Power Quality Predictive Maintenance (PQPM)

Systems Application for Circuit Breakers and

Reclosers
Predictive Maintenance through Monitoring
1000561







Power Quality Predictive Maintenance (PQPM) System
Application for Circuit Breakers and Reclosers
Predictive Maintenance through Monitoring
1000561
Technical Progress Report, November 2000



EPRI Project Manager
S. Bhatt















EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com


DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
EPRI PEAC CORPORATION










This is an EPRI Level 2 report. A Level 2 report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a
meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2000 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
EPRI PEAC Corporation
942 Corridor Park Boulevard
Knoxville, TN 37932
Principal Investigators
A. Mansoor
S. Floyd


This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Power Quality Predictive Maintenance (PQPM) System Application for Circuit Breakers and
Reclosers: Predictive Maintenance through Monitoring, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2000, 1000561.




vii
ABSTRACT
With the advent of deregulation, minimizing maintenance costs while maintaining high
availability is more important than ever. The proper maintenance of circuit breakers and
reclosers is vital to power delivery and requires a significant portion of existing maintenance
budgets. Utilizing existing power quality monitoring systems to gather data that can be used to in
the maintenance of circuit breakers and reclosers is an approach that can be used to improve
maintenance costs and reliability. This technical progress report describes the feasibility of
mining the data that is being collected from existing power quality monitoring systems in a
PQPM platform for predictive maintenance of circuit breakers and reclosers. This report is
intended to be a progress report of ongoing research for the Power Quality Software Project
conducted in year 2000 under Target 9, Power Quality Software; Product 2, Power Quality
Based Predictive Maintenance Technology. The complete results of this project are documented
in detail in the final report, The Application of Power Quality Monitoring Data for Reliability
Centered Maintenance (RCM), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2000, 1000405.



ix
CONTENTS
1 POWER QUALITY PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE (PQPM) SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR
CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND RECLOSERS............................................................................. 1-1
Circuit Breaker Introduction............................................................................................... 1-1
Application of Power Quality Monitors for On-Line Monitoring of Breaker Condition.......... 1-3
Maintaining and Testing Circuit Breakers .......................................................................... 1-5
Different Maintenance Strategies................................................................................. 1-6
Testing Circuit Breakers .............................................................................................. 1-6
Application of Power Quality Monitoring System for Breaker Maintenance........................ 1-8
Limitation of Power Quality Monitoring System for Breaker Maintenance .................... 1-8
Circuit Breaker Main Contact Time Variation............................................................... 1-9
Circuit Breaker Protection for Failure to Close............................................................1-10
Protection for Current Through an Open Breaker .......................................................1-10
Maintenance Scheduling Based on Breaker Operation...............................................1-10
Circuit Breaker Emergency Load-Current-Carrying Capability ....................................1-11
Reclosers.........................................................................................................................1-13
Existing Maintenance Practices for Reclosers ............................................................1-14
Application of Duty Factor for Determining Maintenance Basis...................................1-15
Application of a PQPM System for Reclosers.............................................................1-15
References.......................................................................................................................1-17



1-1
1
POWER QUALITY PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE
(PQPM) SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR CIRCUIT
BREAKERS AND RECLOSERS
Circuit Breaker Introduction
The reliability of high-voltage circuit breakers is crucial for the electric power system.
Manufacturers of circuit breakers are continuously working on new developments and
improvements to extend the lifetime of their products. However, the importance of proper
maintenance is still one of the major issues when discussing breaker performance, life-cycle
costs, and reliability-centered maintenance.
Some estimates indicate that more than half of a substations maintenance costs are spent on
circuit breakers. Of that, 60% is spent on teardown and overhaul [1]. In todays competitive
market, utilities are constantly looking into different ways of reducing maintenance costs.
Different diagnostic methods have been used over the years. The most common measurements
for circuit breakers are off-line measurements of contact resistance, contact timing, travel
motion/velocity, and coil current. More sophisticated methods are acceleration, DRM (dynamic
resistance measurement), and vibration testing. The tests are well known and widely used for
periodic or preventive maintenance.
Another possibility is to introduce on-line condition monitoring of circuit breakers. An estimated
10% of breaker problems and failures are attributed to the improper maintenance and condition
monitoring that could possibly eliminate early or unnecessary off-line testing and overhauls and
make just-in-time maintenance possible. On-line condition monitoring shows the most promise
when used to assess the need to perform internal maintenance based on the breakers cumulative
current or I
2
t interruption history. The problem is that a complete monitoring system that covers
all breaker subsystems and failure modes can easily escalate in complexity until its cost becomes
as much as half of the breaker cost. The objective of this chapter is to assess the feasibility of
mining the data that is being collected from existing power quality monitoring systems in a
PQPM platform for predictive maintenance of circuit breakers.
The design of circuit breakers differs greatly based upon the voltage class and the state of the art
at the time of manufacture. The use of on-line monitoring to defer maintenance has not proven
advisable. The most effective use of on-line monitoring is to avoid breaker failures that occur
when a breakers interrupting ability has been compromised due to a failure of components prior
to its normal life. This position of not deviating from scheduled maintenance (whether based on
manufacturers recommendation or past experience) is based on the following realities.
Much of the maintenance for high-voltage circuit breakers concerns auxiliary systems that are
not necessarily involved with each breaker operation. High-pressure compressors, seals, air

