FY15 NSRP ETP Panel Project Safer Inspection of Medium Voltage Electrical Panels on Navy Ships NSRP ETP Panel Meeting Electrical Panel Meeting, San Diego, CA December 9, 2015 Penn State Electro-Optics Center The Navy Manufacturing Technology Center of Excellence for Electro-Optics 222 Northpointe Blvd. Freeport, PA 16229 Jeff Callen Matthew E. DiGioia Research and Development Engineer Engineering Project Manager Electrical Engineering and Systems Engineering Assistant to ManTech Program Operations 724-295-7000, ext. 7141 724-295-7000, ext. 7128 jcallen@eoc.psu.edu mdigioia@eoc.psu.edu DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1
Presentation Outline 1. Project Background • Issue & Approach • Participants & Stakeholders • Technical Approach & Deliverables 2. Status Update • Lab Testing Results • Milestones 3. Summary Quad / End 4. Backups 2
Safer Inspection of Medium Voltage Electrical Panels on Navy Ships Background • Even under best practices, installation of shipboard switchboards results in loose connections and wiring mistakes that lead to arc faults and other electrical maladies – Average of 8 arc faults per year throughout the navy fleet - all occurred in Switchboards and Load Centers - cost Navy millions of dollars in downtime and repairs [NAVSEA, SUPSHIP Gulf Coast] • Newer ships have electrical systems considered medium to high voltage – LHD, LHA, DDG-51(FLTIII), DDG-1000 = Medium, 4160 volt systems (CVN = High, 13,800 volt systems) • Switchboard Inspections: during construction, builder’s trial, during sea trials, and again at regular maintenance intervals – Current inspection methods: typically utilize Thermal IR imagers to investigate cabinets and comparatively identify ‘hotspots’; other investigation modes require close proximity interrogation Temperature difference between phases Load Center 3
Safer Inspection of Medium Voltage Electrical Panels on Navy Ships Issue • Current Inspection Practices: secure the area, personnel don full coverage Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to image inside active panels, preferably while drawing a high load such as during sea trials. Some facilities will not open panels for inspection on 4160V, even with PPE. • Necessitates a new paradigm in switchboard inspection to comply with OSHA regulations and avoid Technical Warrant Holder (TWH) waiver requests Approach • EOC’s initial analysis identified preliminary requirements and potential solutions for both “temporary” installations acceptable before and during sea trials as well as “permanent” solutions which must be compliant with Mil-Specs for shipboard operations • Leading candidate solution: temporary or permanent installation of panel covers with IR transparent windows enabling safe IR inspection without exposing personnel to active electrical components – Allows inspectors in the room to operate at any time before/during acceptance/sea trials without PPE, while utilizing the same cameras and practices currently used but without the cumbersome and costly need to secure the area and deactivate and reactivate electrical switchboards. • Candidate solutions were vetted through NSRP Electrical Technologies Panel (ETP) presentations and subsequent stakeholder interactions. • Besides IR windows, potential solutions with pros and cons of each were explored including a standalone gantry for remote imaging, temperature sensitive paint, and RF interrogation of embedded temperature sensors With the support of this community, the approach was refined such that this project focuses on demonstration of temporary (or permanent) installation of panel covers with IR transparent windows enabling safe IR inspection without exposing personnel to energized electrical components • New MIL-DTL-32483, dated 8 Nov. 2013, DETAIL SPECIFICATION SWITCHGEAR, POWER, HARD- MOUNTED, MEDIUM VOLTAGE, NAVAL SHIPBOARD, requires use of thermal imaging windows. LHA 8 invokes MIL-DTL-32483 for 4160V Switchboards. 4
Active Project Participants Lead Investigators Jeff Callen Penn State Electro-Optics Center jcallen@eoc.psu.edu Research and Development Engineer, Electrical Engineering and Systems Engineering Matthew E. DiGioia Penn State Electro-Optics Center mdigioia@eoc.psu.edu Engineering Project Manager, ManTech Sensors, Robotics, and Automation Sponsoring Shipyard Jason Farmer Ingalls Shipbuilding (Pascagoula) jason.farmer@hii-ingalls.com Project Lead / Electrical Engineer IV Government Stakeholder Clay Smith SUPSHIP Gulf Coast david.smith@supshipgc.navy.mil Engineering Project Technical Representative Richard Deleo Newport News Shipbuilding r.deleo@hii-nns.com Engineering Manager - Submarine Electrical 5
