Maintenance Management of

Transmission Lines
using

Condition Assessment
and

Computer Data Analysis

The New Zealand Experience
______________________________
Wal Marshall : Director, LineTech Consulting

Introducing Myself

Wal (Walter) Marshall

38 years in the power transmission
industry

28 years with NZ National Grid company
Transpower.

10 years as head of Transmission Line
engineering section at Transpower.

10 years as Director and Principal
consultant with LineTech Consulting >
2

Presentation Overview

Part 1: Background: LineTech, New Zealand, Transpower

Part 2: Problems we face inc Line Diversity

Part 3: Condition assessment / condition coding
--------
Part 4: Predictive modelling: The basic concepts

Part 5: Environment, and component life data

Part 6: Putting it all together

Part 7: Linetech Software: Some output examples

Part 8: Summary >
3

Part 1: Background

LineTech Consulting..
 A bit about us and TLM

New Zealand
 How does it compare with Norway/Iceland?

Transpower (NZ National grid operator)

 Overview
 Terrain, line assets, problems etc

The purpose is to set the scene for why the

systems developed.>
4

LineTech Consulting Ltd

In business for 15 years.

LineTech are part of TLM Group joint venture





Tesla (Protection, comms , substations)

Linetech (Overhead lines)
Mitton (Earthing specialists, substations)
Approx 60 engineers in total for TLM Group.

Preferred Consultant to Transpower via TLM

Work throughout New Zealand, Australia and
South East Asia.

Specialise in HV Transmission Lines >
5

New Zealand Key Features

Extensive coastline = Salt pollution

High wind run = Salt blown inland

Much rugged mountainous terrain

Geothermal areas = Localised corrosion

Highly diverse with extreme climatic
changes over short distances.

Temperate climate (warm / wet = rapid
corrosion). >
6

NZ Transmission
Grid

12,000 route km of lines
(17,000 cct km)

110 kV, 220kV, and
350kVDC lines.

24,000 lattice towers,
11,000 poles.

Average line asset age
approx 50 years.

350 kV HVDC
Transmission
Link incl 3
Submarine
cables
between
Islands
(1965)

220kV single circuit: 50 yrs old.

2 km from coast.

General GridPainted
pictures
towers, reconductored,
reinsulated (twice).

High Wind Coastal Area: Wellington

350kV DC. 45 yrs old.

Extensively rebuilt,
9twice reinsulated.

110 kV double Circuit, 35 yrs old

Towers Painted, Reinsulated twice,
Reconductored.

Heavy ice loadings in

mountainous areas
+350 KVDC line

10

Helicopters :

New Zealand = 650

Norway = 120 ????

220 kV towers in mountainous terrain.

40 yrs old. Painted and reinsulated.

11

NZ Transmission Line Issues

High wind run =
 Rapid wear of insulator fittings
 Sea salt blown long distances inland = corrosion
 Conductor aeolian vibration damage

Sea salt exposure = rapid corrosion of

 Galvanised steel fittings
 Tower steel
 ACSR Conductor

High rainfall & warm climate =

 Increased corrosion rates

Geothermal areas =
 Areas of extreme localised corrosion >
12

Part 2: Line Aging Problems

Rapid line deterioration
 Wind, Rain, Salt, Geothermal

Line Diversity
 Increasing condition diversity with age

Other issues
 Poor records / asset knowledge
 Loss of skills

13

High Wind Run = Rapid wear

14

Wind run = Rapid wear

15

Wind Blown Salt = Severe Corrosion

16

Severe Salt Corrosion

17

Sea salt tower steel corrosion

18

Line Condition Diversity: A Growing Issue

Line networks are no longer new:
 New Zealand average age 51 yrs.

The key drivers on ageing are mostly

environmental.

Environments can change drastically along a
single line route: coastal, industrial, geothermal, as
well as clean inland.

Different components age at differing rates.

Maintenance is often piecemeal.

Upgrades/deviations/storm repairs, all change bits
of lines. >
19

As lines age,
they develop ever growing
component condition diversity.
Here are some NZ examples:

Environmental diversity: Geothermal

21

Geothermal
Corrosion:
10 yrs

22

Environmental Diversity: Coastal

Sea salt is a major problem in many areas. This section of
line needed to be totally replaced after 19 years

23

Environmental Diversity:
Inland, Cold, Low Rainfall, Low Corrosion.

