors. In one particular
machine, more than 10% of the total number of turns had signs of cracking and excessive stress. The rotor
copper was replaced.
Often times, even though engineering judgment would say that it is better to replace the copper, price and
schedule factors can ultimately determine the final decision. On average, new copper is about 30% more
expensive than reusing the old copper.
Final Thoughts
Regardless of whether new copper is utilized or the original copper is reinsulated and reused, it’s important to
balance the rotor in a rated speed (3600 rpm) balance pit. Even a small change in copper turn location, as
often occurs on a rewind, can significantly affect the rotor balance [52]. By balancing immediately after the
rewind, field trim balance shots, including gas and degas operations are avoided.
In addition, placing the rotor in a rated speed balance pit, allows for a full range of running electrical tests to be
performed. These rated speed electrical tests, prove whether the rotor rewind was successful. These tests
Page 52
would include a running megger and ground test, to check for contamination and the integrity of the ground
insulation and the running impedance and flux probe tests, used to verify that no shorted turns exist.
One additional test that only a few suppliers can perform is a thermal sensitivity test. This test more closely
simulates actual operating conditions by heating up the rotor and its field winding above ambient, closely
monitoring the balance. A significant vector change would indicate the rotor to be thermally sensitive, and
corrective action is necessary.
Summary
This section discusses the factors involved in deciding on new copper or reuse of the original copper, as part
of a generator rotor rewind. New copper can always be installed, but usually at a premium price, about 30%
higher than the old copper rewind price. In almost all cases, old copper can be reinsulated and reused. The
exceptions are if the copper is too soft, too distorted, and too fatigued, as evidenced by significant cracking.
High speed balancing and a full array of rated speed running electrical tests is cost effective and verifies the
quality of the rewind, whether with new copper or old copper.
Finally, it is important that fully capable suppliers be considered, ones that can rewind the rotor with old
copper, who can manufacture new copper quickly and ones that can balance the rotor at rated speed and
verify the integrity through running electrical tests [53].
Rotor Shaft Forging

The rotor shaft forging is replaced only in cases of severe damage or cracking. Lead time for a new rotor
forging can be six months up to a year or more, so unless a spare rotor is desired, the rotor shaft forging is
almost always reused. In many cases, however, extensive requalification including repairs to the rotor shaft
forging is necessary. Rotor shafts are often damaged from cracks, stemming from a variety of sources,
showing up in many different areas of the shaft. These shaft forging cracks are mostly caused by cyclic duty
which is discussed in more detail below. These cracks need to be repaired prior to return to service. In most
cases, cracks can be repaired and the rotor returned to reliable service. Overheating damage to the shaft in
different areas can also be a serious concern. These areas should be metallurgically evaluated and then
repaired.
Examples of such repairs are given in [68-72], [75] which includes a local repair as described above, and also
a more extensive repair whereby a full section of the shaft end was replaced demonstrating the ability to
restore even severely damaged generator rotors to operating condition. Combinations of rotor weld repairs,
specialized testing and analysis techniques and generator rewinding should be considered as alternatives to
generator rotor replacements. Welding techniques are available to enable full forgings to be constructed from
smaller forged sections, which may also be considered depending on the extent and nature of the damage
and the availability of replacement forgings. Such solutions might provide generator owners with significant
potential cost savings and reduced downtime when compared to the usual delivery cycles for generator rotors.
Speed Cycling versus Load Cycling

A meaningful discussion of cycling first requires a thorough sorting out of terminology. When applied to
generator operation, the term cycling is often used in reference to two different modes of operation, speed
cycling and load cycling. The distinction is important because their effects on a machine are quite different.
Load cycling or load following is an operational technique used to vary load from low output levels up to the
maximum rating, throughout the day. In this mode the rotor speed stays the same. Load following varies the
Page 53
load to match grid requirements and requires ramping the unit up and down between unit peak grid demand
and minimum grid demand, as required. Many plants which are two-shifting may also be required to load
follow (load cycling).
IEEE C50.13 / ANSI C50.13, “Requirements for Cylindrical Rotor Synchronous Generators Rated 10 MVA and
Above” states that speed cycling is related to the number of start-stop cycles the unit undergoes each year. A
start-stop cycle or start is defined as the complete cycle of taking the machine from zero speed, standstill or
turning gear, up to rated speed and then back down to zero speed, standstill or turning gear. This entire cycle
is the equivalent of “one start.” 3600/3000 rpm designs are the greatest duty, but 1800/1500 rpm designs also
need to be considered when analyzing.
Since this standard addresses specifications for new machines, the standard, in paragraph 4.1.5, gives
minimum numbers for starts over the operating life of the machine. They are different for units operating in
base load and peaking: 3,000 starts for base load units and 10,000 starts for peaking units or other frequently
cycled units.
Starts and Fatigue

The operational reality is different. Units originally designated for base load duty may now be used as peakers.
This type of operation can result in premature cracking and failure. Some generator rotor components see
crack initiation in as little as 200 starts. Failure can be in as few as 400 starts for some rotor components and
within 1,000 starts on others. The design “requirement” of 10,000 starts is a good one, but one that is not
always met. 10,000 starts are equal to 1 start per day for 27.4 years or 5 starts per week for 50 weeks for 40
years.
Two-shifting operation, a type of speed cycling, means coming on-line then off-line, once per day, on a regular
basis. The operational scheme may include a weekend shutdown. If the unit is shut down on the weekend, the
turbine engineers can be concerned about cold starts, versus warm starts, versus hot starts. Hot starts have
fewer hours between starts. The turbine metal temperature is the key parameter. For the generator, this
usually is not critical, unless the rotor forging has poor material properties and there is a requirement that the
rotor has to reach a specific temperature before increasing in speed.
The real issue for generators is the number of starts, because they have a direct correlation to fatigue.
Webster defines fatigue as “the tendency for a material to break under stress” [54]. In materials science,
fatigue is the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic
loading i.e. repeated loading and unloading. If the loads are above a certain threshold, microscopic cracks will
begin to form at the surface. Eventually a crack will reach a critical size, and the structure will suddenly
fracture.
With every start, a generator goes through cyclic loading. It comes up to rated speed and sees significant
stress due to rotational forces. This cyclic loading causes fatigue. Some components are more susceptible to
fatigue damage than others, due to their geometry, design and material properties.
Low Cycle and High Cycle Fatigue – The Differences

Fatigue results from material stress cycles and falls into two types, low cycle fatigue and high cycle fatigue.
Materials undergoing low cycle fatigue typically experience stress cycles ranging from 0 to 1,000 starts. These
failures often show plastic deformation. Conversely, high cycle fatigue occurs with materials undergoing
Page 54
greater than 1,000 cycles, but typically hundreds of thousands of cycles. Some notable examples include shaft
bending during rotation and torsional oscillation.
High cycle fatigue is not related to starts, although some component failures exhibit a combination of both low-
and high-cycle fatigue. Low cycle fatigue is more typically the result of the cyclic stresses involved with
generator starts.
The following are generator rotor shaft components affected by low cycle fatigue:
• Rotor forging shaft

• Bore
• Tooth tops
• Snap ring groove
These items and their tendency to fail prematurely make them critical to operators since an "in-service" failure
can cause an extended forced outage.
Rotor Bore Cracking

Visual inspection of the rotor during a rotor bore examination can show indications as shown below. Generator
rotor bores are known high-stress areas, which are subject to cracking that is correlated with starts. Older
rotors manufactured prior to 1960 have worse material properties. While there is low probability of low cycle
stress occurring in the rotor bore, it is not unheard of [55] and should it occur, it is a situation with high
associated risk.
Fig 5.1: Rotor bore cracking as seen through a borescope
Rotor Tooth Top Cracking

