CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Power System Reliability and MaintenanceReliability and Maintenance OptimizationRisk and Safety Analysis

Risk Analysis Using Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis for Transmission Network Assets

Open access
Suwanasri, Cattareeya, Saribut, Surapol, Suwanasri, Thanapong, Phadungthin, Rattanakorn·2021·Energies
DOI 10.3390/en14040977
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we apply the Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) approach to the criticality and risk analysis of the efficiency, safety/reliability, environment, and financial criteria of the high voltage transmission line. In the efficiency analysis, the weighting-scoring method and analytical hierarchy process are applied to obtain the line renovation index, which is interpreted as efficiency severity. The safety/reliability severity relates to the system impacts are caused by failure of the equipment and the system. The environmental severity takes social impacts and pollution into consideration. The financial severity involves the cost of spare parts and maintenance costs, which are interpreted as the financial severity of the lines. Twenty practical transmission lines in Thailand with actual data for 115, 230, and 500 kV were studied. The transmission line components are divided into eight components including the conductor, conductor accessories, insulator, steel structure, foundation, lightning protection system, tower accessories, and right-of-way. The severity and criticality of the components and transmission lines are analyzed and plotted in criticality matrices based on four criteria. This criticality matrix is presented at four different levels including very low, low, medium, and high risk, as represented by four color bands: green, yellow, orange, and red, respectively. The results show that three 115 kV lines are the first priority for short-term reconstruction planning because of their unacceptable condition and high risk in terms of safety/reliability and financing. Recommendations for maintenance strategy and risk mitigation are proposed for the utility according to the utility’s actual criticality. Ultimately, maintenance planning of the transmission system can be effectively managed with higher reliability, a lower risk of failure, and a lower cost of maintenance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/en14040977

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The authors of [18,19,20,21] apply AHP to transmission lines, mainly to defects; among these studies, [18,21] are most relevant to the search for prioritization and the establishment of criteria used for transmission lines.

    “Finally, the authors of [18,19,20,21] apply AHP to transmission lines, mainly to defects; among these studies, [18,21] are most relevant to the search for prioritization and the establishment of criteria used for transmission lines.”

    From Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 3.1 describes using AHP to weight testing methods for transmission-line condition assessment, and the Conclusions describe criteria for ranking maintenance, refurbishment, or replacement priorities. The paper does not characterize its application as mainly concerned with defects; its analysis also covers safety/reliability, environmental, and financial risks. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In [21], criticality matrices are demonstrated, which are widely used by energy transmission companies.

    “In [21], criticality matrices are demonstrated, which are widely used by energy transmission companies.”

