Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Working Group
A3.06
October 2012
Working Group A3.06
Members
Corresponding Members
Copyright 2012
Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use for personal
purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial reproduction of the publication for use other
than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden.
Disclaimer notice
CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law.
ii
5.7.5 Failure origin ............................................................................................ 83
5.7.6 Failure primary cause .............................................................................. 85
5.7.7 Failure service conditions ........................................................................ 89
5.7.8 Contribution of environmental stresses to failures ................................... 93
5.7.9 Failure repair ............................................................................................ 95
5.7.10 Consequential measures ......................................................................... 98
5.7.11 GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures characteristics ........... 100
5.8 Correlations Between Prevailing Major Failures Characteristics......................................122
5.8.1 Correlations of major failure modes ....................................................... 122
5.8.2 Correlations of failed subassemblies ..................................................... 126
5.8.3 Correlations of major failure primary causes.......................................... 134
5.8.4 Correlations of major failure service conditions ..................................... 139
5.9 Recommendation for Future Surveys..............................................................................143
5.10 Summary and Conclusions..............................................................................................144
5.10.1 Summary of main findings ..................................................................... 144
5.10.2 Recommendations for manufacturers and utilities ................................. 152
5.10.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 154
References .....................................................................................................................155
Appendix 1 - GISQuestionnaire ...............................................................................................156
Appendix 2 - Definitions ..........................................................................................................164
iii
5.1 Common Matters of the 2004-2007 Reliability Survey
The results of the 2004 - 2007 reliability study of high voltage equipment are presented in six
Technical Brochures (TBs):
TB 509 contains material that concerns the entire work, such as the objectives and scope,
description of how the survey was organized, explanations of the statistical methods being
applied, suggestions on how utilities can use the results, some general definitions and a
short bibliography. In addition, extensive summaries of the most important findings from the
different component types are included.
The four component TBs, i.e., no. 510 - 513, contain much more details as they present all
results for each component type. This includes tables, figures, and graphs presenting
reliability and service experience data and correlations, as well as text with commentaries
and discussions. The relevant parts of the questionnaire and the relevant definitions used in
the survey are shown in their appendices.
Each TB is a self contained and complete report, but does also form a part of a bigger
whole. To simplify cross referencing between the different parts, an overall numbering
system that assigns a unique number to all sections, tables and figures is applied. Items in
Part 1 are numbered using the format 1.X.X.X, in Part 2 the format is 2.X.X.X, etc. In Part 5
the format is 5.X.X.X.
1
5.2 Introduction
5.2.1 History of GIS experience surveys
The 1st GIS international survey questionnaire was circulated in 1991 and both users and
manufacturers were addressed. It collected experience up to 31.12.1990. 109 users from 34
countries and 18 manufacturers from 9 countries responded to the questionnaire. The users
experience represented 1 817 GIS, 10 531 circuit breaker-bays (CB-bays) and 78 036 CB-
bay-years, the manufacturers experience represented 4 867 GIS, 24 870 CB-bays and
199 473 CB-bay-years. The questionnaire addressed: general data about GIS installations,
factors which contributed to selection of GIS over AIS, adequacy of existing
design/production/site test procedures, reliability, availability and maintainability, cause of
major failures, future trends/condition monitoring /diagnostics and general open-ended
questions. The survey and data analysis were published in [7], [8], [9] and [10] CIGRE
papers during 1992 to 1994.
The 2nd GIS international survey questionnaire was circulated five years later, in 1996, with
the aim of collecting service experience data available up to 31.12.1995. 80 users from 30
countries responded to the questionnaire. The collected data referred to 2115 GIS
installations, 13 696 CB-bays and 118 483 CB-bay-years. In comparison to the 1st
questionnaire, the 2nd questionnaire was more focused on installation overview and major
failure statistics (dataset 1) and GIS life cycle issues (dataset 2). Therefore only users were
addressed. Besides the general data about GIS installations (similar to data sheet in the first
survey) the users were asked to report in dataset 1 the characteristics and service
experience (major failures) for each individual GIS from the beginning of their putting into
service and in dataset 2 to answer more general questions concerning maintenance, lifetime
and environmental aspects independently of the number of installed GIS and voltage level.
The survey and data analysis were published in [11], [12] and [13] CIGRE papers during
1998 to 2000.
The 3rd GIS international survey questionnaire was circulated in 2003 and collected
population and failure data in 2004 to 2007. The structure of the questionnaire was as much
as useful similar to the 2nd survey to enable a comparison. The survey structure is described
in details in technical brochure [1] and the GIS questionnaire cards and their relevant
definitions can be found in Appendix 1 of this brochure.
The below shown analysis follows a structure of the GIS population cards, and GIS failure
cards for circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches, instrument transformers and
other components in GIS. It uses data from all these five questionnaire cards. As questions
and answers in these cards were not identical it was necessary to make their re-coding to
get a common platform. The resulting analysis below includes the following:
Description of the participation in the survey (chapter 5.3)
Overview of collected GIS service experience distribution (chapter 5.4)
Overview of collected GIS failures distribution (chapter 5.5)
Calculation of GIS major failure frequencies (chapter 5.6)
Analysis of collected GIS major and minor failure characteristics (chapter 5.7)
Correlations between prevailing GIS major failure characteristics (chapter 5.8.)
Summary and conclusion
2
All chapters below include introduction (description of subchapters), collected data in
absolute and relative values, interpretation graphs, comparison with the 2nd GIS survey
results (if applicable) and final summary of findings and their WGs commentary.
As the failure frequency is concerned there was taken the same unit as in the 2nd survey, i.e.
the failure frequency is described as number of failures per 100 circuit-breaker-bay-years
(CB-bay-years). One CB-bay is a 3-phase GIS assembly consisting of one circuit breaker, its
associated isolating switches, instrument transformers, interconnecting bus up to and
including the line disconnecting switch (if applicable), and section of main bus (if applicable).
The GIS voltage ranges, i.e. voltage classes, were divided in the questionnaire and are
described here as follows:
Table 5-1 shows participation of countries and utilities (in brackets), both in individual
reference years and in individual GIS voltage classes. The total is not a sum of lines above
or to the left as most of countries and many utilities referred about GIS in multiple reference
years and in multiple voltage classes.
Table 5-2 shows number of reported GIS population in individual reference years, i.e.
number of reported CB-bays. Table 5-3 shows the same distribution but without one and
Table 5-4 without two prevailing countries.
3
Table 5-1: Number of countries (utilities) participated in GIS survey (absolute)
Number of countries (utilities) contributing to Total number
reference year of different
countries
(utilities) in 4
Voltage class 2004 2005 2006 2007 years
60 U<100 kV 6 (15) 5 (14) 5 (14) 5 (14) 6 (15)
100 U<200 kV 19 (38) 16 (36) 15 (36) 16 (38) 20 (44)
200 U<300 kV 12 (22) 12 (23) 12 (24) 12 (24) 13 (25)
300 U<500 kV 14 (24) 11 (21) 13 (22) 13 (22) 16 (26)
500 U<700 kV 3 (11) 3 (11) 3 (11) 3 (11) 3 (11)
700 kV 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2)
Total number of
different countries
(utilities) 23 (50) 21 (48) 20 (48) 21 (49) 24 (55)
Table 5-2: Number of GIS population [CB-bays] collected in individual survey years (absolute)
Number of GIS CB/bays population collected in reference year
Voltage class 2004 2005 2006 2007
60 U<100 kV 10 047 10 071 10 116 10 170
100 U<200 kV 6 144 6 263 6 993 7 002
200 U<300 kV 2 005 2 049 2 093 2 160
300 U<500 kV 2 560 2 434 2 665 2 672
500 U<700 kV 776 797 807 807
700 kV 85 85 85 85
Total 21 617 21 699 22 759 22 896
Table 5-3: Number of GIS population [CB-bays] collected in individual survey years
data without one prevailing country (absolute)
Number of GIS CB/bays population collected in reference year
Voltage class 2004 2005 2006 2007
60 U<100 kV 43 46 46 46
100 U<200 kV 5 662 5 779 6 508 6 502
200 U<300 kV 281 313 345 410
300 U<500 kV 1 381 1 245 1 476 1 481
500 U<700 kV 29 47 47 47
700 kV 85 85 85 85
Total 7 481 7 515 8 507 8 571
Table 5-4: Number of GIS population [CB-bays] collected in individual survey years data
without two prevailing countries (absolute)
Number of GIS CB/bays population collected in reference year
Voltage class 2004 2005 2006 2007
60 U<100 kV 26 29 29 29
100 U<200 kV 945 854 942 936
200 U<300 kV 281 313 345 410
300 U<500 kV 517 360 399 404
500 U<700 kV 29 47 47 47
700 kV 48 48 48 48
Total 1 846 1 651 1 810 1 874
As the GIS population card asked for 3-phase data about Gas Insulated Switchgear
(GIS) and those parts of hybrid substations made from GIS components all of the
above mentioned values are related to 3-phase arrangements.
4
Comparison with previous survey
Number of countries (24) as well as number of utilities (55) participating in the 3rd GIS
experience survey is lower than participation in the 2nd survey by 20% for countries (30) and
31% for utilities (80). Number of referred GIS CB-bays (22 240) is higher than in the 2nd
survey (13 696) by about 60%. This reflects an increasing use of GIS technology.
The utilities, that responded to the 3rd survey, are not the same and there is only a certain
overlap (less than 50%) in both surveys. This makes the comparison of both surveys results
problematic. The brochure user is therefore kindly asked to keep this fact in mind when
reading the comparison with previous survey paragraphs below.
As written in chapter 5.3 a sum of reported CB-bays in individual reference years gives a
value of reported GIS service experience, i.e. number of CB-bay-years. The reported service
experience population data [CB-bay-years] is analyzed here from the following point of
views:
Country contribution to the survey and GIS voltage class distribution (chapter 5.4.1)
GIS extent distribution (chapter 5.4.2)
GIS type of enclosure distribution (chapter 5.4.3)
GIS location distribution (chapter 5.4.4)
GIS age distribution (chapter 5.4.5)
GIS maintenance practices distribution (chapter 5.4.6)
Country contribution to the survey is shown in Table 5-5. It shows voltage class contributions
of the individual countries as well as their contribution to the total. 100% bases are the
service experiences of individual voltage classes, and/or total data (last column) cumulated
over the 4-year survey period.
5
Table 5-5 : GIS service experience country contribution to the survey (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
GIS Voltage class
60U<100 kV 100U<200 kV 200U<300 kV 300U<500 kV 500U<700 kV 700 kV
(cl.1) (cl.2) (cl.3) (cl.4) (cl.5) (cl.6) Total
Number of [%] Number of [%] Number of [%] Number of [%] Number of [%] Number of [%] Number [%]
CB-bay- CB-bay- CB-bay- CB-bay- CB-bay- CB-bay- of
Country years years years years years years CB-bay-
code years
1 72 0,18 136 0,52 96 1,16 216 2,09 0 0 192 56,47 712 0,80
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0,23 0 0 0 0 24 0,03
4 0 0 166 0,63 56 0,67 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0,25
5 0 0 8 0,03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0,01
7 0 0 95 0,36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0,11
8 0 0 661 2,50 0 0 136 1,32 0 0 0 0 797 0,90
9 0 0 116 0,44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 0,13
10 0 0 0 0 12 0,14 0 0 44 1,38 0 0 56 0,06
11 12 0,03 192 0,73 44 0,53 72 0,70 0 0 0 0 320 0,36
12 0 0 24 0,09 81 0,98 12 0,12 0 0 0 0 117 0,13
13 0 0 653 2,47 8 0,10 24 0,23 0 0 0 0 685 0,77
14 40 223 99,55 1 951 7,39 6 958 83,76 4748 45,96 3017 94,67 0 0 56 897 63,95
17 2 0,00 68 0,26 29 0,35 159 1,54 0 0 0 0 258 0,29
18 0 0 32 0,12 13 0,13 0 0 0 0 45 0,05
19 27 0,07 80 0,30 49 0,59 4 0,04 126 3,95 0 0 286 0,32
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0,52 0 0 0 0 54 0,06
21 0 0 528 2,00 100 1,20 554 5,36 0 0 0 0 1182 1,33
22 0 0 31 0,12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0,03
23 68 0,17 20 774 78,68 0 0 3 903 37,78 0 0 148 43,53 24 893 27,98
24 0 0 0 0 762 9,17 288 2,79 0 0 0 0 1 050 1,18
26 0 0 3 0,01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0,00
27 0 0 3 0,01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0,00
28 0 0 324 1,23 52 0,63 116 1,12 0 0 0 0 492 0,55
29 0 0 557 2,11 60 0,72 8 0,08 0 0 0 0 625 0,70
Total 2664 45.41 22548 29.67 9882 9.34 30018 11.61 13128 3.58 2040 0.38 88 971 100,00
6
Collected service experience in individual voltage classes is summarized in table 5-6 in
absolute numbers and in % (the base is total number of collected service experience). Figure
5-1 shows a graph of absolute values for all data and it compares it with all data without two
dominant countries 14 and 23.
Table 5-6: GIS service experience in individual voltage classes (absolute and relative values
within total)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Voltage class Number of CB-bay-years % Number of CB-bay-years %
60U<100 kV 40 404 45,4 113 1,6
100U<200 kV 26 402 29,7 3 677 51,2
200U<300 kV 8 307 9,3 1 349 18,8
300U<500 kV 10 331 11,6 1 680 23,4
500U<700 kV 3 187 3,6 170 2,4
700 kV 340 0,4 192 2,7
Total 88 971 100,0 7 181 100
7
Table 5-7: Comparison of collected GIS service experience in individual voltage classes in the
2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected GIS service experience Collected GIS service experience
2nd survey [CB-bay-years] 3rd survey [CB-bay-years]
All data without Data without
the worst utility country 14 and Data without
Voltage class All data the worst utility All data countries 14 and 23
60U<100 kV 56 884 56 884 5 114 40 404 113
100U<200 kV 34 060 29 415 20 999 26 402 3 677
200U<300 kV 16 040 16 040 9 576 8 307 1 349
300U<500 kV 6 774 6 371 6 371 10 331 1 680
500U<700 kV 4 525 4 525 1 101 3 187 170
700 kV 200 200 200 340 192
Total 118 483 113 435 43 361 88 971 7 181
As the 3rd survey experience without two dominant countries (14 and 23) represents only
15% of comparable collected data in the 2nd survey the WG A3-06 decided to provide most of
the survey comparisons below only for all data. The reader can, if he wishes, find result
details for 2nd survey without country 14 population in [13].
60000
50000
40000 2nd survey
(1995)
30000
20000 3rd survey
(2007)
10000
0
Figure 5-2: Comparison of total collected GIS service experience in individual voltage classes
in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys
The total collected data of service experience in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS experience surveys
in individual voltage classes is comparable and can be used (with restrictions mentioned in
5.3) for their results approximate comparison. An increase of the collected experience has
been observed only in voltage class 4.
8
Findings and commentary
From the above shown tables it is evident that the reported service experience is dominated
by countries with codes 14 and 23. Both are countries that are traditionally known of using
modern technologies and of applying effective maintenance strategies. Country with code
number 14 dominates almost absolutely in voltage class 1 (99,6%) and in voltage class 5
(94,7%). In voltage class 3 it represents 83,8 % of reported service experience. Country with
code 23 dominates in voltage class 2 (78,7 %). In class 4 these two countries share the
domination by 46% (country 14) and by 37,8% (country 23). Only two countries reported
about service experience in class 7. These two countries (country 1 and 23) share the total
service experience in class 7 by approximately half and half.
This uneven distribution of service experience shall be kept in mind when reading the rest of
the results analysis. If the further analysis was made only for total data the contribution of
other countries than 14 and 23 would be suppressed. However it might be interesting to see
also the differences between the two prevailing countries and the rest. Therefore the WG
decided to provide the analyses of reported service experience data, where appropriate, for
total data and for data without the two dominant countries.
The difference is already visible when evaluating the division of the service experience in
individual GIS voltage classes in the survey. Evaluating all data, classes 1 (45,5%) and 2
(29,7%) prevail whereas class 4 represents about 12% and the portion of other classes is
less than 10%. Evaluating data without countries 14 and 23 the majority of experience lies in
class 2 (51%), 3 (19%) and 4 (23%).
Collected service experiences in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-8 for
all data and in table 5-9 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables
are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The calculation bases for relative values are
numbers of collected service experiences in individual voltage classes. Figures 5-3 show
graphically absolute data in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, i.e. portions of fully GIS and hybrid GIS CB-
bays service experiences collected in individual voltage classes.
9
Table 5-8 : Distribution of service experience for the two types of GIS installation extent - all
data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Fully GIS [CB-bay-years] Hybrid GIS [CB-bay-years]
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 37 819 93,6 2 585 6,4
100U<200 kV 25 732 97,5 670 2,5
200U<300 kV 7 123 85,7 1 184 14,3
300U<500 kV 8 807 85,2 1 524 14,8
500U<700 kV 1 890 59,3 1 297 40,7
700 kV 340 100,0 0 0,0
Total 81 711 91,8 7 260 8,2
Table 5-9 : Distribution of service experience for the two types of GIS installation extent - data
without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Fully GIS [CB-bay-years] Hybrid GIS [CB-bay-years]
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 113 100,0 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 3 398 92,4 279 7,6
200U<300 kV 1 266 93,8 83 6,2
300U<500 kV 1 469 87,4 211 12,6
500U<700 kV 170 100,0 0 0,0
700 kV 192 100,0 0 0,0
Total 6 608 92,0 573 8,0
40000
35000
Fully GIS
30000
25000
Hybrid GIS
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10
GISinstallation extent distribution (data without countries
14 and 23)
Table 5-10: Comparison of collected fully and hybrid GIS service experience in individual
voltage classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected GIS service experience Collected GIS service experience
2nd survey [CB-bay-years] 3rd survey [CB-bay-years]
Voltage class Fully GIS Hybrid GIS Fully GIS Hybrid GIS
60U<100 kV 54 452 2 432 37 819 2 585
100U<200 kV 31 864 2 196 25 732 670
200U<300 kV 15 018 1 022 7 123 1 184
300U<500 kV 6 680 94 8 807 1 524
500U<700 kV 3 742 783 1 890 1 297
700 kV 200 0 340 0
Total 111 956 6 527 81 711 7 260
Comparison of collected fully GISservice experience Comparisonof collected hybrid GISservice experience
60000 3000
Service experience [CB-bay-years]
50000 2500
2nd survey 2000 2nd survey
40000
(1995) (1995)
30000 1500
Figures 5-4: Comparison of collected fully and hybrid GIS service experience in individual
voltage classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys
The difference in absolute as well as relative collected service experience between the 2nd
and the 3rd surveys is visible namely at hybrid GIS installations. With exception of voltage
class 2, there is visible an increase in hybrid GIS utilization.
11
Findings and commentary
Portion of hybrid GIS installations is still relatively small. Hybrid GIS represents only about
8% of all collected data. There is no difference between relative total data and relative data
without two dominant countries. However there is a certain trend visible in increasing their
portion at higher voltage classes in which mixed technologies (MTS) installation can offer
advantages for new installations as well as for upgrading and extensions of existing AIS (for
details about comparison of AIS-GIS-MTS features see CIGRE technical brochure [15].
Collected service experiences in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-11 for
all data and in table 5-12 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables
are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for calculations of relative values
are numbers of collected service experiences in individual voltage classes.
Table 5-11: Distribution of service experience for the two types of GIS enclosure design - all
data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years in CB- Number of CB-bay-years connected
bay design of to busbar design of
1-phase 3-phase 1-phase 3-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 7 752 19,2 32 652 80,8 15 139 37,5 25 265 62,5
100U<200 kV 15 453 58,5 10 949 41,5 2 058 7,8 24 344 92,2
200U<300 kV 3 643 43,9 4 664 56,1 3 409 41,0 4 898 59,0
300U<500 kV 8 555 82,8 1 776 17,2 4 154 40,2 6 177 59,8
500U<700 kV 3 187 100,0 0 0,0 2 233 70,1 954 29,9
700 kV 340 100,0 0 0,0 340 100,0 0 0,0
Total 38 930 43,8 50 041 56,2 27 333 30,7 61 638 69,3
Table 5-12: Distribution of service experience for the two types of GIS enclosure design - data
without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years in CB- Number of CB-bay-years connected
bay design of to busbar design of
1-phase 3-phase 1-phase 3-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 72 63,7 41 36,3 0,0 113 100,0
100U<200 kV 1 972 53,6 1 705 46,4 1 445 39,3 2 232 60,7
200U<300 kV 1 333 98,8 16 1,2 916 67,9 433 32,1
300U<500 kV 1 670 99,4 10 0,6 1 516 90,2 164 9,8
500U<700 kV 170 100,0 0 0,0 170 100,0 0 0,0
700 kV 192 100,0 0 0,0 192 100,0 0 0,0
Total 5 409 75,3 1 772 24,7 4 239 59,0 2 942 41,0
12
As the questionnaire asked about the design for two separate parts of GIS it was necessary
to synthesize the answers to get an overview about the collected service experience of
uniform design substations and of combined design substations. The results of this synthesis
are shown in table 5-13 for all data and in table 5-14 for all data without countries 14 and 23.
The values in both tables are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for
calculations of relative values are numbers of collected service experiences in individual
voltage classes. Figures 5-5 show graphically absolute data in tables 5-13 and 5-14, i.e.
portions of 1-phase, 3-phase and combined GIS CB-bays service experiences in individual
voltage classes.
Table 5-13: Distribution of service experience for combinations of the two types of GIS
enclosure design - all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years
1-phase GIS 3-phase GIS Busbar 1-phase + Busbar 3-phase +
CB-bay 3-phase CB-bay 1-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 3 818 9,4 21 331 52,8 11 321 28,0 3 934 9,7
100U<200 kV 1 826 6,9 10 717 40,6 232 0,9 13 627 51,6
200U<300 kV 2 664 32,1 3 919 47,2 745 9,0 979 11,8
300U<500 kV 4 154 40,2 1 776 17,2 0 0,0 4 401 42,6
500U<700 kV 2 233 70,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 954 29,9
700 kV 340 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 15 035 16,9 37 743 42,4 12 298 13,8 23 895 26,9
Table 5-14: Distribution of service experience for combinations of the two types of GIS
enclosure design - data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within
individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years
1-phase GIS 3-phase GIS Busbar 1-phase + Busbar 3-phase +
CB-bay 3-phase CB-bay 1-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 41 36,3 0 0,0 72 63,7
100U<200 kV 1 437 39,1 1 705 46,4 8 0,2 535 14,5
200U<300 kV 912 67,6 16 1,2 4 0,3 421 31,2
300U<500 kV 1 516 90,2 10 0,6 0 0,0 154 9,2
500U<700 kV 170 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
700 kV 192 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 4 227 58,9 1 772 24,7 12 0,2 1 182 16,5
25000
1-phase GIS
20000
3-phase GIS
15000
10000 Busbar 1-phase +
5000 CB-bay 3-phase
Busbar 3-phase +
0
CB-bay 1-phase
13
GISdesign distribution (data without countries 14 and 23)
Figures 5-5: Distribution of service experience (absolute values for combinations of the two
types of GIS enclosure design]
The further analysis focuses mainly on CB-bays design. The main reason is that the further
failure frequency analysis is subsequently made for one CB-bay. This is the same way as
made in 1995 in the previous GIS survey. The only place where 1-phase and 3-phase busbar
enclosure will be considered will be the analysis of busbar failures itself.
As unified designs are concerned the single phase GIS appears in all voltage classes- the
higher voltage the higher representation. It s representation vary from about 10% at classes
1 and 2 up to nearly a half in voltage classes 3 and 4 and to almost 100% in voltage classes
5 and 6. Countries other than 14 and 23 use single phase GIS design even more frequently
and this design prevails starting already voltage class 3. The three phase GIS design can be
found up to voltage class 4 and it is used in countries 14 and 23 much more often than in
other countries. It prevails in GIS up to voltage class 3, whereas in other counties only up to
voltage class 2.
14
GIS Outdoor Special (Outdoor S) - for special outdoor conditions (e.g. for lower
ambient temperatures than -40C, altitudes >1000m, pollution areas III or IV, ice
coating >20 mm, direct coastal areas, etc.)
Note: GIS whose only outdoor parts are bushings (SF6/air, SF6/transformer) and/or
necessary lengths of connecting busducts are considered as indoor installations.
Collected service experiences in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-15 for
all data and in table 5-16 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables
are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for relative values calculations
are numbers of collected service experiences in individual voltage classes.
Figures 5-6 show graphically absolute data in tables 5-15 and 5-16, i.e. portions of indoor
normal, indoor special, outdoor normal and outdoor special GIS locations CB-bays service
experiences in individual voltage classes.
As special installations portions are almost negligible (with exception of voltage class 1
distribution in data without countries 14 and 23) further analysis is made only in the division
of Indoor/Outdoor locations. To show the difference between installation habits in all
population (dominated by countries 14 and 23) and the rest of the world, table 5-17 shows
absolute and relative data and figure 5-7 illustrates relative values of Indoor/Outdoor
installations in these two groups of population.
Table 5-15: Distribution of service experience for types of GIS installation locations - all data
(absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years
Indoor N Indoor S Outdoor N Outdoor S
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 12 643 31,3 155 0,4 27 462 68,0 144 0,4
100U<200 kV 17 458 66,1 24 0,1 8 920 33,8 0 0,0
200U<300 kV 2 707 32,6 20 0,2 5 561 66,9 19 0,2
300U<500 kV 2 847 27,6 64 0,6 7 396 71,6 24 0,2
500U<700 kV 336 10,5 9 0,3 2 830 88,8 12 0,4
700 kV 192 56,5 0 0,0 148 43,5 0 0,0
Total 36 183 40,7 272 0,3 52 317 58,8 199 0,2
Table 5-16: Distribution of service experience for types of GIS installation locations - data
without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years
Indoor N Indoor S Outdoor N Outdoor S
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 74 65,5 27 23,9 12 10,6 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 3 397 92,4 24 0,7 256 7,0 0 0,0
200U<300 kV 1 282 95,0 7 0,5 60 4,4 0 0,0
300U<500 kV 1 263 75,2 64 3,8 329 19,6 24 1,4
500U<700 kV 32 18,8 0 0,0 138 81,2 0 0,0
700 kV 192 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 6 240 86,9 122 1,7 795 11,1 24 0,3
15
GISlocation distribution (all data)
30000
4000
3500 Indoor N
3000
Indoor S
2500
2000 Outdoor N
1500 Outdoor S
1000
500
0
Figures 5-6: Distribution of service experience (absolute values for types of GIS installation
locations)
Table 5-17: Distribution of service experience for indoor and outdoor GIS installation locations
all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual
voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years (all Number of CB-bay-years (data
data) without countries 14 and 23)
Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 12 798 31,7 27 606 68,3 101 89,4 12 10,6
100U<200 kV 17 482 66,2 8 920 33,8 3 421 93,0 256 7,0
200U<300 kV 2 727 32,8 5 580 67,2 1 289 95,6 60 4,4
300U<500 kV 2 911 28,2 7 420 71,8 1 327 79,0 353 21,0
500U<700 kV 345 10,8 2 842 89,2 32 18,8 138 81,2
700 kV 192 56,5 148 43,5 192 100,0 0 0,0
Total 36 455 41,0 52 516 59,0 6 362 88,6 819 11,4
16
GISlocation distribution
100
The distinction between normal and special GIS locations was made only in the 3rd
survey. Comparison with the 2nd GIS experience survey in categories indoor-outdoor is
provided in table 5-18 and figure 5-8.
Table 5-18: Comparison of collected indoor and outdoor GIS service experience in individual
voltage classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected GIS service experience Collected GIS service experience
2nd survey [CB-bay-years] 3rd survey [CB-bay-years]
Voltage class Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS
60U<100 kV 22 573 34 311 12 798 27 606
100U<200 kV 28 173 5 887 17 482 8 920
200U<300 kV 9 734 6 306 2 727 5 580
300U<500 kV 4 356 2 418 2 911 7 420
500U<700 kV 2 044 2 481 345 2 842
700 kV 200 0 192 148
Total 67 080 51 403 36 455 52 516
Comparison of collected indoor GISservice experience Comparison of collected outdoor GISservice experience
30000 40000
Service experience [CB-bay-years]
35000
25000
30000
2nd survey 2nd survey
20000 25000
(1995) (1995)
15000 20000
15000
10000 3rd survey 3rd survey
10000 (2007)
(2007)
5000 5000
0
0
Outdoor GIS experience has relatively increased (in voltage classes 2, 4 and 5 also
absolutely) in all voltage classes in the 3rd GIS survey compared to the 2nd GIS survey.
17
Findings and commentary
Special locations are very rare. They represents only 0,3 % of indoor and 0,2% of outdoor
installations. Therefore it is possible to neglect the special conditions in further analysis and
to add these installations to only indoor/outdoor categories.
As indoor/outdoor installations are concerned there is a visible difference when evaluating all
data and data without countries 14 and 23. Analyzing all data it seems that outdoor
installations slightly prevail in higher voltage classes starting voltage class 4. The
installations of other voltage classes most probably depend on local needs and not on a
general installation policy. The utilities in countries other than 14 and 23 prefer indoor
installations at all voltage classes (except class 5) in spite of the fact that size of GIS
building or shelter can represent a certain design challenge.