Alternating compressive forces can initiate cracks in rotor tooth top fillet radii. This is due to the cyclic loading
from the retaining ring’s shrink fit at standstill and the tensile loading due to rotational forces at speed. Root
Cause - Small radius at T-head fillet causes high concentration. Cycles to crack initiation can be as low as
250. Risk of failure is low since the T-heads are captured by the retaining ring.
Page 55
Figure 5.2: Diagram showing tooth top cracking

(Courtesy of National Electric Coil)
Figure 5.3: Rotor tooth top crack visible by fluorescent penetrant test
(Courtesy of National Electric Coil)
Snap Ring Groove Cracking

In units with certain types of retaining ring designs, low cycle fatigue can initiate cracks in the snap ring groove
due to axial forces from the tapered retaining ring.
Recommendations to Minimize Rotor Shaft Fatigue Cracking

1. Reduce the number of starts each year, if possible. Talk to dispatch, management and warn them of
the effects of speed cycling. Show the failure photos in this paper to emphasize what is at stake.
• Higher maintenance costs and Higher probability of “in-service” failures
2. Know the highest risk areas of machines in your unit’s class and OEM brand. Make sure your
maintenance program provides adequate inspections, outages for retrofits or preventive repairs and
budgets for replacements, as needed.
3. Take preventive measures and actions:
Page 56
• Be aware of weak spots for each of your machines. Make sure you know if a unit has been
inspected and if any typical problem components have been replaced and when.
• Make visual inspections, using the borescope to reach hard to see area, such as pole
crossovers, J-straps and terminal studs
• Perform regular Non-Destructive Evaluations (NDEs) for:
i. Rotor shaft surface including Fluorescent Dye Penetrant Testing (FDPT), Ultrasonic
Testing (UT), Eddy Current Testing (ECT)
ii. Rotor bore, including visual inspections, Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Testing
(WFMPT)
iii. Tooth tops, including ECT, DPT or WFMPT
• Ensure vendor performs 100% inspection of components during rewind
• For old units, Destructive Evaluation (DE) can provide specific material properties.
4. As in any field, educate yourself:
• Attend conferences with active generator-related sessions such as user groups
• Join the IGTC Forum on Generators (www.generatortechnicalforum.org)
Retaining Rings
Repair versus replacement considerations for retaining rings can be easy if replacement rings are in stock or
can quickly be procured, but this decision can be difficult if rings are not available for replacement. Repairs to
cracks or corrosion in non-magnetic retaining rings are difficult and the risk and consequences of a failure are
so critical that this decision must be made knowing all the facts with input from various experts.
Background
Some background on retaining ring failure mechanisms is necessary to introduce this discussion. High-
strength nonmagnetic steel rings (retaining rings) are used to support generator rotor end turns on most large
generators in service today. A series of nonmagnetic ring failures and materials studies by generator
manufacturers and ring manufacturers have led to the conclusion that 18Mn5Cr (also 18Mn-4Cr) rings and
other, earlier carbon-strengthened nonmagnetic rings were susceptible to stress corrosion. As early as 1983,
one manufacturer (Westinghouse) recommendations were made to control stress corrosion by preventing the
exposure of rings to water and other corrodents, and to examine rings for corrosion damage. Since then,
significant improvements have been made in inspection techniques and evaluation procedures, as experience
was gained with "real world" ring distress, and as understanding was gained regarding the processes of
supplying corrodents to rings on rotors.
The intent of nonmagnetic ring inspections is to detect corrosion damage, defined to include corrosion pitting
and stress corrosion cracking. Because small discontinuities (on the order of 0.005 inches, and less are
significant in the presence of moisture, and because of the difficulty of detecting small stress corrosion cracks,
inspection methods having high sensitivity and allowing ease of interpretation are important. Accordingly, the
preferred technique is eddy current testing. In the case of rings on rotors, the internal surface of the ring is not
accessible for direct inspection. Rings are not usually removed solely for the purpose of inspection as the
required time and expense commitments are not consistent with most outage schedules and budgets, and
ring-on inspection is generally effective in detecting corrosion distress. For ring-on inspections, eddy current
testing is the preferred method for exposed surfaces, while ultrasonic examination is used for internal
surfaces, and both are augmented by a visual examination.
Page 57
Ring-off Inspection
When rings are removed from the rotor, the inspection consists of visual and eddy current testing of all
surfaces. Surface preparation includes abrasive polishing. Special expansion tools are used to enhance crack
detection under residual stress-induced crack closure conditions. In some cases, dye penetrant testing is
done, but this technique is not as sensitive as eddy current especially in regards to “crack closure” with the
ring removed from the rotor.
Ring-on Inspection
Ring-on inspection consists of surface preparation if needed, followed by examination. Surface preparation
can include mild abrasive polishing of external and certain internal ring surfaces to remove paint and
operations-associated debris such as oil, grease, etc. Ring-on inspection is a three-examination process:
A nonmagnetic-ring-specific visual examination procedure, includes examination of the entire rotor from
journal to journal, including exterior surfaces, and metallic surfaces internal to the rings. A time-of-flight based
ultrasonic detection procedure is recommended to examine the interior surface of rings. Calibration is based
on calculated time of flight and structure noise of the ring. Sound velocity checks, attenuation (structure noise
and bore reflection effectiveness) classification and techniques for spurious indication evaluation are included.
A specially qualified non- hygroscopic couplant is used to avoid exposure of the rings to water and to reduce
the risk of rotor contamination. An eddy current test on the exposed outer diameter surface provides the most
sensitivity.
Visual Examination
Visual examinations are, by nature, subjective, especially where the concern is corrosion damage (how much
rust is "too much rust"'?), and are not quantitative. Written reports of visual condition are entirely dependent
upon the experience and judgment of the individual inspector, with the result that the number of different
interpretations of a given visual condition tends to approach the number of different inspectors making
interpretations. Accordingly, it is difficult to make recommendations based on a report of visual condition, and
the difficulty of acting on such recommendations is recognized. As experience was gained with inspection of
nonmagnetic rings on rotors, it was realized that valuable insight could be provided by uniform interpretation of
the visual conditions. Subjectivity can be alleviated by application of a consistent interpretation approach,
based on extensive experience with Visual examination of a large number of rotors and rings having widely
varying degrees of corrosion damage, and an understanding of the access paths of corrodents to rings.
The use of video borescope equipment has made it possible for examination and interpretation of visual
conditions for all unit inspections to be done by only two experienced engineers. A comprehensive and
detailed evaluation of the condition of each rotor is made and compared against the range of conditions found
for numerous other rotors. In addition to many years of experience with direct visual examination of rings and
rotors, there is a library of video tapes from some 50 unit examinations which forms part of the background
against which individual conditions are judged.
Experience has been that an observable condition of moisture exposure, which includes corrosion pitting,
rusting and water-stains on accessible internal and external retaining ring, rotor forging and other ferritic
component surfaces is symptomatic of most cases of corrosion damage on inaccessible, internal ring
surfaces. It is thus possible to determine by inference the presence (or absence) of severe corrosion damage
on inaccessible internal ring surfaces. There are some definite exceptions to this; there are certain water
trapping mechanisms which do not have an associated observable amount of moisture exposure, unless the
rings are removed from the rotor. The role of the video-visual examination is to augment, not replace, the
ultrasonic examination.
The option to replace existing rings with 18Mnl8Cr rings is always considered to be viable for control of stress
corrosion cracking, and is therefore always included as a recommendation. Since 1985, most of the 18Mn/5Cr
Page 58
rings have been replaced with 18Mn/18Cr. In the mid-1980’s, a significant increase in user contingency
planning and reduced ring change-out times was seen along with the availability of 18Mn/18Cr rings on an
emergency stock basis. This has led to a user trend towards replacement of damaged rings following removal,
with a reduced amount of effort given to evaluation and repair.
Damage to 18Mn/5Cr rings have been found in regions having high humidity and high rainfall, and at some
coastal plant sites. During the course of many ring inspections, on-site evaluations, and repair/replace
operations, it has also been noticed that it is much easier for users in some regions to keep rotors dry than it is
for others. By way of (extreme) example, there is a case where the ring inspection and, later, ring
replacement operations at an outdoor site were delayed on account of hurricanes. In general, then, it might be
expected that plants in the southeast United States, coastal regions, subtropical and tropical regions are more
prone to ring corrosion damage.
Underlying Causes of Stress Corrosion