24

Environmental Diversity:
High Rainfall, Geothermal drift, High Corrosion

25

Line Diversity Study:

HVDC Line, Wellington
10
1
OTB

45

61

89

25

96

Original line commissioned 1965

HAY

1 -10 Very severe coastal. Severe wind exposure. Totally replaced with new line 1981.
All new insulation, spacers and dampers fitted in 1990 and again 2006
10-25 Moderate coastal. Reinsulated, new spacers, dampers, 1990. 4 new towers various
ages, Some duplex, triplex and Quad sections of line. Now needs reconductoring.
25-45 Moderate Coastal. Several new towers various ages.
45-61 Moderate coastal: New deviation built 1990. New and 2nd hand towers.
New and 2nd-hand conductor. New insulation and dampers.
61-89 Moderately severe coastal: Approx half of towers replaced between 1980 and 1997.
Insulation, dampers and spacers replaced 1990. Now needs reconductoring.
89-96 Light Coastal: All original towers and conductor. New insulation, dampers and
spacers in 1990.

26

Tower Condition Diversity: Actual Example

27

Other (Typical) Issues

Poor records



Missing / poor drawings

Asset records incomplete / out of date

Poor maintenance records

 Very piece-meal past maintenance
 Very poor or inaccurate records

Loss of skills and asset knowledge

 Contracting out
 Aging workforce >
28

Ageing Diversity: Summary

No line ages uniformly.

No structure ages uniformly.

Component conditions become ever more
diverse with increasing age.

Ongoing maintenance changes conditions

Every component on every tower can be in a
different condition to those at other structures. >

So why is all this important?

29

Future Maintenance

Any line is only as reliable as the weakest
component.

The inevitable process of increasing
diversity, is a threat to our ability to keep
lines maintained properly in the future.

Maintenance planning processes therefore
MUST be able to manage extreme
diversity. >
30

Part 3: Condition Assessment and

Condition Coding
 Condition Assessment: Introduction

Condition Coding: Basic approach

Data collection methods

Condition assessment of key components
 Towers and poles
 Insulation and fittings
 Conductor and fittings

Accuracy and Quality: Auditing >

31

Defect vs. Condition Based Maintenance

Defect based maintenance : (traditional approach)
 Patrols/inspections concentrate on finding defects only.
 defects/failures recorded, trends analysed, and
 maintenance effort directed to locations with unacceptable rates
of failures/defects.

Condition based maintenance: (Current approach)

 Data collected on condition of all line components.
 Analysis of condition of total asset possible.
 maintenance work can be optimized to achieve any performance
outcome desired.
 maintenance work can be optimized to minimise overall long
term cost or use of resources. >

32

Condition Driven Maintenance

means that you can

Plan what will happen

(Proactive; No surprises, Low cost, High Reliability )

rather than

React to what did happen

(Reactive; Frequent call outs, High cost,
Low reliability)

Its worth putting time and effort

into getting good condition data
Current and
Impending Work
Medium Term
Work Identification

CONDITION
DATA

Secure Asset
Valuation

Manpower
Planning
System
Planning

34

Long-term Work
Load (Predictive
trending)

Purchase and
Warehousing
Planning

Condition Assessment: Basic Approach

Done 3-8 yearly. Frequency depends on  Condition (if poor done more frequently) also
 Type, age and system Importance

Only dedicated teams used

 Specialist trained contractors
 NOT regular linemen

Asset Data accuracy is checked on site

 Correct tower, insulation, spacers, etc. Errors corrected.

Aim is to maximise the productivity of a single

visit to site.

Overall cost similar to traditional climbing
inspection, but

Vastly more data is gathered. >
35

Condition Assessment: Basic Approach

All key components coded individually
 E.g. Tower top, tower bottom, foundation ea,

Smaller components grouped e.g.





All insulators string in string

All conductors in a span
All spacers in a span, all dampers in a span etc

Worst component in any group drives overall

coding

All condition codes are dated >
36

Condition Coding: Basic Approach

Coding based on % of deterioration.