Table 5-19 shows a distribution of collected GIS service experience in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years for all data and in absolute and relative values (100% is number of GIS
CB-bays service experience collected within individual voltage classes). Table 5-20 shows
the same data but without two dominant countries.
Table 5-19 : Distribution of service experience in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years -
all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Manufacturing 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
year <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 2 760 6,8 354 1,3 697 8,4 420 4,1 160 5,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 4 092 10,1 773 2,9 722 8,7 1 153 11,2 574 18,0 0 0,0
1984-1988 8 916 22,1 1 731 6,6 1 590 19,1 1 466 14,2 512 16,1 192 56,5
1989-1993 9 926 24,6 3 532 13,4 1 826 22,0 1 813 17,5 513 16,1 0 0,0
1994-1998 8 965 22,2 7 533 28,5 1 755 21,1 2 662 25,8 863 27,1 0 0,0
1999-2003 5 247 13,0 8 537 32,3 1 264 15,2 1 950 18,9 524 16,4 140 41,2
2004-2007 498 1,2 3 942 14,9 453 5,5 867 8,4 41 1,3 8 2,4
Total 40 404 100 26 402 100 8 307 100 10 331 100 3 187 100 340 100
Table 5-20 : Distribution of service experience in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years
data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage
classes)
Manufacturing 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
year <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 72 63,7 288 7,8 189 14,0 172 10,2 0 0,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 0 0,0 504 13,7 108 8,0 501 29,8 138 81,2 0 0,0
1984-1988 12 10,6 691 18,8 29 2,1 374 22,3 32 18,8 192 100,0
1989-1993 2 1,8 706 19,2 130 9,6 285 17,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
1994-1998 0 0,0 412 11,2 136 10,1 98 5,8 0 0,0 0 0,0
1999-2003 27 23,9 729 19,8 403 29,9 64 3,8 0 0,0 0 0,0
2004-2007 0 0,0 347 9,4 354 26,2 186 11,1 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 113 100 3 677 100 1 349 100 1 680 100 170 100 192 100
18
Table 5-21 shows the same data as tables 5-19 and 5-20 but the relative values are
recalculated to total collected service experience value (100% is total number of GIS CB-
bays service experience). Figures 5-9 provide graphical interpretations of the relative data
from table 5-21.
Table 5-21: Distribution of service experience in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years
all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within all collected
data)
Manufacturing year All data data without countries 14
and 23
abs. % abs. %
before 1979 4 391 4,9 721 10,0
1979-1983 7 314 8,2 1 251 17,4
1984-1988 14 407 16,2 1 330 18,5
1989-1993 17 610 19,8 1 123 15,6
1994-1998 21 778 24,5 646 9,0
1999-2003 17 662 19,9 1 223 17,0
2004-2007 5 809 6,5 887 12,4
Total 88 971 100,0 7 181 100,0
12000
60U<100 kV
10000
100U<200 kV
8000
200U<300 kV
6000
300U<500 kV
4000
500U<700 kV
2000
700 kV
0
23)
800
700 60U<100 kV
600 100U<200 kV
500
400 200U<300 kV
300 300U<500 kV
200
100 500U<700 kV
0 700 kV
Figures 5-9: Distribution of service experience - absolute values in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years for individual voltage classes
19
Comparison with previous survey
In the population card of the 2nd GIS survey there was a column for inserting the year when
each GIS substation was put into service. However, in the analysis brochure [13] the
collected service experience used for failure frequency calculation is expressed only in two
categories - for GIS commissioned before 1.1.1985 and after 1.1.1985, i.e. for GIS younger
than 12 years (age of 1 to 11 years) and for older than 12 years. To compare the results with
the 3rd survey it was therefore necessary to classify the data into the same two age intervals.
The comparison is shown in table 5-22 and figure 5-10. The table shows data without one
worst utility for the 2nd survey and only the complete data (data having its equivalent in failure
cards) for the 3rd survey. This data is used for failure frequency comparison (see chapter
5.6).
Table 5-22: Comparison of 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys collected GIS service experience of GIS
older than 11 years and 11 years old or younger in individual voltage classes (absolute values)
Collected GIS service experience Collected GIS service experience
2nd survey [CB-bay-years] 3rd survey [CB-bay-years]
GIS age GIS age GIS age GIS age
Voltage class >11 years 11 years >11 years 11 years
60U<100 kV 28 669 28 215 28 932 11 472
100U<200 kV 16 871 12 544 8 376 18 003
200U<300 kV 10 362 5 678 5 314 2 993
300U<500 kV 3 694 2 677 5 624 4 707
500U<700 kV 3 252 1 273 1 972 1215
700 kV 0 200 192 148
Total 62 848 50 587 50 410 38 538
35000
Service experience [CB-bay-years]
5000
11 years old GIS
0 3rd survey (2007)
In the 2nd GIS survey the collected service experience for older GIS was greater than for
younger in all voltage classes. In the 3rd survey, this is not valid for voltage class 2. As
relative values are concerned very similar patterns are visible in voltage classes 3, 4 and 5.
In spite of that the figure just reflects a difference between the 2nd and the 3rd surveys utilities
participation.
20
Findings and commentary
The oldest reported GIS substation was manufactured and installed in 1960 and belongs to
voltage class 1. The oldest voltage class 2 substations were installed in 1963 (1 substation)
and in 1968 (2 substations). The oldest GIS of voltage classes 3 to 6 were installed in 1970,
1975, 1973 and in 1986 respectively.
In all seven manufacturing years intervals there was collected enough data in both data sets
(i.e. total and total without two dominant countries) to be able to provide failure frequencies
time trend analyses.
Table 5-23: Distribution of service experience for types of GIS maintenance philosophies - all
data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years referred to different maintenance practices
(all data)
Time based Condition Combination of Other
maintenance based TBM and CBM
(TBM) maintenance
(CBM)
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 27 468 68,0 72 0,2 12 862 31,8 2 0,0
100U<200 kV 24 984 94,6 505 1,9 865 3,3 48 0,2
200U<300 kV 3 994 48,1 152 1,8 4 132 49,7 29 0,3
300U<500 kV 6 520 63,1 740 7,2 2 912 28,2 159 1,5
500U<700 kV 2 327 73,0 0 0,0 860 27,0 0 0,0
700 kV 148 43,5 192 56,5 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 65 441 73,6 1 661 1,9 21 631 24,3 238 0,3
21
Table 5-24: Distribution of service experience for types of GIS maintenance philosophies data
without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of CB-bay-years referred to different maintenance practices
(data without countries 14 and 23)
Time based Condition Combination of Other
maintenance based TBM and CBM
(TBM) maintenance
(CBM)
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 39 34,5 72 63,7 0 0,0 2 1,8
100U<200 kV 2 259 61,4 505 13,7 865 23,5 48 1,3
200U<300 kV 133 9,9 152 11,3 1 035 76,7 29 2,1
300U<500 kV 209 12,4 740 44,0 572 34,0 159 9,5
500U<700 kV 126 74,1 0 0,0 44 25,9 0 0,0
700 kV 0 0,0 192 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 2 766 38,5 1 661 23,1 2 516 35,0 238 3,3
Figures 5-11: Relative distribution of service experience for different types of GIS maintenance
strategies
22
Comparison with previous survey
In the 2nd survey, the GIS maintenance aspects were included in a specialized questionnaire
card called GIS life expectancy, maintenance, environmental: This card is similar to 3rd
survey specialized questionnaire card called GIS maintenance card. The resulting analysis
of responses as well as its comparison with results of the 2nd survey is included in technical
brochure [6].
Respondents were asked to report about major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures that
happened in their GIS in the years 2004 to 2007. Details about GIS CB failures were
reported in CB failure cards (see technical brochure [2]), GIS DE/ES failures in DE/ES failure
cards (see technical brochure [3]), GIS IT failures in IT failure cards (see technical brochure
[4]) and other GIS parts in GIS failure cards (see chapter 5.5.5). Chapter 5.5 and other
chapters below provide a summary of all GIS failures using data from all four mentioned
sources. For definitions of MaF and MiF see Appendix 1.
The reported number of MaF and MiF is analyzed in chapter 5.5 from the following points of
views:
Countries contribution to the survey and GIS voltage classes distribution (chapter
5.5.1)
GIS extent distribution (chapter 5.5.2)
GIS type of enclosure distribution (chapter 5.5.3)
GIS location distribution (chapter 5.5.4)
GIS failed component distribution (chapter 5.5.5)
GIS age distribution (chapter 5.5.6)
The WG has doubts about completeness of minor failures reporting. Most of the utilities have
got a very detailed database about major failures whereas minor failures are sometimes
repaired without reporting into any information systems. The reader thus shall read the
information below only as information about reported events but shall not make a
relative comparison between MaF and MiF events.
23
Collected data about failures is reported as single phase in case of an internal failure
of a single-phase encapsulated GIS or in case a failure occurs in auxiliary parts like in
one of the single phase operating mechanisms. It is reported as three-phase in case of
an internal failure of a three-phase encapsulated GIS or in a common auxiliary part like
in three gang operating mechanism or in common control cubicle.
Table 5-25: Contribution of countries to GIS major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures survey
(absolute and relative values within total)
Country code Number of MaF [%] Number of MiF [%]
1 7 1,96 3 0,20
2 0 0,00 4 0,27
3 1 0,28 9 0,60
4 2 0,56 4 0,27
7 2 0,56 6 0,40
8 2 0,56 56 3,72
9 5 1,40 69 4,58
10 0 0,00 1 0,07
11 0 0,00 3 0,20
12 1 0,28 33 2,19
13 5 1,40 105 6,98
14 203 56,70 532 35,35
17 20 5,59 417 27,71
18 0 0,00 7 0,47
19 9 2,51 43 2,86
20 9 2,51 65 4,32
21 15 4,19 133 8,84
23 50 13,97 3 0,20
24 16 4,47 1 0,07
27 0 0,00 1 0,07
28 10 2,79 4 0,27
29 1 0,28 6 0,40
Total 358 100,00 1 505 100,00
Collected GIS failures in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-26 for all data
and in table 5-27 for all data without countries with dominant population, i.e. countries 14 and
23. The values in both tables are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for
the calculation of relative values are numbers of total collected major and total collected
minor failures. Figures 5-12 show graphically absolute data of tables 5-26 and 5-27, i.e.
portions of MaF and MiF in GIS that contribute to individual voltage classes.
24
Table 5-26: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) in GIS - all data (absolute and relative
values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 154 43,0 292 19,4
100U<200 kV 64 17,9 291 19,3
200U<300 kV 28 7,8 212 14,1
300U<500 kV 92 25,7 604 40,1
500U<700 kV 16 4,5 106 7,0
700 kV 4 1,1 0 0,0
Total 358 100,0 1 505 100,0
Table 5-27: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) in GIS - data without countries 14 and
23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 1 0,1
100U<200 kV 21 20,0 259 26,7
200U<300 kV 10 9,5 116 12,0
300U<500 kV 62 59,0 562 57,9
500U<700 kV 8 7,6 32 3,3
700 kV 4 3,8 0 0,0
Total 105 100,0 970 100,0
600
Numebr of failures [-]
500
400
300
MaF
200 MiF
100
25
Failures in GISdistribution (all data without countries 14 nad 23)
600
500
300
200 MaF
100 MiF
Figures 5-12: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) in GIS (absolute values)
Table 5-28 provides an overview of collected data. For the data from the 2nd survey it was
necessary to exclude the big influence of one utility having had very old and very unreliable
GIS in voltage class 2. The comparisons in all further subchapters of chapter 5.5 provide
numbers of all failures without this worst utility data. This means that 275 failures which
occurred in voltage class 2 substations all of them operated by one user and representing
obsolete breaker technology, was excluded from 2nd survey analysis and is thus excluded
from comparisons in the following subchapters as well.
Table 5-28: Comparison of collected GIS major failures in individual voltage classes in the 2nd
and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected number of GIS major failures Collected number of GIS major
2nd survey failures 3rd survey
All data without Data without
the worst utility country 14 and the Data without
Voltage class All data worst utility All data countries 14 and 23
60U<100 kV 28 28 13 154 0
100U<200 kV 465 190 174 64 21
200U<300 kV 138 138 115 28 10
300U<500 kV 179 179 179 92 62
500U<700 kV 49 49 44 16 8
700 kV 12 12 12 4 4
Total 871 596 537 358 105
Regarding the 3rd survey the number of major failures without two dominant countries (14
and 23) represents only 19% of comparable collected data in the 2nd survey. The WG A3-06
decided to provide most of the surveys comparisons below only for all data (for the 2nd survey
that means all data without the worst utility). The reader can, if he wishes, find result details
for the 2nd survey in [13]. Graphical interpretation of collected major failures in both surveys
is shown in figure 5-13.
26
Comparison of collected GISmajor failures
The 3rd GIS survey collected more major failures in voltage class 1 than in the 2nd GIS survey
in spite of the fact that the collected service experience was a bit smaller. The comparison of
the other voltage classes show expected relations.
The absolute numbers of major failures provided in this chapter and chapters below serve as
input information for chapter 5.6 (failure frequencies calculation) and for 5.7 (failure
characteristics). Their relative expression in individual voltage classes is provided here only
for information. The relative numbers, as well as absolute numbers, cannot be used for any
mutual comparison since they are naturally influenced by scrutiny of minor failure collection
and by different amount of collected service experience as mentioned in chapter 5.4. For this
reason and for the above mentioned reason of incompleteness of minor failure data,
commentaries are therefore provided only for total data of major failures in sub-chapters of
chapter 5.5.
The respondents were asked to divide their GIS failures into the same categories of GIS
extent as in the GIS population, i.e. into the following two categories:
Fully GIS - substation the bays of which are fully made from GIS technology
components. Only external HV connections to overhead or cable lines, or
transformers, shunt reactors and capacitors can have external insulation.
Hybrid GIS - substation the bays of which are made from a mix of GIS and AIS
technology components, i.e. in which the CB-bays contains combination of enclosed
gas insulated and air insulated parts.
Collected number of failures in individual voltage classes is summarized in table 5-29 for all
data and in table 5-30 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables are
expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for calculation of relative values are
numbers of failures in individual voltage classes. Figures 5-14 show graphically absolute
data of tables 5-29 and 5-30, i.e. portions of MaF and MiF collected in individual voltage
classes. Figure 5-15 shows an overview of all data failures in fully/hybrid GIS distribution.
27
Table 5-29: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS extent
- all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Fully GIS Hybrid GIS Fully GIS Hybrid GIS
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 151 98,1 3 1,9 286 97,9 6 2,1
100U<200 kV 58 90,6 6 9,4 282 96,9 9 3,1
200U<300 kV 23 82,1 5 17,9 193 91,0 19 9,0
300U<500 kV 87 94,6 5 5,4 599 99,2 5 0,8
500U<700 kV 14 87,5 2 12,5 74 69,8 32 30,2
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0
Total 337 94,1 21 5,9 1 434 95,3 71 4,7
Table 5-30: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS
installation extent - data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within
individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Fully GIS Hybrid GIS Fully GIS Hybrid GIS
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 0 0 1 100,0 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 19 90,5 2 9,5 255 98,5 4 1,5
200U<300 kV 9 100,0 0 0,0 115 100,0 0 0,0
300U<500 kV 61 98,4 1 1,6 560 99,8 1 0,2
500U<700 kV 8 88,9 1 11,1 32 94,1 2 5,9
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 101 96,2 4 3,8 963 99,3 7 0,7
700
100
28
Failures in fully or hybrid GISdistribution(all data without countries 14 and 23)
600
1500
1000 MaF
MiF
500 Total
0
Fully GIS Hybrid GIS
GISextent
Figure 5-15: Distribution of total number of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures absolute
values for the two types of GIS extent
Table 5-31: Comparison of collected fully and hybrid GIS major failures in individual voltage
classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected number of GIS major Collected number of GIS major failures
failures 2nd survey 3rd survey
Voltage class Fully GIS Hybrid GIS Fully GIS Hybrid GIS
60U<100 kV 25 3 151 3
100U<200 kV 186 4 58 6
200U<300 kV 133 5 23 5
300U<500 kV 176 3 87 5
500U<700 kV 49 0 14 2
700 kV 12 0 4 0
Total 581 15 337 21
29
Comparisonof collectedfullyGISmajor failures Comparisonof collectedhybridGISmajor failures
200 7
Number of major failures [-]
The collected number of hybrid GIS major failures is one to two orders of magnitude lower
than for fully GIS in both surveys. The fully GIS dominates the picture.
Collected number of failures in individual voltage classes is summarized in table 5-32 for all
data and in table 5-33 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables are
expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for calculation of relative values are
numbers of failures in individual voltage classes. Figures 5-17 show graphically absolute
data of tables 5-32 and 5-33, i.e. portions of MaF and MiF collected in individual voltage
classes. Figure 5-18 shows the failure distribution of 1-phase/3-phase GIS component
design for all data.
30
Table 5-32: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS
enclosure design - all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
1-phase 3-phase 1-phase 3-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 20 13,0 134 87,0 52 17,8 240 82,2
100U<200 kV 34 53,1 30 46,9 231 79,4 60 20,6
200U<300 kV 15 53,6 13 46,4 178 84,0 34 16,0
300U<500 kV 83 90,2 9 9,8 589 97,5 15 2,5
500U<700 kV 16 100,0 0 0,0 106 100,0 0 0,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0
Total 172 48,0 186 52,0 1156 76,8 349 23,2
Table 5-33: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS
enclosure design - data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within
individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
1-phase 3-phase 1-phase 3-phase
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 0 0 1 100,0 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 16 76,2 5 23,8 216 83,4 43 16,6
200U<300 kV 9 100,0 0 0,0 116 100,0 0 0,0
300U<500 kV 60 98,4 1 1,6 559 99,5 3 0,5
500U<700 kV 8 80,0 2 20,0 32 100,0 0 0,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 97 92,4 8 7,6 924 95,3 46 4,7
700
600
MaFin 1-phase design
Number of failures [-]
500
400
200
31
Failures in 1-phase or 3-phase component design distribution (all
data without countries 14 and 23)
600
Figures 5-17: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures absolute values for the two
types of GIS enclosure design in individual voltage classes
1000
800
MaF
600
MiF
400
Total
200
0
1-phase 3-phase
Failed GIScomponent enclosure design
Figure 5-18: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures absolute values for the two
types of GIS enclosure design in total
32
5.5.4 GIS location failures distribution
The respondents were asked to divide their failures in GIS into the same categories of GIS
location as in GIS population, i.e. into the following four categories:
GIS Indoor Normal (Indoor N)
GIS Indoor Special (Indoor S)
GIS Outdoor Normal (Outdoor N)
GIS Outdoor Special (Outdoor S)
As there was only 1 major failure reported in Outdoor Special GIS location and only 2 minor
failures reported in indoor special GIS location the further analysis is done only for indoor
outdoor division.
Collected number of failures in individual voltage classes is summarized in table 5-34 for all
data and in table 5-35 for all data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables are
expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for relative values calculations are
numbers of failures in individual voltage classes. Figures 5-19 show graphically absolute
data in tables 5-34 and 5-35, i.e. portions of MaF and MiF collected in individual voltage
classes. Figure 5-20 shows an overview of all data failures in indoor/outdoor failed GIS
component design distribution.
Table 5-34: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS
location - all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 12 7,8 142 92,2 78 26,7 214 73,3
100U<200 kV 38 59,4 26 40,6 255 87,6 36 12,4
200U<300 kV 9 32,1 19 67,9 71 33,5 141 66,5
300U<500 kV 39 42,4 53 57,6 408 67,5 196 32,5
500U<700 kV 0 0,0 16 100,0 0 0,0 106 100,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0
Total 102 28,5 256 71,5 812 54,0 693 46,0
Table 5-35: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the two types of GIS
location - data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual
voltage classes)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 0 0 1 100,0 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 18 85,7 3 14,3 247 95,4 12 4,6
200U<300 kV 8 80,0 2 20,0 52 44,8 64 55,2
300U<500 kV 37 59,7 25 40,3 398 70,8 164 29,2
500U<700 kV 0 0,0 8 100,0 0 0,0 32 100,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 67 63,8 38 36,2 698 72,0 272 28,0
33
Failures in indoor or outdoor component design distribution (all data)
450
400
Number of failures [-]
350
MaFin indoor GIS
300
250
200 MaFin outdoor GIS
150
100 MiFin indoor GIS
50
0
MiFin outdoor GIS
Figures 5-19: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures numbers for the two types of
GIS location in individual voltage classes
34
Failures in GIS(all data)
1000
900
800
Figure 5-20: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures numbers for the two types of
GIS location in total
Table 5-36: Comparison of collected indoor and outdoor GIS major failures in individual
voltage classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute values)
Collected number of GIS major Collected number of GIS major failures
failures 2nd survey 3rd survey
Voltage class Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS Indoor GIS Outdoor GIS
60U<100 kV 17 11 12 142
100U<200 kV 183 7 38 26
200U<300 kV 109 29 9 19
300U<500 kV 122 57 39 53
500U<700 kV 45 4 0 16
700 kV 12 0 4 0
Total 488 108 102 256
Comparisonof collected outdoor GISmajor failures
Comparisonof collectedindoor GISmajor failures 160
Number of major failures [-]
200 140
Number of major failures [-]
180 120
160 2ndsurvey
100
140 2nd survey (1995)
(1995) 80
120
100 60
3rd survey
80 40 (2007)
3rd survey
60 20
40 (2007)
0
20
0
Figures 5-21: Comparison of collected indoor and outdoor GIS major failures in individual
voltage classes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys
35
Outdoor GIS experience has relatively increased (in classes 2, 4 and 5 also absolutely) in all
voltage classes in 3rd GIS survey compared to 2nd GIS survey. That is also valid for number
of major failures namely in classes 1, 2 and 5.
Figures 5-22 show graphically relative values of tables 5-37 for all data, i.e. different GIS
components contribution to the total number of MaF and MiF for all collected data.
Table 5-37: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the four basic GIS CB-bay
components all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values in
total collected MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Failed GIS
component Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
CB 124 34,6 791 52,6 56 53,3 545 56,2
DS/ES 164 45,8 233 15,5 25 23,8 95 9,8
GI 50 14,0 413 27,4 17 16,2 284 29,3
IT 20 5,6 68 4,5 7 6,7 46 4,7
36
GIS equipment major failures (MaF) GIS equipment minor failures (MiF)
distribution (all data) distribution (all data)
5% 5%
CB CB
14%
35% DE/ ES DE/ ES
27%
GI GI
53%
IT IT
46% 15%
Figures 5-22: Relative distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the four basic GIS
CB-bay components
Collected failures in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-38 for all data and
in table 5-39 for data without countries 14 and 23. The values in both tables are expressed in
absolute and in relative values. The bases for relative values calculations are numbers of
collected failures in individual voltage classes.
Figures 5-23 show graphically relative values of table 5-38 for individual GIS components
contributions to total number of MaF and MiF within individual voltage classes for all
collected data.
Table 5-38: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the four basic GIS CB-bay
components all data (absolute and relative values in individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF (all data)
CB MaF DS/ES MaF GI MaF IT MaF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 42 27,3 91 59,1 12 7,8 9 5,8
100U<200 kV 17 26,6 27 42,2 17 26,6 3 4,7
200U<300 kV 7 25,0 13 46,4 5 17,9 3 10,7
300U<500 kV 46 50,0 25 27,2 16 17,4 5 5,4
500U<700 kV 8 50,0 8 50,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 124 34,6 164 45,8 50 14,0 20 5,6
Number of MiF (all data)
CB MiF DS/ES MiF GI MiF IT MiF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 130 44,5 70 24,0 80 27,4 12 4,1
100U<200 kV 72 24,7 53 18,2 134 46,0 32 11,0
200U<300 kV 121 57,1 54 25,5 30 14,2 7 3,3
300U<500 kV 424 70,2 31 5,1 141 23,3 8 1,3
500U<700 kV 44 41,5 25 23,6 28 26,4 9 8,5
700 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 791 52,6 233 15,5 413 27,4 68 4,5
37
Table 5-39: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the four basic GIS CB-bay
components data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values in individual
voltage classes)
Number of MaF (data without countries 14 and 23)
CB MaF DS/ES MaF GI MaF IT MaF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100U<200 kV 7 33,3 5 23,8 7 33,3 2 9,5
200U<300 kV 4 40,0 2 20,0 3 30,0 1 10,0
300U<500 kV 36 58,1 15 24,2 7 11,3 4 6,5
500U<700 kV 5 62,5 3 37,5 0 0,0 0 0,0
700 kV 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 56 53,3 25 23,8 17 16,2 7 6,7
Number of MiF (data without countries 14 and 23)
CB MiF DS/ES MiF GI MiF IT MiF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 0 0,0 1 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
100U<200 kV 62 23,9 41 15,8 124 47,9 32 12,4
200U<300 kV 68 58,6 26 22,4 16 13,8 6 5,2
300U<500 kV 397 70,6 25 4,4 132 23,5 8 1,4
500U<700 kV 18 56,3 2 6,3 12 37,5 0 0,0
700 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 545 56,2 95 9,8 284 29,3 46 4,7
38
GIS equipment minor failures (MiF) voltage classes
distribution (all data)
100%
90%
80% IT
70%
60% GI
50%
40% DS/ ES
30%
20% CB
10%
0%
Figures 5-23: Relative distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for the four basic GIS
CB-bay components all data in individual voltage classes
Table 5-40: Comparison of collected GIS basic components major failures in the 2nd and the 3rd
GIS surveys (absolute and relative values)
2nd GIS survey 3rd GIS survey
Failed GIS Absolute Relative [%] Absolute [number Relative [%]
component [number of MaF] of MaF]
CB 176 34,5 124 34,6
DS/ES 116 22,7 164 45,8
GI 175 34,3 50 14,0
IT 43 8,4 20 5,6
50
45
40
2nd survey
35
(1995)
30
25
20
3rd survey
15
(2007)
10
5
0
CB DS/ ES GI IT
Figure 5-24: Comparison of collected major failures of GIS CB-bay components in the 2nd and
the 3rd GIS survey (relative values)
39
In the 2nd GIS survey, the portion of major failures of disconnectors and/or earthing switches
was relatively smaller than in the 3rd survey and smaller than it would correspond to relative
number of individual equipments in one GIS CB-bay. This fact was relatively compensated
by a higher portion of failed equipment other than circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing
switches and instrument transformers the portion of which has decreased in the 3rd survey.
The above shown numbers of major failures contribute to the resulting GIS CB-bay failure
frequency (see chapter 5.6) and cannot be used for failure frequency calculation of individual
components. It is necessary to keep in mind that one CB-bay always contains one circuit
breaker but several disconnectors and earthing switches (based on single line diagram,
usually about 2-3 disconnectors and 3-4 earthing switches). The individual equipments
failure frequencies are provided in technical brochures [2], [3] and [4].
Collected major and minor failures of GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT are
summarized in table 5-41 for all data and for data without countries 14 and 23. They are
expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for calculation of relative values are
sums of major and minor failures of these components.
Figures 5-25 show graphically relative data of tables 5-41 for all data, i.e. different GIS
components other than CB, DS/ES and IT contribution to total number of these components
MaF and MiF for all collected data.
40
Table 5-41: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for GIS CB-bay components
other than CB, DS/ES and IT all data (absolute and relative values in total collected MaF and
MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Failed GIS
component Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
Busduct 10 20,0 102 24,7 4 23,5 93 32,7
Busbar 9 18,0 58 14,0 4 23,5 20 7,0
SF6-to-air
5 10,0 77 18,6 1 5,9 77 27,1
bushing
Cable box 2 4,0 14 3,4 0 0,0 7 2,5
Transformer
2 4,0 15 3,6 2 11,8 12 4,2
bushing
Surge arrester 0 0,0 2 0,5 0 0,0 1 0,4
Other 22 44,0 145 35,1 6 35,3 74 26,1
busduct
20% busbar
SF6-to-air bushing
44%
Cable box
18% Transformer bushing
Surge arrester
10% Other
4% 4%
0%
Distribution of GISminor failures (MiF) of equipment
other than CB, DS/ ESand IT (all data)
busduct
25% busbar
35%
SF6-to-air bushing
Cable box
Surge arrester
0%
4% 3% 19%
Other
Figures 5-25: Relative distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for GIS CB-bay
components other than CB, DS/ES and IT
41
Collected failures in individual voltage classes are summarized in table 5-42 (MaF and MiF)
for all data. The values are expressed in absolute and in relative values. The bases for
calculation of relative values are numbers of collected failures in individual voltage classes.
The number of this kind of failures for countries other than 14 and 23 is too small to provide a
separate analysis. Figures 5-26 show graphical interpretations of the relative values.