1-2
dryers, tank heaters, low-pressure closing systems, oil and gas condition, and the condition of
bushing insulation all require extensive maintenance efforts. These systems may be subject to
immediate failure without predecessor events.
During the interval generally recommended for major overhauls, many breakers are not
subjected to faults that approach the interrupting rating for the system location. A failure to
properly interrupt any fault in a normal manner certainly is an indication that the breaker is
unable to function at its maximum fault duty. The fact that no abnormalities are seen at lesser
faults is not an assurance that proper operation at rated duty will be successful.
The design of higher-voltage breakers involves multiple series (and often parallel) contacts.
Operation at nameplate ratings will necessitate that all current paths be functional. Many circuit
breakers are operated at far less than their continuous current rating. For example, a high
interrupting current rating may be needed but only may be available with a device having a
higher than required continuous current rating. These multiple series/parallel elements are
individually tested, even if misoperation is observable only during a visual or timing inspection
where the operation of all components is observed.
These limitations in no way invalidate the anomalies that are obtained from on-line monitoring.
It must be recognized that on-line monitoring is not a replacement or alternative to a physical
inspection, but may be a valuable adjunct. It must be further understood that the design of
breakers varies greatly. Interruption mechanisms, bulk insulation systems, operating principles,
and trip-close energy storage are all variables in the design of a circuit breaker. Moreover,
designs as well as materials have evolved over the years. It is very likely that breakers that have
been installed over the past 20 years at the same substation have different designs as well as
different manufacturers.
Switchgear lineups may contain interchangeable breakers, which use different operating
principles such as air-magnetic, vacuum, or SF6. Therefore, on-line monitoring should be based
on the specific equipment, and equipment condition is most accurately gauged by comparison
with the previous performance of the same specific unit. On-line monitoring becomes somewhat
less valuable when performance is compared between less similar units. Except for gross
misoperations, comparisons over the gamut of breaker designs yield little meaningful
information.
Nonetheless, the benefits of detecting breaker misoperation or compromised capability cannot be
challenged. Recognizing these benefits, relay manufacturers have incorporated cumulative fault-
duty recording to indicate that an inspection based on this criterion is warranted. This feature was
not practical with electromechanical relays, but is easily implemented with static relays.
At least one manufacturer has developed a monitor that is placed within the breaker control
cabinet. This device evaluates the currents during interruption and may also be used to monitor
parameters that are specifically related to designs such as SF6 gas-density and air-moisture
content.
One joint utility effort has resulted in a specifically designed on-line condition monitor that is
sufficiently sophisticated to measure and evaluate individual pole pressures during operation.
These condition monitors have been installed on a number of EHV breakers and have

1-3
successfully detected abnormal conditions that would have resulted in breaker failure had a
significant fault occurred.
Application of Power Quality Monitors for On-Line Monitoring of Breaker
Condition
On-line capability to record interruption performance is commercially available with static
protective relays and high-speed oscillographic recorders, which are generally limited to
transmission-level systems. The use of power quality monitoring to provide condition monitoring
warrants examination. The term condition monitoring as used here simply means the detection
of abnormal conditions.
The placement of power quality monitoring on a substation bus generally results in a recording
of bus voltage and transformer-secondary current. These parameters can be used to deduce fault
currents based on the change in magnitude of transformer current during the fault, although this
deductive method is not as accurate for low-level faults. As the fault current increases, the
relative error will decrease. High-level faults correspond to the most challenging event for the
breaker (that is, interrupting the fault). Therefore, a misoperation signature should be observable.
The dielectric performance during the interruption of low-level faults or line-charging operations
may be a criterion of equal importance. It is based on conditions such as current chopping and
the interruption capability being increased by utilizing the energy of an arc.
During conditions such as these, a power quality monitor offers the advantage of including bus
voltage as a parameter. Although relays with potential coil equivalent elements may record
voltages during faults, these relays are rarely used on simple distribution circuits, and the events
records will not be recorded unless a fault is detected. Contrary to this mode, power quality
monitors trigger on voltage deviations (as well as current in many devices.)
The power quality monitor has the additional advantage of a much higher sampling rate.
Distribution-class static relays are generally limited to no more than 16 samples per cycle. Power
quality monitors often sample at rates of 128 samples per cycle and, if equipped with transient
capture, can record events in the megahertz realm. Theoretically, the higher sampling rate should
enable the detection of a number of phenomena that are undetectable at the slower sampling rate.
The most significant element lacking with a power quality monitor that is inherent with
protective relays is information about the point at which a trip signal was sent to the breaker. The
opening of a breaker during a fault involves three distinct stages:
1. The relay determines that a fault exists.
2. The electromechanical latch of the breaker unlatches, permitting the stored energy to begin
contact motion.
3. The opening contacts interrupt the current.
The power quality monitor is capable of detecting the instant that a fault current begins and the
point at which it was interrupted. The specific current (and bus voltage) waveforms readily
permit differences between points to be observed. Phenomena such as re-strike and re-ignition
are also observable. The rather common problem of mechanism binding or interference will only