For nonmagnetic rings, the cause of stress corrosion is exposure to corrodents. Given the strong influence of
local weather conditions and indoor/outdoor plant construction, and the weak influence of service time, the
inspection results support the following inferences: Rings are damaged mainly by exposure to conditions
outside the frame, and not by time spent in hydrogen. It is possible for exposure incidents, and damage build-
up to be coincidental, that is, where local conditions (rain storms, unusually humid weather, etc.) were
coincident with outages when the rotor is exposed to conditions outside of the frame. Depending on the
individual unit conditions, this might have happened during many outages, during a few outages, only once or
never. This might have happened often, but only for such short periods of time that the total accumulation of
corrosion damage is low. Many other combinations can be imagined. Storage and erection conditions can also
be important.
Given the susceptibility of 18Mn/5Cr to Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), both in the initiation and steady
state crack growth modes, in the presence of stress and moisture the only sure way to prevent SCC is to
eliminate moisture - as it is not possible to eliminate stress. The data further shows that cracks of depths as
small as 0.005 inches must be viewed with great concern if the potential exists for a corrosive environment to
be present. There is not a similar concern for 18Mn/18Cr.
Remaining Life Estimates

In contrast to boresonic inspection and analysis for rotor forgings, where remaining life is calculated and re-
inspection intervals are set based on calculation results, remaining life calculations based on inspection results
are not meaningful for nonmagnetic rings because remaining life depends strongly on whether or not stress
corrosion will occur. Example calculations show that remaining life is very short in a stress corrosion situation,
and any corresponding re-inspection interval would be extremely short. In the absence of an aggressive
environment stress corrosion cannot occur. If rings are kept dry, then remaining life can be expected to be
very long, provided that rings with significant corrosion distress are repaired or retired, To preclude the
possibility of crack growth to failure by fatigue, stress corrosion due to inadvertent exposure to moisture or a
high-stress-intensity hydrogen growth mechanism. Continuing operation of nonmagnetic rings depends on
keeping them dry. The role of inspection and evaluation is secondary to this, and consists of determining the
probability that the ring has already passed the point of stress corrosion crack initiation. No realistic attempt
can be made to calculate remaining life on the basis of inspection results. As the data shows, any ring which is
in the initiation portion of the failure cycle will have by far the longest residual life, if environment is properly
controlled. This in turn allows corrective action to be taken.
This year, a new recommendation for inspection of the corrosion resistance 18Mn/18Cr retaining rings has
been issued to the industry by a major generator manufacturer. Although the performance of the 18Mn/18Cr
ring material and its replacement of the 18Mn/5Cr ring material have been very successful, there have been
some recent occurrences of the 18Mn/18Cr material attacked by corrodents, such as chlorides. Additionally,
Page 59
high torsional stresses due to load transients from nearby heavy industry have become more of a concern.
The technical advisory is not meant to address concerns with 18Mn/18Cr material and SCC in the presence of
moisture. The 18Mn/18Cr material has been and continues to be, based on all accounts, very resistant to
SCC in the presence of moisture.
Complete Generator Assessment and Life Extension
An excellent case history [73] describes how in this case, each of the key generator components were
evaluated, but all at one time and for one unit. This generator at the Walsum cogeneration plant in Germany,
had generators that have been in operation since 1928. The unit 9 generator started its operation in 1988.
Due to grid impacts (short circuits) near the power plant, which overloaded the generator transiently and
thereby highly increased the technical risk of its operation, in 2009 the plant owner requested modernization
and repair of the 23 year old KWU generator type THDD 108/44, operating since 1988 (with approx. 180.000
operating hours/450 starts). Friction dust and cracks indicated that the stator winding had been loosened by
the extreme transient mechanical stresses in the end-winding area which could have led to an unplanned
outage over the time.
Given the importance of unit 9 for the supply of heat and electricity, an immediate generator repair was not
possible. Therefore, the modernization was scheduled during a planned outage in 2011, lasting from May 18th
until September 14th. Meanwhile a large increase in bearing vibration was detected several times during load
increases from minimum to full load in the mornings. It was assumed that the higher vibration levels were
caused by a possible restraint at the rotor. The OEM in this case offered various preventive measures to keep
the generators in reliable condition and to extend their lifetime and output and to avoid potential system down-
time and costly repairs.
A major generator manufacturer [73] was contracted to perform a stator rewind with advanced design features
on site and a rotor inspection in its manufacturing plant with an optional rotor rewind. Based on the rotor
findings, a rotor rewind with refurbished copper was implemented which included a retaining ring shrink fit
modification. Furthermore, the coupled shafts needed to be aligned by preparation of the generator foundation
beams.
This comprehensive generator modernization was successfully executed within four months and included:
• Generator disassembly
• Transport of the rotor to manufacturing plant
• Aligning the shaft train by preparation of foundation beams
• Stator rewind on site
• Rotor inspection
• Rotor rewind with refurbished copper and short ring modification
• Exciter inspection
• Retrofitting of generator supply systems according to ATEX
• Generator reassembly
Page 60
References
[1] G. Stone, E. Boulter, I. Culbert, H. Dhirani, Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines, WILEY-IEEE
Press, Book, 2004.
[2] R. Halpern, R. Nold, Generator Upgrades and Rewinds, GER-3707D, GE Power Systems, 1996.
[3] R. Ilie, B. Moore, Spare Bar Inventory Decisions, EPRI European TGUG Meeting/Workshop and Vendor
Exposition, Madrid, Spain, June 22-25 2009.
[4] P. Frazza, D. David, The Rewinding of 4 Water-Cooled Stator Windings, Proceedings of the
[5] D. Tarrant, Experience Feedback on Problems Experienced on a 500 MW Turbo Alternator Stator at
Arnot Power Station, unknown source, 1998.
[6] J. Kapler, J. Stein, Probability of Failure Assessment on Generators with Extended Periods Between
Maintenance Outages, EPRI Conference on Utility Generator Predictive Maintenance, Phoenix, USA,
1998.
[7] M. Bresney, On-Site Rewind of a Large Epoxy VPI Stator, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Toronto,
Canada, June 2006.
[8] F. Garwatoski, How to Cut Rewind Times by 15 Days or More, Modern Power Systems, Jun. 1999.
[9] D. Tarrant, Problems and Solutions on a 350 MW Turbo-Alternator Stator, IRIS Rotating Machine
Conference, San Antonio, USA, June 2002.
[10] J. Kapler, J. Xie, J. Stein, G. Anders, Cost Assessment of Maintenance Alternatives on Generators with
Stator Winding Water Leaks, IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives Conference, Milwaukee,
USA, May 18-21 1997.
[11] J. Grunenwald, Retrofitting of Turbogenerators, IEE International Conference on Refurbishment of
Power Station Electrical Plant, 7-8 Nov. 1988.
[12] R. Halpern, Generator Upgrades Produce Operational Dividends, Power Engineering, May 1997.
[13] H. Katayama, S. Takahashi, H. Nakamura, H. Shimada, H. Ito, A Successful Retrofit of Old Turbo-
Generators having Various Technical Problems, Paper A1-206, CIGRE Session 2006.
[14] EPRI Report 1014783, Plant Support Engineering: Main Generator End-of-Life and Planning
Considerations, June 2007.
[15] E. Goodeve, R. Wheeler, Repairing Mechanical Damage to Stator Windings, IRIS Diagnostic News,
Nov. 2009.
[16] M. Bresney, Development of Methods to Repair Leaking Water-Cooled Generator Stator Windings,
[17] G. Griffith, S. Tucker, J. Milsom, G. Stone, Problems with Modern Air-Cooled Generator Stator Winding
Insulation, IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2000.
[18] Stator Bar Reinsulation Can Expedite Failed Winding’s Return to Service, National Electric Coil, 2007.
[19] Stator Bar Refurbishment Emergency Repair 55 MVA, Sensoplan, 2007.
[20] Taking Rewind Forward, Power Plant Technology, July/August 2000.
[21] B. Moore, Key Evaluation Factors for Upgrading and Refurbishing Electrical Generators, Operations and
Maintenance in Power Plants Conference, Brussels, Belgium, April 12-13 1999.
[22] P. Tavner, N. Wade, D. Wilkinson, Assuring the Integrity of Large Electrical Machines in a Power
Station Refurbishment Programme, IEE International Conference on Refurbishment of Power Station
Electrical Plant, 7-8 Nov. 1988.
[23] EPRI Survey Results, Generator Stator Rewind Experience, 25 March 2005.
[24] Kreiselman, Generator Stator Total Rewind after a Stator Bar Ground Fault at Israel Electric, Med Power
– IET Conference, Israel, 2006.
[25] J. Butler, J. Foley, R. Marron, Fast On-Site Rewind of a Generator with a Rigi-Flex Stator Winding, EPRI
Seminar on Assessing Rotating Machine Winding Condition and Repair/Rewind Practices, Scottsdale,
USA, Dec. 1988.
[26] J. Serafin, Using Technical Specifications for Water Cooled Generator Stator Rewinds, IEEE
International Electric Machines and Drives Conference, Cambridge, USA, June 17-20 2001.
[27] R. Ward, Guide to Writing a Stator Rewind Specification, IEEE International Electric Machines and
Drives Conference, Cambridge, USA, June 17-20 2001.
[28] B. Moore, Generator Stator Rewinds, DOBLE Revolutionary Machines Seminar, 2007.
[29] Parsons Generation Services, Generator Stator Refurbishment, Newsletter, Issue 7, Oct. 1995.
[30] J. Timperley, J. Michalec, B. Moore, H. Moudy, J. Hutt, Rewind and Core Restack of AEP Conesville #5
Generator, Proceedings of ASME Power, Baltimore, USA, March 30-April 1 2004.
Page 61
[31] C. Cross, D. Petty, Refurbishment of Turbine Generators, IEE International Conference on