100% = new

60% = half of service life

20% = normal last replacement point

10% = no safely factor left

0 % = imminent failure under every day
loads. >

37

Condition Coding Concept

New Component

Field 100
Condition
Code 80
%

>>
>>
Halfway through
service life

60

Slope of this line depends on the environment;

(Steeper for more aggressive environments)

Se
rvi
c

el
ife
>>
>>

40
Replacement Criteria

20

No safety factor left

10

Increasing risk of failure

0
0

38

Years from new

Tr

Imminent
Failure

Data Collection Methods

Transpower sets Coding Criteria to ensure
uniformity across network

Contractors use mixture of electronic data
recorders, and paper .

Early problems with data recorders




Hardware reliability
Crude interface and programming
User resistance, but

Increasing trend towards data recorders due to

cost savings in data uploading, and reduction in
loading errors. >
39

Example: Condition coding of tower steel

We use a mixture of text
and pictures to set coding
criteria for inspectors,
backed up by training.

40

Tower steel

Top usually
worse than bottom

Zinc thickness
measurement
problematic

Corrosion layers
vary with climate

Visual inspection
mostly used
41

Tower Foundations

Grillages
 Sample excavations
 Corrosion current testing tried, and discarded to
unreliable.

Concrete
 Base-plates Visual + chip out mortar on samples
 Stub-legs - Visual

Piled (river crossings)

 Concrete and steel Visual
 Timber with concrete caps. Partial excavate 10 yrly
Preservative Injection systems installed. >

42

Tower Foundations: Ground Level

Visual
Inspections

Rusting / Metal
loss measured

Below ground
concrete not
evaluated >

43

Timber Piled Foundations

(Preservative Injection systems)

44

Grillage Foundations

Ages from 30 years to
over 80 years

Worst corrosion usually
at ground level

Sample excavations to
establish condition

45

Timber Poles and Arms

Wide variety of testing options

Mostly still use excavate 600 mm
and drill + visual/probe.

Some use of ultra sound devices.

Excellent Australian study on
hardwood poles showed older
poles without observable defects
were 50% weaker than calc
strength.

Timber poles being replaced with
concrete and steel.

Timber arms being replaced with
RHS steel. >
46

Concrete Poles - Prestressed

Long life

Visual inspection only

External signs of deterioration
only appear towards the end of
life

Life limited by spalling usually
above ground

Hairline cracks chunks
broken out.

New technologies available to
measure corrosion of
embedded reinforcing and/or
concrete stress. >
47

Insulation: Ceramic

50% Porcelain, 50% glass

Visual inspection

Replacement driven mainly
by fitting corrosion.

Very little problems with
porcelain punctures or
cracking. >

48

Insulation: Composite

Mostly Silicone Rubber

Visual inspection only.

Multiple potential failure modes.
(Some visible, some are not).

Spray droplet test also used for
hydrophobicity to check shed aging

No serious problems encountered
to date, but ..

All first generation units have been
removed.
49

Insulator Fittings


1.

Two Failure mechanisms Corrosion




2.

Wear (moving joints)




3.

50

Replaced when seized

Or loss of cross section
Top and bottom of suspension
strings
Wind run driven

Joints assessed by visual

inspection + sample removal
and disassembly. >

Conductor

Copper
 Visual + Samples removed for testing for annealing

ACSR: GZ (Mostly Greased)








Lots of problems with corrosion.

Visual inspection for bulges
Cormon corrosion detector (selected sites)
Removal of samples for internal inspection
Recent problems with grease holidays.
Vibration damage at some sites.

ACSR AC (Greased)
 Very long life even in extreme environments
 Only vibration damage found.

Steel conductors: Visual inspection only

No AAAC (Yet)
51

ACSR Corrosion

Lots of problems and 1000s of km of conductor
replaced.

Average life to replacement in coastal areas only
20-25 yrs

Note: All new and replacement conductor is ACSR AC
(Greased.) >

52

ACSR Grease Holidays

Gaps in grease coating on core wire

Caused by manufacturing quality control

Results in unpredictable early corrosion
failures

Cormon being used to find them >

53

Cormon Corrosion
Tester

Used to find grease
holidays

Used on older ACSR
to confirm sampling
results. >

54

Cormon Sample Test Result

Result of a scan on 101 m span, showing a 3 m
grease holiday at start .