1-4
be observable for the most severe events, where it may be assumed than an instantaneous relay
operation had occurred.
The present generation of static relays is capable of identifying the exact point in time when the
breaker trip coil, which passes through the relay, was energized. In addition, the actual signature
of the coil current may be recorded. Changes in the signature of the trip-coil current will often
indicate a binding within the operating mechanism.
Certain models of power quality monitors are capable of recording one channel of DC voltage.
This channel is frequently used when investigating the misoperation of computer equipment.
Variations in the DC supply are recorded in conjunction with variations in the AC input voltage.
When power quality monitors are used for substation monitoring, this channel is seldom utilized.
Investigators working for an EPRI project named NIAMS (Non-Intrusive Appliance Monitoring
System) found that with an adequate knowledge of the system characteristics, minute changes in
the overall gross current may be assigned to very specific events. The value of a power quality
monitor for monitoring the on-line breaker condition would be greatly increased if the DC
channel of the monitors were used to monitor the overall battery current via a shunt. The range of
the channel would need rescaling to match the typical shunt voltage of 100mv, and the channel
would need adequate voltage withstand between channels and ground to accommodate the
nominal DC battery voltage plus frequently occurring transients that are associated with de-
energizing trip and close coils. The power quality monitor when used to monitor the transformer
secondary current is unable to determine which breaker has operated when a trigger is crossed.
This data can be determined by supervisory equipment. This association can also be assigned to
changes that are recorded for the battery current and, thus, indirectly derive the current signature
for the specific breaker that interrupts the fault.
This parameter yields information that is of such value that the use of power quality monitor
channels designed for AC-coupled, low-level signals (neutral-to-ground measurements on AC
systems) might be modified to function as a battery-current (including charger current) recorder.
This embodiment might involve scaling the voltage and providing a chopper circuit to permit the
use of an AC channel for recording DC.
Potentially, the most valuable use of the power quality monitor for breaker-condition monitoring
is the detection of problems with capacitor-bank breakers. There are many reasons for this
importance. For example, capacitor switching is a very severe duty for circuit breakers. It
represents a great challenge to the transient recovery voltage of the breaker. Capacitor switching
is usually a daily event, and only non-capacitor switching breakers would ever approach this
duty, including arc-furnace breakers. These are of very special design and often involve
inspection intervals of weeks rather than years.
Protective relays are not triggered for the normal switching of capacitor-bank breakers. If these
relays do operate, a very close-in fault has occurred and should almost certainly prompt an
inspection prior to restoration of service.
Capacitor-bank breakers have a much greater failure rate than line breakers. Breaker failure may
take two forms: The breaker may fail to interrupt a fault or it may fail internally. Of course, both
may occur simultaneously. Capacitor banks are located physically adjacent to the bus. Any fault

1-5
in the capacitor bank or bank breaker must impose, by definition, the most severe duty on the
entire bus. This is generally the least tolerable failure as well as the most likely to occur.
The switching duty imposed by capacitors can often lead to the failure of equipment that is
external of the bank itself. Restrikes severely challenge the insulation systems of all connected
equipment. This frequently manifests itself by the failure of lighting arrestors that may operate
with the occurrence of each restrike event, often on a daily basis.
The breakers that are used for capacitor-bank switching are frequently vacuum bottles.
Unfortunately, these interrupters cannot be examined for the occurrence of restriking. Even if the
breaker contacts are directly observable, the indication of restrike may go undetected. On-line
condition monitoring of capacitor-switching breakers by power quality monitors is actually the
only means of determining the occurrence of restrike. Out-of-service tests cannot determine the
operation during interruption (particularly vacuum operation). The traditional hi-pot test only
ensures that the full dielectric strength is present when the contacts are fully open. Also,
misoperation of the capacitor breaker frequently results in damage to customer equipment that
may see momentary transients at multiples of the nominal voltage.
Significantly more data could be captured if monitors were to be triggered simultaneously with
the open and close signals of a breaker. The restrike events are characterized by a high-frequency
ringing that is superimposed on the 60-Hz voltage waveform. If the power quality monitor
triggers on RMS change, then the event may not be captured. The triggering of the monitor on
transient levels may also not occur. The restrike probably is related to the point on the wave
where the contacts part. This means that the restrike may not initially occur during every
operation. This condition may worsen with each operation. Therefore, the earliest detection is
desired. This would best be achieved if a monitor were to record waveforms on every capacitor-
breaker operation.
It is assumed that the power quality monitor that will be used for this purpose is located
electrically close to the breaker on the load side of the breaker.
An overview of existing breaker testing and on-line conditioning methodologies follows, and
guidelines for a PQPM system that can be implemented with existing power quality monitoring
systems are provided.
Maintaining and Testing Circuit Breakers
When a fault occurs, current must be interrupted quickly and reliably to avoid personal injuries
and minimize damage. If a breaker fails to break the circuit, the resulting damage can be very
serious indeed. Moreover, a needlessly large section of the power grid will have to be
disconnected in order to interrupt the fault current.
A circuit breaker is the active link in the fault-clearance chain. Even though circuit breakers are
comparatively reliable, they can fail. Circuit breakers must therefore be tested and maintained to
ensure their proper operation when a crucial need arises.
During its 20 to 40 years of service life, a circuit breaker must be constantly prepared to do its
duty. During long periods of idleness, the breakers mechanical parts never move. There are
many reasons to maintain and test a circuit breaker. Friction and wear can affect the performance

