Event Recap
RECAP | ROUNDTABLE | Engine-generator maintenance procedures
Participants at Uptime Institute’s June 11th roundtable on engine-generator maintenance focused their comments on low-load testing and alternate fuels, Many expressed frustration at resistance to full-load, “pull-the-plug” testing required to ensure that emergency backup power systems respond as needed in the event of a utility outage or utility not being available for a long period.
Uptime Institute facilitator Kevin Heslin commented that the importance of generators to data center operation made it remarkable that so many longstanding concerns about backup power systems remained unresolved. Uptime Institute consultant Enoch Simpson agreed, but he added that engine-generator maintenance and testing is not a simple process. He said that engine-generator maintenance and testing require a holistic approach that should include engine-generator control panels, auto-transfers, engine generator start-up sequences, and main circuit protection breaker operations. He commented that pull-the-plug testing increases the risk of dropping the critical loads unless engine-generator systems have been tested previously. Also, a thorough system test/maintenance procedure must include the switchgear, batteries, UPS systems, and fuel quality, and that these systems—and others—must be maintained as well.
Simpson acknowledged the resistance to full load testing of engine generators. He also agreed that load banks (permanent or temporary) could indeed be part of a solution for testing engine generators at full capacity. But he also encouraged the participants to take other opportunities to test engine generators at full capacity (for example during a mains utility failure event) in addition to the periodic full-load testing as a way to increase the reliability of backup power system operation. The key, he said, is to develop a plan to build confidence in the facility’s maintenance procedures to reduce the resistance to full load testing.
A participant from a facilities management company noted the value of coordinating all these tests and involving expert vendor support. In one instance, he had been on-site performing work on a UPS system when his readings began to indicate a serious power quality concern that manifested during a generator test. A solution was possible only because both the generator and UPS vendors were on-site and able to coordinate a procedure. Lacking this joint expertise, he said, the facility would have dropped a load to return to normal operations.
Even so, participants repeatedly returned to the issue of low-load testing, with one global IT manufacturer noting that some facilities used engine-generators to provide backup power to IT rooms, labs, or different partners, as well as white spaces, with each of these spaces or entities having their own availability requirements. A large international retailer noted that the load banks could be used in these and similar cases to perform a no-load test and reduce facility risk. He said that performing these tests periodically helped him identify recurring equipment issues.
Several participants raised concerns about “wet stacking” as a result of low-load testing. However, one participant suggested that wet stacking, while a real potential problem, should no longer be a concern as chemicals and modern additives, properly used, can eliminate the problem.
The discussion of alternate fuels, in contrast, was relatively brief, as no one supported the use of biofuels. However, one organization acknowledged evaluating the use of synthetic fuels as a way to get “in front of the curve on emissions” and to future proof the facility.
Uptime Institute facilitator Kevin Heslin commented that the importance of generators to data center operation made it remarkable that so many longstanding concerns about backup power systems remained unresolved. Uptime Institute consultant Enoch Simpson agreed, but he added that engine-generator maintenance and testing is not a simple process. He said that engine-generator maintenance and testing require a holistic approach that should include engine-generator control panels, auto-transfers, engine generator start-up sequences, and main circuit protection breaker operations. He commented that pull-the-plug testing increases the risk of dropping the critical loads unless engine-generator systems have been tested previously. Also, a thorough system test/maintenance procedure must include the switchgear, batteries, UPS systems, and fuel quality, and that these systems—and others—must be maintained as well.
Simpson acknowledged the resistance to full load testing of engine generators. He also agreed that load banks (permanent or temporary) could indeed be part of a solution for testing engine generators at full capacity. But he also encouraged the participants to take other opportunities to test engine generators at full capacity (for example during a mains utility failure event) in addition to the periodic full-load testing as a way to increase the reliability of backup power system operation. The key, he said, is to develop a plan to build confidence in the facility’s maintenance procedures to reduce the resistance to full load testing.
A participant from a facilities management company noted the value of coordinating all these tests and involving expert vendor support. In one instance, he had been on-site performing work on a UPS system when his readings began to indicate a serious power quality concern that manifested during a generator test. A solution was possible only because both the generator and UPS vendors were on-site and able to coordinate a procedure. Lacking this joint expertise, he said, the facility would have dropped a load to return to normal operations.
Even so, participants repeatedly returned to the issue of low-load testing, with one global IT manufacturer noting that some facilities used engine-generators to provide backup power to IT rooms, labs, or different partners, as well as white spaces, with each of these spaces or entities having their own availability requirements. A large international retailer noted that the load banks could be used in these and similar cases to perform a no-load test and reduce facility risk. He said that performing these tests periodically helped him identify recurring equipment issues.
Several participants raised concerns about “wet stacking” as a result of low-load testing. However, one participant suggested that wet stacking, while a real potential problem, should no longer be a concern as chemicals and modern additives, properly used, can eliminate the problem.
The discussion of alternate fuels, in contrast, was relatively brief, as no one supported the use of biofuels. However, one organization acknowledged evaluating the use of synthetic fuels as a way to get “in front of the curve on emissions” and to future proof the facility.
Request an evaluation to view this report
Apply for a four-week evaluation of Uptime Intelligence; the leading source of research, insight and data-driven analysis focused on digital infrastructure.
Already have access? Log in here
Posting comments is not available for Network Guests