Refurbishment of Power Station Electrical Plant, 7-8 Nov. 1988.
[32] C. Maughan, Upgrading of Generators to Improve Reliability, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Santa
Monica, USA, June 2003.
[33] G. Griffith, S. McLenithan, Experience with Liquid Cooled Stator Rewind & Quality Rewind Objectives @
Alliant Energy, Columbia Unit #1, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Santa Monica, USA, June 2003.
[34] J. Desneux, S. Perrin, N. Richard, Rewinding of 900 MW and 1300 MW generators at EDF, Paper 11-
201, CIGRE Session 1998.
[35] B. Moore, Refurbishment of Large Air-Cooled Generators, IRIS Rotating Machine Conference, Toronto,
Canada, June 2006.
[36] R. Jackson, R. Lawrence, S. Rudd, Refurbishment of Turbo-Generators for Plant Life Extension, IEE
International Conference on Refurbishment of Power Station Electrical Plant, 7-8 Nov. 1988.
[37] H. Harrison, H. Hollauf, J-L. Lapointe, Design and Experience Feedback of Turbogenerator Retrofit
Packages to the United States, Paper 11-206, CIGRE Session 2002.
[38] Nieves, Quality and Reliability Improvement in Comision Federal de Electricidad Electric Generators,
Annual International Conference of DOBLE Clients, 1999.
[39] E. Rider, Life Extension and Modernization, Annual International DOBLE Client Conference, 2009.
[40] J. Schoninger, Power Plant Service - A New Concept for Faster Retrofitting of Turbogenerators, ABB
Review, 10/1995.
[41] EPRI Survey Results, Do Old Generators Need to Be Rewound?, Jan. 2002.
[42] J. Grant, M. Fischer, D. Petty, N. Eden, J. Elliott, A Major Refurbishment Project after 20 Years
Operation at Hunterston B, IEE/IMechE International Conference on Power Station Maintenance -
Profitability through Reliability, Edinburgh, UK, 30 March - 1 April 1998.
[43] P. Növer, J. LaRue, Small Generator Modernizations, Steam Turbine and Generator Users‘ Meeting,
Nov. 2002.
[44] B. Gellert, W. Suchecki, T. Gajowy, Retrofit Packages for 200 MW Turbogenerators, ABB Review
1/1997.
[45] B. Moore, How to Get More Power from Your Generator, Combined Cycle Journal, Third Quarter 2007.
[46] Hitachi, Ltd., Generator Upgrade / Uprate Experience, EPRI European TGUG Meeting/Workshop and
Vendor Exposition, Madrid, Spain, June 22-25 2009.
[47] K. Weigelt, J. Schubert, Converting Large Base-Load Turbogenerators for Peak-Load Duty, ABB
Review, 2/1989.
[48] Lemberg, K. Tornroos, GE Generator Fleet Experience and Available Refurbishment Options, GER-
4223, General Electric Company, 01/2004.
[49] J. Reason, When it Pays to Change Out the Whole Generator, Electrical World, March 1988.
[50] K. Weigelt, Successful Retrofit of a 970 MVA Turbine-Generator, ABB Review, 3/1988.
[51] C. Young, M. Bielinski, How to Effectively Respond to a Major Plant Failure (The Loy Yang Unit 4
Generator Failure and Replacement), Siemens Steam Turbine and Generator Users‘ Meeting, November
2002.
[52] W. G. Moore, “Improvements for Generator Rotor Unbalance,” ASME International Joint Power
Generation Conference, Baltimore, MD, 1998.
[53] W. G. Moore, B. Jagrine, S. Fox, “Factory High Speed Rotating Tests Assure Quality Generator Rotor
Rewinds,” IRIS Power Rotating Machinery Conference, June 14, 2000. IEEE Standard C50.13,
“Requirements for Cylindrical Rotor Synchronous Generators Rated 10 MVA and Above”, IEEE, 2005
update synchronized with IEC
[54] Merriam Webster dictionary at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fatigue, Encyclopedia Britannica,
2012.
[55] Report by N. Kilpatrick, Siemens on the 2008 finding of rotor shaft cracks, Union Fenosa’s 496 MVA
generator, proceedings of the EPRI TGUG International Seminar, Spring 2009, Madrid, Spain.
[56] Description of the 1998 incident of high cycle (fretting) fatigue cracking in 18-18 turbine end retaining ring
due to sub-synchronous torsional interaction at the Wisconsin Electric, Port Washington Power Plant,
noting it as similar to a failure at Public Service Colorado, Comanche Unit 2 retaining ring failure, EPRI
Final Report 1007001, 2002.
[57] Proceedings of EPRI TGUG (winter) Workshop on Rotor Dovetail Cracking, 2004.
[58] Moore, Bill, P.E., “Speed Cycling and Premature Failure of Generator Components, Power-Gen Europe
2014, Cologne, Germany.
[59] Moore, Bill, “The Effects of Cycling on Generator Rotors,” Proceedings of the 20th International
Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE20/Power2012, July 29-Aug 3, 2012, Anaheim, CA, USA,
Paper #2012-55093.
Page 62
[60] Kilpatrick, Neil and Schneider, Mike, “Update on Experience with In-Service Examination of Non-Magnetic
Rings on Generator Rotors,” Electrical Power Research Institute, 1985.
[61] N.L.Kilpatrick et al, Design and Use of Nonmagnetic Retaining Rings for Central Station Generators,
Workshop Proceedings: Retaining Rings for Electric Generators, EPRI EL-3209,August, 1983.
[62] R.T.Hagaman, Failure Experience with Generator Rotors, EPRI Workshop, Rotor Forgings for Turbines
and Generators, September, 1980
[63] R.Viswanathan, Retaining Ring Failures, Workshop Proceedings: Retaining Rings for Electric Generators,
EPRI EL-3209, August, 1983
[64] M.O.Speidel, Preventing Ring Failures, Workshop Proceedings: Retaining Rings for Electric Generators,
EPRI EL-3209, August 1983
[65] J.C.LaRue, et al, Experience in Retrofitting Nonmagnetic Rings on Generator Rotors, EPRI Generator
Retaining Ring Workshop, September, 1987
[66] Workshop Proceedings: Retaining Rings for Electric Generators, EPRI EL-3209, August, 1983.
[67] M.O.Speidel, Preventing Failures of Retaining Rings, Workshop Proceedings: Retaining Rings for Electric
Generators, EPRI EL-3209, August 1983
[68] H. Colombie, et. al, “Turbo-Generator Welded Rotor,” Cigre, Paris, France, 2014.
[69] B. Zimmerli, et. al., “Considerations for the Replacement of Turbogenerators,” EPRI Winter 2011 14th
Steam Turbine/Generator Workshop, Houston, TX.
[70] J. Jensen, “Faster repairs possible with generator rotor shaft section welds,” Energy-Tech, March 2013,
page 9.
[71] B. Zimmerli and K. Steigleder, “Turbogenerator Retrofit and Replacement for Integrated Solutions,” EPRI
Winter 2008 Technical Workshop &TGUG, San Diego, 2008.
th
[72] B. Zimmerli, et. al., “Retrofit of Turbo Generators,” EPRI Summer 2009 11 Steam Turbine / Generator
Workshop, Milwaukee.
[73] W. Kowalski et al., “470 MVA Generator Lifetime Extension”, Power Gen Europe 2012 – Cologne,
Germany; 2012.
[74] H. Katayama, S. Takahashi, H. Nakamura, H. Shimada, H. Ito; “A Successful Retrofit Of Old Turbo-
Generators Having Various Technical Problems”, Cigré Session Paper A1-206_2006.
[75] J. Jensen, “Faster repairs possible with generator rotor shaft section welds”, Energy-Tech Magazine,
2013.
Page 63
Chapter 6: On-Line Monitoring for Risk Assessment
Introduction
Most large generators have some on-line monitoring. The extent of monitoring is defined by plant owners,
plant construction contractors, and OEMs, generally following the established industry practices. In most
cases the larger and more valuable units receive more monitoring and protection against conditions that cause
either rapid damage or gradual degradation of the generator. Only for partial discharge on-line monitoring
does there exist an international standard IEC 60034-27-2 “On-line partial discharge measurements on the
stator winding insulation of rotating electrical machines“ since 2012, which describes installation of monitoring
systems, measurement of PD and interpretation of various PD activity at stator windings. Although there are
no industry standards governing the monitoring requirements, operation and maintenance guides have been
developed to help users, consultants and OEMs in implementation of monitors required for safe and reliable
operation of generators. The term OEMs in the following discussion refers to the original equipment
manufacturers of the on-line monitoring equipment, which may not be the same OEM as the generator
manufacturer.
The number of available generator on-line monitors is quite extensive. They can be roughly divided into three
main groups: protection, operation parameter monitors and monitors for detection of gradual long term aging
and deterioration of main generator components. Although protection relays are not normally considered as
on-line monitors, they are included here for completeness, since they have some relevance in the repair
decisions or replacement of generator components. The purpose of all on-line monitoring devices is early
detection of any changes and deviations in the condition of generator components.
Every measurement value is neither suitable nor necessary for monitoring. Suitable values include those
easily measurable, repeatable, with a reasonable associated cost. Typical on-line monitoring systems consist
of:
- sensing devices installed within the generator components or in output circuits