Table 5-42: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for GIS CB-bay components
other than CB, DS/ES and IT all data (absolute and relative values in individual voltage
classes)
Number of MaF (all data)
Busbars and Any kind of Surge arrester
busducts MaF bushings MaF MaF Other MaF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 3 25,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 9 75,0
100U<200 kV 6 35,3 4 23,5 0 0,0 7 41,2
200U<300 kV 2 40,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 3 60,0
300U<500 kV 8 50,0 5 31,3 0 0,0 3 18,8
500U<700 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
700 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 19 38,0 9 18,0 0 0,0 22 44,0
Number of MiF (all data)
Busbars and Any kind of
busducts MiF bushings MiF Surge arrester MiF Other MiF
Voltage class Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
60U<100 kV 33 41,3 6 7,5 0 0,0 41 51,3
100U<200 kV 16 11,9 63 47,0 2 1,5 53 39,6
200U<300 kV 11 36,7 6 20,0 0 0,0 13 43,3
300U<500 kV 91 64,5 26 18,4 0 0,0 24 17,0
500U<700 kV 9 32,1 5 17,9 0 0,0 14 50,0
700 kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 160 38,7 106 25,7 2 0,5 145 35,1
42
GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ ESand IT minor failures
(MiF) voltage classes distribution (all data)
100%
90% other
80%
70% surge arrester
60%
50%
40% Any kind of
bushing
30%
20% busbar+busducts
10%
0%
Figures 5-26: Relative distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures for GIS CB-bay
components other than CB, DS/ES and IT in individual voltage classes
Collected failures in seven manufacturing intervals are summarized in table 5-43 (MaF) and
in table 5-44 (MiF) for all data. The values are expressed in absolute and in relative values.
The bases for relative values calculations are numbers of collected failures in individual GIS
components. The number of this kind of failures for countries other than 14 and 23 is too
small to provide a separate analysis. Figures 5-27 show graphical interpretations of the
absolute values.
Table 5-43: Distribution of major failures (MaF) of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT in
seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years- all data (Absolute and relative values within
individual components)
Busduct Busbar SF6-to-air Cable box Transform Surge Other
bushing er bushing arrester
abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%]
before
0 0,0 2 22,2 1 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 3 13,6
1979
1979-
2 20,0 1 11,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 0 0,0
1983
1984-
2 20,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2 100 2 100 0 - 1 4,5
1988
1989-
0 0,0 1 11,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 9 40,9
1993
1994-
3 30,0 2 22,2 2 40,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 3 13,6
1998
1999-
1 10,0 1 11,2 2 40,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 3 13,6
2003
2004-
2 20,0 2 22,2 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 3 13,6
2007
Total 10 100 9 100 5 100 2 100 2 100 0 - 22 100
43
Table 5-44: Distribution of minor failures (MiF) of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT in
seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years-all data (absolute and relative values within
individual components)
Busduct Busbar SF6-to-air Cable box Transform Surge Other
bushing er bushing arrester
abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%] abs. [%]
before
4 3,9 17 29,3 14 18,2 3 21,4 2 13,3 0 0,0 19 13,1
1979
1979-
16 15,7 9 15,5 11 14,3 6 42,9 1 6,7 0 0,0 31 21,4
1983
1984-
4 3,9 6 10,3 20 26,0 3 21,4 5 33,3 0 0,0 18 12,4
1988
1989-
59 57,8 6 10,3 24 31,2 0 0,0 5 33,3 1 50,0 50 34,5
1993
1994-
12 11,8 13 22,4 5 6,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 17 11,7
1998
1999-
7 6,9 7 12,1 0 0,0 2 14,3 0 0,0 1 50,0 7 4,8
2003
2004-
0 0,0 0 0,0 3 3,9 0 0,0 2 13,3 0 0,0 3 2,1
2007
Total 102 100 58 100 77 100 14 100 15 100 2 100 145 100
Reported GISmajor failures (MaF) of GISparts other than CB,
DS/ ESand IT in dependence on GISmanufacturing year
interval (All data)
10
9
8
Number of MaF[-]
Busduct
7
6 Busbar
5 SF6-to-air bushing
4
3 Cable box
2
1 Transformer bushing
0 Surge arrester
Other
50
Busbar
40
30 SF6-to-air bushing
20 Cable box
10 Transformer bushing
0 Surge arrester
Other
Figures 5-27: Distribution of absolute values of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures of GIS
parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years
44
Comparison with previous survey
The 2nd survey provided an analysis only for major failures and only for all MaF data without
the worst utility failure data. This data, with the others category included, is used for
comparison with the 3rd GIS survey results. Table 5-45 shows absolute and relative values
(where 100% is total number of major failures of equipment other than circuit breakers,
disconnectors/earthing switches and instrument transformers) and figure 5-28 expresses
these relative values graphically.
Table 5-45: Comparison of collected GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT major
failures in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute and relative values)
2nd GIS survey 3rd GIS survey
Failed GIS Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
component [number of MaF] [number of MaF]
Busbar+busducts 121 64,4 19 38,0
Any kind of
bushing 49 26,1 9 18,0
Surge arrester 5 2,7 0 0,0
Other 13 6,9 22 44,0
70
60
50 2nd survey
(1995)
40
30
20
3rd survey
10 (2007)
0
Figure 5-28: Comparison of collected GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT major
failures in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (relative values)
In the 3rd survey nearly half of the major failures were not in the list of answers mentioned in
the questionnaire. That is very really puzzling and it causes that a comparison with the 2nd
survey is almost impossible.
45
There is a very high portion of other reported in the survey. The questionnaire,
unfortunately, did not provide a space for any respondents commenting and the WG can just
speculate what this other can mean. That could include problems in earthing systems,
supporting systems, cabling, and/or the high number just reflects a fact that the questionnaire
respondent didnt have such an information available.
Tables 5-46 and 5-47 show distributions of collected GIS major (MaF) and minor (MiF)
failures in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years for all data and in absolute and relative
values. 100% is number of GIS failures collected within individual voltage classes. Tables 5-
48 and 5-49 show the same data but without two dominant countries. Figures 5-29 and 5-30
provide graphical interpretations of the absolute values of all data.
Table 5-46: Distribution of major failures (MaF) in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years -
all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MaF 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
<100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
Manufacturing
year abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 14 9,1 7 10,9 1 3,6 17 18,5 0 0,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 16 10,4 10 15,6 1 3,6 23 25,0 8 50,0 0 0,0
1984-1988 45 29,2 12 18,8 2 7,1 20 21,7 0 0,0 4 100,0
1989-1993 55 35,7 4 6,3 9 32,1 11 12,0 2 12,5 0 0,0
1994-1998 18 11,7 10 15,6 8 28,6 10 10,9 5 31,3 0 0,0
1999-2003 4 2,6 7 10,9 5 17,9 6 6,5 1 6,3 0 0,0
2004-2007 2 1,3 14 21,9 2 7,1 5 5,4 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 154 100,0 64 100,0 28 100,0 92 100,0 16 100,0 4 100,0
Table 5-47: Distribution of minor failures (MiF) in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years -
all data (absolute and relative values within individual voltage classes)
Number of MiF 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
<100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
Manufacturing
year abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 57 19,5 18 6,2 79 37,3 112 18,5 17 16,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 56 19,2 66 22,7 16 7,5 141 23,3 48 45,3 0 0,0
1984-1988 81 27,7 80 27,5 22 10,4 102 16,9 15 14,2 0 0,0
1989-1993 53 18,2 80 27,5 37 17,5 142 23,5 16 15,1 0 0,0
1994-1998 28 9,6 24 8,2 47 22,2 77 12,7 6 5,7 0 0,0
1999-2003 16 5,5 14 4,8 8 3,8 26 4,3 4 3,8 0 0,0
2004-2007 1 0,3 9 3,1 3 1,4 4 0,7 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 292 100,0 291 100,0 212 100,0 604 100,0 106 100,0 0 0,0
46
Table 5-48: Distribution of major failures (MaF) in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years -
data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage
classes)
Number of MaF 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
<100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
Manufacturing year abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 0 4 19,0 0 0,0 14 22,6 0 0,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 0 3 14,3 1 10,0 22 35,5 8 100,0 0 0,0
1984-1988 0 5 23,8 0 0,0 15 24,2 0 0,0 4 100,0
1989-1993 0 2 9,5 2 20,0 5 8,1 0 0,0 0 0,0
1994-1998 0 2 9,5 2 20,0 1 1,6 0 0,0 0 0,0
1999-2003 0 2 9,5 3 30,0 2 3,2 0 0,0 0 0,0
2004-2007 0 3 14,3 2 20,0 3 4,8 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 0 21 100,0 10 100,0 62 100,0 8 100,0 4 100,0
Table 5-49: Distribution of minor failures (MiF) in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years -
data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values within individual voltage
classes)
Number of MiF 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 kV
<100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV
Manufacturing
year abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. % abs. %
before 1979 0 0,0 14 5,4 66 56,9 104 18,5 0 0,0 0 0,0
1979-1983 0 0,0 63 24,3 3 2,6 131 23,3 26 81,3 0 0,0
1984-1988 0 0,0 74 28,6 1 0,9 96 17,1 6 18,8 0 0,0
1989-1993 0 0,0 72 27,8 12 10,3 130 23,1 0 0,0 0 0,0
1994-1998 1 100,0 17 6,6 31 26,7 72 12,8 0 0,0 0 0,0
1999-2003 0 0,0 11 4,2 2 1,7 25 4,4 0 0,0 0 0,0
2004-2007 0 0,0 8 3,1 1 0,9 4 0,7 0 0,0 0 0,0
Total 1 100,0 259 100,0 116 100,0 562 100,0 32 100,0 0 0,0
50
Number of MaF[-]
40 60U<100 kV
30 100U<200 kV
200U<300 kV
20
300U<500 kV
10 500U<700 kV
700 kV
0
Figure 5-29: Distribution of the number of major (MaF) failures in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years
47
Minor failures (MiF) in dependence on GISmanufacturing
year interval (all data)
160
140
60U<100 kV
Number of MiF[-] 120
100U<200 kV
100
200U<300 kV
80
300U<500 kV
60
500U<700 kV
40
20
Figure 5-30: Distribution of the number of minor (MiF) failures in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years
Table 5-50 shows summaries (without classifying into voltage classes) of data from the
tables above but the relative values are recalculated to total collected failure data (100% is
total number of MaF, MiF resp.).
Table 5-50: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative
values of total collected MaF and MiF)
Manufacturing All data Data without countries 14 and 23
year MaF abs. MaF % MiF abs. MiF % MaF abs. MaF % MiF abs. MiF %
before 1979 39 10,9 283 18,8 18 17,1 184 19,0
1979-1983 58 16,2 327 21,7 34 32,4 223 23,0
1984-1988 83 23,2 300 19,9 24 22,9 177 18,2
1989-1993 81 22,6 328 21,8 9 8,6 214 22,1
1994-1998 51 14,2 182 12,1 5 4,8 121 12,5
1999-2003 23 6,4 68 4,5 7 6,7 38 3,9
2004-2007 23 6,4 17 1,1 8 7,6 13 1,3
Total 358 100,0 1505 100,0 105 100,0 970 100,0
48
Table 5-51: Comparison of 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys collected number of major failures of GIS
older than 11 years and 11 years old or younger in individual voltage classes (absolute values)
Collected GIS service experience Collected GIS service experience
2nd survey [CB-bay-years] 3rd survey [CB-bay-years]
GIS age GIS age GIS age GIS age
Voltage class >11 years 11 years >11 years 11 years
60U<100 kV 17 11 107 19
100U<200 kV 76 114 36 26
200U<300 kV 100 38 15 12
300U<500 kV 110 69 74 17
500U<700 kV 32 17 12 4
700 kV 0 12 4 0
Total 335 261 248 78
100
Number of major failures [-]
80
>11 yearsold GIS 2nd survey
60 (1995)
11 yearsold GIS 2nd survey
40 (1995)
>11 yearsold GIS 3rd survey
20
(2007)
Figure 5-31: Comparison of major failures from the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey of GIS older than 11
years and 11 years old or younger
In both surveys and in all voltage classes (with exception of voltage class 2 in the 2nd survey)
the number of major failures is less for the younger group of GIS than for the older GIS
group.
49
5.6 GIS Major Failure Frequencies
5.6.1 Completeness of data
The above shown population (service experience) and failure data were analyzed from their
"completeness" point of view. Data was considered complete, when a failure card was
always accompanied with its population card. If there was no failure card accompanied with a
population card it was clearly stated by the respondent that the respective population did not
have any failure in a specific year. Portion of complete and incomplete population and failure
cards is shown in table 5-52 for all data and in table 5-53 for data without countries 14 and
23. Moreover the WG decided to exclude major failures caused by flood (28 MaF in class 1 -
thereof 17 DE, 4 IT and 7 GI) from the final failure frequency calculation. Flood belongs to
force majeure causes that the equipment cannot be really designed for. In spite of that the
completeness reached more than 99 % for collected service experience and more than 90%
for collected major failure data. The resulting number of "complete" service experience and
"complete" number of major failures without those caused by flood, i.e. data for failure
frequencies calculation, is shown in 3rd and 6th columns of is shown in tables 5-52 and 5-53.
Table 5-52: Overview of collected data and thereof data entering the failure frequency
calculations - all data
Voltage class Total collected Experience % of C Total collected MaF marked % of C
[kV] experience marked as marked number of MaF as complete marked
[CB-bay-years] complete (C) experience (C) MaF
for failure
frequency
calculation
60U<100 40 404 40 404 100,0 154 126* 81,8
100U<200 26 402 26 379 99,9 64 62 96,9
200U<300 8 307 8 307 100,0 28 27 96,4
300U<500 10 331 10 331 100,0 92 91 98,9
500U<700 3 187 3 187 100,0 16 16 100,0
700 340 340 100,0 4 4 100,0
Total 88 971 88 948 99,97 358 326 91,1
note * : 28 MaF caused by flood were excluded from failure frequency calculation even if
they were marked as complete
Table 5-53:. Overview of collected data and thereof data entering the failure frequency
calculations - data without countries 14 and 23
Voltage class Total collected Experience % of C Total collected MaF marked % of C
[kV] experience marked as marked number of MaF as complete marked
[CB-bay-years] complete (C) experience (C) MaF
60U<100 113 113 100,0 0 0 n.a.
100U<200 3 677 3 654 99,4 21 19 90,5
200U<300 1 349 1 349 100,0 10 9 90,0
300U<500 1 680 1 680 100,0 62 62 100,0
500U<700 170 170 100,0 8 8 100,0
700 192 192 100,0 4 4 100,0
Total 7 181 7 158 99,7 105 102 97,1
Using data from tables 5-52 and 5-53 major failure frequencies were calculated. The GIS
major failure are related, similar to previous GIS survey [13] to GIS bays (fields) i.e. they are
expressed in number of major failures per 100 GIS circuit breaker-bay-years [MaF/100.CB-
bay-year]. For the CB-bay definition see Appendix 1. Major failure frequencies for individual
GIS main components, i.e. to circuit breakers (CB), disconnectors/earthing switches (DS/ES)
and to instrument transformers (IT) are mentioned in technical brochures [2], [3] and [4].
50
Minor failure frequencies have not been calculated (there are big doubts about minor failure
reporting completeness).
Some presented results include also statistics calculations described in technical brochure
[1]. The confidence intervals and results of null and alternate hypotheses test between the
results of two independent groups or of a subgroup in relations to the whole population are
provided. The confidence level and significance level are 95% and 5% respectively.
The results of major failure frequencies within individual voltage classes for all data and
data without countries 14 and 23 were tested for equality of the estimated failure
frequency. The hypotheses test showed equality of results (except for voltage class 4).
From that point on more detailed calculations (GIS extent, location, encapsulation design
and failure frequencies for different kinds of bushings) were made only for all data. The
following analyses of MaF frequencies are provided for:
Fully GIS and Hybrid GIS in total and in individual voltage classes for all data
(including confidence intervals), comparison of the results of individual voltage
classes - chapter 5.6.3
Indoor GIS and Outdoor GIS in total and in individual voltage classes for all data
(including confidence intervals), comparison of the results of individual voltage
classes - chapter 5.6.4
Single phase GIS bays and three phase GIS bays in total and in individual voltage
classes for all data (including confidence intervals), comparison of the results of
individual voltage classes - chapter 5.6.5
SF6-to-air bushings, cable boxes and transformer bushing failure frequencies
chapter 5.6.6
As the GIS population card asked for 3-phase data about Gas Insulated Switchgear
(GIS) and those parts of hybrid substations made from GIS components population,
the collected service experience is 3-phase. Collected data about failures is single
phase or three-phase as mentioned in the introduction of chapter 5.5. Supposing that
any, even a single phase failure causes an outage of all three GIS phases the values of
subsequently provided failure frequencies are related to 3-phase GIS circuit breaker
bay arrangement.
An overview of these two data sets is given in table 5-54. However, it shall be kept in mind
that the comparison is very approximate to make any real final conclusion as the participation
of countries, utilities and reported GIS in the 3rd survey was different from the 2nd one.
51
Table 5-54:. Overview of collected data in the 2nd GIS survey entering the failure frequencies
comparison
All data without the worst utility data All data without the worst utility and one
dominant country data
Total collected Total collected number Total collected Total collected
Voltage class experience of MaF experience [CB- number of MaF
[kV] [CB-bay-years] bay-years]
60U<100 56 884 28 5114 13
100U<200 29 415 190 20 999 174
200U<300 16 040 138 9 576 115
300U<500 6 371 179 6 371 179
500U<700 4 525 49 1 101 44
700 200 12 200 12
Total 113 435 596 43 361 537
Chapter 5.6.2 provides the failure frequency analysis from individual voltage class point of
view. Table 5-55 provides major failure frequencies for all data, Table 5-56 provides the
same analysis but for data without two dominant countries and compares these results with
the results based on all data. Figures 5-32 express the results from both tables in graphical
forms. The dot line shows one of many possible real scenarios.
Table 5-55: Distribution of major failure frequency for GIS-CB-bay - all data (absolute values
within individual voltage classes)
Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,31 0,26 0,37
100U<200 kV 0,24 0,18 0,30
200U<300 kV 0,33 0,21 0,47
300U<500 kV 0,88 0,71 1,08
500U<700 kV 0,50 0,29 0,82
700 kV 1,18 0,32 3,01
Total 0,37 0,33 0,41
52
Table 5-56: Distribution of major failure frequency for GIS-CB-bay data without countries 14
and 23 (absolute values within individual voltage classes and results of hypotheses tests on
significant difference from all data failure frequencies)
Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] Result of
all data without countries 14 and 23 hypotheses tests:
Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit difference from all
Voltage class data results
60U<100 kV 0,00 0,00 2,65 not different
100U<200 kV 0,52 0,31 0,81 not different
200U<300 kV 0,67 0,31 1,27 not different
300U<500 kV 3,69 2,83 4,73 different
500U<700 kV 4,71 2,03 9,27 not different
700 kV 2,08 0,57 5,33 not different
Total 1,42 1,16 1,73 different
3.5 MaF
3.0 frequency
lower limit
2.5
2.0
1.5 MaF
1.0 frequency
0.5 point
estimation
0.0
MaF
frequency
upper limit
Volatge class [kV]
10.0 MaF
9.0 frequency
8.0 lower limit
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0 MaF
3.0 frequency
2.0 point
1.0 estimation
0.0
MaF
frequency
upper limit
Volatge class [kV]
Figures 5-32: Distribution of GIS-CB-bay major failure frequencies absolute values for
individual voltage classes
53
Comparison with previous survey
Table 5-57 and figure 5-33 provide a comparison of the 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys. They show
absolute values of major failure frequencies point estimations in individual voltage classes
and results of hypotheses tests.
Table 5-57 : Comparison of 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys major failure frequencies (absolute values)
Major failure Major failure frequency
frequency [MaF/100 [MaF/100 CB-bay-years]
CB-bay-years]
2nd GIS 3rd GIS 2nd GIS 3rd GIS
survey - survey survey - all survey
all data all data data without all data
without the worst without
the worst Results of utility and a countries Results of
utility hypotheses dominant 14 and 23 hypotheses
Voltage class tests country tests
60U<100 kV 0,05 0,31 3rd worse than 2nd 0,25 0,00 equal
100U<200 kV 0,65 0,24 3rd better than 2nd 0,83 0,52 rd
3 better than 2
nd
rd nd rd nd
200U<300 kV 0,86 0,33 3 better than 2 1,20 0,67 3 better than 2
rd nd rd nd
300U<500 kV 2,81 0,88 3 better than 2 2,81 3,69 3 worse than 2
rd nd
500U<700 kV 1,08 0,50 3 better than 2 4,00 4,71 equal
700 kV 6,00 1,18 3rd better than 2nd 6,00 2,08 rd
3 better than 2
nd
rd nd
Total 0,53 0,37 3 better than 2 1,24 1,42 equal
Figure 5-33: Comparison of major failure frequencies in the 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys
Comparison of failure frequencies of GISs collected in the 2nd and 3rd survey provides the
following results:
2nd survey all data without the worst utility result compared to all data in the 3rd
survey: With exception of voltage class 1 GIS from the 3rd survey are more reliable
than those reported in the 2nd survey. Voltage class 1 GISs exhibit less reliability.
2nd survey all data without the worst utility and without one dominant highly developed
country compared to all data without countries 14 and 23 in the 3rd survey: The GIS
failure frequencies of voltage classes 1 and 5 and of the total GIS population have not
changed. GISs of voltage classes 2, 3 and 6 exhibited better reliability but in voltage
class 4 the GISs were less reliable than those reported within the 2nd survey.
The comparison did not show unambiguously better behavior of GIS in the 3rd survey with
respect to those reported within the 2nd survey namely for the data sets without dominant
highly experienced countries. The voltage classes curve shapes are similar.
54
Findings and commentary
Major failure frequency increases with voltage class in both analyses, i.e. for all data as well
as for data without countries 14 and 23. As mentioned in technical brochure [1] the
confidence interval is the wider the less service experience enters the calculation. The point
estimations as well as their confidence limits with confidence level of 95% are given in tables
5-55 and 5-56.
The point estimations for all data for voltage classes 1, 2 and 3 are about 0.3 MaF/100 CB-
bay-years, in voltage classes 4 and 5 the failure frequencies are about twice as higher and in
voltage class 6 about three times higher. The point estimates for all data without countries 14
and 23 for voltage classes 2 and 3 are about 0.6 MaF/100 CB-bay-years, in voltage classes
4 and 5 the failure frequencies are about 6 times higher and in voltage class 6 it is about
three times higher. However, keeping in mind very different bases for calculations, i.e. very
different numbers of collected service experience of all data and data without countries 14
and 23, and applying hypotheses tests on their failure frequencies significant differences, it
yields that only in voltage class 4 and in total the other countries than 14 and 23 influenced
the total result in an inhomogeneous way. This is due to the very large change of collected
service experience when countries 14 and 23 are excluded.
Table 5-58: Comparison of GIS voltage classes behavior hypotheses tests results (all data)
Population 1 Population 2 Failure Failure Both failure
(population (population frequency in frequency in frequencies are
within voltage within voltage population1 is population1 is equal
class) class) less than in greater than in
population 2 population 2
60U<100 kV 100U<200 kV yes
100U<200 kV 200U<300 kV yes
200U<300 kV 300U<500 kV yes
300U<500 kV 500U<700 kV yes
500U<700 kV 700 kV yes
GIS voltage class 2 behavior is better than the experience in voltage class 1. The results in
voltage classes 2 and 3 are equal. The behavior of voltage class 3 is better than in voltage
class 4 but voltage class 4 behavior is worse than in class 5 equal to voltage class 6. This
comparison does not give as clear message as written below for the data without countries
14 and 23. The result might be explained by a different age distribution of the GIS.
Table 5-59: Comparison of GIS voltage classes behavior hypotheses tests results (all data
without countries 14 and 23
Population 1 Population 2 Failure Failure Both failure
(population (population frequency in frequency in frequencies are
within voltage within voltage population1 is population1 is equal
class) class) less than in greater than in
population 2 population 2
60U<100 kV 100U<200 kV yes
100U<200 kV 200U<300 kV yes
200U<300 kV 300U<500 kV yes
300U<500 kV 500U<700 kV yes
500U<700 kV 700 kV yes
The behavior in voltage classes 1, 2 and 3 are equal and better than in the other classes.
The other classes (classes 4, 5 and 6) behave the same. This is an expected result due to
slightly different designs (e.g. CB with one interrupter chamber and with two or more
interrupters).
55
5.6.3 GIS extent major failure frequencies distribution
The analysis regarding the behavior of fully GIS and hybrid GIS is made only for all data. The
amount of data for countries other than 14 and 23 is too small to get any precise results.
Table 5-60 provides point estimation and confidence interval limits for major failure frequency
of fully GIS. Table 5-61 provides the same analysis for hybrid GIS and compares this results
with the fully GIS results. Figure 5-34 expresses the point estimations results from both
tables in a graphical form (their confidence limits are provided only in the tables).
Table 5-60: Distribution of major failure frequency for fully GIS-CB-bay - all data (absolute
values within individual voltage classes)
Fully GIS Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,33 0,27 0,39
100U<200 kV 0,22 0,17 0,29
200U<300 kV 0,31 0,19 0,47
300U<500 kV 0,98 0,78 1,21
500U<700 kV 0,74 0,40 1,24
700 kV 1,18 0,32 3,01
Total 0,37 0,33 0,42
Table 5-61: Distribution of major failure frequency for hybrid GIS-CB-bay all data (absolute
values within individual voltage classes and hypotheses tests results for comparison to fully
GIS)
Hybrid GIS Major failure frequency [MaF/100 Results of hypotheses tests
CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,12 0,02 0,34 Hybrid GIS better than Fully GIS
100U<200 kV 0,75 0,24 1,75 Hybrid GIS worse than Fully GIS
200U<300 kV 0,42 0,14 0,99 equal
300U<500 kV 0,33 0,11 0,77 Hybrid GIS better than Fully GIS
500U<700 kV 0,15 0,02 0,56 Hybrid GIS better than Fully GIS
Total 0,28 0,17 0,43 equal
1.40
1.20
1.00 Fully GIS(all
0.80 data)
0.60
0.40
0.20
Hybrid GIS(all
0.00
data)
Figure 5-34: Distribution of major failure frequencies for fully and hybrid GIS-CB-bays in
individual voltage classes
56
Comparison with previous survey
From the brochure [13] of the 2nd GIS survey, it is not clear how many major failures of hybrid
installations happened in the data set 1 (all data) and how many in the population without
one dominant country. Therefore the comparison between fully GIS and hybrid GIS shown
below is provided only for datasets that include all reported data (in case of 2nd survey
without the worst utility results).
Table 5-62 and figure 5-35 provide comparison of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey. They show
point estimations of major failure frequencies in individual voltage classes and the results of
the significance tests.
Table 5-62: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey of fully and
hybrid GIS (all data)
Major failure frequency Major failure frequency
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] [MaF/100 CB-bay-
years]
2nd GIS 3rd GIS 2nd GIS 3rd GIS
survey survey survey survey
fully GIS all fully hybrid hybrid
data without GIS all Results of GIS all GIS all Results of
the worst data hypotheses data data hypotheses
Voltage class utility tests tests
60U<100 kV 0,05 0,40 rd
3 worse than 2
nd
0,12 0,12 equal
100U<200 kV 0,68 0,23 rd
3 better than 2
nd
0,18 0,90 rd
3 worse than 2
nd
7 2nd GISsurvey -
6 fully GIS
5
3rd GISsurvey
4
fully GIS
3
2 2nd GISsurvey -
1 hybrid GIS
0
3rd GISsurvey
hybrid GIS
Figure 5-35: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey of fully and
hybrid GISs
Comparison of failure frequencies of GISs collected in the 2nd and 3rd surveys provides the
following results:
57
The fully GISs comparison provides the same results as the comparison of all data
(see chapter 5.6.2)
The hybrid GISs comparison shows the more or less the same hybrid GIS
performance in classes 1, 3, 5 and in total, better performance in the 2nd survey in
class 2 and better performance in the 3rd survey in class 3.
The comparison did not show unambiguously better behavior in the 3rd survey than those
reported within the 2nd survey namely for the hybrid GIS.
The voltage classes curve shapes for fully GIS are similar. The voltage class curve shapes
for hybrid GIS are completely different.
The analysis regarding the performance of indoor GIS and outdoor GIS is made only for all
data. The amount of data for countries other than 14 and 23 is too small to get any
reasonable results. Table 5-63 provides major failure frequency point estimation and
confidence interval limits for indoor GIS, Table 5-64 provides the same analysis for outdoor
GIS and compares this results with the indoor GIS results. Figure 5-36 expresses the point
estimation values results from both tables in a graphical form (their confidence limits are
provided only in the tables).