55

Dampers

Life varies widely (10-30 yrs)

Life limited by corrosion of messenger wire or
Fatigue of Messenger wire (as below)
Drooping = damper is past end of useful life >

Fatigue Crack

56

Joints

Multiple joint deterioration
processes.
 Internal corrosion, thermal
cycling, ice jacking etc

Resistance measurements
used. Good results.

Resistances measured live.

Random sampling + every joint
on highly loaded circuits.

Thermal imaging not used
much. (End of life detection only)
 Problems encountered >
57

Live Line Joint Resistance Measurement.

220 kV: (Ohmstick)

58

Improving Condition Data Quality

Dedicated inspectors

Good Training

Good coding guides

Electronic data collection

Top down reviews of the data

On site audits of data quality

Feedback to inspectors. >
59

Part 4: Predictive Modeling

 What is it ?

Why do it ?

What are the basic concepts?

What data is required?

What can you get out? >

60

Predictive Modeling : What is it?

A method of looking forward in a
structured way using the best combined
knowledge we have today
to

Predict what the pattern of future

maintenance will look like, and

Get feel for future costs & resourcing

Value the assets >

61

Why? : The big ask!

Management want the following :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

A 10 year maintenance plan, (+20 yr outlook?)

Detailed line by line.
Detailed by twrs, fnds, insulation, conductor etc
Costed yr by yr by line & component group.
Costs broken by components and labour.
Plan must stand up to external audit.
State the condition of each line and allocate an
asset value and effective remaining life based
on condition. >

Easy...????........NOT!
62

Why .. isnt it easy?

Huge volume of assets. (17,000 structures NZ)

Lines from new to over 80 years old. (NZ)

Piecemeal past maintenance

Poor or no records of past maintenance.

Poor / unreliable (or no) condition information.

Lines / component conditions vary widely.

Aging process driven by environment not age.

Very diverse environments

Component types aging at different rates

Loss of asset skills and knowledge. >
63

Basic Concepts

If we know what we have now, and

We know what condition its in now, and

We know how it ages

And what it costs to repair..
then a computer programme can -

Predict how fast each part will age

Tell us when it is likely to need repair, and

What it will cost to repair.

And it can tell us a lot more as well! >
64

Big Picture
PREDICTIVE REPORTING

65

6. COST DATA

System wide

Fixed.

5. DECISION TREES

System wide

Fixed.

4. COMPONENT LIFE DATA System wide

Fixed.

3. ENVIRONMENT DATA

Per Line

Fixed.

2. CONDITION DATA

Per Line

Live.

1. ASSET DATA

Per Line

Fixed.

Output Information

Maintenance can be predicted as far into
the future as you want. (e.g. 50 yrs!)

Cost detailed by year, line, tower and
component.

Costs broken by labour and materials.

An effective remaining engineering life
for each line asset.

An engineering valuation based on
overall line condition.

And more. >
66

What Value.?

All output is based on set criteria that can be
audited

Whole network evaluated on a single set of
assumptions that can be easily changed if
required.

All opinions and input data are visible

Future materials and manpower resourcing trends
become visible

Powerful what if tool. (e.g. this route or that)

Entire network can summated into a single page.
>
67

50 yr Network Wide Prediction..

68

Presentation Road Map

Part 1: Background on New Zealand, Transpower

Part 2: Problems we faced

Part 3: Condition assessment / condition coding

Part 4: Predictive modeling: The basic concepts
 Part 5: Environment and component data

Part 6: Putting it all together

Part 7: Linetech Software: Some output examples

Part 8: Summary

69

Part 5: Environment & Component

Data
 Defining and collecting environment data

Defining component lives

Component replacement tables

Repairs & replacements

Costs:
 Labour and
 Materials >

70

Environment data : What types?

Corrosivity (Zinc loss rates):
 Towers, fittings, ACSR

Rainfall :
 Towers, wood poles and arms,

Wind run :
 Suspension hot and cold ends, dampers.

Soil resistivity/acidity :
 Grillage foundations >
71

Defining Environments

Precision not necessary, or possible !

Environments change from year to year
(more so recently - global warming?)

Even at a single tower site environment
will change with tower height .

Reasonable to define general
environment from tower site to tower site

72

Environment data: Where from?