Integrated Project Team (IPT): Advisors and Other Stakeholders Government Stakeholders Dave Mako NSWC Philadelphia Division, Code 427, Charles.mako@navy.mil Propulsion & Power Systems John Zabita NSWC Philadelphia Division, Code 511, john.zabita@navy.mil Instrumentation & Sensors (IR Thermography) Industry Advisors Gary Weiss DRS Power & Control Technologies, Inc. garypweiss@drs.com Business Development Manager for Power Distribution and Power Conversion John Ykema L3 SPD Electrical Systems, VP and CTO John.Ykema@L-3com.com Other Interested Parties Tom Connolly NSWC Philadelphia Division, Code 427, Thomas.O.Connolly@navy.mil Propulsion & Power Systems Greg Stevens Bath Iron Works Gregory.Stevens@gdbiw.com Electrical Engineering Dennis Neitzel AVO Training Institute, Inc. Dennis.Neitzel@avotraining.com OSHA Authorized Maritime Trainer Principal Committee Member, NFPA 70E 6
Technical Approach Process and Means to Accomplishing Goals and Objectives (from SOW) Review Shipbuilder/Government/Industry Requirements for IR Panel Inspection and Current Inspection Practices [HII, SSGC & Penn State EOC] Determine Camera(s) and Window(s) to be Used [Penn State EOC Led] Laboratory Tests of Cameras and Windows [Penn State EOC Led] – Devise Practical Implementation [Penn State EOC, HII & SSGC] – Plan and Prepare for Final Demonstration [Penn State EOC, HII & SSGC] – Develop Technology Transition Path Including Safety/Business Case [All] 7
Deliverable 6.1 Proof of Concept Demonstration A demonstration of IR thermography through one or more IR windows installed in the door of a 4160V switchgear panel that is representative of the type of switchgear panels to be on LHA-8 and similar vessels. Demonstration for sponsors and IPT ~ late January 2016. Originally Targeted LHA-7 Sea Trial (trials scheduled for late Summer 2016 = outside PoP) Now Exploring Testing @ DRS’ Milwaukee Facility: – Thermography Demonstration in DRS’ prototype 4160V switchgear panel and testing facility • Make main power connections to the panel busbar (two phases minimum, three preferred) • Energize panel connections with low voltage, high current to simulate properly operating panel (temperatures of phases approximately equal and typical of full load temperatures) • IR thermography imaging through IR windows mounted in panel cover. Window and camera placement such that viewing can be done around internal obstructions in the cabinet. – Thermography Demonstration with Simulated Fault • Simulate a potential bad connection by altering the test conditions so that one phase connection is significantly higher temperature than another phase. • Repeat IR thermography through Windows – Assistance in fabricating a panel door cover modified with IR windows(s) • DRS and EOC jointly determine location of two IR windows such that imaging of main bus connections can be done through the windows, taking internal obstructions (structure, phenolics, other cables) into account. • EOC supplies DRS with two IR windows • DRS supplies a surrogate cover for the panel and installs the window(s) in the predetermined cover locations 8
Reporting Deliverables 6.2 Quarterly Reports: April, July, and October Report Outline: (1) Project Overview (2) Technical Status (3) Schedule, (4) Business Status (5) Issues (6) Near-Term Plans – 6.3 Final Project Report Final report content shall summarize research done, test methodology, test results, demonstration results, and technology transition path forward 9
Project Update IR Windows – Crystal vs. Polymer • Crystal Windows – Pro: Vis and IR, no reinforcement grid. – Con: possibly could deteriorate over time (reviewing this issue), transmission cuts off midway through long IR band • Polymer Windows – Pro: no deterioration, full IR band, some rectangular – Con: Need reinforcing grid, some will not pass vis light (need separate window) Cameras and IR Windows • Cameras – FLIR EX320 from SUPSHIP-GC – Fluke TI32 from Ingalls – FLIR T440 borrowed from FLIR • Windows – FLIR IRW- 4S: 4” round crystal (matches LHA-8 spec) – Fluke CLirVu CV400: 4” round as a 2nd crystal window – Exiscan XIR-A-4-H-X: 4 ” square polymer window – IRISS VPT-100: 4 ” round as a second polymer window Laboratory Testing • Tested both polymer and crystal windows, plus multiple cameras • Established basic performance: accuracy with and without windows, temperature range, Field of View, visible transmission, view actual cable with lugs and simulated temperatures 10
Laboratory Test Results - 1 Cameras FLIR EX320 from SUPSHIPS not used FLIR T440 Fluke TI32 4” Windows (covers removed) IRISS VPT-100 Exiscan XIR-A-4-H-X FLIR IRW-4S Fluke CV400 11
Recommend
More recommend