Table 5-63: Distribution of major failure frequency for indoor GIS-CB-bay - all data (absolute
values within individual voltage classes)
Indoor GIS Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,09 0,05 0,16
100U<200 kV 0,21 0,15 0,29
200U<300 kV 0,29 0,13 0,58
300U<500 kV 1,34 0,95 1,83
500U<700 kV 0,00 0,00 0,87
700 kV 2,08 0,57 5,33
Total 0,27 0,22 0,33
58
Table 5-64: Distribution of major failure frequency for outdoor GIS-CB-bay all data (absolute
values within individual voltage classes and hypotheses tests results for comparison to indoor
GIS)
Outdoor GIS Major failure frequency [MaF/100 Results of hypotheses tests
CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,41 0,34 0,50 Indoor GIS better than outdoor
100U<200 kV 0,28 0,18 0,41 equal
200U<300 kV 0,34 0,20 0,53 equal
300U<500 kV 0,70 0,52 0,92 Indoor GIS worse than outdoor
500U<700 kV 0,56 0,32 0,91 equal
Total 0,43 0,38 0,49 Indoor GIS better than outdoor
2.50
2.00
Indoor GIS
1.50 (all data)
1.00
0.50
Outdoor GIS
0.00
(all data)
Figure 5-36: Distribution of major failure frequencies for indoor and outdoor GIS-CB-bays in
individual voltage classes
59
Table 5-65: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey for indoor
and outdoor GIS (all data)
Major failure frequency Major failure frequency
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] [MaF/100 CB-bay-
years]
2nd GIS 3rd GIS 2nd GIS 3rd GIS
survey survey Results of survey survey Results of
indoor indoor hypotheses outdoor outdoor hypotheses
Voltage class GIS GIS tests GIS GIS tests
60U<100 kV 0,08 0,09 equal 0,03 0,51 rd
3 worse than 2
nd
Table 5-66: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey for indoor
and outdoor GIS (data without dominant countries)
Major failure frequency Major failure frequency
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] [MaF/100 CB-bay-
years]
2nd GIS 3rd GIS 2nd GIS 3rd GIS
survey survey Results of survey survey Results of
indoor indoor hypotheses outdoor outdoor hypotheses
Voltage class GIS GIS tests GIS GIS tests
60U<100 kV 0,33 0,00 equal 0,11 0,00 equal
100U<200 kV 0,85 0,50 rd
3 better that 2nd 0,23 0,79 equal
200U<300 kV 1,30 0,54 rd
3 better that 2nd 0,81 3,33 rd
3 worse than 2
nd
Comparison of indoor and outdoor GIS MaFfrequenciesin Comparisonof indoor and outdoor GIS MaFfrequenciesin
2nd and 3rd GISsurveys(all data) 2ndand 3rd GISsurveys(datawithout dominant countries)
MaFfrequency [MaF/ 100 CB-bay-years]
5 6
3rd GISsurvey 5 3rd GISsurvey
4
indoor GIS indoor GIS
4
3
3
2 2nd GISsurvey - 2 2nd GISsurvey -
1 outdoor GIS outdoor GIS
1
0
0
3rd GISsurvey
3rd GISsurvey
outdoor GIS
outdoor GIS
Figures 5-37: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey of indoor
and outdoor GISs
60
Comparison of failure frequencies of indoor GISs collected in the 2nd and 3rd survey show
equal or better reliability of GISs in the 3rd survey for all data as well as for data without
dominant countries. On the other hand the collected outdoor GISs experience in the 3rd
survey shows less reliability (with exception of voltage class 4) than GISs collected in the 2nd
survey. This fact is even worse when evaluating data without dominant countries. It is difficult
to say whether the reason is that the populations were different or whether the outdoor GIS
are getting less reliable (the age analysis is provided in chapter 5.6.7).
The result also shows an increasing failure frequencies in higher voltage classes in indoor
GIS. The failure frequencies for voltage classes 1, 2, 3 slightly increase from 0,1 to 0,3
MaF/100 CB-bay-years but for voltage class 4 it rises to a value about 5 times that value (1,3
MaF/100 CB-bay-years).
In voltage class 5 there were no failures recorded in the 4 years period of the survey.
As the comparison of total data for outdoor and indoor GIS behavior is concerned, the indoor
GIS exhibits better performance in voltage class 1 and worse performance in voltage class 4.
GIS of the other voltage classes behave equally. No significant difference between outdoor
and indoor GIS was observed. Most manufacturers design their basic components and
sealing for outdoor GIS even if they are installed indoor. The failure frequencies should thus
be very similar and that has been proven by the survey results in spite of the fact that
outdoor design is always more dependent on local environmental impacts (see chapter
5.7.8).
The analysis regarding the performance of single-phase and three-phase enclosure CB-bays
is made only for all data. The amount of data for countries other than 14 and 23 is too small
to get any precise results. Table 5-67 provides estimated major failure frequency and
confidence intervals for single-phase GIS CB-bays. Table 5-68 provides the same analysis
for three-phase GIS CB-bays and compares these results with the single-phase GIS CB-
bays. Figure 5-38 expresses the results from both tables in a graphical form (their confidence
limits are provided only in the tables).
Table 5-67: Distribution of major failure frequency for single-phase GIS-CB-bay - all data
(absolute values within individual voltage classes)
Single-phase GIS CB-bays major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] all
data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
60U<100 kV 0,26 0,16 0,40
100U<200 kV 0,21 0,14 0,29
200U<300 kV 0,38 0,21 0,64
300U<500 kV 0,96 0,76 1,19
500U<700 kV 0,50 0,29 0,82
700 kV 1,18 0,32 3,01
Total 0,43 0,37 0,50
61
Table 5-68: Distribution of major failure frequency for three-phase GIS-CB-bay all data
(absolute values within individual voltage classes and hypotheses tests results for comparison
to single-phase GIS CB-bays)
Three-phase GIS CB-bays major failure
frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years] all data
Voltage class Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit Results of hypotheses tests
60U<100 kV 0,32 0,27 0,39 equal
100U<200 kV 0,27 0,19 0,39 equal
200U<300 kV 0,28 0,15 0,48 equal
300U<500 kV 0,51 0,23 0,96 3-phase GIS better than 1-phase
500U<700 kV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
700 kV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total 0,32 0,27 0,37 3-phase GIS better than 1-phase
1.4
1.2
CB-bay 1-
1.0 phase GIS(all
data)
0.8
0.6
0.4 CB-bay 3
0.2 phase (all
data)
0.0
60U<100 100U<200200U<300300U<500500U<700 700
Voltage class [kV]
Figure 5-38: Distribution of major failure frequencies for single- and three-phase GIS-CB-bays
in individual voltage classes
The result shows the same tendency for three-phase encapsulated GIS as for single-phase.
More over the results show approximately the same failure frequencies in voltage class 1, 2
and 3 and slightly lower value in voltage class 4 (about a half of single-phase CB-bays).
62
The comparison of single-phase and three-phase GIS behavior can be made only for voltage
classes 1,2,3 and 4. The three-phase CB-bays encapsulation is not used in the highest
voltages, i.e. in classes 5 and 6. Regards the failure frequency of voltage classes 1, 2, 3 they
perform equally and independent of the enclosure design. Voltage class 4 of three-phase
encapsulation exhibits a bit better results. That can be explained by the fact that if both types
are properly designed, less material in three-phase encapsulation gives less room for
failures and three-phase encapsulation transport units are more homogeneous and thus give
less room for assembly faults.
In the GIS population cards, respondents were asked to specify in each substation
(questionnaire line) number of:
SF6/air bushings
Cable boxes
Interface chamber bushings (direct interconnections between GIS and power
transformer or reactor)
Since the GIS population card asked for 3-phase data about GIS and those parts of hybrid
substations made from GIS components the number of collected different kind of bushings
service experience is basically 3-phase (see chapter 5.6.1).
The GIS failure cards provided also other options for the identification of a failed component
than only different kinds of bushings. The respondents could also identify busbar and/or
busbar interconnecting pieces, busducts and/or busducts interconnecting pieces or surge
arresters. In population card was no question on the number of installed surge arresters or
on the length of busbars and/or busducts. Therefore it is impossible to calculate accurately
failure frequencies for these parts of GIS.
Table 5-69. shows the collected service experience, number of major failures MaF, estimated
MaF failure frequency and its confidence interval. As there were collected only 9 of such
major failures the results [MaF/100 three-phase bushing arrangement-year] were calculated
only for a sum of all data.
Table 5-69: Overview of collected service experience and number of major failures for GIS
components and failure frequencies and confidence intervals results all data
GIS component Collected service Collected MaF frequency [MaF/100 three-phase bushing
experience [unit. number of arrangement-year]
years] MaF Point estimation Lower limit Upper limit
SF6-to-air 38 887 5 0,013 0,004 0,030
bushing
Cable box/ cable 45 925 2 0,004 0,001 0,016
sealing end
Interface 5 049 2 0,040 0,005 0,143
chamber
bushings
After making the hypotheses tests the cable box results are a bit better than the other two
types bushings results that are equal.
63
Comparison with previous survey
The number of reported different types of bushings, or the length of busbars and busducts, or
the number of surge arresters are not known from the 2nd survey. The only comparison that
can be made is a comparison of their contribution to the whole CB-bay failure frequency.
This contribution is shown in Table 5-70 that provides only results based on all data and
hypotheses tests results.
Table 5-70: Comparison of major failure frequencies of the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey for GIS
components other than CB, DS/ES and IT (all data)
2nd survey MaF 3nd survey MaF
frequency frequency
[MaF/100.CB-bay- [MaF/100.CB-bay- Results of hypotheses
years] years] tests
Busbar+busducts 0,107 0,021 3rd better than 2nd
Any kind of bushing 0,043 0,010 3rd better than 2nd
Surge arrester 0,004 0,000 equal
Other 0,011 0,025 3rd worse than 2nd
The failure frequency of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT is extremely low,
nevertheless, the surveys comparison shows a certain improvement in the failure
frequencies of busbar+busducts as well as in all kinds of bushings. In spite of that the biggest
part in the 3rd survey surprisingly represents the other category for which, unfortunately, no
additional information exists.
Chapter 5.6.7 provides the failure frequency analyses for individual voltage classes and for
seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years. Table 5-71 provides estimated frequencies for
major failures based on all data. Table 5-72 provides the same analysis but for data without
two dominant countries. Figures 5-39 express the results from both tables in graphical forms.
Table 5-71: Distribution of major failure frequency in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing
years - all data (absolute values within individual voltage classes)
MaF frequency Voltage class [kV]
[MaF/100 CB-bay- 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 Total
years] all data <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV kV
before 1979 0,51 1,98 0,14 4,05 0,00 0 0,89
1979-1983 0,39 1,29 0,14 1,99 1,39 0 0,79
manufacture
64
Table 5-72: Distribution of major failure frequency in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing
years data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute values within individual voltage classes)
MaF frequency Voltage class [kV]
[MaF/100 CB-bay- 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 Total
years] data without <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV kV
countries 14 and 23
before 1979 0 1,39 0,00 8,14 0 0 2,50
Period of manufacture
4.00 60U<100 kV
3.50
100U<200 kV
3.00
2.50 200U<300 kV
2.00
1.50 300U<500 kV
1.00
500U<700 kV
0.50
0.00
Period of manufacture
8.00
7.00 60U<100 kV
6.00
5.00 100U<200 kV
4.00
200U<300 kV
3.00
2.00
300U<500 kV
1.00
0.00
Period of manufacture
Figures 5-39: Distribution of major failure frequency in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing
years within individual voltage classes
65
The upper figures call for a more detailed analysis, i.e. for each individual voltage class
separately. These analyses were made for all data in voltage classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (tables
and figures 5-73 and 5-40) and for data without countries 14 and 23 for voltage classes 2, 3
and 4 (tables and figures 5-74 and 5-41). As the real value of failure frequency lies with 95%
of confidence level somewhere between the upper and lower limits the time trend of failure
frequencies can be visible more precisely.
Tables 5-73 and figures 5-40: Distribution of major failure frequency in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years - all data (point estimations and lower and upper limits of confidence
interval in voltage classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
MaF frequency Voltage class 60U<100 kV MaFfrequency class 60U<100 kV (all data)
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
1,00
1979-1983 0,22 0,39 0,63 0,80
0,60
1984-1988 0,37 0,50 0,68 0,40 MaFfrequency
0,20 point
1989-1993 0,18 0,27 0,40 0,00 est imation
MaF frequency Voltage class 100U<200 kV MaFfrequency class 100U<200 kV(all data)
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
MaFfrequency [MaF/ 100CB-bay-years]
limit limit
bay-years] estimation 4,50
4,00
MaFfrequency
lower limit
3,50
before 1979 0,80 1,98 4,07 3,00
Period of manufacture
2,50
1979-1983 0,62 1,29 2,38 2,00
1,50
1984-1988 0,32 0,64 1,14 1,00 MaFfrequency
0,50 point estimation
1989-1993 0,03 0,11 0,29 0,00
1994-1998 0,06 0,13 0,24
1999-2003 0,03 0,08 0,17
MaFfrequency
2004-2007 0,18 0,33 0,56 upper limit
MaF frequency Voltage class 200U<300 kV MaFfrequency class 200U<300 kV(all data)
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
MaFfrequency [MaF/ 100CB-bay-years]
limit limit
bay-years] estimation 1,400 MaFfrequency
1,200 lower limit
before 1979 0,004 0,14 0,80 1,000
Period of manufacture
0,800
1979-1983 0,004 0,14 0,77 0,600
1984-1988 0,015 0,13 0,45 0,400 MaFfrequency
0,200
1989-1993 0,225 0,49 0,94 0,000
point estimation
MaF frequency Voltage class 300U<500 kV MaFfrequency class 300U<500 kV(all data)
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
MaFfrequency [MaF/ 100CB-bay-years]
4,00
1979-1983 1,26 1,99 2,99 3,00
MaFfrequency
1984-1988 0,83 1,36 2,11 2,00
1,00 point
1989-1993 0,30 0,61 1,09 0,00 estimation
66
MaF frequency Voltage class 500U<700 kV MaFfrequencyclass500U<700 kV(all data)
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
Tables 5-74 and figures 5-41: Distribution of major failure frequency in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years data without countries 14 and 23 (point estimations and lower and
upper limits of confidence interval in voltage classes 2, 3 and 4)
MaF frequency Voltage class 100U<200 kV MaFfrequency class 100U<200 kV (data without
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
2,50
1979-1983 0,12 0,60 1,74 2,00
1984-1988 0,16 0,58 1,48 1,50
MaF
1,00
1989-1993 0,03 0,28 1,02 0,50 frequency
0,00 point
1994-1998 0,06 0,49 1,75 estimation
1999-2003 0,03 0,28 1,02
2004-2007 0,07 0,58 2,11 MaF
frequency
Total 0,31 0,52 0,81 upper limit
Period of manufact ure
MaF frequency Voltage class 200U<300 kV MaFfrequency class 200U<300 kV (data without
[MaF/100 CB- Lower Point Upper
MaFfrequency [MaF/ 100CB-bay-years]
67
Figure 5-42 graphically interprets data from table 5-75. Figures 5-43 show failure frequency
trends within these two groups of age intervals separately for the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey.
Table 5-75: Comparison of major failure frequencies from the 2nd and 3rd GIS of GIS older than
11 years and 11 years old or younger in individual voltage classes (all data and hypotheses
tests results)
Major failure frequency Major failure frequency
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] [MaF/100 CB-bay-
years]
2nd survey 3rd survey Results of 2nd survey 3rd survey Results of
GIS age GIS age hypotheses GIS age GIS age hypotheses
Voltage class >11 years >11 years tests 11 years 11 years tests
rd nd rd nd
60U<100 kV 0,06 0,37 3 worse that 2 0,04 0,17 3 worse that 2
rd nd
100U<200 kV 0,45 0,43 equal 0,91 0,14 3 better than 2
rd nd
200U<300 kV 0,97 0,28 3 better than 2 0,67 0,40 equal
rd nd rd nd
300U<500 kV 2,98 1,32 3 better than 2 2,58 0,36 3 better than 2
rd nd
500U<700 kV 0,98 0,61 equal 1,34 0,33 3 better than 2
rd nd
700 kV n.a. 2,08 n.a. 6,00 0,00 3 better than 2
Total 0,53 0,49 equal 0,52 0,20 rd
3 better than 2
nd
3.5
3 >11 years old GIS
2nd survey (1995)
2.5
>11 years old GIS
2
3rd survey (2007)
1.5
11 years old GIS
1 2nd survey (1995)
0.5
11 years old GIS
0 3rd survey (2007)
Figure 5-42: Comparison of major failure frequencies from the 2nd and 3rd GIS surveys of GIS
older than 11 years and 11 years old or younger in individual voltage classes
GISmajor failureratesin two age groups-2nd survey(1995) GISmajor failureratesin two age groups-3rd survey (2007)
MaF frequency [MaF/ 100 CB-bay-years]
3,5 1,4
MaF frequency [MaF/ 100 CB-bay-years]
3 1,2
Figures 5-43: Comparison of major failure frequencies GIS age trends from the 2nd and 3rd GIS
survey
68
Major failure frequency of the older as well as the younger GIS groups is better in the 3rd GIS
survey than in the 2nd GIS survey only in voltage class 4. In voltage classes 2 and 5 the
failure frequencies for older group are more or less equal and for younger group are better.
In voltage class 3 the younger group shows better performance whereas the older group
performance is more or less the same. The only exception is voltage class 1 in which the
reliability in the 2nd survey was better than in the 3rd survey in both age groups.
As time trends are concerned, in the 3rd survey all voltage classes GIS (with exception of
voltage class 3 see details above) show an increasing trend for older GIS. In the 2nd survey
this expected result was valid only for the voltage classes 3 and 4. Time trends of the other
classes were either more or less constant (voltage class 1 and total) or showed a better
reliability for older GISs (voltage classes 2 and 5). This was explained in the 2nd survey by
the fact that 20% of all reported failures happened during the first year of service. In the 3rd
survey that concerned only 12 MaF, i.e. less than 4%. That can be the result of more
effective routine and on-site GIS testing.
In population as well as in failure cards the respondents were supposed to identify what is
their prevailing maintenance philosophy. There were the following options available in the
questionnaire:
Time based maintenance (TBM) = Scheduled maintenance including overhaul that is
performed on defined period of time or number of operations has elapsed.
Condition based maintenance (CBM) = Maintenance that measures/assesses service
conditions from monitoring or diagnostic data. When the condition has changed or
exceeded a limit, a condition directed task is then implemented and the item is
returned to an acceptable operating condition.
Run to failure (RTF) = Item is allowed to fail and at the time of failure, appropriate
corrective actions are taken to return the item to an acceptable operating condition.
Combination (RCM) = A combination of the above tasks that take into to account the
affects of failure and the effectiveness of prevention
Other = Maintenance philosophy not described by any of the above
69
Table 5-76: Distribution of major failure frequency for different GIS maintenance philosophies -
all data (absolute values within individual voltage classes)
MaF frequency Voltage class [kV]
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 Total
all data <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV kV
TBM 0,46 0,22 0,33 0,44 0,69 0,00 0.37
Maintenance
philosophies
Table 5-77: Distribution of major failure frequency for different GIS maintenance philosophies
data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute values within individual voltage classes)
MaF frequency Voltage class [kV]
[MaF/100 CB-bay-years] 60U 100U 200U 300U 500U 700 Total
data without countries 14 <100 kV <200 kV <300 kV <500 kV <700 kV kV
and 23
TBM 0,00 0,62 2,26 2,39 6,35 NA* 1,08
Maintenance
philosophies
2.00
1.50
1.00 Data
without
0.50 countries 14
and 23
0.00 results
TBM CBM Combination
Maintenance philosophy
Figure 5-44: Comparison of major failure frequencies for GIS maintained in different
philosophies for all data and data without countries 14 and 23
As the failure frequencies shown in tables 5-76 and 5-77 and the comparison shown in figure
5-44 represent service experience with different sizes of populations the MaF frequencies
point estimation values were tested for their comparison by hypotheses tests. The results of
these tests are shown in table 5-78 for all data and in table 5-79 for the data without
countries 14 and 23.
70
Table 5-78: Comparison of major failure frequencies for different GIS maintenance
philosophies (hypotheses test results of total for all data)
Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years]
Results of hypotheses test
TBM CBM
0,37 2,41 TBM is better than CBM
Table 5-79: Comparison of major failure frequencies for different GIS maintenance
philosophies (hypotheses test results for total of data without countries 14 and 23)
Major failure frequency [MaF/100 CB-bay-years]
Results of hypotheses test
TBM CBM
1,08 1,44 Equal
In voltage class 1, all major failure data were reported only by the two dominant countries 14
and 23. In this voltage class the distribution of the major failure frequencies shows that the
major failure frequency for GIS maintained in only the CBM way is dramatically higher than in
the GIS maintained in the other maintenance philosophies. In voltage classes 2, 3 and 4, the
distribution of the major failure frequencies for all data shows that the MaF frequency for
CBM is higher than for TBM and combination of philosophies. Evaluating data without
countries 14 and 23 the results show that the MaF frequency of GISs with TBM is higher
than of GISs with CBM and combination in voltage classes 2 and 3 whereas the highest
MaF of GISs in voltage class 4 was observed at GISs with combined maintenance
strategies. In voltage class 5, only two countries reported the major failure data and both
countries apply TBM as their maintenance philosophy for this voltage class. In voltage class
6, only one country reported the major failure data and this country applies CBM as the
maintenance philosophy for this voltage class.
The results of hypothesis tests for calculated major failure frequencies for all data show that
GISs with TBM and combination of maintenance philosophies behave in an equal way and
that is better than GISs reliability with CBM philosophy only. The results of hypothesis tests
for data without two dominant countries show that GISs with TBM philosophy behave better
than if a combination of maintenance philosophies is applied. Comparisons of TBM with CBM
and CBM with combinations give equal results.
This analysis thus shows that the traditional policy of time based maintenance still brings
good results and cannot be avoided, and that there is still a room for improvement in
71
developing effective CBM technique that will enable an application of really effective
combined maintenance strategies.
In the failure cards were detailed questions about each failure characteristics. These can be
divided into the following groups:
Major failure mode (see chapter 5.7.1)
Number of major failures which caused fire or explosion (see chapter 5.7.2)
Minor failure mode (see chapter 5.7.3)
Subassembly that has failed and caused major or minor failures (see chapter 5.7.4)
Origin of major and minor failures (see chapter 5.7.5)
Primary cause of major and minor failures (see chapter 5.7.6)
Service circumstances under which the major and minor failures were discovered
(see chapter 5.7.7)
Contribution of environmental stresses to major and minor failures (see chapter 5.7.8)
Repair of major and minor failures (see chapter 5.7.9)
Consequential measures after major and minor failures (see chapter 5.7.10)
Analysis of characteristics of GIS parts other that CB, DS/ES and IT (see chapter
5.7.11)
The failure characteristics are analyzed in relative numbers and where appropriate the
manufacturing year is considered, too.
This chapter also provides a comparison with the 2nd GIS experience survey (1995). In the
2nd survey, the analysis of major failure characteristics (only major failures were collected in
the 2nd survey) was made for all data without 275 failures which occurred in 18 indoor class 2
substations (133 CB-bays, 2633 CB-bay-years). All of this equipment was operated by one
user and represented one of the oldest breaker technology which was no longer used in
1995.
Major failure mode describes a basic function of the equipment which the equipment is not
able to meet.
As in different equipment failure cards there were mentioned different major failure modes
(for details see technical brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized for circuit breakers,
disconnectors/earthing switches and instrument transformers) it was necessary to create new
categories that are more or less common for all equipment and cover all aspects mentioned
in individual failure cards. These categories are shown in table 5-80 that provides absolute
and relative number of major failures (MaF) for all data as well as for data without countries
14 and 23. 100% is total number of all MaF. The table also shows the result after merging
breakdowns into one group and that is also graphically expressed in figures 5-45.
72
Table 5-80: Distribution of major failure modes for GIS CB-bay major (MaF) failures all data
and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on total collected
MaF)
Number of MaF (data without
Number of MaF (all data) countries 14 and 23)
Major Failure mode Absolute % Absolute %
Failing to perform requested operation,
function resp., (being locked incl.) 227 63,4 56 53,3
Loss of electrical connections integrity
in primary (e.g. fails to carry current) 1 0,3 1 1,0
Loss of electrical connections integrity
in secondary 2 0,6 1 1,0
Dielectric breakdown in normal service
(without switching operation) 67 18,7 18 17,1
81 22,6 25 23,8
Dielectric breakdown in connection
with switching operation 14 3,9 7 6,7
Loss of mechanical integrity
(mechanical damages of different
parts, big SF6 leakage incl.) 16 4,5 14 13,3
Other 31 8,7 8 7,6
4% Loss of electrical
9% connections integrity in
primary
Loss of electrical 8%
connections integrity in
secondary 13%
23%
Dielectric breakdown
63% 53%
24%
1% Loss of mechanical
integrity
0%
1% 1%
Other
Age aspects for all data are shown in table 5-81. 100% for relative expression is number of
major failures collected within individual intervals of manufacturing years.
73
Table 5-81: Distribution of major failure modes for GIS CB-bay major (MaF) failures in seven
intervals of GIS manufacturing years all data (absolute and relative values based on
collected MaF within individual intervals of manufacturing years)
Failing to Loss of Loss of Dielectric Loss of Other Total
Number of perform electrical electrical breakdowns mechanical
MaF requested connections connections integrity
Manufacturing operation in primary in secondary
year Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs.
before 1979 27 69,2 0 0,0 1 2,6 6 15,4 3 7,7 2 5,1 39
1979-1983 41 70,7 1 1,7 0 0,0 10 17,2 3 5,2 3 5,2 58
1984-1988 59 71,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 12 14,5 6 7,2 6 7,2 83
1989-1993 60 74,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 7 8,6 1 1,2 13 16,0 81
1994-1998 28 54,9 0 0,0 0 0,0 19 37,3 1 2,0 3 5,9 51
1999-2003 8 34,8 0 0,0 0 0,0 10 43,5 1 4,3 4 17,4 23
2004-2007 4 17,4 0 0,0 0 0,0 17 73,9 1 4,3 1 4,3 23
Total 227 63,4 1 0,3 1 0,3 81 22,6 16 4,5 32 8,9 358
Figure 5-46: Relative distribution of GIS CB-bay major failure modes in seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years
Table 5-82: Comparison of GIS major failures modes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS survey (absolute
and relative values)
Major failure mode Failing to perform Loss of electrical Dielectric Loss of Other
requested connections in breakdowns mechanical
operation primary or secondary integrity
Number of MaF Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
2nd survey (1995) 49 9,4 14 2,7 334 64,1 81 15,5 43 8,3
3rd survey (2007) 227 63,4 3 0,8 81 22,6 16 4,5 31 8,7
74
Comparison of GISmajor failure modes
Dielectric breakdowns
Other
(2007)
primary or secondary
operation
Figure 5-47: Comparison of relative distributions of major failures modes in the 2nd and the 3rd
GIS surveys
Relative distributions of major failure modes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys provide
different patterns. In the 2nd survey the prevailing major failure mode was dielectric
breakdown (64%) whereas in the 3rd survey it is failing to perform requested operation. If it
was generally true it would be a good message as dielectric breakdowns in GIS always
request very time- and cost-consuming repair. On the other hand, the failing to perform
requested operation event is often caused by operating mechanism failure; the repair of
which is not so difficult.
As GIS age aspect is concerned the portion of failing to perform requested operation rises
with the increasing age of GISs. The absolute numbers are smallest for new GIS, and then
they reach a maximum when about 15 to 20 years old and they decrease again for older
GIS. The result most probably illustrates a fact that most overhauls for namely operating
mechanisms are scheduled to this age span and that this timing is sometimes too late. More
frequent diagnostics or monitoring might prevent such failures (for details see technical
brochure [6].
As GIS age aspect is concerned the relative portion of dielectric breakdowns increases for
new GIS, then it is reduced for about 15 to 20 years after which it starts rising again. That is
caused by the fact that absolute number of dielectric breakdowns is a bit bigger in younger
GISs whereas the absolute number of other failure modes in new GIS is very small. The
analysis of major failure frequency for dielectric failures however proves this important
observation (see Fig 5-48).
75
HV components dielectric major failures frequency
Number of failures/100.CB.bays.year
0.50
0.45
Lower limit
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Point
0.20 estimation
0.15 value
0.10
0.05 Upper limit
0.00
Figure 5-48: GIS HV parts dielectric major failure frequencies in dependence on GIS 5years of
manufacturing intervals
Dielectric breakdowns can be avoided, in a certain extent, in early GIS life by extensive
routine and on-site dielectric testing (for details see technical brochure [6].
For detailed analysis of failing to perform requested function and dielectric breakdown
categories of major failures versus failed subassembly, origin and primary cause see
chapter 5.8.1.
If an electrical protection is not fast enough or does not operate properly, and if a pressure
relief device does not manage to control the internal gas pressure rise during internal
breakdown, fire or enclosure explosion can happen. There were only 7 major failures
identified as causing fire or explosion of the GIS enclosure: 1CB, 2 DE- thereof 1
disconnector and 1 combined disconnector-earthing switch, 2GI thereof 1 busduct and 1
other, and 2IT thereof 1 inductive and 1 capacitive voltage transformer. Further analysis
shows the following:
These 7 events represents 8,6 % of MaFs with breakdowns (81 MaF) and 1,9 % of all
MaF (358 MaF).
3 of these 7 events (1 CB and 2 DE) happened during dielectric breakdown in
connection with switching operation and 4 of them happened during dielectric
breakdown in normal service (without switching operations).