National corrosion maps

National rainfall maps

National wind run, speed & direction data

National soil type maps

Physical observations on site

Distance from coast / geothermal vents

Observation of actual component aging at
each site. (Very useful) >
73

Corrosion
Maps

Useful as a
general guide
only

Individual
tower sites
can vary
greatly.

Adjacient
sites can be
markedly
different >
74

Rainfall
Maps

Some
correlation
with
corrosion
maps

Useful to
know the
likely
number of
wet/dry
cycles.
75

On site aging observations

If we know
 When any component was installed new,
 and
 We can measure its current condition (say
after 10 years)

Then we can define the environment quite

accurately

Corrosion factor is determined this way. >
76

Environment data coding.

Basic environment coding approach
similar to condition data ie
 Benign environment = 100 (1) (CF > 100)
 Moderate environment = 50 (.5) (CF = 60)
 Severe environment = 10 (.1) (CF < 30)

Corrosion factor used only for Zinc loss

corrosion. >

77

Environmental Coding for Zinc Loss

78

Y e a r s to g a lv a n is in g
fa ilu r e
(F r o m 6 0 0 g m s /m 2 )
100

Z in c lo s s r a te s
per year
(g m s /m 2 /y r )
6

E n v ir o n m e n t
C ode

80

7 .5

0 .8

60

10

0 .6

40

15

0 .4

20

30

0 .2

10

60

0 .1

120

0 .0 5

1 .0

How long do line components last ??

Accountants: 40 years for everything!!

Managers : As long as they are in the job (and if they dont it will be your fault!)

Engineers however know that -

Line component life is entirely

dependent on the environment!
>
79

Defining Component lives

To look ahead we need to know how long
each component will last in various
environments

Benchmark data usually available from
actual field experience.

Gaps filled in from common sense, best
guess until better info available. >

80

Age vs Environment Table

To define how long items are expected to
last in service, a table was used

For each component type the table
related age, and environment to the
maximum life to replacement point.

Relationships are sometimes complex
and often non linear. >

81

Component Life to Replacement

Point vs Environment
Environmental Driver : Corrosivity

AGE (YRS) AT
REPLACEMENT
CRITERIA

Severe

Moderate

Benign

Environment Code %

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tower steel bare

10

15

20

28

38

50

65

80

100

120

Insulator :
Glass/porcelain

12

15

20

26

33

40

50

60

70

Hot & cold hardware:

Galv

45

14

18

23

30

35

45

55

65

75

ACSR GZ Ungreased

12

15

20

25

30

35

40

50

60

ACSR GZ Greased

10

12

15

20

25

32

40

50

60

75

88

ACSR AC Greased

25

30

35

40

50

65

80

99

130

160

220

10

15

20

27

37

50

65

80

100

Galv Steel Earthwire:

82

Component Life vs Environment

Relationship is usually non linear.

83

Replacement tables
When an item needs replacing or maintaining,
we define what happens in a table
Original Item

84

at

Replacement Item

Damper

20%

Damper

Glass Insulator String

30%

Composite Insulator

Wooden Crossarm

30%

Steel RHS crossarm

Wood Pole

25%

Concrete Pole

ACSR GZ Conductor

30%

ACSR AC Conductor

GZ Earthwire

40%

OPGW

When a component needs to be

maintained (not replaced)

Maintenance action can be set to any point in
aging cycle (Condition code) e.g.
 Tower at 60% = Painted tower.
 Grillage Foundation at 40% = Blast and zinc Sprayed
foundation.
 Stub Leg foundation at 50% = Blast and painted stub.

Maintenance action is treated just like a

replacement. The maintained item has new
defined remaining life. >
85

Decision Trees
Decision trees set correct maintenance actions:
Example below is for tower painting

86

Maintenance Costs

Costs are defined in a table for all
maintenance actions; replacement and
maintenance

Costs are allocated against each item as
 Labour (Lineman hours + Engineering hours)
 Materials (Imported from stock system)

Labour costs / hr are set centrally so

regular changes can be applied globally. >

87

Summary: What data do we need?

1.

Comprehensive asset data.



2.

What is at each tower site and in each span

Condition data on all key components



Condition data must be date coded

3.