1-6
of movable parts. Leaks can occur in the valves and seals that are used in arc-extinguishing
chambers, damping devices, and pneumatic and hydraulic operating mechanisms. Faults can
occur in electrical control circuits, and the contact surfaces in current-carrying circuits can
deteriorate, thus increasing the risk of excessive heat generation.
Different Maintenance Strategies
If a maintenance strategy that is strictly corrective is adopted, no attempts are made to deal with
a developing circuit breaker problem before it fails. Moreover, this approach does not ensure the
reliable supply of electric power that consumers expect. Short-term savings in maintenance costs
will soon be eaten up by the cost of consequential damage and the cost of correcting a breaker
failure. Preventive maintenancewhich includes inspection, testing, overhauls, and
modificationsis a strategy that is encountered more frequently.
In maintenance that is based on a time interval, a number of specific measures are taken at
predetermined times, regardless of the conditions under which a circuit breaker operates.
However, if this method is applied too strictly, it may lead to needless intervention.
Disassembling a circuit breaker that has no problems entails needless expense, and it does not
improve reliability.
Condition-based maintenance is being used more and more. Here, the condition of a circuit
breaker is ascertained through testing and inspection. The results, supplemented with statistical
data and cumulative experience, are then used to plan maintenance for the circuit breaker in
question. The breakers need for maintenance is based less on time than on the conditions to
which it is exposed (for example, how frequently it operates and its environment). Condition-
based maintenance provides excellent opportunities to improve reliability and cut costs, but it
requires effective diagnostic methods. Many circuit breakers last longer than expected. If it can
be ascertained that a breaker is in good condition, it can continue to be used rather than replacing
it. However, effective diagnostic methods are of prime importance.
Testing Circuit Breakers
Before a new circuit breaker is delivered, it is tested at the factory. When it is installed, it
undergoes a commissioning test. Thereafter, it is inspected and tested on different occasions.
Usually, a circuit breaker has to be taken out of service before it can be tested.
The following parameters are often tested on a circuit breaker: closing time, opening time,
resistance of the main contacts, and synchronization of contact operation. Contact travel and
speed are also tested (as recommended in the IEC 1208 standard and other literature). Some new
methods for diagnosing circuit breakers are dynamic resistance and vibration testing. Moreover,
checks are made to see that the solenoids and latches operate properly. This is done by
measuring the lowest breaker operating voltage and checking the shape of the coil-current curve.
Measured values are compared with limit values specified by the manufacturer or values that
have been determined through experience of a maintenance organization. In many cases, a
fingerprint is compiled that consists of different measurements that are taken when a breaker is
newly installed. This fingerprint can be used as a reference for subsequent measurements. Any
deviation from the fingerprint indicates a change in the breakers condition. When using more
advanced circuit-breaker analyzers and/or test methods such as dynamic resistance and vibration

1-7
testing, it is also possible or even necessary to look at the different waveforms as unique
signatures for an individual breaker [2, 3]. This may also be utilized when measuring a circuit
breaker in-service, online, and under load.
It is important to understand that the signature data are not precise single-numbered values for a
pass-fail decision. Instead, the signature should be used for comparisons with benchmarks,
ideally taken from the same breaker or at least from the same circuit breaker type. Comparing
signatures by using overlays has proven to be a reliable method of detecting important changes
in breaker performance.
The following parameters can be measured and evaluated during in-service testing:
Trip and Close-Coil Currents
Measuring the trip and close-coil current reveals interesting data, such as maximum current,
latch release time, and current interruption time. The current waveform for the individual breaker
is unique and is a good indicator of circuit breaker performance [4].
Auxiliary (A/B) Contact Timing
As in many condition-monitoring systems, the auxiliary contacts can be used as an indirect
measurement of the main contact. The switching times of the A/B contacts are correlated to the
main contact timing, and, depending on the actual design of the breaker, the statistical deviation
between the two may be very small. Within the limitations of the breaker design, the A/B contact
time provides an accurate and repeatable reference for the main contact timing [5]. Auxiliary
contacts are used for this, but where breakers are in critical locations, the use of these contacts
has not proven reliable. Current is monitored as an indication of operation rather than
determining if a breaker has operated properly by noting whether the A switch has opened.
This is a positive point for in-service monitoring.
Travel Motion
If the design of a circuit breaker allows a linear or rotary transducer to be mounted at a safe
distance inside the mechanism, a travel-motion measurement is no different than an off-line test.
From the travel-motion trace, numerous parameters such as average and instantaneous velocity,
stroke, wipe, and damping can be calculated automatically. When using rotary transducers, the
recorded travel-motion trace is often different from the manufacturers specification. Use of
conversion tables [6] is a way to overcome this problem and make it possible to do direct
comparisons with the manufacturers data.
Load Current/Main Contact Timing
Using the secondary current from the measurement transformer for the circuit-breaker current, it
is possible to measure the load current by using a Hall-effect clamp-on current sensor. From the
waveform and depending on the actual test setup, contact closing, contact opening, and the
moment when arcing is extinguished may be detected.