2 of these 7 events (1 CB and 1 IT) happened with equipment manufactured between
1979-1983, 2 of them with equipment manufactured between 1999-2003 (1 DE and 1
IT) and 3 of them (1 DE and 2 GI) happened with brand new equipment, i.e. at
equipment manufactured between 2004 to 2007.
3 of them (1DE, 1 GI, 2 IT) happened with GIS of voltage class 2, 2 of them (1DE and
1GI) of them of voltage class 3 and 1 of them (1CB) of voltage class 4
2 of them happened in 3-phase enclosure and 5 of them in single phase enclosure
4 of them happened in indoor GIS and 3 of them in outdoor GIS
76
Comparison with previous survey
In the 2nd survey there were 13 major failures that caused fire or explosion of a GIS gas
compartment. These 13 events represents about 4 % of MaFs with breakdowns (334 MaF)
and 2,5 % of all MaF (521 MaF). The 4% of MaF with breakdowns in the second survey is
half the value if a similar analysis is made in the 3rd survey (8,6%). This is not a good
message. The reduction of all dimensions in new generations of GIS requires more sensitive
design of gas compartment sizes to be compatible with electric protection capabilities to clear
an internal short circuit in time.
Minor failure mode describes a basic function of the equipment which the is able to meet only
with certain restrictions. As in different equipment failure cards there were mentioned
different minor failure modes (for details see technical brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized
for circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches and instrument transformers) it was
necessary to create new categories that are more or less common for all equipment and
cover all aspects mentioned in individual failure cards. These categories are shown in table
5-83 that provides absolute and relative number of MiF for all data as well as for data without
countries 14 and 23. 100% is total number of all MiF. The graphical interpretation of table 5-
82 is provided in figures 5-49.
Table 5-83: Distribution of minor failure modes for GIS CB-bay all data and data without
countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on total collected MiF)
Number of MiF (data without
Number of MiF (all data) countries 14 and 23)
Minor failure mode Absolute % Absolute %
Leakage in operating mechanism 287 19,1 171 17,6
Small SF6 leakage 597 39,7 497 51,2
Mechanical weakness in primary or in
operating mechanism 120 8,0 64 6,6
Electrical weakness in primary 51 3,4 35 3,6
Mechanical or electrical weakness in
control, auxiliary and monitoring 175 11,6 102 10,5
Changed parameters in function 3 0,2 1 0,1
Other 272 18,1 100 10,3
77
Distribution of GISminor failures (MiF) from their Distribution of GIS
failure mode point of view (all data) minor failures (MiF)
Laekage in operating from their failure mode
mechanism point of view (data
without countries 14
Small SF6 leakage
and 23)
18% 19%
0% Mechanical weakness in 0%
primary or in operating 10% 18%
mechanism
12% Electrical or dielectrical 10%
weakness in primary 4%
7%
Mechanical or electrical
3% weakness in control, 51%
8% 40%
auxiliary and monitoring
Changed parameters in
sec.outputs, accuracy and
incorrect signals
Other
There is also a high portion of other which shall be also read as unknown modes. That
might be cause by the fact that minor failure reporting in utilities is not so carefully kept as
major failure reporting and some information is lost.
To analyze failed subassemblies of all GIS components together (for details see technical
brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized for circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches
and instrument transformers) it was necessary to group the detailed equipment
subassemblies responsible for the failure into the following categories:
78
Component in primary circuit that includes making and breaking units, enclosures and
other solid main insulation to earth, grading capacitors, current paths, internal
bushings and spacers, primary IT windings, main SF6 sealing, pressure relief
devices, SF6 gas insulation, etc.
Component in control, auxiliary or monitoring circuit that includes tripping and closing
circuits, auxiliary switches and associated drives, contactors, relays and control
circuits in general, heaters, cables and terminal blocks, gas density supervision and
other monitoring equipment and circuits, etc.
Component in operating mechanism that includes components in operating
mechanisms (compressors, motors, pumps, energy storage, control elements, etc.)
and in kinematic chains (mechanical transmission elements between operating
mechanism and main units)
Component in IT secondary circuit that includes secondary windings, their insulation
and shielding, damping circuits, secondary taps, terminal boards and parts of optical
ITs
Unknown or other
Table 5-84 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned above. The table shows absolute and relative data and compares all data
analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23 data was disregarded. Figures 5-50
show the relative number of MaF; figures 5-51 of MiF, in pie charts (100% is total number of
MaF, MiF respectively with identification of this category).
Table 5-84: Distribution of failed subassemblies of GIS CB-bay causing major (MaF) and minor
(MiF) failures all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values
based on total collected MaF and MiF)
Equipment All data Data without countries 14 and 23
subassembly Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
responsible for
the failure Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
Component in
primary circuit 102 28,6 616 41,0 40 38,5 510 52,7
Component in
control,
auxiliary or
monitoring
circuit 120 33,6 320 21,3 37 35,6 178 18,4
Component in
operating
mechanism 113 31,7 515 34,3 22 21,2 269 27,8
Component in
IT secondary
circuit 5 1,4 3 0,2 1 1,0 0 0,0
Unknown or
other 17 4,8 49 3,3 4 3,8 11 1,1
Unknown or
other 17 4,8 49 3,3 4 3,8 11 1,1
79
Distribution of GISmajor failures (MaF) from Distribution of GISmajor
their subassembly point of view (all data) failures (MaF) from their
failed subassembly point
of view (data without 14
Component in primary and 23)
1% circuit
5% 1% 4%
Component in control,
28% auxiliary or monitoring
circuit 21%
38%
32% Component in
operating mechanism
Component in IT
36%
secondary circuit
34%
Unknown or other
Figures 5-50: Relative distribution of failed subassemblies in GIS CB-bays causing major
failures
Figures 5-51: Relative distribution of failed subassemblies in GIS CB-bays causing minor
failures
As it is not expected that the minor failure data is complete, the manufacturing year aspect
analysis is made only for MaF and all data. The distribution in absolute and relative values is
shown in table 5-85. The bases for relative calculation are sums of MaF in individual GIS
manufacturing periods. The relative results are demonstrated in figure 5-52.
80
Table 5-85: Distribution of failed subassemblies for GIS CB-bay major (MaF) failures in seven
intervals of GIS manufacturing years all data (absolute and relative values based on
collected MaF within individual intervals of manufacturing years)
Component Component Component Component Unknown or Total
in primary in control, in operating in IT other
Failed subassembly circuit auxiliary or mechanism secondary
monitoring circuit
circuit
Manufacturing year Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs.
before 1979 8 20,5 14 35,9 15 38,5 0 0,0 2 5,1 39
1979-1983 13 22,4 27 46,6 16 27,6 0 0,0 2 3,4 58
1984-1988 17 20,7 31 37,8 32 39,0 0 0,0 2 2,4 82
1989-1993 9 11,1 26 32,1 34 42,0 4 4,9 8 9,9 81
1994-1998 22 43,1 15 29,4 13 25,5 0 0,0 1 2,0 51
1999-2003 14 60,9 6 26,1 3 13,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 23
2004-2007 19 82,6 1 4,3 0 0,0 1 4,3 2 8,7 23
Total 102 28,6 120 33,6 113 31,7 5 1,4 17 4,8 357
Figure 5-52: Relative distribution of GIS CB-bay major failed subassemblies in seven intervals
of GIS manufacturing years
The analysis in brochure [13] was made for indoor and outdoor GIS and for voltage classes.
Comparison of total results is shown in table 5-86 (absolute and relative values) and in figure
5-53 (relative values). 100% is total number of major failures in each survey.
81
Table 5-86: Comparison of failed subassemblies causing GIS major failures in the 2nd and the
3rd GIS survey (absolute and relative values)
Failed subassembly Component Component in Component in Component in Unknown or
in primary control, operating IT secondary other
circuit auxiliary or mechanism circuit
monitoring
circuit
Number of MaF Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
2nd survey (1995) 375 71,8 45 8,6 87 16,7 0 0 15 2,9
3rd survey (2007) 102 28,6 120 33,6 113 31,7 5 1,4 17 4,8
80
70 2nd survey
60
50 (1995)
40
30
20 3rd survey
10 (2007)
0
auxiliary or monitoring
Component in operating
Component in primary
Component in IT
unknown or other
Component in control,
secondary circuit
mechanism
circuit
circuit
The 2nd and 3rd survey comparison just confirms the major failure mode comparison. In the
2nd survey the prevailing failure mode was a dielectric breakdown and thus the prevailing
failed subassembly should be and really was a component in primary circuits. In the 3rd
survey the prevailing major failure was failing to perform requested operation and thus the
prevailing responsible subassemblies should be - and are - either component in operating
mechanisms or in control circuits.
As GIS age aspect is concerned, the portion of component of primary circuit responsible
for the failure changes with the increasing age of GISs in a similar way as the breakdown
failure mode (see chapter 5.7.1). To avoid these breakdowns the same comment as in 5.7.1
about routine and on-site testing is valid. Component in secondary circuits, on the other
hand, prevails in older GISs, namely in GISs of age between 15 and 20 years and the same
trend is visible in the category component in operating mechanism. These numbers also
just prove what has been already written in chapter 5.7.1, i.e. that 15 to 20 years interval
seems to be just the right time for performing overhauls, or at least a detailed investigation of
conditions, for operating mechanisms and secondary circuits. A positive message is that the
portion of unknown or other responses is very small. The more utilities know about details
of their major failures the more they can prevent them at other installations.
82
For detailed analysis on how the categories component in primary circuit, component in
secondary circuit and component in operating mechanism depend on "environmental
stresses", "service conditions", "origin" and "primary cause" see chapter 5.8.2.
As minor failures are concerned, the data here is provided only for a very rough information.
The biggest portion of primary circuit responsibility (41%, 53% resp.) corresponds very well
to prevailing minor failure mode, i.e. to the "small SF6 leakage". The category component in
operating mechanism corresponds to minor failure modes where component in operating
mechanism can be connected with leakages and with mechanical weaknesses in operating
mechanism. The category component in control, auxiliary or monitoring circuit can be
connected with mechanical or electrical weaknesses in secondary minor failure mode.
However the sums do not give the more or less same numbers as in minor failure mode
analysis there appears a very big portion of the other or unknown category.
Failure origin is basically either electrical or mechanical. To analyze failure origin of all GIS
components together (for details see technical brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized for circuit
breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches and instrument transformers) it was necessary to
group the origin aspects into the following categories :
Mechanical in other than operating mechanism Note it was not possible to
introduce separate categories for primary and secondary circuits and for SF6
leakage since as in CB part this distinction was missing and in DS/ES part the SF6
leakage category was missing
Mechanical in operating mechanism (earthed)
Electrical in main circuit
Electrical in secondary circuit
Unknown or other
Table 5-87 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned above. The table shows absolute and relative data and compares all data
analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23 data was disregarded. Figures 5-54
show the relative number of MaF, Figures 5-55 relative number of. MiF resp., in pie charts
(100% is total number of MaF, MiF respectively).
Table 5-87: Distribution of origins of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures all data
and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on total collected
MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Origin of the
failure Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
Mechanical in
other than
operating
mechanism 50 14,0 650 43,2 31 29,5 520 53,6
Mechanical in
operating
mechanism
(earthed) 78 21,8 364 24,2 17 16,2 240 24,7
Electrical in
main circuit 54 15,1 27 1,8 17 16,2 15 1,5
Electrical in
secondary
circuit 114 31,8 193 12,8 29 27,6 109 11,2
Unknown or
other 62 17,3 271 18,0 11 10,5 86 8,9
83
Distribution of GISmajor failures (MaF) from Distribution of GISmajor
their origin point of view (all data) failures (MaF) from their
origin point of view (data
Mechanical in other than
without 14 and 23)
17% 14% operating mechanism
Mechanical in operating 10%
mechanism (earthed)
30%
22% Electrical in main circuit
28%
32% Electrical in secondary
circuit
16%
15% Unknown or other
16%
Figures 5-54: Relative distribution of the origin of major failures in GIS CB-bay
Figures 5-55: Relative distribution of the origin of minor failures in GIS CB-bay
The distribution of all data and data without countries 14 and 23 is similar for both, MaF as
well as MiF. Since it is not expected that the minor failure data is complete, the distribution of
failures depending on manufacturing year is made only for MaF. The MaF analysis is based
on all data and for basic categories in which all mechanical origins were summarized in one
category. The distribution in absolute and relative values is shown in Table 5-88. The bases
for relative calculation are sums of MaF in individual GIS manufacturing periods. The relative
results are demonstrated in figure 5-56.
Table 5-88: Distribution of major failure origins for GIS CB-bay over seven intervals of GIS
manufacturing years all data (absolute and relative values based on collected MaF within
individual intervals of manufacturing years).
Electrical in Electrical in Unknown or
Mechanical main circuit secondary circuit other Total
Manufacturing year Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs.
before 1979 18 46,2 1 2,6 14 35,9 6 15,4 39
1979-1983 22 37,9 8 13,8 25 43,1 3 5,2 58
1984-1988 34 41,0 11 13,3 27 32,5 11 13,3 83
1989-1993 21 25,9 3 3,7 25 30,9 32 39,5 81
1994-1998 19 37,3 12 23,5 16 31,4 4 7,8 51
1999-2003 8 34,8 6 26,1 4 17,4 5 21,7 23
2004-2007 6 26,1 13 56,5 3 13,0 1 4,3 23
Total 128 35,8 54 15,1 114 31,8 62 17,3 358
84
Distribution of GISmajor failures (MaF) from their origin
and manufacturing period points of view (all data)
100%
90%
Unknown or other
80%
70%
60%
50% Electrical in secondary
40% circuit
30%
20% Electrical in main circuit
10%
0%
Mechanical
Figure 5-56: Relative distribution of major failures origin in GIS CB-bay over seven intervals of
GIS manufacturing years
As the major failures time aspect (GISs manufacturing years interval) is concerned there is
a visible trend towards an increasing portion of electrical problems in main circuits the
younger GISs are. That is also in very good correlation with an increasing portion of dielectric
breakdowns major failure modes (see chapter 5.7.1). On the other hand older GISs tend to
suffer more from mechanical problems.
Failure primary cause is a root cause of a failure that leads sooner or later to a failure and
can be basically divided into two groups:
Cause introduced during a period before putting into service
Cause introduced during service
The first one includes all problems that can lead to deteriorated service conditions and are
caused by problems inserted in the period of GIS design, manufacturing, transport and
erection. The second one includes any deterioration that happens during service and include
any kind of service conditions exceeding the GIS rated parameters (electrical, mechanical,
environmental), damages made by adjacent equipment or animals (electrical and
mechanical), human errors and incorrect service. Categories specified in the survey are
listed in the table below. All four different kinds of the survey failure cards (CB, DS/ES, IT
and GI) had the same categories so it was not necessary to make any re-coding.
85
Table 5-89 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned in the survey. The table shows absolute and relative data and compares all data
analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23 were disregarded. In the survey
questionnaire there were two other categories (Inadequate instructions for transport, erection
or operation and Current in excess of rating) that have not been selected by any respondent.
Figures 5-57 show the relative number of MaF, Figures 5-58 relative number of. MiF resp.,
in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF respectively).
Table 5-89: Distribution of primary causes of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on total
collected MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Primary cause of the
failure Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Design fault
(manufacturer
responsibility) 11 3,1 40 2,7 4 3,8 32 3,3
Engineering fault (utility
responsibility) 3 0,8 3 0,2 3 2,9 3 0,3
Manufacturing fault (poor
quality control) 33 9,2 55 3,7 8 7,6 27 2,8
Incorrect transport or
erection 16 4,5 27 1,8 4 3,8 14 1,4
Other 13 3,6 67 4,5 7 6,7 22 2,3
Voltage at power
frequency in excess of
rating 1 0,3 0 0,0 1 1,0 0 0,0
Switching overvoltage in
excess of rating 1 0,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Lightning overvoltage in
excess of rating 7 2,0 1 0,1 0 0,0 0 0,0
Mechanical stress in
excess of rating 2 0,6 2 0,1 1 1,0 2 0,2
Environmental stresses
(other than lightning) in
excess of ratings 1 0,3 2 0,1 0 0,0 1 0,1
Corrosion 10 2,8 148 9,8 3 2,9 132 13,6
Wear / Ageing 141 39,4 721 47,9 39 37,1 426 43,9
Incorrect operation 2 0,6 3 0,2 1 1,0 3 0,3
Incorrect monitoring 1 0,3 3 0,2 1 1,0 2 0,2
Electrical failure of
adjacent equipment 2 0,6 6 0,4 2 1,9 2 0,2
Mechanical failure of
adjacent equipment 2 0,6 9 0,6 2 1,9 9 0,9
Human error 11 3,1 5 0,3 4 3,8 2 0,2
Incorrect maintenance
(incl. inadequate
instruction) 17 4,7 20 1,3 3 2,9 8 0,8
External damage caused
by animals, humans etc. 4 1,1 4 0,3 0 0,0 0 0,0
Other abnormal service
conditions 1 0,3 3 0,2 1 1,0 1 0,1
Unknown or other causes 79 22,1 386 25,6 21 20,0 284 29,3
total 358 100,0 1505 100,0 105 100,0 970 100,0
86
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Primary cause of the
failure Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division):
Cause introduced during
a period before putting
into service 76 21,2 192 12,8 26 24,8 98 10,1
Cause other than wear
introduced during service 52 14,5 58 3,9 16 15,2 30 3,1
Wear/Ageing+corrosion 151 42,2 869 57,7 42 40,0 558 57,5
Unknown other causes 79 22,1 386 25,6 21 20,0 284 29,3
Figures 5-57: Relative distribution of primary causes of major failures in GIS CB-bay
Figures 5-58: Relative distribution of primary causes of minor failures in GIS CB-bay
The distribution of all data and data without countries 14 and 23 is quite the same for both,
MaF as well as MiF. Since it is not expected that the minor failure data is complete, the
distribution of failures depending on manufacturing year is made only for MaF. The MaF
analysis is based on all data and for basic categories from the summary. The distribution in
absolute and relative values is shown in Table 5-90. The bases for calculation of relative
values are sums of MaF in individual GIS manufacturing periods. The relative results are
shown in figure 5-59.
87
Table 5-90: Distribution of primary causes of major failure in GIS CB-bay over seven intervals
of GIS manufacturing years all data (absolute and relative values based on collected data in
individual intervals of manufacturing years)
Cause introduced Cause other than Wear/ Unknown
during a period before wear introduced Ageing+ other
putting into service during service corrosion causes Total
Manufacturing year Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs.
before 1979 3 7,7 3 7,7 26 66,7 7 17,9 39
1979-1983 7 12,1 13 22,4 29 50,0 9 15,5 58
1984-1988 12 14,5 15 18,1 43 51,8 13 15,7 83
1989-1993 8 9,9 4 4,9 31 38,3 38 46,9 81
1994-1998 14 27,5 10 19,6 18 35,3 9 17,6 51
1999-2003 14 60,9 3 13,0 3 13,0 3 13,0 23
2004-2007 18 78,3 4 17,4 1 4,3 0 0,0 23
Total 76 21,2 52 14,5 151 42,2 79 22,1 358
Figure 5-59: Relative distribution of primary causes of major failures in GIS CB-bay over seven
intervals of GIS manufacturing years
Table 5-91: Comparison of causes of collected GIS major failures in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS
survey (absolute and relative values)
MaF cause Cause introduced Cause other than Wear/ Unknown
during a period before wear introduced Ageing+ other causes
putting into service during service corrosion
Number of MaF Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
2nd survey (1995) 364 70,1 51 9,8 60 11,6 44 8,5
3rd survey (2007) 76 21,2 52 14,5 151 42,2 79 22,1
88
Comparison of GISmajor failures causes
Wear/ Ageing+
before putting into
Unknown other
wear introduced
Cause introduced
during service
during a period
corrosion
causes
service
Figure 5-60: Comparison of relative distributions of major failures causes in the 2nd and the 3rd
GIS survey
The portion of major failures causes that were introduced before the GISs putting into
service has significantly decreased in the 3rd GIS survey in comparison to the 2nd survey.
That could be a good sign of the fact that GIS are becoming mature and manufacturers,
engineering and construction companies have already got to know how to perform their work
well. The increase of portion of wear and ageing causes in the 3rd survey is also natural. The
population of GISs is getting old and thus it can be expected that this type of the failure
cause will have an increasing trend also in the future.
There is still a very high portion of major as well as minor failure causes that were not
identified. It is again necessary to repeat that even if a detailed investigation of a failure may
be time consuming and costs money, the investigation is the only way to prevent failures re-
occurrence and utilities should not miss a chance to learn something.
As the major failures time aspect is concerned (GISs manufacturing years interval), the
analysis shows a logical picture. The younger the GISs are the more a cause introduced
before putting into service prevails. The older the GISs are the more wear/ageing/ corrosion
cause prevails.
The message for manufacturers and users is clear. It is necessary to focus on: ageing tests
of material and assemblies, higher effectiveness of manufacturing quality, routine and on-site
tests, and higher quality of operation and maintenance staff skills.
Failure circumstances, i.e. GIS service conditions when the failure was discovered, are
basically the following :
GIS was de-energized and available for service
GIS was out of service because of a maintenance or was just put into service after
maintenance or testing
89
GIS was in normal steady state service without any switching manipulation
GIS was in service and there was normal switching operation in the substation
GIS was in service and there was fault clearing switching-off operation in the
substation
To analyze service conditions of all GIS components together (for details see technical
brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized for circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches
and instrument transformers) it was necessary to re-code the characteristics included in
individual failure cards into categories shown in table 5-92. This table provides the collected
number of major and minor failures. The table shows absolute and relative data and
compares all data analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23 data were
disregarded. Figures 5-61 show the relative number of MaF, Figures 5-62 relative number
of. MiF resp., in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF respectively).
Table 5-92: Distribution of service conditions of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF)
failures all data and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on
total collected MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Service conditions when Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
the failure was
discovered Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
De-energized - available
for service 16 4,6 63 4,5 11 11,5 34 3,9
Normal service - no
operation command in
S/S 132 37,8 1062 76,1 34 35,4 723 83,8
During or directly after
testing/maintenance 30 8,6 180 12,9 12 12,5 62 7,2
During fault clearing in
S/S (applies to parts of
GIS other than CB) 1 0,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
During normal switching
operation in S/S (applies
to parts of GIS other than
CB, DS, ES) 13 3,7 22 1,6 7 7,3 19 2,2
During switching
misoperations in S/S
(applies to parts of GIS
other than CB, DS, ES) 1 0,3 1 0,1 0 0,0 1 0,1
During normal switching
operation (applies to CB,
DS, ES) 148 42,4 68 4,9 31 32,3 24 2,8
During fault clearing
operation (applies to CB) 7 2,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
During fault making
operation (applies to ES) 1 0,3 0 0,0 1 1,0 0 0,0
Total 349 100,0 1396 100,0 96 100,0 863 100,0
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division):
De-energized 16 4,6 63 4,5 11 11,5 34 3,9
During or directly after
maintenance 30 8,6 180 12,9 12 12,5 62 7,2
Normal service without
operation 132 37,8 1062 76,1 34 35,4 723 83,8
During normal switching 161 46,1 90 6,4 38 39,6 43 5,0
During fault switching
(i.e. fault clearing) 10 2,9 1 0,1 1 1,0 1 0,1
Note : No indication of During switching misoperation (applies to CB, DS, ES)
90
Distribution of GISmajor failures (MaF) from Distribution of GISmajor
their service conditions point of view (all data) failures (MaF) from their
service conditions point of
3% view (data without countries
De-energized
4% 14 and 23)
9%
During or directly 1%
after maintenance
11%
Normal service
46% without operation 40% 13%
38% During normal
switching
35%
During fault
switching
Figures 5-61: Relative distribution of service conditions when GIS CB-bay major failures were
discovered
Figures 5-62: Relative distribution of service conditions when GIS CB-bay minor failures were
discovered
91
Table 5-93: Comparison of GIS service conditions when GIS major failures were discovered in
the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys (absolute and relative values)
During or directly During switching
MaF service Normal service
De-energized after testing/ operation in
conditions without operation
maintenance substation
Number of MaF Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
2nd survey (1995) 13 2,5 31 5,9 318 60,8 161 14,9
3rd survey (2007) 16 4,6 30
Relative distribution of MaF[%] 8,6 132 37,8 171 24,5
During switching
after maintenance
De-energized
without operation
During or directly
Normal service
operation in
substation
Figure 5-63: Comparison of relative distributions of GIS service conditions when GIS major
failures were discovered in the 2nd and 3rd GIS survey.
The portion of major failures that happened during switching operation in a substation has
increased and the portion of normal service without operation has decreased in the 3rd GIS
survey in comparison to the 2nd survey. That corresponds to the change of major failure
modes from prevailing breakdowns in the 2nd survey to prevailing failing to perform
requested operation in the 3rd survey. However there is a certain overlapping of the prevailing
service conditions for the breakdown failure mode (breakdown can happen during switching
operation as well as during service without any manipulation). Slightly increasing trend in
during maintenance category could be a sign of more effective maintenance, diagnostics
resp.
The relative distribution of minor failure service conditions for all data and data without
countries 14 and 23 is also similar. The most frequent type of service condition when the
failure occurred is "normal service without operation" (76 to 84%). That corresponds very well
to the prevailing minor failure modes like "small SF6 leakage" or different types of
weaknesses. "Normal switching operation" as the service condition of minor failure
occurrence is very small (about 5 %). Situations when the GIS was de-energized,
maintenance was performed or the GIS was just after maintenance represent about the
same portion as for major failures.
The during or directly after maintenance category includes two controversial parts. If a
failure is discovered during maintenance that is good sign of effective and on-time corrective
activity; if it happens directly after maintenance that is a bad sign of incorrectly performed
maintenance. Unfortunately the survey did not provide data to analyze these aspects.
92
5.7.8 Contribution of environmental stresses to failures
The environmental considerations are getting more and more important under the presently
changing climate. Therefore the survey asked whether the reported failures could have been
influenced by environmental conditions exceeding the equipment service limits or not. All four
different types of survey failure cards (CB, DS/ES, IT and GI) had the same categories so it
was not necessary to re-code. Categories specified in the survey are listed in Table 5-94.
Table 5-95 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in which the environment
was presumed to have contributed to their development and in which it was not. The table
shows absolute and relative data (100% is number of MaF, MiF respectively) and compares
all data analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23 data were disregarded.
Table 5-96 shows the same information from the GIS location point of view. It shows the
collected number of major and minor failures in which the environment contributed to their
development and in which it did not for two categories of all data, i.e. for indoor GIS and
outdoor GIS.
Detailed analysis of individual stress contributions are shown in Table 5-94. The
questionnaire allowed for multiple answers in this question and thus the total number of
identified stresses is higher than the number of answers with a positive indication (100% is
total number of ticks in MaF, MiF resp.). Figure 5-64 shows relative distribution of
environmental stresses that contributed to GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
(100% is the number of MaF, MiF respectively, in which the respondents identified
environmental contribution).
Table 5-94: Distribution of environmental stresses that contributed to GIS CB-bay major (MaF)
and minor (MiF) failures all data (absolute and relative values based on total MaF and MiF that
were influenced by the environment)
Kind of environment Number of Number
contribution (all data) MaF %MaF of MiF %MiF
Temperature too low 1 1,3 5 3,3
Temperature too high 2 2,5 8 5,3
Strong wind 1 1,3 4 2,6
Rain 4 5,1 18 11,9
Sudden variation in
temperature 4 5,1 8 5,3
Snow, ice or hoar-frost 2 2,5 10 6,6
Corrosive atmosphere 3 3,8 0 0,0
Fog or high humidity 3 3,8 13 8,6
Pollution including dust 4 5,1 7 4,6
Lightning 21 26,6 49 32,5
Earthquake 0 0,0 1 0,7
Flood 28 35,4 0 0,0
Other 6 7,6 28 18,5
Total 79 100,0 151 100,0
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division):
Temperature 7 8,9 21 13,9
Water in the air 9 11,4 41 27,2
Atmosphere 7 8,9 7 4,6
Wind 1 1,3 4 2,6
Lightning 21 26,6 49 32,5
Flood and earthquake 28 35,4 1 0,7
Other 6 7,6 28 18,5
93
Table 5-95: Distribution of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures that were not and
were influenced by an environmental stress - all data and data without countries 14 and 23
(absolute and relative values based on total MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Environmental
contribution to the failure Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
No contribution 285 79,6 1380 91,7 100 95,2 957 98,7
Contribution 73 20,4 125 8,3 5 4,8 13 1,3
Table 5-96: Distribution of outdoor and indoor GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
that were not and were influenced by an environmental stress all data (absolute and relative
values based on total MaF and MiF)
Outdoor GIS (all data) Indoor GIS (all data)
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Environmental
contribution to the failure Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
No contribution 189 73,8 608 87,7 96 94,1 772 95,1
Contribution 67 26,2 85 12,3 6 5,9 40 4,9
Figure 5-64: Relative distribution of environmental stresses that contributed to GIS CB-bay
major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
94
As already written in chapter 5.6 there were 28 MaF in voltage class 1 caused by a flood.
