IEEE C50.13 : Compare & Review
IEEE PES Generator Subcommittee WG8
Minutes of Meeting in Pittsburgh @ the 2008 PES GM
The Meeting was held on July 21, 2008.
People Attended the meeting:
Glen Mottershead William McCown James R.Michalec
Tom Wait Lon Montgomery Kay Chen
Geoff Klempner John Amos N.E. Nilsson
John Yagielski Kenichi Hattori Robert Gray
Jodi Haasz Soo H.Kim William H.Bartley
- WG group member discussed the long history of IEEE past effort in standard harmonization, especially the work done during the revision of C50. X series. It is concluded By the working group member that:
1)The C50.13 was revised and partially harmonized with IEC to a degree in 2005.
2)IEC 60034.1&3 had also been revised to a great degree since 2004. IEEE can send us the most up to date revision.
3)But there are different opinions among group members on “to what degree” IEEE C50.13 had been harmonized or should be harmonized with IEC, and more importantly group felt the need to understand and clarify “why it was is this as it is”.
4)Some group members flagged that some contents of C50.13 might be confusing or inappropriate for field application. (Difficulty in interpreting/using temperature rise limits and the appropriateness of coolant temperature base was discussed as an example).
It is decided then that:
5)In order to have clarification and consensus on the above mentioned issues,WG members felt the urgent need to develop a NEW comparison table on the most UP TO DATE version of the STANDARDS.
6)This comparison table would only identify the difference between IEC and IEEE and would not introduce individual opinions or evaluations on “how they are different”. Standards were divided to different sections and assigned to individuals. Assignments are as below:
Section34: Definitions and Operational requirement: Lon MontgomeryKay Chen
Section 5: Rating & Performance characteristics: John YagielskiJim Michalec
Section 6Section 7: Insulation systems & Temperature and temperature limits:
Rober GreyWilliam McCownTom wait
Section 8: Efficiency: Kenichi Hattori
Section 9: Tests: Geoff Klempner
Section 10: Marking: John Amos
It was suggested and agreed by the group that we should have the drafted comparison table ready by 2008. John Yagielski’s group would set up the template to provide an example. We would use one same format for the comparison table.
7)It is also decided as the 2ndstage of the comparison effort. The group would work together; individuals would input their evaluation on the differences identified and make their suggestions for amendment/improvement. A standard IEEE form for balloting would be used for that.
8)Annex B was discussed. It was written as a guide line for users. Group felt it needed to be reviewed and would be reviewed together.
9)John Amos suggested producing series of presentation on different topics in C50.13. These would serve the purpose to: clarify the confusing points in the standard, presenting the progress of the WG (compare & review), and educate people on how to use the standard.
Geoff Klempner agreed to take the lead on this.
We plan to have 5 mini series of presentations. We plan to present a panel session/tutorial in July, 2009 PES GM.
We also plan to present this as a tutorial in May, 2009 IEMDC meeting.
- Group review the drafted charter & other issues
10) It was agreed by the group that we would change the name of this WG to “ IEEE C50.13 Compare & Review”
11) Contents of the charter would be revised according to the new direction set by this meeting.
12) It was briefly brought to attention in the meeting that C50.13’s “5 year deadline” is approaching. In 2010, C50.13 would either be affirmed or revised. This gives a general direction and timeframeto this working group. WG member felt this group formed at the right time.
13)Considering the 2010 deadline is 2 years away, this WG may evolve to revise the current standard. This would depend on the progress and results made by “compare& review of C50.13”. It will be a potential scope extension item.
14) It was decided that the current focus of this WG would be C50.13. It was discussed whether this WG would work on C50.12 as well. C50.12 also went through similar revising process in 2005, and its 2010 deadlineis approaching. There are enough interests in this group to work on C50.12, but not enough manpower or expertise at this time. It would be left open for potential scope extension.
Glen Mottershed volunteered to take the lead in planning for potential opportunity.
15)It was discussed to utilize some IEEE website as communication tool for this WG. But group came to agree that email would be the simplest way for communication for now.
16) Jodi Haasz talked at the meeting about information on the IEC-IEEE Dual Logo Adoption program. She later emailed me on some more information. (We can find thatat She would keep us posted on the recent movement of the IEEE/IEC program as long as we have interests in what IEEE dual logo is doing.
- Post meeting discussions
17)After the meeting, there are some more people expressed the interests to join this WG.
Kevin Mayor (Alstom), John Ready (Bechtel Power), Michael Brimsek (Minnesota power). Their name would be added to the Roster.
18)In the generator subcommittee meeting, some planning for 2009 meeting was discussed. It seemed to be confusing for this WGto set up a panel session in 2009 general meeting without producing paper, or to set up free tutorial session with only presentation. It seemed to involve applying through different IEEE department.
19)For presentation at IEMDC, it was decided to be a free tutorial session. We need to give a brief abstract to Osama by November.