1-8
DC-Voltage Supply
Proper breaker operation is achieved only if the supply voltage to the operating coils is stabilized
at the correct value. Monitoring the DC voltage when operating the breaker gives a quick test of
the battery system, including wiring and junctions from the batteries to the circuit breaker.
Vibration
Vibration testing of circuit breakers is an interesting approach for circuit breaker diagnostics [3].
In particular, measurements inside the operating mechanism can provide the best data for
analysis. This means that in-service testing using vibration data for diagnostic comparisons may
be a very useful tool in the future.
Application of Power Quality Monitoring System for Breaker Maintenance
Existing breaker-failure relay and monitoring systems such as the SEL-BFR" are specifically
designed for the application of on-line condition monitoring for breakers. These systems are
installed for the specific purpose of breaker monitoring. In addition to monitoring the voltage
and current of the system, there are additional analog and digital channels that can be used to
measure other breaker components such as the A/B contact or the trip-coil voltage and current.
These on-line breaker monitoring systems usually have a very low sampling rate for their analog-
to-digital converter. For example, the SEL-BFR" has a sampling rate of 4 samples per electrical
cycle. With such a low sampling rate, it is not feasible to use these monitors for power quality
purposes. Also, the post processing that is inherent to power quality monitoring systems that
quantify power quality parameters such as harmonics and voltage sags from raw data has not
been incorporated into existing breaker monitoring systems. It is feasible to enhance the
sampling rate for analog-to-digital converters and implement power quality algorithms within a
breaker monitoring system so that such a system can also be used as a power quality monitor.
However, assessing the feasibility of such an approach is beyond the scope of this report, the
main focus of which is to determine how to use a power quality monitoring system for some of
the functions that are incorporated into a breaker monitoring system.
Limitation of Power Quality Monitoring System for Breaker Maintenance
The main limitation of using a power quality monitor for breaker predictive maintenance is
inherent in the location of the monitor itself. In a traditional utility power quality monitoring
system, monitors are often deployed to measure the substation bus voltage on the line side of the
feeder breakers. In order to use power quality monitors for breaker maintenance, the monitor
must be located on the load side of the feeder breakers, ideally, one for each feeder from a
substation transformer. In addition, the number of measurement channels that are available in
power quality monitors is limited. Therefore, a power quality monitoring system cannot monitor
the voltage on both sides of the breaker. Nor do they accept additional system analog or digital
inputs. In addition, existing software and databases that are used to analyze power quality
monitoring data have no algorithm to generate flags or alarms based on monitoring of breaker
condition. However, even considering these limitations, existing power quality monitors that are
installed on the load side of the feeder breakers can provide useful information if the monitoring
system software has the required algorithms to process the data gathered from the monitor. The

1-9
next few sections review some algorithms that can be implemented in a PQPM system, given the
channel limitation that exists for available power quality monitors. For each PQPM system
implementation, guidelines are provided for the algorithms and flag-generation criteria.
Circuit Breaker Main Contact Time Variation
In order to use a power quality monitor for measuring the variation of switching times for circuit
breakers, a monitor must have the capability of taking data from auxiliary contacts of the circuit
breaker. The auxiliary contacts can be used as an indirect measurement of the main contact. The
switching times of the A/B contacts are correlated to the main contact timing. Depending on the
actual design of the breaker, the statistical deviation between the two may be very small. Within
the limitations of the breaker design, the A/B contact time provides an accurate and repeatable
reference for the main contact timing.
Statistical process control (SPC) techniques, which have been used by the manufacturing
industry for years, can be applied to the data collected by a power quality monitor to determine
whether the equipment is operating within acceptable limits. Problems either develop over a very
short period of time, which may not be readily detectable, or problems result from gradual
deterioration of the average number of operations per circuit. For example, the average number
of operations per breaker is roughly 25 per year for all voltages between 63 kV and 500 kV, with
a maximum level of approximately 500 operations per year. These rates of usage are considered
sufficient to permit the application of statistical analysis to facilitate the detection of incipient
problems that result in serious circuit-breaker failures.
For example, the power quality monitor could monitor the transition time of a breakers A/B
contact as an indication of the mechanical health of the breaker. A key concept underlying SPC
is that variations inevitably occur from operation to operation in the performance of any complex
device such as a circuit breaker. A careful study of these variations can provide important
information on the condition of the circuit breaker. If the circuit breaker is performing normally,
the variations should be of limited magnitude or range, and should fluctuate randomly above and
below the average value. The onset of a problem may be detected if, at some point, the variations
from the average value becomes excessively large or begins to drift systematically in one
direction.
The SPC technique, which can be used to analyze the data collected from the power quality
monitor regarding the breaker operation time, involves the use of control charts that are based on
either individual measurement (IM) charts that display individual measurements or moving range
(MR) charts that display the moving range of two or more consecutive measurements. Key
attributes of these control-chart variables are:
They are useful for low-volume, intermittent processes.
Range values are artificially constructed from successive readings.
The subgroup size (n) is always 2.
Control limits can be established that are based on the measured data. If any of the control limits
are exceeded, appropriate alarms or flags can be sent to substation operators or maintenance
personnel for appropriate action.

