The challenge when using a standard hammer to assess the pole condition is sound perception of an individual and associating it to the correct asset health score. A standard hammer is also unable to provide granular detail of a pole condition or automate the same data directly into an asset database. These sounds can be perceived differently depending on the operator, therefore providing inconsistent data.
Objectives
By the end of the project
1. To have established the technical and commercial viability of using a Smart Hammer with accurate and repeatable results.
2. Conduct consistent and reliable initial wood pole inspections as an alternative to the traditional hammer test method.
3. The ability to capture pole data and integrate with asset databases
4. To have disseminated the learning from the project through annual or exceptional events for the benefit of GB customers.
Learnings
Outcomes
The results of the project were very positive, the Smart Hammer has been found to outperform the current traditional method of inspecting a wood pole using a lump hammer. After destructive tests of wood poles the Smart Hammer was found to have identified rot in poles that had been missed by the traditional testing method. The project was successful in raising the TRL of Smart Hammer from a TRL 5 to TRL 8 ready for BAU implementation. It is the intention to implement Smart Hammer into the BAU process for the testing of wood poles. A funding application was made to the Storm Arwen re-opener to fund the deployment of Smart Hammer. It is the intention to provide a further additional close down report detailing the Smart Hammer development and the validation activities that were carried out during the project.
Lessons Learnt
The project proposal consisted of 20 pages of technical discussion, including a section containing 5 areas which were considered at the time to be of technical risk. The first two such areas related to component and constructional reliability in the presence of very high levels of mechanical shock repeated at rapid intervals over a design lifetime of 5 years. By careful choice of components and build methods, shock has not so far proved to be a problem, and we now have a reasonable degree of confidence that the target operating life may be achieved.
A third area was the risk associated with the original plan to transmit power and data along the same pair of wires in the hammer shaft. As previously mentioned, this risk was averted by reluctantly conceding that a hard-wired battery pack was the only safe option.
The fourth area of risk concerned our inexperience at the time of integrating one of our products with a Smartphone application. As mentioned in the proposal, this risk was mitigated by sub-contracting to a company whom we at least had worked with before as a supplier to them of radio frequency hardware. We had also budgeted for a second round of development of the phone app, which Energy 5 Networks Association
would have been adequate for what we thought at the time would be the endpoint of the project. Changing and more ambitious requirements from our sponsor later resulted in the phone software development becoming at least as great a task as development of the hardware and its internal firmware. Fortunately, this was funded directly by SSEN out with our initial contract with the sub-contractor.
At the start of the project analysis of data gathered by the hammer in the field had been envisaged as being carried out by an engineer using a PC into which the accumulated strike data had been downloaded. This was abandoned when the idea of a web portal was introduced and funded again directly by SSEN.
The fifth area of risk listed in our proposal concerned the consequences of parts and components becoming obsolescent over the duration of the project. In practice, obsolescence has not been a problem, but temporary unavailability of components most certainly has been an issue. We were first affected by a world-wide shortage of the STM32F microprocessor chip, and more recently by deliveries exceeding one year of the sensor device in the hammer capsule. The lesson to be learnt here is to buy everything likely to be required at the outset, in quantities which will enable the work to be carried over into production should the project outcome be successful. In today's world this policy must be maintained over the production lifetime; there is no possibility for small-scale production (by consumer product standards) reaching a “just in time” arrangement with a semiconductor chip manufacturer. For future projects the lesson learned would be to understand the risk profile of availability on all parts at the outset of the project and understand if actions had to be taken to mitigate future availability issues before it impacted on the project timeline.
Hence, to ensure commercial success, it is necessary to decide in advance how many units will be sold, buy all critical parts for these up-front, and be prepared to do a re-design thereafter. Obviously, where expensive non-second sourced parts are involved, this entails considerable financial risk for small manufacturing enterprises.