- instruments designed to process the output signals from the sensors
- software required to process, interpret and display the information
- expert systems for interpretation and trending of the information
Generator Protection
Generators are designed and manufactured for service within their capability limits. When safe operation
within the limits is not possible, or when there are indications of excessive accelerated deterioration and
damage, it is necessary to take corrective action by removing the generator from service and completing the
required repairs. Some of the protections operate automatically, tripping the generator or removing it from
service. Others provide the operator with the information for urgent action to prevent or limit the possible
damage to the generator. The specified operating limits may be violated for a number of reasons such as:
- internal generator failures

- external auxiliaries failures
- power system fault conditions
- operator errors
The protection equipment is supplied by generator OEMs, consultants or suppliers of specialized monitoring
instrumentation to the requirements and specifications of plant owners. The extent of the generator
protections is guided by national and international operational guidelines, industry experience and plant
requirements. The costs of the protections are included in the plant construction costs and generally do not
require separate cost/benefit analyses and justification.
Page 64
Maintenance of protection equipment is controlled by plant operating procedures with specific instructions for
testing. Regular maintenance and repairs are mandatory for insuring the integrity of the system at all times.
The additions and retrofitting of protections is generally not required, except during major rehabilitations of the
plant data and control systems.
Generator protections are not frequently used as tools in the assessments of the condition of generator
components. However, the operation of protections normally leads to investigations of root causes of the faults
causing unit trips or forced and unforced outages. For severe faults and damage to the main generator
components, such as stator windings, stator core and rotor the repairs or replacements may become obvious
and unavoidable. In some instances the fault analyses are not conclusive and the degree of the consequential
damage and the risk to the future reliability of the machine cannot be fully assessed. This type of uncertainties
can provide a strong input into the future maintenance, repair and replacement decisions.
Generator Operational On-Line Monitoring