These failures represent 35% of all positively identified MaF influenced by nature. These
failures were excluded from any other analysis than this one. The second most frequent
environmental influence is lightning representing 27% of positively identified answers. As
lightning overvoltage is concerned, in contrary to a flood, utilities can protect their equipment
by installing surge arresters. However it is possible that the effect of lightning has been
overestimated. It is much more difficult to estimate if the lightning has stressed the
equipment in excess of its rating than if the temperature was out of the specified range.
Minor failures were more influenced by different kinds of humidity in the air and by air
temperatures than major failures. Beside the lightning activity (32%) they represent 27% and
14% of positive answers. Keeping in mind that tightness and ageing problems were identified
as the most frequent minor problems it is natural that humidity and air temperature can
accelerate their development. The comment about possible overestimation of the effect of
lightning applies also to the MiF.
The way of a failure repair can provide information about the severity of the failure from the
time as well as cost demands. Both major as well as minor failures could be such that a very
simple action brings the equipment back into normal service. On the other hand they could
demand an extremely time and cost consuming replacement of the whole GIS gas
compartment. All four different types of the survey failure cards (CB, DS/ES, IT and GI) had
the same categories so it was not necessary to re-code. Categories specified in the survey
are listed in Table 5-97.
Table 5-97 shows the different ways of repair of the collected number of major and minor
failures. The table shows absolute and relative data (100% is number of MaF, MiF
respectively) and compares all data analysis with an analysis in which countries 14 and 23
data were disregarded. Figures 5-65 show the relative number of MaF, Figures 5-66 relative
number of. MiF resp., in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF respectively).
Table 5-97: Distribution of repairs of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures all data
and data without countries 14 and 23 (absolute and relative values based on total MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
The way of the failure
repair Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Repair of failed
component on site 164 45,8 666 44,3 34 32,4 336 34,6
Repair in factory or shop 61 17,0 0 0,0 10 9,5 0 0,0
Replacement of failed
component on site
(without replacement of
enclosure) 81 22,6 290 19,3 31 29,5 211 21,8
Replacement of failed
component and its
enclosure 21 5,9 9 0,6 12 11,4 7 0,7
Replacement of failed
equipment with another
design 10 2,8 9 0,6 7 6,7 8 0,8
Replacement of seals or
refilling only 6 1,7 346 23,0 4 3,8 282 29,1
Placed back into service
without repair 15 4,2 185 12,3 7 6,7 126 13,0
95
Distribution of GISmajor failures (MaF) from their way of Distribution of GIS
repair point of view (all data) major failures
Repair of failed component on site (MaF) from their
way of repair point
2%
3% of view (data
4% Repair in factory or shop without countries
6% 14 and 23)
Replacement of failed component
on site (without replacement of
4%
46% enclosure) 7%
Replacement of failed component 7%
22%
and its enclosure 32%
Replacement of failed equipment 11%
with another design
9%
17% Replacement of seals or refilling 30%
only
96
Table 5-98: Comparison of repair types of GIS major failures in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS survey
(absolute and relative values)
2nd survey (1995) 3rd survey (2007)
The way of the failure repair Number of MaF Abs. % Abs. %
Repair of failed component on site 114 21,8 164 45,8
Repair in factory or shop 17 3,3 61 17,0
Replacement of failed component on site (without
replacement of enclosure) 221 42,3 81 22,6
Replacement of failed component and its enclosure 120 23,0 21 5,9
Replacement of failed equipment with another
design 24 4,6 10 2,8
Replacement of seals or refilling only 17 3,3 6 1,7
Placed back into service without repair 9 1,7 15 4,2
50
45
40 2nd
35 survey
30 (1995)
25
20
15 3rd survey
10
5 (2007)
0
Replacement of seals or refilling
component and its enclosure
Replacement of failed
Replacement of failed
repair
site
only
Figure 5-67: Comparison of relative distributions of major failure repair types in the 2nd and the
3rd GIS survey
A portion of major failure repairs that could be made on site has increased in the 3rd GIS
survey and portions of time and cost demanded work that needed replacement have
decreased. On the other hand in the 3rd survey there is also observed a certain increase in
failures that needed a transport of the failed component to a factory shop. In spite of that it is
possible to conclude that major failures collected in the 3rd survey had a bit less severe
consequences regarding the equipment repairs themselves that major failures collected in
2nd GIS survey.
The most frequent activities for major failures repairs are repair of failed component on site
and replacement of failed component on site (without replacement of an enclosure), which
can overlap to a certain extent, and which represent together 68% for all data and 62% for
data without countries 14 and 23. They also represent majority of cases for minor failure
repairs (63%, 56% respectively). The second most frequent type of repair of minor failures is
97
replacement of seals or SF6 refilling only (23 to 29%). The most time and cost demanded
activities, i.e. repair in factory or shop , replacement of failed component and its enclosure
and replacement by another design , were mentioned almost only at major failures. They
represent about 26% of cases together (17% 6% - 3% in all data analysis and 9% 11%
7% in data without countries 14 and 23). This percentage corresponds quite well to the
percentage of breakdowns occurrence (23 to 24%). The least time and cost demanded
activity, i.e. placed back into service without repair appears in 4%, 7% respectively, of major
failures repair, and in 12%, 13% respectively, of minor failures repair.
To analyze consequential measures of all GIS components together (for details see technical
brochures [2], [3] and [4] specialized for circuit breakers, disconnectors/earthing switches
and instrument transformers) it was necessary to group the details into the following
categories:
removal of similar equipment from service for inspection or modification to prevent
recurrence
implementation of changes in purchasing specifications (design, layout, single line
diagram, arrangement, sectioning) or factory test requirements
decision to implement additional monitoring
implementation of changes into original operating instructions (op. sequence incl.)
and/or safety instructions
implementation of changes into original maintenance, diagnostics or monitoring
instructions
no measures
Table 5-99 provides a binary analysis that distinguishes only if any action was undertaken or
the absence of any consequential measures at all. It shows collected answers for all data
and data without countries 14 and 23 in absolute and relative values (100% is total number
of MaF, MiF respectively).
Table 5-99: Distribution of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures that were and were
not followed by special consequential measures - all data and data without countries 14 and 23
(absolute and relative values based on total MaF and MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Consequential measures
after failure accepted Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
YES 106 29,6 133 8,8 28 26,7 77 7,9
NO 252 70,4 1372 91,2 77 73,3 893 92,1
Details about accepted consequential measures are shown in table 5-100. The questionnaire
allowed multiple answers in this question and thus the total number of consequential
measures is higher than a number of answers with a positive indication (100% is the total
number of ticks in MaF, MiF respectively). Figure 5-68 provides a detail analysis of
precautions within positive answers that identified at least one preventive activity after a
major failure (100% is total number of only positive answers).
98
Table 5-100: Distribution of active consequential measures that followed GIS CB-bay major
(MaF) and minor (MiF) failures all data (absolute and relative values based on total MaF and
MiF)
All data Data without countries 14 and 23
Number of MaF Number of MiF Number of MaF Number of MiF
Accepted consequential
measures after failure Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Removal similar
equipment from service
for inspection 44 29,7 53 32,5 16 29,1 27 26,2
Implementation of
changes in purchasing
specifications 23 15,5 38 23,3 15 27,3 33 32,0
Implementation of
additional monitoring 10 6,8 4 2,5 2 3,6 3 2,9
Implementation of
changes into original
operating instructions 18 12,2 9 5,5 8 14,5 9 8,7
Implementation of
changes into original
maintenance, diagnostics
or monitoring instructions 53 35,8 59 36,2 14 25,5 31 30,1
Total of positive answers 148 100,0 163 100,0 55 100,0 103 100,0
Implementation of changes in
purchasing specifications
30%
36%
Implementation of additional monitoring
Figure 5-68: Relative distribution of active consequential measures that followed GIS CB-bay
major failures
99
Findings and commentary
There is no significant difference between the relative approaches of all participating utilities
and utilities excluding countries 14 and 23. Both analyses show that at about one third of
major failures some additional consequential measures were carry out to prevent the failures
re-occurrence at other units. That means that the other two thirds of major failures must have
been considered as random events without any danger to reappear on other units. As minor
failures are concerned the additional measures were accepted in a little bit less than 10% of
cases. That is a surprising discrepancy because if minor failure are corrected in time it often
prevents the occurrence of a major failure and thus consequential activities should be to a
certain extent similar as for major failures.
As the preventive measures themselves are concerned the most frequent are removal of
similar equipment from service for inspection and implementation of changes into original
maintenance, diagnostics or monitoring instructions. They both concern planned
maintenance activities and represent together about two thirds of all measures. The other
third is divided more or less equally among implementation of changes into original
purchasing specifications (15%) or original operating instructions (12%) and implementation
of additional monitoring (7%).
5.7.11 GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures characteristics
In the questionnaire GIS failure cards there were provided the following options for selection
of failed component other than CB, DS/ES and IT (as also mentioned in chapter 5.5.5.2).
Busduct and/or busduct interconnecting pieces
Busbar and/or busbar interconnecting pieces
SF6-to-air bushing
Cable box / Cable sealing end
Power transformer or reactor interface chamber or bushing
Surge arrester
Other
Collected major and minor failures of GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT are
summarized in table 5-41 in chapter 5.5.5.2. There were 50 major failures and 413 minor
failures reported in this 3rd GIS survey.
As the number of failures is very low, there were selected the following combined options to
analyze the failure characteristics of GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT:
Busduct + Busbar (including interconnecting pieces)
Any kind of bushing (including SF6-to-air bushing, cable box and transformer
bushing)
Surge arrester
Other
In the failure cards there were also detail questions about each failure characteristics. These
can be divided into the following groups:
Major failure mode (see chapter 5.7.11.1)
Number of major failures which caused fire or explosion (see chapter 5.7.11.2)
Minor failure mode (see chapter 5.7.11.3)
Major and minor failures failed subassembly (see chapter 5.7.11.4)
Major and minor failures origin (see chapter 5.7.11.5)
Major and minor failures primary cause (see chapter 5.7.11.6)
Major and minor failures service circumstances (see chapter 5.7.11.7)
Major and minor failures and contribution of environmental stresses to failures (see
chapter 5.7.11.8)
Major and minor failures repair (see chapter 5.7.11.9)
Major and minor failures consequential measures (see chapter 5.7.11.10)
Age distribution of GIS failures (see chapter 5.5.5.2)
100
The failure characteristics are analyzed in absolute and relative numbers. As there was only
a very small number of these parts failures (only 50 MaF and 413 MiF) reported the analysis
is provided only for all data and where appropriate, the manufacturing year intervals are
considered, too. Data without countries 14 and 23 are not mentioned in this chapter. There is
also provided a comparison with the 2nd GIS experience survey (1995) for major failures
(MaF). In the 2nd survey, 185 major failures were reported for GIS parts other than CB,
DS/ES and IT.
In this chapter, the analysis of major failure modes for GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES
and IT is provided in the same way as for all GIS equipment in chapter 5.7.1. Table 5-101
shows the distribution of major failure modes of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT. The
table also shows the results in the relative numbers (100% is total number of individual parts
MaF). Figure 5-69 shows graphically the relative distribution in which 100% is total number
of these GIS parts MaFs together.
Table 5-101: Distribution of major failure modes for major failures (MaF) of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT (Absolute and relative values for all data)
Busduct Any kind of Surge Others
+Busbar bushing arrester
Abs [%] Abs. [%] Abs [%] Abs [%]
MaF modes . . .
Failing to perform requested function (SF6
density monitoring function incl.) 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 - 1 4,5
Loss of electrical connections integrity in
primary (e.g. fails to carry current) 1 5,3 0 0,0 0 - 0 0,0
Loss of electrical connections integrity in
secondary (enclosure and earthing system) 1 5,3 0 0,0 0 - 0 0,0
Dielectric breakdown 16 84,2 6 66,7 0 - 8 36,4
Loss of mechanical integrity (mechanical
damages of different parts, big SF6 leakage
incl.) 1 5,3 1 11,1 0 - 3 13,6
Other 0 0,0 2 22,2 0 - 10 45,5
Total 19 100,0 9 100,0 0 - 22 100,0
Distribution of major failures (MaF) of GISparts other than CB, DS/ ESand
IT from their failure mode point of view (all data)
2% 2% 2% Failing to perform requested operation,
function resp.
Loss of electrical connections integrity in
24% primary
Loss of electrical connections integrity in
secondary (enclosure and earthing system)
10% Dielectric breakdown
101
Age aspects for major failure modes are shown in table 5-102. It shows absolute and relative
numbers for individual manufacturing year intervals. The relative expression is shown in
figure 5-70 graphically.
Table 5-102: Distribution of major failure modes for GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT in
seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (Absolute and relative values for all data)
Number of Failing to Loss of Loss of Dielectric Loss of Other
MaF perform electrical electrical break- mechanical
requested connection connection downs integrity
operation s s in
Manufacturing in primary secondary
year Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
before 1979 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 16,7 3 50,0 2 33,3 0 0,0
1979-1983 0 0,0 1 33,3 0 0,0 2 66,7 0 0,0 0 0,0
1984-1988 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 5 71,4 0 0,0 2 28,6
1989-1993 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2 20,0 1 10,0 7 70,0
1994-1998 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 8 80,0 1 10,0 1 10,0
1999-2003 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 5 71,4 0 0,0 2 28,6
2004-2007 1 14,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 5 71,4 1 14,3 0 0,0
Total 1 2,0 1 2,0 1 2,0 30 60,0 5 10,0 12 24,0
Distribution of major failure modes for GISparts other than DS/ ESand IT in
seven intervals of GISmanufacturing years (all data)
100%
Other
80%
Dielectric breakdowns
40%
Loss of electrical
connectionsin secondary
20%
Loss of electrical
connectionsin primary
0%
Failing to perform requested
operation
Figure 5-70: Relative distribution of major failures modes of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years
102
Table 5-103: Comparison of major failure modes of collected major failures (MaF) of GIS parts
other than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and the 3rd surveys (Absolute and relative values for all
data)
Major failure mode Failing to Loss of Dielectric Loss of Other
perform electrical breakdowns mechanical
requested connections integrity
operation integrity in
primary or
secondary
Number of MaF Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
2nd survey (1995) 0 0,0 10 5,4 130 70,3 35 18,9 10 5,4
3rd survey (2007) 1 2,0 2 4,0 30 60,0 5 10,0 12 24,0
80%
70%
60%
50% 2nd survey (1995)
40% 3rd survey (2007)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Dielectric breakdowns
requested operation
connectionsintegrity in
Other
Loss of mechanical integrity
primary or secondary
Failing to perform
Loss of electrical
Figure 5-71: Comparison of relative distribution of major failure modes of GIS parts
other than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys
Relative distributions of major failure modes in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS surveys provide similar
patterns for GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT. In the 2nd and 3rd surveys, the
prevailing major failure mode was Dielectric breakdown (70% for 2nd survey and 60% for 3rd
survey). In the 3rd survey, there is a higher portion of other and no information responses.
For detailed analyses of Dielectric breakdown categories, other characteristics such as the
primary cause, the origin and the failed subassembly, see the following chapters.
103
5.7.11.2 Number of major failures which caused fire or explosion
There are only 2 major failures which caused fire or explosion for GIS equipment other than
CB, DS/ES and IT. One of them occurred at bus duct and the other one occurred at other
equipment.
the first case of the major failure at bus-duct happened because of manufacturing
fault (poor quality control) in normal service without switching operation.
the second case of the major failure at other equipment happened because of
mechanical failure of the adjacent equipment during normal switching operation.
The same categories of minor failures (MiF) as in chapter 5.7.3 are used for the analysis of
GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT. These categories are shown in table 5-104 that
provides absolute and relative numbers of MiF for individual GIS parts. Figure 5-72 shows
graphically the relative distribution in which 100% is total number of these GIS parts MiFs
together.
Table 5-104: Distribution of minor failure modes for GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT
(Absolute and relative values for all data)
Busduct Any kind of Surge Others
+Busbar bushing arrester
MiF mode Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
Small SF6 leakage 141 88,1 76 71,7 1 50,0 44 30,3
Mechanical weakness in 1 0,6 1 0,9 0 0,0 2 1,4
primary (change of mechanical
functional characteristics)
Electrical or dielectric weakness 6 3,8 4 3,8 0 0,0 7 4,8
in primary
Mechanical or electrical 4 2,5 7 6,6 0 0,0 30 20,7
weakness in control, auxiliary
and monitoring
Other 8 5,0 18 17,0 1 50,0 62 42,8
Total 160 100,0 106 100,0 2 100,0 145 100,0
104
Distribution of minor failures (MiF) of GISparts other than CB, DS/ ESand IT
from their failure mode point of view (all data)
There is also a high portion of other which shall be also read as unknown modes. That
might be caused by the fact that minor failure reporting in utilities is not so carefully kept as
major failure reporting and some information is lost.
For GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT the following categories for identification of
failed subassembly are applicable:
Component in primary circuit, that includes making and breaking units, enclosures
and other solid main insulation to earth, current paths, internal bushings and spacers,
main SF6 sealing, pressure relief devices and SF6 gas insulation
Component in control, auxiliary or monitoring circuit, that includes control circuits in
general, heaters, cables and terminal blocks, gas density supervision and other
monitoring equipment and circuits, etc.
Unknown or other
105
Table 5-105 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in relevant categories in
absolute and relative values. Figures 5-73 show the relative distributions of MaF and MiF in
pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF resp.).
Table 5-105: Distribution of failed subassembly of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures of GIS
parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT (absolute and relative values for all data)
Equipment subassembly Number of MaF Number of MiF
responsible for the failure Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Component in primary circuit 37 74,0 309 74,8
Component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring circuit 0 0,0 68 16,5
Unknown or other 13 26,0 36 8,7
Total 50 100,0 413 100,0
Figures 5-73: Relative distribution of failures of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT from the
failed subassembly point of view (all data)
Table 5-106 shows the major failed subassemblies from their GIS manufacturing year
interval point of view. As it is not expected that the minor failure data is complete, the
manufacturing year aspect analysis is made only for MaF and all data. In case of GIS
equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT, the failed subassemblies are grouped into only two
categories positively identified in the survey. The graphical distribution of the relative
numbers is also shown in figure 5-74.
Table 5-106: Distribution of failed subassemblies of major failures (MaF) of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (absolute and relative values
for all data)
Failed subassembly Component in primary circuit Unknown or other
Manufacturing year Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
before 1979 4 66,7 2 33,3
1979-1983 2 66,7 1 33,3
1984-1988 6 85,7 1 14,3
1989-1993 3 30,0 7 70,0
1994-1998 9 90,0 1 10,0
1999-2003 7 100,0 0 0,0
2004-2007 6 85,7 1 14,3
Total 37 74,0 13 26,0
106
Distribution of major failures (MaF) of GISparts other than CB, DS/ ES
and IT from their failed subassembly and manufacturing period points of
views (all data)
100%
90%
80% Unknown or other
70%
60%
Component in primary
50%
40% circuit
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 5-74: Relative distribution of major failed subassemblies of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (all data)
Table 5-107: Comparison of failed subassemblies in collected major failures (MaF) of GIS parts
other than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and the 3rd surveys (absolute and relative values for all
data)
Failed Component Component in control, Unknown or other
subassembly in primary circuit auxiliary or monitoring circuit
Number of MaF Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
2nd survey (1995) 172 92,0 6 3,7 8 4,3
3rd survey (2007) 37 74,0 0 0,0 13 26,0
Unknown or
Component in
primary circuit
Component in
or monitoring
other
circuit
Figure 5-75: Comparison of relative distribution of major failed subassemblies of GIS parts
other than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and 3rd survey (all data)
107
In both surveys, the prevailing failure mode was Dielectric breakdown. Therefore the
prevailing failed subassembly should be and really is a component in primary circuits in both
the 2nd and the 3rd surveys. In the 3rd survey there is also a high portion of other which shall
also be read as unknown failed subassembly.
As minor failures are concerned, the data here is provided only for a very rough information.
The biggest portion of primary circuit responsibility (75%) corresponds very well to prevailing
minor failure mode, i.e. to the small SF6 leakage. The category of component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring circuit can be connected with mechanical or electrical weaknesses in
secondary minor failure mode.
The high portion of other or unknown for both MaF and MiF is a bit alarming. As already
mentioned several times above, a detail investigation and understanding of any failure
mechanisms is a unique source of know-how that should not be missed.
For GIS equipment other than CB, DS/ES and IT the following categories for identification of
failure origin are applicable:
Mechanical in other than operating mechanism
Electrical in main circuit
Electrical in secondary circuit
Unknown or other
Table 5-108 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned above. The table shows absolute and relative data. Figures 5-76 show the
relative number of MaF and MiF in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF resp.).
Table 5-108: Distribution of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures origin of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT (absolute and relative values for all data)
Failure origin Number of MaF Number of MiF
Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Mechanical in other than operating
22 44,0 305 73,8
mechanism
Electrical in main circuit 10 20,0 2 0,5
Electrical in secondary circuit 9 18,0 17 4,1
Unknown 9 18,0 89 21,5
Total 50 100,0 413 100,0
108
Distribution of GISmajor failures(MaF) Distribution of GISminor failures(MiF)
other than CB, DS/ ES and IT other than CB, DS/ ES and IT
Mechanical in other
than operating
18% 22% mechanism
4% Electrical in main
44% circuit
0%
18% Electrical in secondary
74% circuit
Figures 5-76: Relative distribution of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures from their
origin point of view (all data)
The manufacturing year aspect is considered only for major failures (MaF). The distribution in
absolute and relative values is shown in table 5-109 and the relative results are shown in
figure 5-77 by a bar graph (100% is total number of MaF).
Table 5-109: Distribution of major failure origin of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT in
seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (absolute and relative values for all data)
Major failure Mechanical Electrical in Electrical in Unknown or Total
origin main circuit secondary other
Manufacturing circuit
year Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs.
before 1979 4 66,7 0 0,0 0 0,0 2 33,3 6
1979-1983 1 33,3 1 33,3 0 0,0 1 33,3 3
1984-1988 2 28,6 2 28,6 1 14,3 2 28,6 7
1989-1993 2 20,0 0 0,0 7 70,0 1 10,0 10
1994-1998 6 60,0 2 20,0 1 10,0 1 10,0 10
1999-2003 4 57,1 2 28,6 0 0,0 1 14,3 7
2004-2007 3 42,9 3 42,9 0 0,0 1 14,3 7
Total 22 44,0 10 20,0 9 18,0 9 18,0 50
Figure 5-77: Relative distribution of major failure origin of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT failures in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (all data)
109
Comparison with previous survey
There was no such a major failure characteristic included in the 2nd survey.
Regarding the major failures time aspect, the mechanical and electrical problems in main
circuit occur at the younger and at older GISs, whereas the electrical problem in secondary
circuit concentrates at the middle age of GIS. However the total number of major failures is
not big enough to make more precise conclusions. Also the notable characteristic is that the
unknown or other problem occurs at the older GISs more often. It may indicate the fact that
the utilities have a problem to solve the unknown phenomena for ageing equipments.
The failure primary causes categories of GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT are
the same as for any kind of GIS component and are the same as in chapter 5.7.6 (for their
list see the table below).
Table 5-110 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned in the survey. The table shows absolute and relative data. Figures 5-78 show the
relative number of MaF and MiF in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF resp.).
Table 5-110: Distribution of primary cause of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures of GIS parts
other than CB, DS/ES and IT (absolute and relative values for all data)
Failure primary cause Number of MaF Number of MiF
Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Design fault (manufacturer responsibility) 2 4,0 8 1,9
Manufacturing fault (poor quality control) 7 14,0 17 4,1
Incorrect transport or erection 9 18,0 7 1,7
Other 0 0,0 14 3,4
Lightning overvoltage in excess of rating 4 8,0 1 0,2
Mechanical stress in excess of rating 0 0,0 1 0,2
Corrosion 1 2,0 38 9,2
Wear / Ageing 5 10,0 107 25,9
Incorrect operation 2 4,0 1 0,2
Electrical failure of adjacent equipment 0 0,0 4 1,0
Mechanical failure of adjacent equipment 1 2,0 1 0,2
Human error 1 2,0 1 0,2
Incorrect maintenance (incl. inadequate
instruction for maintenance) 3 6,0 5 1,2
Other abnormal service conditions 0 0,0 2 0,5
Unknown other causes 15 30,0 206 49,9
Total 50 100,0 413 100,0
110
Failure primary cause Number of MaF Number of MiF
Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division):
Cause introduced during
18 36,0 46 11,1
a period before putting into service
Cause other than wear
11 22,0 16 3,9
introduced during service
Wear / ageing + corrosion 6 12,0 145 35,1
Unknown other causes 15 30,0 206 49,9
Figures 5-78: Relative distribution of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures from their
primary cause point of view (all data)
The manufacturing year aspect is considered only for Major failures (MaF). The distribution of
absolute and relative values is shown in table 5-111 and the relative results are shown in
figure 5-79 by a bar graph (100% is total number of MaF).
Table 5-111: Distribution of major failure primary cause of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and
IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (absolute and relative values for all data)
Major failure Cause introduced Cause other Wear/Ageing Unknown other Total
Primary cause during a period than wear +corrosion causes
before putting into introduced
Manufacturing service during service
year Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs.
before 1979 0 0,0 2 33,3 2 33,3 2 33,3 6
1979-1983 1 33,3 2 66,7 0 0,0 0 0,0 3
1984-1988 2 28,6 2 28,6 2 28,6 1 14,3 7
1989-1993 1 10,0 1 10,0 1 10,0 7 70,0 10
1994-1998 3 30,0 2 20,0 1 10,0 4 40,0 10
1999-2003 5 71,4 1 14,3 0 0,0 1 14,3 7
2004-2007 6 85,7 1 14,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 7
Total 18 36,0 11 22,0 6 12,0 15 30,0 50
111
Distribution of major failures (MaF) of GISparts other than CB, DS/ ES
and IT from their primary cause and manufacturing period points of
views (all data)
100.0% Unknown other causes
90.0%
80.0%
70.0% Wear/ Ageing+corrosion
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% Cause other than wear
30.0% introduced during
20.0% service
10.0%
Cause introduced
0.0%
during a period before
putting into service
Figure 5-79: Relative distribution of major failure primary causes of GIS parts other than
CB, DS/ES and IT in seven intervals of GIS manufacturing years (all data)
Table 5-112: Comparison of primary causes of collected major failures (MaF) of GIS parts other
than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and the 3rd surveys (absolute and relative values for all data)
Major failure Cause introduced Cause other than Wear / Ageing Unknown other
prime cause during a period before wear introduced +corrosion causes
putting into service during service
Number of MaF Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
2nd survey 1995) 134 72,0 30 16,1 11 5,9 11 5,9
3rd survey (2007) 18 36,0 11 22,0 6 12,0 15 30,0
80%
70%
60%
50% 2nd survey (1995)
40% 3rd survey (2007)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Unknown other causes
during a period before
Wear/ Ageing+corrosio
Cause other than wear
putting into service
introduced during
Cause introduced
service
Figure 5-80: Comparison of relative distribution of primary causes of GIS parts other than CB,
DS/ES and IT major failures in the 2nd and 3rd survey (all data)
112
The portion of major failures causes that was introduced before the GISs were put into
service has significantly decreased in the 3rd GIS survey in comparison to the 2nd survey.
That could be a good sign of the fact that GIS are becoming mature and manufacturers,
engineering and construction companies are learning how to perform their work well. The
increase of portion of wear and ageing causes in the 3rd survey is also natural. The
population of GISs is getting old and thus it can be expected that this type of the failure
cause will have an increasing trend also in the future. Both with and without switching device
as CB and DS/ES analyses show the same trend for the primary cause of MaF from the
manufacturing year point of view.
However the portion of Unknown other causes (30% in MaF and 50% in MiF) is very
alarming. As mentioned in chapter 5.7.5, it is again necessary to repeat that even if a
detailed investigation of a failure may be time consuming and costs money, the investigation
is the only way how to prevent failures re-occurrence and utilities should not miss a chance
to learn something.
As the major failures GIS age aspect (GISs manufacturing years interval) is concerned the
analysis shows a logical picture. The younger the GISs are the more the cause introduced
before putting into service prevails. The older the GISs are the more the wear/ageing/
corrosion cause prevails.
The message for manufacturers and users is clear. It is necessary to focus on material and
assemblies ageing tests, on higher effectiveness of manufacturing quality, routine and on-
site tests, and on higher quality of operation and maintenance staff skills. This trend is similar
in both with and without the switching devices such as CB and DS/ES analyses.
To analyze failure service circumstance of GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT,
failures the following categories are applicable:
GIS was de-energized and available for service
GIS was out of service because of a maintenance or was just put into service after
maintenance or testing
GIS was in normal steady state service without any switching manipulation
GIS was in service and there was a normal switching operation in the substation
GIS was in service and there was a fault clearing switching-off operation in the
substation
GIS was in service and there was a miss-operation in the substation
Table 5-113 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned above. The table shows absolute and relative data only for all data. Figures 5-81
show the relative number of MaF and MiF in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF
resp.).