1-10
A number of rules can be applied to the information from the control charts to help improve the
probability of detecting the breaker condition. For example, one rule for defining the breaker
condition could be based on the following algorithm:

2 out of 3 consecutive points > 2 away from the mean on the same side.
4 out of 5 consecutive points > 1 away from the mean on the same side.
9 consecutive points on one side of the mean.
Circuit Breaker Protection for Failure to Close
A power quality monitor can detect a failure to close of one or two breaker poles by measuring
the resulting current unbalance. The algorithm in a PQPM system will measure the current
unbalance when the breaker closes. If the unbalance exceeds a preset limit, then an alarm or flag
could be generated. A stabilization time of 1 to 1.5 cycles should be incorporated into such an
algorithm to minimize nuisance flag generation.
Protection for Current Through an Open Breaker
Breaker-pole flashover can cause current to flow through an open breaker. This could be an
intermittent event that leads to a permanent breaker failure, which results in a circuit outage. A
power quality monitor can detect current through an open breaker caused by flashover and
generate flags if such conditions are sensed during breaker operations. A flashover most likely
will result in intermittent transient current that can be detected with a power quality monitor.
Maintenance Scheduling Based on Breaker Operation
Breaker maintenance can be scheduled based on not only the number of operations but also the
fault current that occurs during breaker operations. The number of breaker operations that must
occur at a certain fault level before maintenance is deemed to be required depends on the
interrupting mean and type of breaker. Most of the time, this information is available from
breaker manufacturers. By measuring the number of operations at each level of fault current, a
power quality monitor can generate a flag to alert maintenance personal for possible breaker
maintenance. The algorithm that needs to be implemented in a PQPM system should track the
cumulative breaker operation at the fault-current level and, based on recommendations of the
manufacturers, generate flags for maintenance.
One of the limitations of using a power quality monitor is the saturation susceptibility of the
typical clamp-on current transformers (CTs) that are used with these monitors. Typical 5A CTs
will saturate for 150% overcurrent. Therefore, the monitor will not be able to accurately calculate
the fault current. In some cases, the software that processes the raw data is programmed to clip
the current if it exceeds 150% to 200% of the full-scale setting of the CT, even if the CT does not
saturate. In order for a power quality monitor to be used as a tool for maintenance scheduling of
circuit breakers, the clamp-on CTs should have a wider range before they saturate, and the
software should not clip the data based on just the full-scale setting of the CTs.
However, some manufacturers are developing clamp-on CTs for power quality monitors that
have a much wider saturation range that will be able to capture the full fault current without

1-11
sacrificing low-end accuracy. Figure 1-1 shows the test results for a standard 5A clamp-on CT
and a 45A clamp-on CT for a fault current of 46.2A (secondary).
46.2KA
0.0A
-46.2KA
200.0V
0.0V
-200.0V
7.50 ms/div 0.00ns 150.00ms
Waveshape Disturbance Model 7100
memory test 10/05/1999 09:17:20.08 AM
Three Phase Wye
Ia
Ib
Ic
In

Figure 1-1
Performance of a 5A and a 45A Power Quality Monitor Clamp-On CT
Circuit Breaker Emergency Load-Current-Carrying Capability
If a power quality monitor is installed downstream of a feeder breaker, it is possible to use the
monitoring system for the generation of flags that signal the emergency load-current-carrying
capability of the circuit breaker. Supplement to ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1979, IEEE Application
Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Basis, provides
the required algorithm that needs to be implemented in a PQPM system.
Conditions for Emergency Load-Current-Carrying Capability
Factors of the emergency load-current-carrying capability can be applied to outdoor circuit
breakers only, as listed in ANSI C37.06-1979, Tables 3, 4, and 4A. These factors can be applied
to circuit breakers that are used in gas-insulated substations until specific standards for that
equipment are issued. Circuit breakers used in metal-clad switchgear should be coordinated with
the overall application limitations of the total switchgear.
Four-Hour and Eight-Hour Emergency Load-Current-Carrying Capability Factors
Factors of the emergency load-current-carrying capability for an ambient temperature at 40C are
listed in Table 1-1. Limiting temperatures of the various circuit breaker components are provided
for each. The factors have been selected to allow operation at 15C above the limits of total