The whole generator system consists of the generator proper and a number of auxiliary systems such as
excitation, stator winding cooling, hydrogen gas or air cooling, seal oil supply and bearings. In operation, all
these systems must run within defined operating limits. These limits are agreed between users and OEMs at
the time of a plant design and should comply with the requirements of owner specifications and applicable
national and international standards. The intent of these agreements is to ensure long-term, reliable service of
generators for periods of 30 to 40 years. In order to maintain the generators within the operating limits a
number of on-line monitoring devices are provided. These devices contain sensors, instruments and
processing software for display, annunciation and alarms of an array of generator parameters. The scope of
supply of the monitors is largely dependent on the unit size and output, cooling methods, type of excitation and
voltage control. The monitors may differ significantly between OEMs, based on their design philosophy,
practice and experience. These devices generally do not initiate automatic control actions. Their purpose is to
provide the unit operator with the information to keep the generator parameters within the design limits and to
take appropriate corrective actions, if and when such limits are violated.
The extent of the operational on-line monitoring is established between users, consultants and OEMs. It is
implemented during the plant construction and put in service during unit commissioning. Additions and
modifications to the operational monitoring are normally not required. Some changes and additions may be
implemented during major plant upgrades. All monitors must be maintained in order to insure reliable and
secure generator service. Any deviations from the static or dynamic limits must be attended promptly to
prevent rapid damage in any generator component and limit excessive component life expenditure.
The on-line operational monitors are by definition generator failure risk mitigating tools. As long as a generator
is operating within the limits defined for the monitors, the risk to the generator damage or excessive loss of life
is maintained low. When generators are operating beyond the specified limits the degradation in some
components is accelerated, leading to rapid failures or excessive loss of equipment life. The alarm outputs
from the monitors are mostly transmitted to the control room for operator information and action. The
corrective actions range in severity from unit output changes to relatively small adjustments in coolant flow
rates or pressures. Although the indications of the problems can be relatively straight forward, their causes are
frequently quite complex. For instance, a single bar overheating in the water-cooled stator winding, detected
by a TC in a bar coolant outlet, is most likely due to the reduction of the coolant flow, but the reason for the
reduction of the flow may not be immediately obvious. If such condition is not corrected promptly there is a
significant risk of a winding failure, generator trip, expensive repair and a long unit outage.
The investment in the on-line temperature monitoring of a stator winding can be illustrated by the real life case
studies at a large utility. A 635 MVA generator at a nuclear power plant was equipped with an advanced
winding temperature monitor that told operators if a rapid increase in the winding temperature occurred even
at low loads. During a maintenance outage on the unit, the stator winding was isolated and the piping
supplying the water coolant plugged to prevent any contamination. On restoring the winding for service, a
section of the winding remained plugged due to an error. On unit start-up and initial loading the available on-
Page 65
line temperature monitoring of all slot RTDs clearly indicated the rapid temperature rise in the plugged section
of the winding. The unit was taken off line by an alert operator, coolant flow restored and the unit returned to
service without further incident. It should be noted that the temperature monitoring on that generator was
implemented as a design change at a cost of 250K. A similar incident at a 600 MVA generator at a fossil plant
was not identified, because of an inferior temperature monitor. The unit was rapidly taken to full load, the
winding failed and required complete replacement.
Another example refers to monitoring of the rotor vibrations. Catastrophic rotor failures due to shaft cracking
have been averted by rotor vibration monitoring and alert interpretation of the shaft vibration signatures.
Several rotors in Europe and Canada developed shaft cracks extending to up to 40% of the shaft sections.
The cracks initiated by fretting at high stress concentrations. They extended to the size at which the reverse
self-bending high cycle fatigue stresses propagated the cracks through the forging section. Sensitive shaft
and bearing vibration monitors are now available to alert the operators of dangerous changes in the rotor
vibration signatures.
There have been other similar incidents reported in the utility industry where on-line operational monitoring
prevented severe damage in generators. Although the operator actions in response to monitoring alerts are
normally well defined, the root causes of problems causing the alerts are not always obvious. Frequently
extensive root cause investigations by OEMs and domain specialists are required to identify the problems,
assess the risk to continued generator operation and decide on appropriate repair processes. Over the years,
a number of system programs have been developed to capture the knowledge from the domain experts
providing rapid and accurate failure analyses. Examples of such efforts are the GenAID and Generator Expert
Monitoring System (GEMS). Typically such programs analyse the inputs from a number of available
monitoring sensors, calculate the most probable failure causes, assess their severity and recommend
appropriate actions such as unit load manipulation or instructions for off-line inspections and testing.
The developments and application of such expert systems require significant investments and are therefore
not yet widely accepted and available. Their implementation is generally limited to the units where a risk of
some failures or degradation mechanisms had already been identified and their costs can be justified. Modern
DCS-systems allow monitoring and data storage of a vast number of relevant parameters. Therefore these
allow trend analysis as well as analysis of related mutually influencing parameters and relations. By making
use of these possibilities, significant additional investments in hardware may not be necessary.
Specialized On-Line Monitors

A number of on-line monitoring devices were developed in recent years, dedicated to detecting early
indications and trending of deterioration in stator windings, stator cores, rotor shaft and windings. These
monitors have become powerful tools in implementation of predictive maintenance. Predictive and corrective
maintenance of components can be scheduled after there is an early indication of a developing problem and
before they progress to more severe damage or failure. Many of these monitors are retrofitted at site after
some signs of problems have already been identified during off-line inspections and tests; others are
implemented on the basis of risk analyses and favourable cost–benefit assessments. The monitors detect the
gradual long term aging as well as rapid changes in the generator components after some large stress events,
e.g. from system line faults or local equipment failures of step-up transformers, switchyard breakers, line
switches, and other. Such monitors include:
Partial Discharge Testing/Monitoring of Stator Winding Insulation

Stator winding insulation is subjected to a number of stresses that causes a rapid or gradual deterioration of its
ability to perform its basic function of separating the conductors at voltage from the ground. Such stresses
include operation at excessive temperatures, abrasion due to coil vibrations, differential thermal expansion
and contamination with conducting deposits. The result from these stresses is the formation of cracks and
Page 66
voids in the main wall of the winding insulation. In these air- or gas-filled voids, partial discharges occur under
the operating voltages, which are proportional to the number and size of the voids. The appearance of
excessive amount of partial discharges is thus an indication of the insulation damage from various operating
stresses.
Measuring systems are now available for on-line monitoring of partial discharges from the windings of large
generators and high-voltage motors. The systems consist of permanently installed sensors, either in the
winding itself or in the output busses, and the testing instruments. The measurements can be automated for
continuous on-line PD detection, or periodic tests are carried out and the results trended over time. The
permanent sensors may be a part of the generator supply or may be retrofitted at site during a short outage.
The major advantage of the on-line PD measurements is that they can be obtained without interference to the
generator service. The readings can be taken at comparable loads to limit the variation between the results.
Automated on-line PD monitors and periodic PD testing systems are available from independent suppliers.
These systems permit the user's maintenance personnel and their engineering staff to conduct the tests and
interpret the results. Some generators suppliers and consultants offer on-line PD test services and results
interpretation by their specialists on a contract basis.
The difficulty with the interpretation of PD test results is the lack of clearly defined acceptance limits of the PD
magnitudes. The testing experience shows that the variability in the insulations systems, machine voltage
ratings, operating temperatures, winding cooling air or hydrogen environment, gas pressure and testing
systems strongly influence the PD formation and the test results. The acceptable PD test magnitudes can
therefore be quite different for different classes of motors and generators. The best diagnostic evaluation of
the insulation condition can be obtained by trending of the PD magnitudes over time.
There are significant technological variations between the available on-line PD monitors. In some systems the
electro-magnetic noise from plant and system sources is automatically separated from the winding PD pulses,
in others the results must be interpreted by domain specialists to separate the noise from PD. The results from
different monitoring systems are generally not directly comparable. Therefore the international standard IEC
60034-27-2 was published in 2012 to give guidance on how to perform comparable PD on-line measurements
and how to describe the test results.
Shorted Turn/Coil Detector in Rotor Winding (Air-Gap Flux Monitor)

Most rotor shorted turns occur in a rotor winding from high compressive loads on the insulation at rated speed
and from thermal differential expansions between the insulation and copper turns. Contamination of the rotor
ventilation circuits with metallic particles is also a frequent cause of shorted turns and ground faults. A single
shorted turn may be tolerated in service for many years with little effect on generator performance. However, a
larger percentage of shorted turns can cause generator load reduction and in severe cases forced outages,
mostly from excessive shaft vibrations. The vibration may also transfer to other generator parts, such as lower
frame extensions and terminal enclosure.
Rotor winding coils with shorted turns operate at lower temperature than coils without shorted-turns. This
thermal gradient can transfer to the rotor body and cause a change in local thermal expansion of the steel.
This causes rotor bowing, shaft unbalance and change in rotor vibration. Bearing vibration analysis can
identify the thermal response sensitivity and indicate winding shorted turns.
Shorted turns in four pole rotors cause unbalance in the main magnetic flux in the air gap and unbalanced
magnetic forces. The effect of this force unbalance results in vibrations at the shaft rotational frequency.
The consequence of shorted turns on unit operation will depend on the number of shorted turns and their
distribution in the winding. The generator is forced out of service when the shaft vibrations exceed the
vibration limits. Early detection of shorted turns provides information for planned corrective action before a unit
is forced out of service.
Page 67
The shorted turns in effect reduce the number of rotor winding turns. In addition to the risk of a forced outage
from high vibrations, shorted turns lower the generator efficiency. At the same generator load output, the rotor
current must increase to compensate for this loss of the winding turns. This increases rotor winding losses and
reduces generator efficiency. For example, a rotor with 2 shorted turns out of 100 will increase the rotor losses
by 2 % (100/98 = 1.02)
The air gap flux monitoring system consists of permanent sensors, installed in the air gap between the stator
and rotor, and the test instrument. The sensors consist of small coils which can detect small variations in the
induced voltages resulting from variations in the air gap flux densities, caused by the changes in the magnetic
permeability across each rotor winding coil. The test coils can be secured to the stator slot wedges or to the
tips of the stator teeth. Software programs are available for interpretation of the results. The tests are
performed periodically to check for presence of shorted turns. Continuous on-line monitors are also available.
These monitors are available from OEMs and independent vendors.
Traditionally the tests were performed at different generator loads for optimal sensitivity for detection of the
shorted turns. Power system permits for load changes to conduct a generator test are frequently difficult to
secure. The tests were therefore not performed as frequently as desired.
Systems are now available which do not require unit load manipulation for successful detection of the shorts.
The data from the permanent sensors can be collected and interpreted at any time and at any load on the
generator. On many generators the installation of the permanent sensors on stator core teeth is possible
without the rotor removal.
Vibration Monitoring of Stator End Winding