113
Table 5-113: Distribution of service circumstances of major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures of
GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT (absolute and relative values for all data)
Service circumstances Number of MaF Number of MiF
when failed Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
De-energized - available for service 2 4,1 8 2,0
Normal service - no operation command in 31 63,3 306 77,7
S/S
During or directly after testing/ maintenance 4 8,2 59 15,0
During fault clearing in S/S 1 2,0 0 0,0
During normal switching operation in S/S 10 20,4 20 5,1
During switching miss-operations in S/S 1 2,0 1 0,3
Total 49 100,0 394 100,0
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division):
De-energized 2 4,1 8 2,0
During or directly after testing/maintenance 4 8,2 59 15,0
Normal service without operation 31 63,3 306 77,7
During normal switching operation 10 20,4 20 5,1
During fault switching 2 4,1 1 0,3
Major failures (MaF) of GIS Major failures (MaF) of GISparts other than CB,
parts other than CB, DS/ ES DS/ ESand IT service circumstances
and IT service
circumstances De-energized - available
for service
0%
2% Normal service - no
2% 0%
4% operation command in S/ S
5%
15% During or directly after
21% testing/ maintenance
During switching
misoperations in S/ S
Figures 5-81: Relative distribution of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures from
service circumstance point of view (all data)
114
Table 5-114: Comparison of service circumstances of collected GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES
and IT major failures (MaF) in the 2nd and the 3rd surveys (absolute and relative values for all
data)
Major failure During or directly During switching
Normal service
service De-energized after testing/ operation in
without operation
circumstance maintenance substation
Number of MaF Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
2nd survey (1995) 4 2,1 13 6,9 143 76,1 28 14,9
3rd survey (2007) 2 4,1 4 8,2 31 63,3 12 24,4
During switching
Normal service
During or directly
De-energized
maintenance
operation in
operation
substation
without
after
Figure 5-82: Comparison of relative distributions of GIS service conditions when collected GIS
parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT major failures were discovered in the 2nd and the 3rd GIS
surveys
The portion of major failures that happened during switching operation in a substation has
increased and the portion of normal service without operation has decreased in the 3rd GIS
survey in comparison to the 2nd survey. However this change is not as big as in comparison
of all GIS equipment experience (see chapter 5.7.7).
As mentioned before, the failures in GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT occur at
Bus-bar and Bus-duct or Any kind of bushing and the failure modes of MaF and MiF are
Dielectric breakdown and Small SF6 gas leakage. Therefore it is expected that these MaF
and MiF failures would be discovered during GIS service both with and without operation.
This information may give an idea to utilities what type of maintenance is efficient to improve
the quality of gas insulated components.
For the analysis of the environmental stresses contributions to GIS components other than
CB, DS/ES and IT, the same categories as in chapter 5.7.8 were applied (see table below for
their list).
Table 5-115 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in which environment
was presumed to contribute to their development and in which it was not. The table shows
absolute and relative data only for all data (100% is number of MaF, MiF resp.)
115
Table 5-116 shows the same information from the GIS location point of view. It shows the
collected number of major and minor failures in which environment contributed to their
development and in which did not for two categories of all data, i.e. for indoor GIS and
outdoor GIS.
Detail analysis, i.e. individual stresses contributions are shown in table 5-117. The
questionnaire allowed multiple answers in this question and thus the total number of
identified stresses is higher than a number of answers with a positive indication (100% is
total number of ticks in MaF, MiF resp.). Figure 5-83 shows relative distribution of
environmental stresses that contributed to GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
(100% is number of MaF, MiF resp., in which the respondents identified environmental
contribution).
Table 5-117: Distribution of environmental stresses that contributed to GIS parts other than CB,
DS/ES and IT major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures (absolute and relative values for all data)
Number of Number of
Kind of environment contribution (all data) MaF %MaF MiF %MiF
Temperature too low 0 0,0 0 0,0
Temperature too high 2 13,3 0 0,0
Strong wind 0 0,0 2 3,2
Rain 0 0,0 12 19,4
Sudden variation in temperature 1 6,7 4 6,5
Snow, ice or hoar-frost 0 0,0 5 8,1
Corrosive atmosphere 0 0,0 0 0,0
Fog or high humidity 0 0,0 12 19,4
Pollution including dust 0 0,0 7 11,3
Lightning 5 33,3 0 0,0
Earthquake 0 0,0 1 1,6
Flood 7 46,7 0 0,0
Other 0 0,0 19 30,6
Total 15 100,0 62 100,0
116
Number of Number of
Kind of environment contribution (all data) MaF %MaF MiF %MiF
Summary of the above (in summarized categories division)::
Temperature 3 20,0 4 6,5
Water in the air 0 0,0 29 46,8
Atmosphere 0 0,0 7 11,3
Wind 0 0,0 2 3,2
Lightning 5 33,3 0 0,0
Flood and earthquake 7 46,7 1 1,6
Other 0 0,0 19 30,6
The most prevailing environmental conditions are Flood and earthquake and Lightning for
MaF and Water in the air for MiF. As shown in chapter 5.7.8, utilities can protect their
equipment by installing surge arresters to restrict the lightning overvoltage. Also as tightness
and ageing problems were identified as the most frequent minor problems it is natural that
humidity and air temperature can accelerate their development.
117
5.7.11.9 Failure repair of components
The way of failure repair description (failure repair categories) of GIS components other
than CB, DS/ES and IT is the same for any kind of GIS component and is the same as in
chapter 5.7.9 (for their list see the table below).
Table 5-118 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories
mentioned in the survey. The table shows absolute and relative data. Figures 5-84 show the
relative number of MaF and MiF in pie charts (100% is total number of MaF, MiF resp.).
Table 5-118: Distribution of repair type of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT major (MaF)
and minor (MiF) failures (absolute and relative values for all data)
Repair type Number of MaF Number of MiF
Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Repair of failed component on site 8 16,0 132 32,0
Repair in factory or shop 19 38,0 0 0,0
Replacement of failed component on site
(without replacement of enclosure) 14 28,0 33 8,0
Replacement of failed component
and its enclosure 6 12,0 3 0,7
Replacement of failed equipment
with another design 1 2,0 2 0,5
Replacement of seals or refilling only 1 2,0 204 49,4
Placed back into service without repair 1 2,0 39 9,4
Total 50 100,0 413 100,0
Figures 5-84: Relative distribution of GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT failures from repair
type point of view (all data)
118
Comparison with previous survey
Comparison of total results between the 2nd and 3rd survey is shown in table 5-119 (absolute
and relative values) and in figure 5-85 (relative values). 100% is total number of major
failures in each survey. The 2nd and 3rd surveys comparison can provide only the major
failure comparison.
Table 5-119: Comparison of repair type of collected GIS CB-bays major (MaF) other than CB,
DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and the 3rd surveys (Absolute and relative values for all data)
Repair type of MaF 2nd survey (1995) 3rd survey (2007)
Absolute Relative [%] Absolute Relative [%]
Repair of failed component on site 52 27,7 8 16,0
Repair in factory or shop 6 3,2 19 38,0
Replacement of failed component on site
(without replacement of enclosure) 64 34,0 14 28,0
Replacement of failed component
and its enclosure 52 27,7 6 12,0
Replacement of failed equipment
with another design 10 5,3 1 2,0
Replacement of seals or refilling only 3 1,6 1 2,0
Placed back into service without repair 1 0,5 1 2,0
Total 188 100,0 50 100,0
Comparison of GISparts other than CB, DS/ ESand IT major failure repairs
0.4
0.35
Relative numbers of MaF[%]
0.3
0.25
0.2 2nd survey
0.15 (1995)
Replacement of seals or
component on site (without
replacement of enclosure)
Replacement of failed
Replacement of failed
Replacement of failed
without repair
refilling only
design
site
Figure 5-85: Comparison of relative distribution of Repair type of GIS CB-bay major failures
(MaF) other than CB, DS/ES and IT in the 2nd and 3rd survey (all data)
It seems that the relative portion of repairs in factory or shop in the 3rd survey increased and
the portion of replacement including enclosure decreased. However, because of the nature
of the prevailing major failure mode in both surveys, i.e. dielectric breakdowns, the true trend
has most probably not changed just the respondents in the 2nd survey preferred the
replacement category to repair in factory category whereas in the 3rd survey it was
opposite. The fact is that any replacement of a component with its enclosure simultaneously
requires an activity in a factory or a shop.
119
Findings and commentary
The way of the repair distribution of GIS components other than CB, DS/ES and IT shows
that these components major failures are more demanding as their repairs are concerned. As
most of them were dielectric failures, they had to be repaired in a factory and shop in 38% of
cases and in 12% of cases even the enclosure had to be replaced. That represents 50% in
comparison to only 23% of these cases when considering all equipment in GIS (see chapter
5.7.9). This is natural as these kinds of component do not include any operating mechanisms
whose repairs are usually much simpler than repairs of failures occurring inside the GIS
enclosure.
As minor failures repairs are concerned, the most frequent types of repairs are replacement
of sealing or refilling only (49%) and repair of failed component on site (32%) which can
overlap in their interpretation and which together correspond very well to the prevailing minor
failure mode (63% of small SF6 leakage).
The consequential measures adopted after failure categories of GIS components other than
CB, DS/ES and IT are the same for any kind of GIS component and are the same as in
chapter 5.7.10 (for their list see the table below).
Table 5-120 shows the collected number of major and minor failures in the categories YES or
NO. The table shows absolute and relative data
Table 5-120: Distribution of GIS CB-bay major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures other than CB,
DS/ES and IT that were and were not followed by special consequential - all data(absolute and
relative values in total collected MaF and MiF)
All data
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Consequential measures
after failure accepted Abs. % Abs. %
Yes 30 60,0% 43 10,4%
No 20 40,0% 369 89,6%
Details about accepted consequential measures are shown in Table 5-121. The
questionnaire allowed multiple answers in this question and thus the total number of
consequential measures is higher than a number of answers with a positive indication (100%
is total number of ticks in MaF, MiF resp.).
Figure 5-86 provides a detail analysis of precautions within positive answers that identified
at least one preventive activity after a major failure (100% is total number of only positive
answers).
120
Table 5-121: Distribution of consequential measures descriptions that followed GIS parts other
than CB, DS/ES and IT major (MaF) and minor (MiF) failures
(Absolute and relative values for all data)
Number of MaF Number of MiF
Accepted consequential measures
after failure Abs. [%] Abs. [%]
Removal similar equipment from
service for inspection 10 18,9% 28 65,1%
Implementation of changes in
purchasing specifications 15 28,3% 6 14,0%
Implementation of additional
monitoring 4 7,5% 1 2,3%
Implementation of changes into
original operating instructions 4 7,5% 0 0,0%
Implementation of changes into
original maintenance, diagnostics
or monitoring instructions 20 37,7% 8 18,6%
Total of positive answers 53 100,0% 43 100,0%
Figure 5-86: Relative distribution of accepted consequential measures that followed major
failures in GIS parts other than CB, DS/ES and IT
121
As the preventive measures themselves are concerned, the most frequent are
implementation of changes into original maintenance, diagnostics or monitoring instructions
(38%) and implementation of changes in purchasing specifications (28%). The removal of
similar equipment from service for inspection represents only 19% of cases that less than
when evaluating all data together where this category was the biggest one (36% - see
chapter 5.7.10). The result corresponds quite well to the failed component character as for
busbars and busducts it is more appropriate to extend maintenance and diagnostics in favor
to remove these parts of similar equipment for detail investigation.
The following analysis is made only for major failure (MaF), only for all data, only for the
characteristics that represent biggest portion in individual characteristics and only for those
cross links that make sense or can provide additional value and for those that are not already
mentioned in specific equipment chapters.
Overview:
Failure mode versus failed subassembly, origin and primary cause (see chapter
5.8.1)
Failed subassembly versus environmental stresses, service conditions, origin and
primary cause (see chapter 5.8.2)
Primary cause versus failure mode, origin and failed subassembly (see chapter 5.8.3)
Service conditions versus failure mode and maintenance philosophy (see chapter
5.8.4)
In the 2nd GIS survey [13] there was not provided any correlation analysis among different
major failure characteristics. Therefore in chapter 5.8 there are no subchapters with a
comparison with the previous survey. In the 2nd survey, there was provided only detail
correlation of different characteristics and main components involved in the GIS CB-bay
major failure there. These comparisons are included in separate equipment technical
brochures [2], [3] and [4] and in chapter 5.7.11.
122
5.8.1.1 Major failure modes in correlation with failed subassembly
Table 5-122 shows the major failure mode subdivided into the two main categories failing to
perform request operation and dielectric breakdown in correlation with failed subassembly.
The table shows absolute and relative data. As the results in the table are evident (prevailing
characteristics marked by red numbers) it has been decided that graphical interpretation is
not necessary.
Table 5-122: Distribution of major failure modes in correlation with failed subassemblies (all
data absolute and relative values)
Major failure mode
Failing to perform requested Dielectric breakdown
operation, function resp., (normal and switching
(being locked incl.) operation)
Failed subassembly Abs. % Abs. %
Component in primary circuit 7 3,1 76 93,8
Component in control, auxiliary or 112 49,3 0 0,0
monitoring circuit
Component in operating mechanism 106 46,7 1 1,2
Component in IT secondary circuit 1 0,4 0 0,0
Unknown or other 1 0,4 4 4,9
Total 227 100,0 81 100,0
Failure mode Dielectric breakdown can also appear in all parts of the equipment. However
the absolutely prevailing failed subassemblies were components in primary circuits (94%).
Table 5-123 shows the major failure modes subdivided into the two main categories failing
to perform request operation and dielectric breakdown in correlation with origin of failure.
The table shows absolute and relative data. Figures 5-87 show the relative distribution of
these major failure modes in pie charts.
123
Table 5-123: Distribution of major failure modes in correlation with the failure origins (absolute
and relative values)
Major failure mode
Failing to perform
requested operation, Dielectric breakdown
function resp., (being (normal and switching
locked incl.) operation)
Origin Abs. % Abs. %
Mechanical in other than
operating mechanism 15 6,6 19 23,5
Mechanical in operating
mechanism (earthed) 74 32,6 1 1,2
Electrical in main circuit 1 0,4 50 61,7
Electrical in secondary circuit 100 44,1 3 3,7
Unknown 37 16,3 8 9,9
Total 227 100,0 81 100,0
44% Electrical in
62% secondary circuit
0%
Unknown
Figures 5-87: Relative Distribution of major failure modes in correlation with failure origins
124
Dielectric breakdowns mode origins split between electrical in main circuit (62%) and
mechanical in other than operating mechanism (24%). However it is necessary to mention
that origin determination needs a really deep detailed investigation. Dielectric breakdown is
an electrical problem, however its origin can be mechanical in main circuit (e.g. void in GIS
spacers) caused by mechanical imperfection in solid insulation materials as well as
mechanical in other parts e.g. in kinematic chain or SF6 gas sealing system. On the other
hand an example of pure electrical origin is a breakdown caused by any kind of overvoltage
stresses. The subassembly is in majority of cases a component in primary circuits.
Table 5-124 shows the major failure (MaF) mode subdivided into failing to perform
requested operation and dielectric breakdown in correlation with primary cause of failure.
The table shows absolute and relative data. Figures 5-88 show the relative distribution of
these two MaF modes in dependence on primary cause in pie charts.
Table 5-124: Distribution of major failure modes in correlation with failure primary causes
(relative and absolute values)
Major failure mode
Failing to perform requested Dielectric breakdown
operation, function resp., (normal and switching
(being locked incl.) operation)
Primary cause Abs. % Abs. %
Cause introduced during a period
before putting into service 29 12,8 37 45,7
Cause other than wear introduced
during service 19 8,4 27 33,3
Wear/Ageing & Corrosion 130 57,3 9 11,1
Unknown other causes 49 21,6 8 9,9
Total 227 100,0 81 100,0
Figures 5-88: Relative distribution of major failure modes in correlation with failure primary
causes
125
Findings and commentary
As expected, more than a half of failing to perform requested operation was caused by
wear, ageing and corrosion. Unfortunately there is again a relatively large portion with
unknown causes (22 %).
The dielectric breakdown failure mode (for both under normal and switching operation)
cause was introduced during a period before putting into service in about 50 % of the cases.
That is a surprising result as the required IEC tests before putting into operation should be
sufficient to detect the most failures, e.g. material, manufacturing, transport and erection
defects. Another relatively large portion of dielectric breakdowns modes causes are failures
caused by other than wear phenomenon introduced during service (mainly different
overstresses). Portion of ageing signs is relatively small and represents only 11%. It leads to
a possible conclusion that ageing concerns more mechanical than electrical equipment
properties.
Table 5-125 shows the distribution of subassemblies with major failure in correlation with
environmental stresses. The table shows absolute and relative data but only for those major
failures in which the probable environment stress was indicated. Figure 5-89 shows the
distribution in absolute values.
126
Failed Subassembly in view of environmental stress
30
Component in primary
25 circuit
Number of MaF [-]
20 Component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring
15 circuit
Component in operating
10 mechanism
5
Component in IT
secondary circuit
0
Unknown or other
Components in control, auxiliary or monitoring circuits are very sensitive to all environmental
stresses with exception of wind. The same is valid for the components in the primary circuit
however lightning is a stress a special attention should be paid to. Stresses as temperature,
water and atmosphere influences lead to wear, ageing and corrosion.
Table 5-126 shows the absolute and relative number of major failures in individual
subassemblies in correlation to service conditions under which the major failures happened.
Figures 5-90 show the relative distribution of the green marked (prevailing) subassemblies
major failures in table 5-126 and their service conditions in pie charts.
127
Service conditions when failure discovered
De- Normal During or During fault During During During During fault During fault
(absolute and relative values)
energized - service - no directly after clearing in normal switching normal clearing making
available operation testing/main substation switching misoperation switching operation operation
for service command tenance (applies to operation in in substation operation (applies to (applies to
in parts of substation (applies to (applies to CB) ES)
substation GIS other (applies to parts of GIS CB, DS,
than CB) parts of GIS other than ES)
other than CB, DS, ES)
128
CB, DS,
ES) Total
Subassembly Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Component in primary
circuit 2 12,5 56 42,4 20 66,7 1 100 10 76,9 1 100 10 6,8 2 28,6 0 0,0 102 29,2
Component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring circuit 10 62,5 27 20,5 6 20 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 75 50,7 0 0,0 0 0,0 118 33,8
Component in operating
mechanism 3 18,8 33 25 3 10 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 63 42,6 5 71,4 1 100 108 30,9
Component in IT secondary
circuit 0 0,0 5 3,8 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 5 1,4
Unknown or other 1 6,3 11 8,3 1 3,3 0 0,0 3 23,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 16 4,6
Total 16 100,0 132 100,0 30 100,0 1 100,0 13 100,0 1 100,0 148 100,0 7 100,0 1 100,0 349 100,0
Table 5-126: Distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with service conditions
Failure in Component Failure in Component Failure in Component
in operating mechanism De-energized - available for service
in primary circuit in view in control, auxiliary or
of Service conditions monitoring circuit in view of Service conditions
when failure discovered in view of Service when failure discovered Normal service - no operation command in
conditions when substation
failure discovered
During or directly after testing/maintenance
2% 2% 1% 3%
129
23% substation (applies to parts of GIS other
1% than CB, DS, ES)
conditions
During switching misoperations in
55% substation (applies to parts of GIS other
19% 64% than CB, DS, ES)
5% 58%
During normal switching operation (applies
3% to CB, DS, ES)
Figures 5-90: Relative distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with service
Findings and commentary
More than a half of major failures in components in primary circuits happened during normal
steady state service conditions, i.e. no operation command in the substation occurred. About
20 % of the failures in the primary circuit appeared during or directly after testing or
maintenance. The during or directly after maintenance category includes two controversial
parts. If a failure is discovered during maintenance that is a good sign of effective and on-
time corrective activity; if it happens directly after maintenance that is a bad sign of
incorrectly performed maintenance. Unfortunately the survey did not provide data to analyze
these two completely opposite aspects. However it is to say that incorrectly performed major
maintenance can introduce problems and that it is essential so that only skilled staff
equipped with the right spare parts may make this work. The other service circumstances are
marginal.
Failures in the components of control, auxiliary and monitoring circuits and failures in
operating mechanisms occurred mostly during normal switching operation. Another relatively
large portion of about 25 % (30 % resp.) of major failures happened during normal service
conditions. The other circumstances are negligible. The result is quite expectable.
Table 5-127 shows absolute and relative values. Figures 5-91 show the relative distribution
of major failure origins in the three main failed subassemblies (marked green in the table 5-
127) in pie charts.
Table 5-127: Distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with failure origins
(relative and absolute values)
Failure origin
Mechanical Mechanical
in other than in operating Electrical in
operating mechanism Electrical in secondary
mechanism (earthed) main circuit circuit Unknown Total
Subassembly Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Component in
primary circuit 34 69,4 2 2,6 51 94,4 3 2,6 12 19,4 102 28,6
Component in
control, auxiliary
or monitoring
circuit 3 6,1 3 3,8 3 5,6 97 85,1 14 22,6 120 33,6
Component in
operating
mechanism 9 18,4 73 93,6 0 0,0 4 3,5 27 43,5 113 31,7
Component in IT
secondary circuit 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 0,9 4 6,5 5 1,4
Unknown or other 3 6,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 9 7,9 5 8,1 17 4,8
Total 49 100,0 78 100,0 54 100,0 114 100,0 62 100,0 357 100,0
130
origins
Failure in Component Failure in Component Failure in Component
in primary circuit in control, auxiliary or in operating mechanism
in view of monitoring circuit in view of Failure origin
Failure origin in view of Failure origin
2%
2% Mechanical in other than
131
3% operating mechanism
3% 12% 8%
12%
Mechanical in operating
24% mechanism (earthed)
33%
Electrical in secondary
50% 65% circuit
2%
81%
Unknown
Figures 5-91: Relative distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with failure
Findings and commentary
Half of major failures in the primary circuit had their origin in electrical fault in the main circuit
and one third in mechanical faults in other than operating mechanism parts. Almost the entire
portion of failures in the control, auxiliary or monitoring circuit had their origin in electrical
fault in the secondary circuit. The prevailing failure origin for operating mechanisms
components was mechanical. The results are natural as they follow the main design tasks
for the subassemblies.
Table 5-128: Distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with failure primary
causes (relative and absolute values)
Prim. Cause
Cause
introduced
during a Cause other
period than wear
before introduced Wear/ Unknown
putting into during Ageing & other
service service Corrosion causes Total
Subassembly Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Component in primary
circuit 45 59,2 26 50,0 19 12,6 12 15,4 102 28,6
Component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring
circuit 16 21,1 8 15,4 77 51,0 19 24,4 120 33,6
Component in
operating mechanism 13 17,1 15 28,8 52 34,4 33 42,3 113 31,7
Component in IT
secondary circuit 1 1,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 4 5,1 5 1,4
Unknown or other 1 1,3 3 5,8 3 2,0 10 12,8 17 4,8
Total 76 100,0 52 100,0 151 100,0 78 100,0 357 100,0
132
Failure in Component Failure in Component in Failure in Component in
in primary circuit control, auxiliary or operating mechanism
in view of Primary cause monitoring circuit in view of
in view of Primary cause Primary cause
Cause introduced during
a period before putting
into service
133
12% 12%
16% 13%
Cause other than wear
29%
primary causes
7% introduced during service
13%
19% 44%
Wear/Ageing &
Corrosion
Figures 5-92: Relative distribution of major failed subassemblies in correlation with failure
Findings and commentary
About 44 % of major failures in the primary circuit were caused by a fault introduced during a
period before putting into service and a quarter of major failures in the primary circuits was
caused by wear, ageing and corrosion. The rest was other or unknown cause. The results in
the first pie chart are affected by dielectric breakdowns that represent 94% of all primary
circuits major failures (see chapter 5.8.1.1). As the high portion of before putting into
service primary cause is concerned, the same comment as in chapter 5.8.1.3 is valid
many of them could be avoided by proper testing.
The portion of causes introduced during a period before putting into service was much
smaller in the other two categories (components in secondary circuits and components in
operating mechanisms) of failed subassemblies (only about 12 %). Their prevailing primary
cause of major failures was wear, ageing and corrosion. Nevertheless it is necessary to point
out a high portion of unknown and other causes (16, 30% resp.). It may have two reasons:
Failures in other parts than primary circuits are not taken as serious to justify
spending time and money for their detailed investigation.
In case of a operating mechanism it is sometimes difficult to find out the difference
between a normal defect and a sign of ageing and so the respondent preferred to
select the unknown category.
Table 5-129 shows a distribution of primary causes of major failures in correlation with major
failure mode. The table shows absolute and relative values. Figures 5-93 show the relative
distribution of major failures modes for three main major failure causes (marked green in the
table) in pie charts.
Table 5-129: Distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failure modes
(absolute and relative values)
Primary cause
Cause Cause other
introduced than wear
before introduced Wear/ Unknown
putting into during Ageing & other
service service Corrosion causes Grand Total
Major failure mode Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Failing to perform requested
operation 29 38,2 19 36,5 130 86,1 49 62,0 227 63,4
Loss of electrical connections
integrity in primary 1 1,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 0,3
Loss of electrical connections
integrity in secondary 0 0,0 1 1,9 1 0,7 0 0,0 2 0,6
Dielectric breakdown in
normal service (without
switching operation) 31 40,8 20 38,5 9 6,0 7 8,9 67 18,7
Dielectric breakdown in
connection with switching
operation 6 7,9 7 13,5 0 0,0 1 1,3 14 3,9
Loss of mechanical integrity
(big SF6 leakage incl.) 6 7,9 2 3,8 3 2,0 5 6,3 16 4,5
Other 3 3,9 3 5,8 8 5,3 17 21,5 31 8,7
Total 76 100,0 52 100,0 151 100,0 79 100,0 358 100,0
134
Failure primary cause Failure primary cause Failure primary cause
"Cause introduced during a "Cause other than wear "Wear/Ageing & Corrosion"
period before putting into introduced during service" in view of Major Failure Mode Failing to perform requested
service" in view of Major in view of Major Failure operation, function resp., (being
Failure Mode Mode locked incl.)
Loss of electrical connections
integrity in primary (e.g. fails to
4% 2% carry current)
4%
135
6% 5%
8%
modes
1% Loss of electrical connections
6% integrity in secondary
8%
38% 13% 37%
Dielectric breakdown in normal
service (without switching
operation)
Dielectric breakdown in connection
with switching operation
41% 38%
1% 0% 86%
Loss of mechanical integrity
0% (mechanical damages of different
2%
parts, big SF6 leakage incl.)
Other
Figures 5-93: Relative distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failure
Findings and commentary
Relatively large portions (about 40 % each) of major failures the roots of which were
introduced during a period before putting into service led to dielectric breakdowns under
normal service conditions without switching operation or to failing to perform requested
operation. The other major failure modes were marginal (less than 8%).
More or less the same distribution is valid for causes other than wear ageing signs. The
prevailing major failures modes are again dielectric breakdowns and failing to perform
requested operation.
Wear, ageing and corrosion led in most cases (86%) to failing to perform requested
operation failure mode. The other categories were marginal.
That proves the previously (see chapters 5.8.1.3, 5.8.2.1 and 5.8.2.4) found results that
ageing phenomenon influences mainly a control, auxiliary or monitoring circuits and
operating mechanism functions and the problem appears mainly at the moment of requested
switching operation. On the other hand, faults introduced before the equipment was put into
service and causes that appear during the equipment service and are not related to ageing,
influenced the dielectric and switching characteristics of the equipment by approximately half
to half.
Table 5-130 shows the distribution of primary causes of major failures in correlation with
origin of the failures. The table shows absolute and relative values. Figures 5-94 show the
relative distribution of major failures origins for three main major failure causes (marked
green in the table 5-130) in pie charts.
Table 5-130: Distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failure origins
(absolute and relative values)
Primary cause
Cause
introduced
during a period Cause other than Wear/ Unknown
before putting wear introduced Ageing & other
into service during service Corrosion causes Grand Total
Origin Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Mechanical in other
than operating
mechanism 20 26,3 9 17,3 13 8,6 8 10,1 50 14,0
Mechanical in
operating mechanism
(earthed) 9 11,8 10 19,2 49 32,5 10 12,7 78 21,8
Electrical in main
circuit 26 34,2 17 32,7 7 4,6 4 5,1 54 15,1
Electrical in
secondary circuit 14 18,4 8 15,4 71 47,0 21 26,6 114 31,8
Unknown 7 9,2 8 15,4 11 7,3 36 45,6 62 17,3
Total 76 100,0 52 100,0 151 100,0 79 100,0 358 100,0
Figures 5-94: Relative distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failure
origins
136
Findings and commentary
The distribution of major failure origins, the roots of which were introduced during a period
before putting into service, is more or less even. The electrical origin in main circuit (34%)
and mechanical problems in operating mechanism and outside the operating mechanism
(38% together) correspond very well to data obtained for major failure modes (38% and 41%
- see chapter 5.8.3.2). Regarding the mechanical problems outside operating mechanism
(26%), the analysis, shown later in chapter 5.8.3.3, shows that most of them concerned
mechanical problems in primary circuits, too.
More or less the same distribution is valid for causes other than wear ageing signs.
Wear, ageing and corrosion led in most cases (47%) to electrical problems in secondary
circuits and secondly (32%) to mechanical problems in operating mechanism. The other
categories are marginal. It just implies a need that secondary circuits ageing phenomenon
requires special attention.