    From Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Criticality Analysis section demonstrates a 5 × 5 criticality matrix for transmission-line risks. The Results and Discussion section says an asset-management program was widely used within one utility provider, but does not establish that criticality matrices are widely used by energy transmission companies generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Brown, R.; Humphrey, B. Asset management for transmission and distribution. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2005, 3, 39-45. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Khuntia, S.R.; Rueda, J.R.; Bouwman, S.B.; van der Meijden, A.M. A literature survey on asset management in electrical power [transmission and distribution] system. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2016, 26, 2123-2133. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Hanai, M.; Kojima, H.; Hayakawa, N.; Shinoda, K.; Okubo, H. Integration of asset management and smart grid with intelligent grid management system. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2013, 20, 2195-2202. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Wuller, A.I.; Pharmatrisanti, A. Transmission line assessment. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 September 2012.
  5. Montanari, G.C.; Hebner, R.; Morshuis, P.; Seri, P. An approach to insulation condition monitoring and life assessment in emerging electrical environments. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2019, 34, 1357-1364. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Zhang, D.; Li, W.; Xiong, X. Overhead line preventive maintenance strategy based on condition monitoring and system reliability assessment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 1839-1846. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Brennan, G. Refurbishment of Existing Overhead Transmission Lines. In Proceedings of the 2004 Cigre Session B2-203; Reference: B2-203_2004; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2004.
  8. Ellam, A. Refurbishment on overhead lines. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Seminar on Managing the Complexity of an Aging Asset Base, London, UK, 27 March 2006; pp. 61-69.
  9. Miller, D. Assessing the value of different asset management strategies. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Seminar on Managing the Complexity of an Aging Asset Base, London, UK, 27 March 2006; pp. 19-26.
  10. Benhmed, K.; Mooman, A.; Younes, A.; Shaban, K.; El-Hag, A. Feature selection for effective health index diagnoses of power transformers. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2017, 33, 3223-3226. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Liu, Y.; Xv, J.; Yuan, H.; Lv, J.; Ma, Z. Health assessment and prediction of overhead line based on health index. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2019, 66, 5546-5557. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Hardowar, R.; Sergio Rodriguez, S.; Uosef, R.E.; De León, F.; Czarkowski, D. Prioritizing the restoration of network transformers using distribution system loading and reliability indices. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2017, 32, 1236-1243. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Cardenas, L.A.; Alvarez, D.L.; Garcia, S.R.; Herrera, F.A. Overhead lines sssessment using health index. In Proceedings of the 2019 FISE-IEEE/CIGRE Conference-Living The Energy Transition (FISE/CIGRE), Medellin, Colombia, 4-6 December 2019.
  14. Zhang, Y.; Wei, B.; Liu, Y.; Xu, T.; Liu, X.; Hou, K. Component importance indices of transmission systems based on the impact- increment based state enumeration method. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia), Chengdu, China, 21-24 May 2019.
  15. Beehler, M.E. Reliability centered maintenance for transmission systems. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 1997, 12, 1023-1028. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Chowdhury, A.; Koval, D. Development of transmission system reliability performance benchmarks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2000, 36, 899-903. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Jae-Haeng, H.; Mun-Kyeom, K.; Dam, K.; Jae-Kun, L.; Yong-Cheol, K.; Jong-Keun, P. Maintenance priority index of overhead transmission lines for reliability centered approach. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2014, 9, 1248-1257.
  18. Arno, R.; Dowling, N.; Schuerger, R.J. Equipment failure characteristics and RCM for optimizing maintenance cost. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 52, 1257-1264.
  19. Guo, L.; Qiu, Q.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Jiang, L. Power transmission risk assessment considering component condition. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2014, 2, 50-58. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Chen, L.; Liu, L.; Peng, Y.; Chen, W.; Huang, H.; Wu, T.; Xu, W. Distribution network operational risk assessment and early warning considering multi-risk factors. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2020, 14, 3139-3149. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Suwanasri, T.; Phadungthin, R.; Suwanasri, C. Risk-based maintenance for asset management of power transformer: Practical experience in Thailand. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2014, 24, 1103-1119. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C.; Phadungthin, R. Risk assessment based on condition and importance criteria for power transformer in Thailand transmission network. Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2015, 10, 18-27. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Khalil, M.M.A.F.; Cristaldi, L.; Faifer, M. FMECA analysis for the assessing of maintenance activity for power transformers. In Proceedings of the Maintenance Performance Measurement and Management Conference, Coimbra, Portugal, 4-5 September 2014.
  24. Peyghami, S.; Davari, P.; F-Firuzabad, M.; Blaabjerg, F. Failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) in power electronic based power systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 21st European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE'19 ECCE Europe), Genova, Italy, 3-5 September 2019.
  25. Mohanty, J.K.; Dash, P.R.; Pradhan, P.K. FMECA analysis and condition monitoring of critical equipments in super thermal power plant. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2020, 11, 583-599. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Khorshidi, H.A.; Gunawan, I.; Ibrahim, M.Y. Data-driven system reliability and failure behavior modeling using FMECA. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2015, 12, 1253-1260. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Lee, Y.S.; Kim, D.J.; Kim, J.O.; Kim, H. New FMECA Methodology using structural importance and fuzzy theory. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2011, 26, 2364-2370. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Yssaad, B.; Khiat, M.; Chaker, A. Maintenance optimization for equipment of power distribution system based on FMECA method. Acta Electrotech. 2012, 53, 218-223.
  29. Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C. Inventory management for high voltage equipment using statistical distribution techniques. In Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Phetchaburi, Thailand, 16-18 May 2012.
  30. Luejai, W.; Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C. Condition evaluation of high voltage transmission line in Thailand. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Budapest, Hungary, 26-30 August 2019.
  31. Marwali, M.K.C.; Shahidehpour, S.M. Short-term transmission line maintenance scheduling in a deregulated system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2000, 15, 1117-1124. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Adami, J.F.; Silveira, P.M.; Martinez, M.L.B.; Perez, R.C.; Dallbello, A.C. New approach to improve high-voltage transmission line reliability. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2009, 24, 1515-1520. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Saaty, T.L. Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathe- matics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors-The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Rev. R. Span. Acad. Sci. Ser. A Math. 2008, 102, 251-318. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Tanaka, H.; Tsukao, S.; Yamashita, D.; Niimura, T.; Yokoyama, R. Multiple criteria assessment of substation conditions by pair-wise comparison of analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2010, 25, 3017-3023. [CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suwanasri, C., Saribut, S., Suwanasri, T., & Phadungthin, R.
Affiliations
King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok (TH)
Corresponding author
Suwanasri, Thanapong
Venue
Energies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-02-12
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
977
ISSN
1996-1073 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/en14040977
OpenAlex
W3130283172
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Energies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Power System Reliability and Maintenance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
FMECA, high-voltage transmission lines, criticality matrix, maintenance planning, reliability, maintenance costs, transmission line components, risk mitigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review