Vibration monitoring of the stator end windings is normally not supplied on generators as part of original
supply. Generator OEMs contend that the design and assembly of the end winding support structure assures
reliable service over the design life of the machine. In addition, the available metallic vibration sensors were
not well suited for installation in high magnetic and electric fields in the winding.
The operating experience indicates that a number of generators developed vibrations in the end winding,
which caused fatigue cracking of the series connections or severe abrasion of winding insulation. The generic
problems with such windings have been identified. The design and structural modifications are available on
generators sensitive to these problems.
However, the electromagnetic forces in service are present in every generator, not just in those with the
reported generic design problem. Some relaxation in winding supports occurs from the insulation curing
process on a new machine and from stretching of the lashing used to tie the winding together. It is also
recognized that severe system events may overload the winding supports and accelerate its aging.
Some users now implement end winding vibration monitoring as a retrofit on generators with confirmed
winding vibration problems. It may also be adopted as a predictive maintenance tool on any machine to detect
winding vibration in service. Preventive maintenance may be scheduled before excessive insulation damage
occurs. There are no clearly defined limits on the amplitude of the end winding vibrations. Some users specify
4 mils peak-peak vibration as an acceptance limit on new generators. The vibration limits in service should be
established in consultation with the OEM, as they may be related to a specific design of the winding support
system.
Page 68
In the past, the limitation to the use of end winding vibration monitoring was the availability of the non-metallic
sensors for installation on sensitive insulation surfaces and in high magnetic fields of the windings. The non-
metallic, fibre-optic sensors are now commercially available from several OEMs and non-OEM vendors, along
with the suitable monitoring instrumentation.
The main advantage of the continuous on-line monitoring of end winding vibrations is early detection of
significant vibration changes at the main forcing frequencies (line and double line frequencies), before severe
insulation abrasion damage occurs from rubbing of winding coils and connection rings at their supports or
before fatigue cracking of copper strands is initiated. For optimal installation of the vibration sensors it is
normally recommended to arrange for off-line frequency response (bump) tests to identify locations at which
the windings will most likely respond to the excitation frequencies in service.
Condition Monitors
Condition Monitors, sometimes called core monitors or generator condition monitors (GCM), detect the
particulates produced by severe insulation overheating or burning. They work on the principle of sampling the
cooling gas (normally hydrogen) and detection of insulation compounds released by local insulation
overheating. The monitors were initially developed for detecting overheating of the core insulation. Through
introduction of tagging or sacrificial compounds, the overheating detection can be expanded to include the
stator winding and rotor winding insulations. In addition, general location of the overheating zones can be
identified, e.g. which end of stator, which end of rotor. They are used predominantly on hydrogen-cooled
generators. Recently, GCMs have been applied on totally enclosed air-cooled generators.
The main risks to core integrity created by overheating are:
• Deterioration of core lamination insulation, permitting circulation of electrical currents through shorted
sections of core material, causing severe overheating and melting of core steel.
• Relaxation of core pressure, resulting in fatigue cracking of core laminations, particularly in the core
teeth region; the result of such decay is again loss of lamination insulation and overheating.
GCMs effectively detect severe overheating of stator core insulation. The indication of such overheating does
not avoid some core damage, but it can identify dangerous operating ranges. Suitable changes in operating
procedures and voltage control can significantly extend the useful core service life. It can also identify the
need for timely remedial action or core replacement.
Severe overheating or burning of the rotor winding insulation will also be detected by the monitor, but it will be
difficult to confirm, unless suitable tagging compounds are used in rotor insulation. General location of
overheating may be identified by use of different compounds in selected regions.
Application of tagging compounds on rotor surfaces may be used to detect severe heating from negative
sequence currents in wedges and rotor teeth at each end. These will generally occur during system voltage
imbalance, system faults and accidental unit breaker operation with rotor at standstill or at low speed.
The early GCMs were sensitive to the oil mist which may be present within generators from time to time,
resulting in false alarms. New GCMs are now available which have overcome this sensitivity. The problem with
tagging compounds is that they deplete with time and lose their sensitivity and ability to locate the areas of
insulation overheating. They need renewal every 5 to 10 years for maintaining their sensitivity to overheating.
Page 69
Cost-benefit evaluation issues of On-Line Monitoring

The generator protections and operational monitoring is normally defined at the design stage and implemented
as part of a plant construction and commissioning. The scope of supply is based on the traditional and proven
industry practices and experience. In many jurisdictions they are also demanded by plant insurers as a
condition of insurance. The costs are covered within the plant capital construction budgets and separate cost–
benefit analyses are generally not required.
In the past the specialized on-line monitors were not frequently specified and delivered as part of the original
plant design. They are purchased and implemented as retrofits, financed from operation and maintenance
budgets. Since the cost of these monitors are frequently considered high, their implementations need to be
justified by future benefits in terms of reduced maintenance costs or enhanced future operational reliability. In
some cases the benefits can be based on specific experience with past problems at a plant, but in most
instances the future returns from such monitors must be demonstrated with probabilistic benefit-to-cost
evaluations. A number of power generation companies have developed their variations for such calculations,
based on their accounting practices and present and future capital cost parameters.
In 2000 EPRI initiated a process for Life Cycle Management (LCM) of important systems, structures and
components (SSC) at nuclear power plants with the aim to enhance their long-term reliability, availability and
value. The objective was to provide engineers with a process and tools for performing equipment aging,
obsolescence and performance reviews. The main generator was identified as one of the important SSCs,
because of its importance to power production, because it is sensitive to degradation and obsolescence, and
because it requires significant and costly maintenance. In this process the costs of all forms of maintenance
on a generator at a specific plant and the reliability resulting from such maintenance are compared to the
average industry reliability of a population of generators in that class. Any deviations in the generator reliability
from the industry average can point to the need for adjustments to the plant maintenance strategies to equal
or exceed the average reliability in the future service of the generator.
In EPRI LCM, the generator industry average reliabilities were derived into the form of failure rates of major
generator components based on reported failures at 104 US nuclear power plants over a 12 year period. This
‘industry average’ failure rates were used as a base for comparing the past performance of generators and
exciters on 17 nuclear units in US and Spain for evaluations of the most probable future failures causing unit
forced outages and loss of production. The total life cycle costs of the current preventive and corrective
maintenance and the costs of lost production were then calculated over the remaining licensed plant life. The
costs of this ‘base’ maintenance alternative was then compared to other alternatives where certain
improvements were planned to reduce the maintenance and outage costs. The improvements could include
enhanced condition monitoring, major component rehabilitations, such as rewinds or replacements of stators
and/or rotors, and improved maintenance practices. The alternative with the best net present value (NPV) or
best benefit-to-investment ratio (B/I) can then be identified and recommended for implementation.
In such studies the implementation costs and the benefits of enhanced on-line monitoring can be included as
separate alternatives. The most critical component in all studied cases was the evaluation of the benefits
gained from the improved reliability by decreased failure rates. In all cases the loss of production costs were
by far the largest values. The average industry failure rates may be selected from various national and
international equipment reliability data bases, but the future expected failure rates need inputs from specialists
familiar with the assessments of the current condition of generator components and evaluation of the benefits
from their enhancements. In the completed studies the implementation of the specialized on-line monitors
resulted in measurable reduction of the failure rates of the major generator components and justified their
implementation on cost/benefit analysis.
Page 70
References
[1] Life Cycle Management Planning Sourcebooks, EPRI Overview Report 1003058, December 2001
[2] Life Cycle Management Planning Sourcebooks, Volume 5: Main Generator, 1007423 July 2003
[3] Handbook of Large Turbo-Generator Operation and Maintenance, Second Edition, Geoff Klempner,
Izidor Kerszenbaum, IEEE Press
[4] Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines, Greg Stone et all, IEEE Press
Experience with Turbine Generator Life cycle Management Process, G. Stone et all, CIGRE Colloquium
on New Development of Rotating Electric Machines, Beijing, China, September 11-13, 2011
Page 71
Chapter 7: Multiple Component Maintenance/Replacement