1-12
temperature for an emergency period of 4 hours, or 10C above for an emergency period of 8
hours. The factors are expressed as the ratio of emergency load current allowed at an ambient
temperature of 40C I
e
to the rated continuous current I
r
and can be applied with the following
restrictions:
The circuit-breaker component with the highest values of limiting temperatures,
max
and

r
, shall be used to select the proper emergency load-current-carrying capability factor
from Table 1-1. Unless rated otherwise by the manufacturer, contacts and conducting
joints in other than oil or air are assumed to have the temperature limitations of silver,
silver alloy, or equivalent materials in air (65C hottest-spot temperature rise, 105C
hottest-spot total temperature).
The four-hour factor shall be used for a cycle of operation consisting of separate periods
of no longer than 4 hours each, with no more than four such occurrences before
maintenance.
The eight-hour factor shall be used for a cycle of operation consisting of separate periods
of no longer than 8 hours each, with no more than two such occurrences before
maintenance.
Each cycle of operation is separate, and no time-current integration is permissible to
increase the number of periods within a given cycle. However, any combination of
separate four-hour and eight-hour emergency periods may be used, but when they total 16
hours, the circuit breaker shall be inspected and maintained before being subjected to
additional emergency cycles.
Emergency Operation at an Ambient Temperature Other Than 40C
When a circuit breaker is operating at an ambient temperature other than 40C, the emergency
load-current-carrying capability I
ea
can be calculated by the equation:

8 . 1
1
8 . 1
r
e
8 . 1
r
a
r ea
1
I
I
I
I
I I
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

(1-1)
where,
I
ea
= emergency load current in amperes at actual at actual ambient temperature.
I
r
= rated continuous current amperes.
I
e
= emergency load current in amperes at 40C ambient temperature.

,
_

r
a
I
I
=
8 . 1
1
max

,
_

r
a

(1-2)
where,

max
= allowable hottest spot total temperature.

a
= actual ambient temperature.

1-13

r
= allowable hottest spot temperature rise at rated current .
The ratio of (Iea/Ia) shall not exceed the value of 2.0.
Table 1-1
Emergency Load Current-Carrying Capability Factors (Ie/Ir) (Based on an Ambient Temperature of
40 C)
Emergency
Period
Limiting Temperatures (C) of Different Breaker Components
max
70 80 85 90 105 110 150
r
30 40 45 50 65 70 110
Four- Hour
1.25 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.12 1.11 1.08
Eight Hour
1.17 1.13 1.11 1.10 1.08 1.07 1.05

The guidance provided in ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1979 should be programmed within the PQPM
system if no specific data regarding the emergency load-current-carrying capability of the circuit
breaker is available. In order to verify that the circuit breakers ability to handle emergency load
currents at ambient temperature other than 40
o
C, the power quality monitor should also be able
to log the ambient temperature and send that data to the PQPM system. In addition to the
algorithms for generating flag conditions, the PQPM system should also have the following
information:
Rated continuous current of the circuit breaker I
r.

Limiting hottest-spot temperature rise (
r
) and hottest-spot total temperature (
max
) of
different breaker components.
Algorithms for PQPM Flag Generation
Flag when the emergency load-current magnitude exceeds the recommended capability
based on ANSI/IEEE C37.010b-1985 as outlined in the previous section.
Flag when the duration of the emergency load current exceeds the four-hour or eight-hour
factors as described in the previous section.
Generate maintenance alarms after four occurrences of four-hour operations under
emergency loading or two occurrences of eight-hour operations.
Generate maintenance flags for any combination of four-hour and eight-hour emergency
periods when their total reaches 16 hours.
Reclosers
Functionally, a recloser is similar to a circuit breaker. Some of the maintenance issues addressed
for circuit breakers also apply to reclosers. The objective of this section is to assess the potential
for using power quality monitoring data for predictive maintenance for reclosers. The basic
functionality of reclosers will be reviewed, existing maintenance practices will be assessed, and
the feasibility of a PQPM system for reclosers will be evaluated.

1-14
Most of the faults on overhead distribution lines are temporary in nature. These include
lightning, conductor slap, animal contact, and tree contact. The repeater fuse, a concept that has
been used in the past, is based on a premise of temporary faults. Under such an arrangement, if a
fuse is blown, then a second and, if necessary, third fuse are automatically inserted into the
circuit. The success of this scheme led to the development of automatic circuit reclosers. These
are self-controlled interrupting devices that sense fault currents and step through a predetermined
sequence of opening and reclosing operations, followed by resetting, hold-closed, or lockout.
Typical recloser specifications include:
Voltage rating.
Continuous current rating.
Interrupting current rating.
Minimum tripping current.
Operating or time-current characteristics.
Operating sequence.
Reclosing interval.
Reset time.
Reclosers are manufactured in single-phase and in three-phase units with mechanical or
electronic control with an interrupting medium of vacuum or oil.
Existing Maintenance Practices for Reclosers
ANSI C37.61-1973, IEEE Standard Guide for the Application, Operation, and Maintenance of
Automatic Circuit Reclosers, outlines the maintenance issues that are related to reclosers. In the
absence of manufacturer-specific instructions, a suggested method is to conduct maintenance and
internal inspection at every 100 operations or every three years, whichever occurs first. However,
operating experience with particular designs is the best basis for the establishment of
maintenance schedules. Typical inspection procedures include:
Reviewing the overall condition of reclosers by examining insulators, surge arrestors,
mounting hardware, brackets, clamps, and ground connection.
Recording the number of operations.
Checking connections for signs or corrosion or overheating.
Manually opening and closing the recloser to check operation if equipped with by-passes.
Maintenance of lower-voltage reclosers can involve the removal of existing units and replacing
them with overhauled units. Maintenance of regulators involves:
Replacing oil (for oil reclosers).
Cleaning or replacing bushings and gaskets.
Checking the timing sequence of curves and the number of lockouts.
Inspecting internal components, arc interrupters, and contacts.
If the reclosers are electronically operated, the power supply and battery are tested too.