Table 5-131 shows the distribution of primary causes of major failures in correlation with their
failed subassemblies. The table 5-131 shows absolute and relative values. Figures 5-95
show the relative distribution of failed subassemblies for three main major failure causes
(marked green in the table 5-131) in pie charts.
Table 5-131: Distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failed
subassemblies (absolute and relative values)
Primary cause
Cause
introduced during Cause other
a period before than wear Wear/ Unknown
putting into introduced Ageing & other
service during service Corrosion causes Grand Total
Failed subassembly Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
Component in primary
circuit 45 59,2 26 50,0 19 12,6 12 15,4 102 28,6
Component in control,
auxiliary or monitoring
circuit 16 21,1 8 15,4 77 51,0 19 24,4 120 33,6
Component in
operating mechanism 13 17,1 15 28,8 52 34,4 33 42,3 113 31,7
Component in IT
secondary circuit 1 1,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 4 5,1 5 1,4
Unknown or other 1 1,3 3 5,8 3 2,0 10 12,8 17 4,8
Total 76 100,0 52 100,0 151 100,0 78 100,0 357 100,0
137
Failure primary cause Failure primary cause Failure primary cause
"Cause introduced during a "Cause other than wear "Wear/Ageing & Corrosion"
period before putting into introduced during in view of Subassembly
service" in view of service" in view of
Subassembly Subassembly
Component in primary
2% 1% circuit
0% 0% 2%
138
6% Component in control,
13%
subassemblies
17% auxiliary or monitoring
circuit
29% 34%
Component in operating
50% mechanism
21% 59%
Component in IT
51% secondary circuit
15%
Unknown or other
Figures 5-95: Relative distribution of major failure primary causes in correlation with failed
Findings and commentary
The distribution of GIS subassemblies, suffered from major failures the roots of which were
introduced during a period before putting into service, shows that more than a half (about
60%) affected subassemblies concerned components in primary circuits. Components in
secondary circuits and in operating mechanisms suffered from major failures in about 20% of
cases each.
The distribution of GIS subassemblies suffered from major failures, the roots of which were
introduced during service but not caused by ageing, showed again the prevailing influence
on subassemblies in primary circuits (50 %). The second most frequent subassembly
influenced by these causes was an operating mechanism (29%) followed by components in
secondary circuits (15%). A more detail analysis of raw data for these causes showed that
primary circuits were in about 35% of the cases affected by different service stresses (mainly
lightning) and in about 60% affected by different human errors (mainly incorrect
maintenance). Operating mechanism failures were caused by human errors (incorrect
maintenance) in about 65% of the cases whereas the overstressing (mechanical) was
identified in only 13% of the cases.
Wear, ageing and corrosion led in most cases (51%) to a failure of a component in
secondary circuits followed by problems in operating mechanisms (34%). That corresponds
very well to already mentioned findings that ageing phenomenon influences mainly a control,
auxiliary or monitoring circuits and operating mechanism functions.
Table 5-132 shows the distribution of service conditions when major failures were discovered
in correlation with different major failure modes. The table 5-132 shows absolute and relative
values. Figures 5-96 show the relative distribution of major failure modes for two main
service conditions (marked green in the table 5-132) in pie charts.
139
Major failure mode
Failing to Loss of Loss of Dielectric Dielectric Loss of
perform electrical electrical breakdown breakdown mechanical
requested in normal in
connections connections integrity
operation, service connection
function integrity in integrity in (without with (mechanical
resp., (being primary secondary switching switching damages of
locked incl.) (e.g. fails to operation) operation different
carry parts, big SF6
current) leakage incl.)
Other Total
serv. cond. when Fdiscov. Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
De-energized - available for
service 14 6,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 1,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 3,4 16 4,6
Normal service - no operation
140
command in substation 57 25,8 1 100 2 100 45 67,2 2 14,3 6 40 19 65,5 132 37,8
During or directly after
testing/maintenance 7 3,2 0 0,0 0 0,0 11 16,4 5 35,7 4 26,7 3 10,3 30 8,6
During fault clearing in
substation (applies to parts of
GIS other than CB) 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 1,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 0,3
Table 5-132: Distribution of major failures service conditions in correlation with failure modes
Total 221 100,0 1 100,0 2 100,0 67 100,0 14 100,0 15 100,0 29 100,0 349 100,0
Failure in normal service - Failure during normal
no operation command switching operation in Failing to perform requested
in view of major view of major failure mode operation, function resp., (being
failure mode locked incl.)
1% Loss of electrical connections
3%1% integrity in primary (e.g. fails to
3%
0%0% carry current)
5%
Loss of electrical connections
14%
2% integrity in secondary
Figures 5-96: Relative distribution of major failures service conditions in correlation with
failure modes
The absolutely prevailing major failure mode during normal switching operation (92%) was
failing to perform requested operation. That would imply that breakdowns appeared almost
only at steady state conditions. Working group has certain doubts about such a result.
Breakdowns are dielectric faults triggered by voltage stresses. The higher stresses the
higher probability of a breakdown and switching operation in a substation generates
switching overvoltage stresses that could trigger a breakdown. When a breakdown occurs
during switching operation the switching equipment simultaneously fails to switch or other
equipment fails to perform its function. The respondent might have been confused when
selecting the right category.
141
5.8.4.2 Service condition of major failures in correlation with
maintenance philosophy
Table 5-133 shows the distribution of service conditions when major failures were discovered
in correlation with different maintenance philosophies applied by different utilities before the
major failure occurred. The table 5-133 shows absolute and relative values. Figures 5-97
show the relative distribution of maintenance philosophies for two main service conditions
(marked green in the table 5-133) in pie charts.
Table 5-133: Distribution of major failures service conditions in correlation with maintenance
philosophy (absolute and relative values)
Maintenance philosophies before the major failure
Condition Combination
Time based based of different
Service conditions maintenanc maintenanc Run to methods
when major failure e e failure (e.g. RCM) Other Total
was discovered Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %
De-energized -
available for service 7 2,9 0 0,0 0 0,0 9 12,7 0 0,0 16 4,6
Normal service - no
operation command
in substation 94 39,0 8 23,5 1 5,0 29 40,8 0 0,0 132 37,8
During or directly
after
testing/maintenance 19 7,9 3 8,8 0 0,0 8 11,3 0 0,0 30 8,6
During fault clearing
in substation
(applies to parts of
GIS other than CB) 1 0,4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 0,3
During normal
switching operation
in substation
(applies to parts of
GIS other than CB,
DS, ES) 7 2,9 1 2,9 0 0,0 4 5,6 1 100,0 13 3,7
During switching
misoperations in
substation (applies
to parts of GIS other
than CB, DS, ES) 1 0,4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 0,3
During normal
switching operation
(applies to CB, DS,
ES) 106 44,0 22 64,7 0 0,0 20 28,2 0 0,0 148 42,4
During fault clearing
operation (applies
to CB) 6 2,5 0 0,0 1 50,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 7 2,0
During fault making
operation (applies to
ES) 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 1,4 0 0,0 1 0,3
Total 241 100,0 34 100,0 2 100,0 71 100,0 1 100,0 349 100,0
142
Failure in normal service - Failure during normal
no operation command switching operation in
in view of maintenance view of maintenance philosophy
philosophy
0% Time based
0%
maintenance
0% 13%
22% Condition based
maintenance
1%
15% Run to failure
6%
71% Combination of
72% different methods
(e.g. RCM)
Other
Figures 5-97: Relative distribution of major failures service conditions in correlation with
maintenance philosophy
To evaluate these results it is necessary to calculate major failure frequencies. Having a look
into chapter 5.6.8 the major failure frequencies of GIS CB/bays are almost equal for time
based philosophy and for combined time based and condition based philosophy. The only
condition based maintenance philosophy led to worse major failure frequency.
Based on the data evaluation the following improvements for the future surveys are
recommended:
The voltage class boundaries should me more specific, i.e. there should be
specifically written whether the questionnaire asks for rated voltage of the network the
equipment is installed in (independently on the rated voltage of the equipment itself)
or whether the questionnaire asks for rated voltage of the equipment (independently
on the network rated voltage level the equipment is installed in).
Any question on maintenance (past before failure, future planned, utilities strategies
and philosophies) should be more specific and should ask separately on minor
maintenance, diagnostic measurement and major maintenance (overhaul). Utilities
approaches and practices can differ significantly in these three different maintenance
categories.
143
The category other should be split into two categories other and unknown. In the
questionnaire, there should be a place for further description of what the other
category means.
The service conditions of the failure category should contain more detail division for
the during or directly after testing/maintenance option. It would be worth introducing
more categories such as monitoring warning, diagnostic measurement, minor
maintenance, major maintenance and to add a cell for description of the kind of
diagnostic measurement or monitoring that disclosed the problem. Moreover the
during or directly after maintenance headline includes two controversial parts. If a
failure is discovered during maintenance that is good sign of effective and on-time
corrective activity; if it happens directly after maintenance that is a bad sign of
incorrectly performed maintenance. The combination of during or directly after is
thus misleading and these two time circumstances should be separated.
To avoid questions that enable misinterpretations and that seem to be complicated for
the respondent to get data about them.
The participation of countries and utilities in the four years (2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007) of
the survey was quite even. The same is valid for their four years contributions in individual
voltage classes. Altogether 24 countries and 55 utilities took part in the survey with an
average total population of about 22 240 GIS CB-bays. There was collected GISs service
experience of 88971 circuit-breaker-bay-years (CB-bay-years) having had 358 major failures
and 1505 minor failures. As the collected service experience is dominated by two countries
most of analyses are made twice for all data and for data without these dominant countries
to show the difference. Comparison with the previous GIS service experience survey (data
up to 1995) is provided where possible, too.
The portion of hybrid GIS installations is still relatively small. Hybrid GIS represents
only about 8% of all collected data however there is an increasing trend in their
installation comparing to the past (previous GIS survey) visible at higher voltage
classes.
The three phase GIS design can be found up to voltage class 4, and it is used in the
two dominant countries much more often than in other countries. It prevails in GIS up
to voltage class 3, whereas in other counties only up to voltage class 2.
Analyzing all data it seems that outdoor installations slightly prevail in higher voltage
classes starting voltage class 4, and are used more frequently than in the past. The
utilities in countries other than the two dominant prefer indoor installations at all
voltage classes (except class 5) in spite of the fact that size of GIS building or shelter
can represent a certain design challenge.
144
The oldest reported GIS substation was manufactured and installed in 1960 and
belongs to voltage class 1. The oldest voltage class 2 substations were installed in
1963. The oldest GIS of voltage classes 3 to 6 were installed in 1970, 1975, 1973 and
in 1986 respectively. In all seven manufacturing year intervals there were collected
enough data in both data sets (i.e. total and total without two dominant countries) to
be able to provide failure frequencies time trend analyses.
145
voltage class 4) than GISs collected in the 2nd survey. This fact is even more visible
when evaluating data without dominant countries. It is difficult to say whether the
reason is that the populations were different or whether the outdoor GIS are
becoming less reliable.
146
5.10.1.3 GIS maintenance philosophies
There is a visible difference between the philosophies interpreted from all data and
data without two dominant countries. In all data analysis, the traditional policy of time
based maintenance still prevails. Inputs from modern strategies as reliability centered
and condition based maintenance in combination with the time based activities
already appear. However in total they still represent only 26% of reported service
experience. Countries other than the dominant ones seem to be less conservative
since condition based maintenance and combination of condition and time based
maintenance are used more often (23% and 35 % respectively).
The results of hypothesis tests for calculated major failure frequencies for all data
show that GISs with time based maintenance and combination of maintenance
philosophies behave in an equal way and that their reliability is better than GISs
reliability with condition based maintenance philosophy only. The results of
hypothesis tests for data without two dominant countries show that GISs with time
based maintenance philosophy behave better than if a combination of maintenance
philosophies is applied.
In spite of the fact that WG thinks that reporting about minor failures was not complete the
WG decided to provide the basic analysis of minor failures characteristics, too. The findings
are included in the chapters above. In the Summary chapter, only the findings for major
failures are repeated.
147
Major failed subassembly:
o When subassemblies responsible for major failures are analyzed for all data,
the component in primary circuit, component in control, auxiliary or
monitoring circuit and component in operating mechanism share the
responsibility by about one third each. The data without two dominant
countries shows a little bigger portion for "primary circuits" (38%) than for
"components in operating mechanisms" (21%).
o The 2nd and 3rd survey comparison just confirms the major failure mode
comparison. In the 2nd survey the prevailing failure mode was a dielectric
breakdown and thus the prevailing failed subassembly should be and really
was a component in primary circuits. In the 3rd survey the prevailing major
failure was failing to perform requested operation and thus the prevailing
responsible subassemblies should be - and are - either component in
operating mechanisms or component in control circuits.
o As GIS age aspect is concerned, the portion of component of primary circuit
responsible for the failure changes with the increasing age of GISs in a similar
way as the breakdown failure mode. Component in secondary circuits, in
contrary, prevails in older GISs, mainly in GISs of age between 15 and 20
years and the same trend is visible in the category component in operating
mechanism.
148
Major failure service conditions:
o The relative distributions of major failure service conditions for all data and
data without two dominant countries are similar. The two most frequent types
of service conditions when the failure occurred are "normal switching
operation" (46 to 40%) and "normal service without operation" (about 36%).
The "de-energized" and "during or directly after maintenance events"
represent about 13% for all data and about 24% for data without two dominant
countries.
o The portion of major failures that happened during switching operation in a
substation has increased and the portion of normal service without operation
has decreased in the 3rd GIS survey in comparison to the 2nd survey. That
corresponds to the change of major failure modes from prevailing breakdowns
in the 2nd survey to prevailing failing to perform requested operation in the
3rd survey. However there is a certain overlapping of the prevailing service
conditions for the breakdown failure mode (breakdown can happen during
switching operation as well as during service without any manipulation).
Slightly increasing trend in during maintenance category could be a sign of
more effective maintenance or diagnostics.
149
After failure consequential measures:
o There is no significant difference between the relative approaches of all
participating utilities and utilities excluding two dominant countries. Both
analyses show that in about one third of major failures some additional
consequential measures were carried out to prevent the failures re-occurrence
at other units. That means that the other two thirds of major failures must have
been considered as random events without any danger to reappear on other
units. As the preventive measures themselves are concerned the most
frequent are removal of similar equipment from service for inspection and
implementation of changes into original maintenance, diagnostics or
monitoring instructions. They both concern planned maintenance activities
and represent together about two thirds of all positive measures. The other
third is divided more or less equally among implementation of changes into
original purchasing specifications (15%) or original operating instructions
(12%) and implementation of additional monitoring (7%).
GIS parts other that CB, DS/ES and IT major failure characteristics:
o As major failure modes are concerned, the prevailing mode is Dielectric
breakdown that represents 60% in total and more than a half of them
occurred at bus-bar or bus-duct. Prevailing (74%) subassemblies responsible
for major failures are components in primary circuit. As GIS age aspect is
concerned the relative numbers of Dielectric breakdown within individual
manufacturing years intervals are more or less the same over all spans with
exception of 1989 to 1993 category.
o The biggest relative portion of major failures origins is Mechanical weakness
(44%). Two types of electrical origins have similar portion (20% of in main
circuit and 18% of in secondary circuit weaknesses). Regarding the major
failures time aspect, the mechanical and electrical problems in main circuit
occur at the younger and at older GISs, whereas the electrical problem in
secondary circuit concentrates at the middle age of GIS.
o The most frequent cause of major failures is still Cause introduced during a
period before putting into service (36%). This cause is followed by Cause
other than wear introduced during service (22%) and wear/ageing/corrosion
(12%). However the portion of Unknown other causes (30%) is alarming.
o The most frequent type of service when the failure occurred is Normal service
no operation command in S/S (63%). A presumed environmental
contribution to the failure was identified in 28% of all major failures and in 40%
of major failures happened in outdoor GIS. This trend is the same as in the
analysis that evaluated all GIS components together.
o The way of the repair distribution of GIS components other than CB, DS/ES
and IT shows that these components major failures are more demanding as
their repairs are concerned. As most of them were dielectric failures they had
to be repaired in a factory and shop in 38% of cases and in 12% of cases
even the enclosure had to be replaced. That represents 50% in comparison to
only 23% of these cases when considering all equipment in GIS. This is
natural as these kinds of component do not include any operating
mechanisms whose repairs are usually much simpler than repairs of failures
occurring inside the GIS enclosure.
o The relative portion of consequential measures taken after major failure in GIS
components other than CB, DS/ES and IT increased to 60% in comparison to
about 30% when a major failure occurred in any part of GIS. That can be
explained by a severity of GIS internal major failure in busbars, busducts and
bushings. As the preventive measures themselves are concerned, the most
frequent are implementation of changes into original maintenance,
diagnostics or monitoring instructions (38%) and implementation of changes
in purchasing specifications (28%). The removal of similar equipment from
service for inspection represents only 19% of cases that less than when
evaluating all data together where this category was the biggest one. The
result corresponds quite well to the failed component character as for busbars
150
and busducts it is more appropriate to extend maintenance and diagnostics
instead of removing parts of similar equipment for detailed investigation.
Failed subassemblies:
o If an environmental stress was identified as a contribution factor to the major
failure the ambient temperature influenced namely components in primary and
secondary circuits, water content in the air as well as other atmosphere
factors all components subassemblies and lightning influenced mainly
primary circuits but also secondary circuits. Components in control, auxiliary
or monitoring circuits are very sensitive to all environmental stresses. The
same is valid for the components in the primary circuit however lightning is a
stress a special attention is to be paid to. Stresses as temperature, water and
atmosphere influences lead to wear, ageing and corrosion.
o More than a half of major failures in components in primary circuits happened
during normal steady state service conditions, i.e. no operation command in
the substation occurred. About 20 % of the failures in the primary circuit
appeared during or directly after testing or maintenance. Failures in the
components of control, auxiliary and monitoring circuits and failures in
operating mechanisms occurred mostly during normal switching operation;
however a relatively large portion of about 25 % of major failures happened
during normal service conditions, too.
o A half of major failures in the primary circuit had an origin in electrical fault in
the main circuit and one third in mechanical faults in other than operating
mechanism parts. Almost all of failures in the control, auxiliary or monitoring
151
circuit had their origin in electrical fault in the secondary circuit. The prevailing
failure origin for operating mechanisms components was mechanical.
o About 44 % of major failures in the primary circuit were caused by a fault
introduced during a period before putting into service and a quarter of major
failures in the primary circuits were caused by wear, ageing and corrosion.
Portion of causes introduced during a period before putting into service was
much smaller (only about 12 %) in the other two categories of failed
subassemblies (components in secondary circuits and components in
operating mechanisms). Their prevailing primary cause of major failures was
wear, ageing and corrosion.
The high portion of other or unknown failure characteristics chosen by respondents in the
survey is alarming. A detailed investigation and understanding of any failure mechanisms is a
unique opportunity for obtaining know-how that should not be missed. The more utilities
know about details of their major (but also minor) failures the more they can prevent them at
other installations. Looking for the roots of failures can help to prevent their re-occurrence.
Another notable characteristic is that the unknown or other problem occurs at the older GISs
152
more often. It may indicate the fact the utility have a problem to solve the unknown
phenomena for ageing equipments. Manufacturers should also be more active in this respect
to be able to provide a deep expertise. They shall actively seek for a feedback from utilities
service experience by e.g. distributing an annual service experience questionnaire in which
both major as well minor failures are to be reported.
As the time trends of GIS major failure frequencies exhibit a typical bath-tube curve both
manufacturers and utilities shall focus mainly on the teething and ageing parts of the curve.
They should ask questions such as: Is there any room for improvement? How to discover
before putting into service faults? How to discover ageing in time? How to discover the
other service causes than ageing in time? What maintenance strategy is the most effective?
How to discover the other service causes than ageing in time? The discovering of these
causes is related namely to two main categories:
service stressing - Here monitoring and cumulative evaluation of external service
conditions (e.g. lightning, severe short circuits, extraordinary switching operations or
mechanical stresses) can help to apply for a maintenance or replacement in time
(Condition based maintenance principle). There already exists models and application
that collect this service data and calculate so called health index to trigger the right
activity in the right time.
human errors Human errors such as incorrect operation or maintenance shall be
avoided by applying proper know-how (selection of effective maintenance activities
and determining the way how to evaluate diagnostics and monitoring data) and by
employing only skilled and experienced staff. The utilities should collaborate with their
manufacturers to be sure that both aspects are met. For example, major maintenance
should preferably be made only by the manufacturer (and/or under his supervision) or
by a company that is certificated by the manufacturer for performing such work.
153
What maintenance strategy is the most effective?
The analysis showed that the traditional policy of time based maintenance, in combination
with other strategies (e.g. condition based maintenance CBM) resp., still brings good results
and cannot be avoided. 15 to 20 years interval seems to be just the right time for performing
overhauls (or at least a detailed investigation of conditions) for operating mechanisms and
secondary circuits. Simultaneously, there is still a room for improvement in developing
effective CBM technique that will enable an application of really effective combined
maintenance strategies. As the CBM alone is concerned, it is important to set correctly
intervals and contents of the equipment conditions checks (not all parameters can be
monitored).
The message for manufacturers and users is clear. It is necessary to focus on: ageing tests
of material and assemblies, higher effectiveness of manufacturing quality, routine and on-site
tests effectiveness, ageing tests for secondary equipment and higher quality, diagnostic tests
and monitoring effectiveness and on operation and maintenance staff skills.
5.10.3 Conclusion
Developing a survey to obtain reliability information on GIS major failure frequencies and
failures characteristics is an worth effort that has a potential of positively impacting the
electric utility industry. When performed in an innocuous manner, equipment manufacturers,
utilities, and consumers of electric energy can benefit greatly from the aggregated
experiences.
154
References
Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of high voltage
equipment associated CIGRE technical brochures
[1] TB 509 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 1 - Summary and General Matters
[2] TB 510 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 2 - SF6 Circuit Breakers
[3] TB 511, Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 3 - Disconnectors and Earthing Switches
[4] TB 512 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 4 - Instrument Transformers
[5] TB 513 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 5 Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS)
[6] TB 514 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of
high voltage equipment, Part 6 - GIS practices
Related Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of high
voltage equipment papers and Cigre brochures
[14] F. Waite, D. Kopejtkova, K.Mestrivic, J. E. Skog, C. E. Solver Use of Data
from CIGRE High Voltage Equipment Reliability Survey, CIGRE regional
conference in Cape Town 2009
[15] CIGRE B3-20 Evaluation of Different Switchgear technologies (AIS, MTS, GIS)
for Rated Voltages of 52 kV and above, Brochure390. issued in 2009
155
Appendices
Appendix 1 - GIS Questionnaire
Appendix 1-156
1.2 GIS population card
back to main
If this was en error, you can return to the main menu.
menu
Appendix 1-157
1.3. GIS failure card
back to main
If this was en error, you can return to the main menu.
menu
Appendix 1-158
Appendix 1-159
Appendix 1-160
Appendix 1-161
Appendix 1-162
Appendix 1-163
Appendix 2 - Definitions
Busbar/Busduct
Busbar (busbar component) is that part of the switchgear which serves for
interconnection between CB-bays. Based on single line diagram, in the switchgear
there may be one to several main busbars, transfer busbar or a ring busbar.
Busduct (busduct component) is that part of the switchgear which serves for
interconnection of individual apparatus and for connection to outer interface (overhead
line bushings, cable boxes, transformer bushings, etc.) within one CB-bay.
Note: One exit bay can consist of more than only one CB-bays, e.g. single line diagram with 1.5 circuit breakers per
exit consists of 3 CB-bays per one diameter, single line diagram with two breakers for an exit consists of 2 CB-bays.
Component
IEC 60517 (IEC 62271-203)
Essential part of the main or earthing circuits of GIS which serves a specific function
(e.g. circuit breakers, disconnector, earthing switch, instrument transformer, bushings,
busbar, bushing, termination, etc.).
Corrective maintenance
Additional work found necessary to do arising from equipment defects or failures found
on other similar equipment or recommended by the manufacturer or repair of the major
or minor failure or defect of the equipment itself .
Note: Observations resulting from maintenance (wherein some disassembly has been done to determine actual
condition that an external inspection could not reveal) can lead to the decision to carry out other types of
maintenance (including an overhaul).
Diagnostic
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1)
Investigative tests of the characteristic parameters of switchgear and control gear to
verify that it performs its functions, by measuring one or more of these parameters.
Note: The result from diagnostic tests can lead to the decision to carry out overhaul.
Note: The measurement is performed on purpose (periodically or condition based) and can be performed ON/LINE
or OFF/LINE.
Examination
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1)
Inspection with the addition of partial dismantling, as required, supplemented by means
such as measurements and non-destructive tests in order to reliably evaluate the
condition of the switchgear and control gear.
Note: Observations resulting from examination can lead to the decision to carry out other types of maintenance (up
to an overhaul).
Appendix 2-164
Failure
Lack of performance by an item of its required function or functions.
NOTE: The occurrence of a failure does not necessarily imply the presence of a defect if the stress or the stresses are
beyond those specified.
Failure mode
Failure mode describes a basic function of the equipment which the equipment is not
able to meet (at major failure mode) or is able to meet with certain restrictions (minor
failure mode).
Note 1: GIS technology components are characterized by SF6 or SF6 mixtures insulation, and by metal enclosure
effectively earthed.
Note 2: In hybrid switchgear (switchgear the bays of which are made from a mix of GIS and AIS technology
components), please refer to AIS or GIS in dependence of specific design of the referred component.
Hybrid GIS installation - substation the bays of which are made from a mix of
GIS and AIS technology components, i.e. in which the CB-bays contains
combination of enclosed gas insulated and air insulated parts.
Note: In a substation, which consists of two separated but interconnected parts at the same voltage level where one
part is full GIS installation and the other part is full air insulated installation, please, refer only about the full GIS
part and identify this part as 1 (fully GIS installation).
Appendix 2-165
GIS Service conditions / Location
Identification of the service conditions according to IEC 60517 (IEC 62271-203)and
furthermore:
(valid for 'fully GIS' and 'hybrid GIS' installation)
GIS Indoor Normal - for normal indoor conditions
GIS Indoor Special - for special indoor conditions (e.g. for containerized
installations, installations under simple buildings-shelters without heating,
altitudes >1000m, etc.)
GIS Outdoor Normal - for normal outdoor conditions
GIS Outdoor Special - for special outdoor conditions (e.g. for lower ambient
temperatures than -40C, altitudes >1000m, pollution areas III or IV, ice coating
>20 mm, direct coastal areas, etc.)
Note: GIS whose only outdoor parts are bushings (SF6/air, SF6/transformer) and/or necessary lengths of connecting
busducts are considered as indoor installations.
Inspection
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1)
Periodic visual investigation of the principal features of the switchgear and control gear
in service without dismantling.
Note: Observations resulting from inspection can lead to the decision to carry out other types of maintenance (up to
an overhaul).
Maintenance
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1) ; IEV 191-07-01
The combination of all technical and administrative actions, including supervision
actions, intended to retain an item in, or restore it to, a state in which it can perform a
required function.
Major failure
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1)
Failure of a switchgear and control gear which causes the cessation of one or more of
its fundamental functions.
A major failure will result in an immediate change in the system operating conditions,
e.g. the backup protective equipment will be required to remove the fault, or will result
in mandatory removal from service within 30 minutes for unscheduled maintenance.
Appendix 2-166
Minor failure
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1)
Failure of equipment other than a major failure or any failure, even complete, of a
constructional element or a sub-assembly which does not cause a major failure of the
equipment.
Monitoring
Continuous service procedure on HV equipment in service which uses a permanently
installed device intended to observe automatically the state of an item, i.e. intended to
measure and evaluate of one or more characteristic parameter of switchgear and
control gear to verify that it performs its functions.
Note : For the purpose of this questionnaire the major maintenance = Overhaul.
Scheduled maintenance
IEC 60694 (IEC 62271-1) ; IEV 191-07-10
The preventive maintenance carried out in accordance with an established time
schedule or with established condition based rules.
Time Based:
Scheduled maintenance including overhaul that is performed on defined
period of time or number of operations has elapsed.
Condition Based:
Maintenance that measures/assesses service conditions from monitoring or
diagnostic data. When the condition has changed or exceeded a limit, a
condition directed task is then implemented and the item is returned to an
acceptable operating condition.
Appendix 2-167
Run-to-Failure:
Item is allowed to fail and at the time of failure, appropriate corrective actions
are taken to return the item to an acceptable operating condition.
Combination (RCM):
A combination of the above tasks that take into to account the affects of failure
and the effectiveness of prevention.
Other:
Maintenance philosophy not described by any of the above.
Stage of installation
If the substation consists of two or more GIS or hybrid parts the bays of which were put
into service in different years (may be of the same design and manufactured by the
same supplier or not), please refer about these parts separately as 1st stage, 2nd
stage, etc.
Substation name
The name of the substation (switchgear and controlgear at one voltage level; usually a
name which is mentioned in the postal address) or any other artificial name the
respondent decided to use for that specific substation.
Note: Usually a name which is mentioned in the postal address (do not include manufacturer)
Type of enclosure
Identification of HV conductors number placed in one component enclosure. The
components can be either single phase or three phased enclosed
Appendix 2-168