Decision
In a large power plant, maintenance projects are competing for the maintenance budget simultaneously.
Maintenance optimization should be based on the performance of a decision analysis process to maximize
NPV for many maintenance projects. In reality, all projects can be constrained by the annual maintenance
budget limit, which means that maintenance optimization needs to be conducted with all individual
maintenance decision models linked.
The benefit of such optimization is that the more maintenance projects, and the larger the portion of the
maintenance budget that is modeled, the larger is the expected value benefit that can be realized. Additionally,
the decision analysis would lead to real maintenance budget decisions to be made and to be performed using
a systematic, fully quantitative and reviewable process.
For maintenance optimization, the decision model previously described in Figure 2.5 needs to be expanded.
For each additional project, the associated two probabilities of failure and year of maintenance action nodes
will be added to the influence diagram. The multiple maintenance projects optimization then provides a
prioritized list of decision alternatives and years of maintenance action that creates the maximum NPV for the
group of machines or the plant, while staying within the constraints. A spreadsheet could be populated by
inserting different combinations of years of actions for each maintenance project considering that combination
for the multiple components or machines that maximizes total NPV without exceeding the constraints. This
could be accomplished through an operations research algorithm approach.
An example of the benefit of this approach was demonstrated with a PC-based spreadsheet model. The
financial model was applied to 140 forced outage critical fossil plant components across a power system. The
estimated resulting NPV of the optimization was in the tens of millions of dollars. If one or more utilities run
the same type of generator in several plants it can be an economically attractive option to have a spare
generator as a pool generator or pooled spare components like a stator and a rotor available. This could
minimize outage time for strategic needed units if the pool components are placed at a location (e.g. harbor)
from where it could be best shipped to all partner plants. Different utilities could handle this in a pool partner
contract.
Page 72
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
Providing a guide for large turbo-generators refurbishment or replacement decision represents a clear
necessity of the industry, nevertheless a difficult challenge. This brochure tried to treat the various demanding
aspects that have to be taken into consideration when dealing with such costly decisions. It is intended to help
power plant managers and maintenance decision makers; however, it doesn't pretend to offer an absolute
solution.
The brochure mentions financial tools useful in the decision process, and discusses the insurance impact on
risk management including statistical/quantitative examples. On the other hand, there are many aspects that
cannot be easily quantified but have to be considered. One of them is the obvious impact of the operation
mode - therefore most common abnormal operation regimes are briefly discussed. Another decision influence
is the presence of various on-line monitoring devices, and their cost-benefit evaluation.
Based on a wide technical literature survey, the brochure reviews most known deterioration mechanisms of
large turbo-generators and their major component risk areas. The explanations should be treated as a
possible scenarios list; obviously. This list cannot be totally comprehensive and particular unusual failures are
always possible in such complex machines. For each major generator part, the most typical essential
maintenance is described, emphasizing again the replacement versus repair available solutions.
The attempt to concentrate the various aspects of refurbishment vs. replacement dilemmas of large turbo-
generators in one self-contained material, covering various technical, operational, economical, and other
strategic aspects, may hopefully cover an existing literature gap and contribute to better asset management in
the electricity generation industry.
Notwithstanding, this brochure should be seen as a live tool, susceptible to continuous improvement. The on-
line monitoring methods are continuously being refined, the machine operation regimes are more and more
challenging as required by new grid codes, the failure modes are changing while manufacturers are trying to
reduce generator costs using narrow design margins, and in the present deregulated world, the utilities have
reduced in-house maintenance capabilities. All these factors (and additional others) can dramatically influence
refurbishment vs. replacement decisions.
Page 73

641 Guide On Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment Replacement Decisions On Generators

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

641 Guide On Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment Replacement Decisions On Generators

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

641

GUIDE ON ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF

B. Moore, Convenor (US), R. Ilie, Secretary (IL),

Guide on Economic Evaluation of Refurbishment/

Chapter 5: Repair versus Replacement Considerations ............................................................ 43

Risk Management and Financial Models

Operation Impact on Generator Risks

Major Component Risk Areas

Repair vs. Replacement Considerations

On-line Monitoring for Risk Assessment

Multiple Component Maintenance Replacement Decisions

The Financial Perspective

Chapter 2: Risk Management and Financial Models

The Increased Lifetime Method

The Ranking Method

Global Criticality of Generator (C) = GSI x GTC

SI1-Safety of property and persons

SI2-Safety of the electrical system

TC1-The Generator’s State of Health

TC3-The Weight of the Past

Other Cost Estimation Methods

a) Variable operating expenses

b) Minimum acceptable earnings

e) Fixed operating expenses

The Impact of Insurance on the Decision to Repair or Replace a Failed

Damaged Part No. of Losses Total Gross Loss 2009 US$

Stator leads 6 $80,968,381

Generator Shaft 2 $66,269,568

Rotor Forging 4 $65,117,035

Rotor Winding 10 $77,445,263

Stator Winding 15 $47,734,054

Stator Core 9 $26,178,171

Stator Cooling System 3 $25,719,449

Surge Capacitor 1 $9,380,476

Circuit Breaker 2 $3,222,644

Retaining Ring 2 $3,040,062

Grand Total 79 $440,927,553

Utility Generator Losses from 1999 to 2009

Utility Generator Losses from 1999 to 2009

Utility Generator Losses from 1999 to 2009

$26,178,171 Retaining Ring

Utility Generator Losses from 1999 to 2009

Time Element or Business Interruption coverage

Extra Expense Coverage

This is regardless of the generator’s value at the time of failure.

Generator Financial Model

Engineering Inputs and Decision Model

• Age including service hours

An Example of Generator Stator Rewind/Maintenance Decision

Figure 2.5 Generator Stator Rewind/Maintenance Decision

Chapter 3: Operation Impact on Generator Risks

Reactive Capability Curve Limits

Unbalanced Armature Currents

Load Cycling and Repetitive Starts

This type of duty is characterized by cycles in both load and speed.

Extended Turning-Gear Operation

System Emergency Conditions

Chapter 4: Major Generator Component Risk Areas

Loose Bars in Slots

Insulation Thermal Deterioration

Thermal (Load) Cycling

Semi-conductive / Grading Coating

Inadequate Insulation Impregnation