Environment data


For every tower site

4.

Component life data tables



5.

How long each item lasts in each environment

Replacement tables.

6.

What each item is replaced with/repaired with each time it

needs work.
At what point in the component life it is replaced/repaired.

Cost data for each component

Labour and materials per change.

Note: Mostly static data except item 2 . >

88

Storing Lines Data.

89

Conceptual Data Flows

Field based
data
collection
&
validation
system

90

Central database
to hold all lines
related data:
(Asset data &
Condition data.)

Software to
build
management
reports

Data flows: More detail

Live data
Field
data
Condition
data from
Field
Assessment.
3-8 yearly
rolling
update.

Environment
coding
from each
structure
site

91

Modeling data

Main
database
Line and
Structure
Asset data
Component
condition
data

Line Model Database and Software

Frozen data
Snapshot
containing
all required
modeling
data

Tables of
Standard
components
and costs
Structure
environment
codes

Data
Record
Archived

Defined output
parameters: e.g. time
span to be modeled,
components covered,
report format etc.

LINE
MODEL
SOFTWARE

Table of standard
replacement
components, and
costing data
Table of component
lives in each defined
environment

Output
File or
report

Example: End of life calculation

Replacement date = Assessment date + Remaining Life

Remaining Life = Max life x Environment code x Condition
code

Example:
 An insulator string was last inspected in 1993
 It was assessed as being slightly more than halfway through its life;
equivalent to a condition code of 50% or 0.5.
 When new, the string is capable of lasting 55 years in a benign
environment (i.e. with a code of 1.0)
 The actual environment code is more aggressive = 0.75
Therefore:
 Replacement date = 1993 + (55 x 0.75 x 0.5 = 21) = 2014.

Note that the new install date is not required. >

92

Some Reporting Examples

Line / component condition (now)

Line / component future replacement and cost profile

Line or whole of Network future cost prediction over any
future time frame.

Material requirement prediction by component type / line /
across network over any future time frame

Manpower requirement prediction by lineman & engineer by
line or across network, over any future time frame.

What if studies: If we build that line on route A vs Route B
what will the long term maintenance costs be?

What is the remaining life of a line? (Calc value weighted
average remaining life of all components)

What is the remaining value of a line ? (Sum all
components depreciated in proportion to remaining age)>
93

Hot end fitting condition by tower.

New

100
90
80
70
60
%
50
Worn 40
30
20
10
Failure 0

94

% Remaining
life.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Tower Number

Actual Condition Report

95

Condition of a whole Line

B unnythorpe H enderson L ine A
L ine condition
S um m ary
M ay 96

E a r t h w ir e
S p a c e rs
D a m p e rs

80

C o n d u c to r

60

H a rd w a re
In s u la tio n

40

F o u n d a tio n s

20

T o w ers

0
100%

70%

40%

Component Condition

96

10%

T o w e rs
F o u n d a tio n s
In s u la t io n
H a rd w a re
C o n d u c to r
D a m p e rs
S p a c e rs
E a r t h w ir e

50 Year Network Wide Cost Prediction

97

Line by Line Work Plan

Detailed list of work required on either the
total line or structure by structure.

Numbers of components requiring work.
Where and when.

Estimated first order costs for the work

Year by year prediction to any future time
period. >

98

Future Maintenance Cost

Comparison
Inland vs Coastal Route Maint Cost Comparison
3500

Cumulative Cost

3000

Route 1
Coastal

2500
2000
1500

Route 2
Inland

1000
500
0
5

30

55
Years

99

80

105

Predictive Modeller Software

This is a stripped down demo version. The original runs
on a mainframe system.

This was compiled to run on a laptop under Windows
with a small database of one line. (Normally data would
be pulled off a server on a network.

100

Presentation Summary

As lines age they will not only deteriorate but become
increasingly diverse in condition and construction.

The task of managing maintenance will become
evermore more complex.

Maintenance bust be able to manage diversity

Detailed condition assessment data is essential to enable
sound forward planning in diverse systems without loss
of reliability.

A computerised line model can give you 





a view of where you are going, and the costs

allow you to optimize your maintenance management to
achieve the reliability and cost targets you want
allow you to value your assets consistently.
Plan future resourcing

You can see where you are going! >

101