1-15
Application of Duty Factor for Determining Maintenance Basis
The standard operating duty of an oil-filled recloser is based on the empirical formula: Operating
duty = (Interrupted current)
1.5
x (Number of operations). The duty factor for each of the recloser
ratings is shown in Table 2 of ANSI C37.60a-1971 and can be calculated by using the above
formula. The duty factor can be used to determine the maintenance schedule based on the
number of operations and the interrupting current. For example, let us consider a 4000-A
interrupting rating recloser with a duty factor 555.6 x 10
4
. If all the faults are at 75 percent of the
maximum interrupting rate, then the duty cycle per operation is (0.75 x 4000)
1.5
= 16.4 x 10
4
.
The permissible number of operations = 34
10 4 . 16
10 6 . 555 Re
4
4

n erOperatio DutyCycleP
Factor closerDuty

If other fault currents have occurred, the accumulated effect, or the sum of all operations, can be
compared with the duty cycle of the recloser to determine the maintenance schedule.
Application of a PQPM System for Reclosers
In order for data from a power quality monitoring system to be applied for predictive
maintenance for reclosers, the placement of the power quality monitors is of critical importance.
Figure 1-2 shows a one-line diagram of two feeders from substations with possible recloser
locations. If a power quality monitor is installed downstream of the recloser and the monitor can
capture the full fault current, then the duty factor approach that is described in the previous
section can be used to determine the maintenance basis. However, cost for installing power
quality monitors for each recloser may be more than the cost of the recloser itself and will not be
an effective strategy for applying power quality monitoring for the sole purpose of predictive
maintenance. If a power quality monitor is installed downstream of a recloser for other reasons,
then incorporating the algorithms that are described in the previous circuit-breaker section along
with the duty-cycle calculation procedure will allow the monitor data to be used for PQPM
application.
If the power quality monitor is installed at the feeder as shown in Figure 1-2, then a simple
algorithm is to count the number of faults originating downstream of the monitor and assume
that each fault resulted in a recloser operation and that the operations are equally divided among
the number of downstream regulators. This algorithm can provide an approximate count of
regulator operations, which can be used for the scheduling of maintenance.

1-16
CB
PQ
MONITOR
100 kvar
Fixed
Substation Secondary Bus
R

R

R

CB
100 kvar
Fixed
R

100 kvar
Fixed

Figure 1-2
Recloser Location on Distribution Feeders
A number of recloser manufacturers provide optional control and communication packages that
have built-in data-acquisition capability that is similar to a power quality monitor. Data from
these controllers can be interfaced with a utilitys SCADA systems. Historical analysis of this
data can provide intelligent scheduling of recloser maintenance. One such system is the SEL-
351R recloser control that has built-in intelligent recloser maintenance scheduling.
The recloser wear-monitor algorithm of SEL 351R measures the line current at the time of the
trip and the number of close-to-open operations as a means of monitoring recloser wear. Every
time the recloser trips, the relay records the magnitude of the raw current in each phase. This
current information is integrated on a per-phase basis. When the result of the integration exceeds
a threshold, an alarm can be initiated. The set points for the threshold are based on the
recommendations for reclosers in ANSI C37.61-1973 or can be user-defined. Only the recloser
type (oil or vacuum) and the interrupt rating are required for the evaluation.

1-17
References
[1] J. Reason, Circuit Breakers with On-line Condition Monitoring, Electrical World,
February 1995.
[2] M. Ohlen, H. Wernli, and W. Dueck, Dynamic Resistance MeasurementsA Tool for
Circuit Breaker Diagnostics, in Proceedings of the IEEE/KTH Stockholm Power
Conference, Stockholm 1995.
[3] M. Runde et al, Vibration Analysis for Diagnostic Testing of Circuit Breakers, in
Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Winter Meeting, Baltimore, 1996.
[4] W. Dueck, Interpretation of Circuit Breaker Operating Coil Signatures, in Proceedings of
the 1997 Programma Circuit Breaker Test & Maintenance Conference, Pittsburgh, 1997.
[5] P. Hadorn et al, Reasons for Continuous Circuit Breaker Time Monitoring and Proposal for
a Simple Realization, in Proceedings of the IEEE/KTH Stockholm Power Conference,
Stockholm, 1995.
[6] R. Burnett, SFA Timing Test Results, in Proceedings of the Programma TM1600 User
Group Meeting, Chicago, 1994.
[7] G. Johansson, On-Line Measurements on Circuit Breakers, Private Correspondence, 1997.





About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology
solutions for the global energy and energy
services industry. U.S. electric utilities
established the Electric Power Research
Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members,
their customers, and society. Now known
simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide
range of innovative products and services to
more than 1000 energy-related organizations
in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary team
of scientists and engineers draws on a
worldwide network of technical and business
expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Powering Progress

2000 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All
rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc. EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service
mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
1000561
Printed on recycled paper in the United States
of America
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com