TB514 PDF

514
Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 International

Enquiry on Reliability of
High Voltage Equipment
Part 6 Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) Practices
Working Group
A3.06
October 2012
Working Group A3.06
Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 International Enquiry on

Reliability of High Voltage Equipment
Part 6 Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) Practices
Members
M. Runde (NO) Convener, C. E. Slver (SE) Past Convener, A. Carvalho (BR),

M. L. Cormenzana (ES), H. Furuta (JP), W. Grieshaber (FR), A. Hyrczak (PL), D. Kopejtkova (CZ),
J. G. Krone (NL), M. Kudoke (CH), D. Makareinis (DE), J. F. Martins (PT), K. Mestrovic (HR),
I. Ohno (JP), J. stlund (SE), K.-Y. Park (KR), J. Patel (IN), C. Protze (DE), J. Schmid (DE),
J. E. Skog (US), B. Sweeney (UK), F. Waite (UK).
Corresponding Members
B. Bergman (CA), S. Tsukao (JP)
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.
ISBN: 978-2-85873-207-4
Table of Contents
6.1 Common Matters of the 2004-2007 Reliability Survey ........................................... 1
6.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2
6.3 Description of the Survey and the Way of its Analysis.......................................... 2
6.4 Participation in the Survey ....................................................................................... 3
6.5 Commissioning (present practice) .......................................................................... 5
6.5.1 HV Testing Practices .................................................................................. 5
6.5.2 Practices After Flashover During HV Tests ................................................ 7
6.5.3 Changes in HV testing practices ................................................................ 9
6.6 In Service Experience Monitoring, Diagnostics and Their Accessories. 10
6.6.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................. 11
6.6.2 Monitoring Versus Diagnostic ................................................................... 12
6.6.3 Diagnostic ................................................................................................. 14
6.6.4 Accessories .............................................................................................. 20
6.7 Specific Service Problems of Indoor, Outdoor, Single-Phase and Three-Phase
GIS ................................................................................................................. 21
6.8 Major Maintenance (Overhaul) Experience (Already Performed Work).............. 22
6.9 Extension Experience (already performed work) ................................................. 27
6.10 New Technologies Application (Present and Future Practice) ........................... 31
6.10.1 Experience with GIS Service Transfer Into Present GIS Engineering ...... 31
6.10.2 Experience with New Technologies in Primary Systems ......................... 32
6.10.3 Experience with New technologies in Secondary Systems ...................... 33
6.10.4 Experience with Functional GIS Specifications and with Turnkey
Projects ................................................................................................................. 34
6.11 Recommendation for Future Surveys ................................................................... 36
6.12 Summary - Conclusions ......................................................................................... 36
6.13 References ............................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 1 - GIS Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 40
Appendix 2 - Definitions .................................................................................................. 52
ii
6.1 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 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

high voltage equipment, Part 1 - Summary and General Matters [1]

high voltage equipment, Part 2 - SF6 Circuit Breakers [2]

high voltage equipment, Part 3 - Disconnectors and Earthing Switches [3]

high voltage equipment, Part 4 - Instrument Transformers [4]

high voltage equipment, Part 5 - Gas Insulated Switchgear [5]

high voltage equipment, Part 6 - GIS practices
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.
TB 514 presents an overview of utility practices concerning commissioning (high voltage

testing) service (monitoring, diagnostics and service problems), major maintenance,
extension as well as experience with new technology for gas insulated switchgear (GIS). The
information was collected by means of a questionnaire that was circulated together with the
reliability enquiry questionnaire. Again, the relevant parts of the questionnaire and the
associated definitions are shown in its appendix.
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 6 the format
is 6.X.X.X.
1
6.2 Introduction
In spite of the fact that GIS (Gas Insulated Switchgear) is already mature in transmission and
distribution grids, there are special aspects that should be carefully addressed by the system
operators and asset managers when planning and servicing their GIS installations. There are
several specific GIS technology issues that differ from AIS (Air Insulated Switchgear) and
must be considered during the engineering, manufacturing, erection, commissioning and
operating life cycle (incl. maintenance, diagnostics, monitoring, etc.) processes. A detail
overview, analysis and comparison of GIS to AIS features are included in a CIGRE brochure
[6]. GIS in detail is described in CIGRE brochure [9].
Optimal GIS operation is now a widely discussed topic and the most effective practices have
been evaluated and implemented throughout the utility industry. Therefore WGA3-06 decided
to extend the HV equipment service experience survey by incorporating additional questions
focused on GIS maintenance and reliability, asking utilities for their experience and views in
this field. The aim was to share the already learned lessons with the engineering public and
to contribute to the utilities decision making processes.
In the previous 2nd GIS experience survey conducted prior to 1995 [8] some questions
regarding GIS life expectancy, routine and major maintenance and environmental issues
were also asked. The results from this 15 year old survey that focused on major maintenance
allow a certain comparison between utilities practices then and now. The comparison is
provided where possible.
The present, the 3rd , GIS international survey questionnaire was circulated in 2003 and
collected GIS service experience information in 2004 to 2007. The survey structure is
described in details in technical brochure [1]. The GIS practices questionnaire card and its
relevant definitions can be found in Appendix 1 of this brochure.
6.3 Description of the Survey and the Way of its Analysis
The questionnaire card (see Appendix 1) was titled GIS Service, Testing and Major
Maintenance Experience Report. It covered the following main activities dealing with GIS.
Commissioning (present practice - see chapter 6.5)
In service experience regarding conditions monitoring* (present practice and future
plans, incl. accessories - see chapters 6.6.1, 6.6.2 and 6.6.4)
In service experience regarding conditions diagnostics* (present practice and future
plans, incl. accessories - see chapters 6.6.3, 6.6.2 and 6.6.4)
Specific service problems of indoor, outdoor, single-phase and three-phase GIS (see
chapter 6.7)
Major maintenance (overhaul) experience (already performed work- see chapter 6.8)
Extension experience (already performed work- see chapter 6.9)
New technologies application (present and future practice - see chapter 6.10)
*For the difference between monitoring and diagnostics see definitions mentioned in
Appendix 1.
2
The cards allowed the reporting utility to include more than one GIS voltage class in one
card. To obtain an overview of practices within each individual GIS voltage class, it was
therefore necessary to copy the multi-classes responses as many times as the different
individual voltage classes were mentioned in one card. The analysis below is made mainly
for the responses within individual voltage classes. However in some cases an analysis
based on total number of received maintenance cards is also provided.
The cards allowed the utility to report its testing and major maintenance experience any time
during the 4 years of data collection. If identical cards (with absolutely same content) were
delivered multiple times (with different reference years) they were considered only once.
Cards received from one utility for the same voltage class with different reference years and
with different content were considered as separate cards. This situation happened only once
(at one utility). Cards received from the same company but with different approaches at
different voltage levels were also considered separately. This situation happened 3 times (3
different utilities).
The analysis below shows the absolute numbers of responses for individual characteristics
and their relative distributions. The base (100%) for relative distribution is either total number
of responses received within individual voltage classes (i.e. 80, see chapter 6.4) or total
number of received cards regardless the voltage class (i.e. 41, see chapter 6.4) or number of
responses received within specific voltage classes (i.e. 15, 20, 16, 17, 11 and 1, see chapter
6.4.). In some cases the base (100%) is total number of positive responses. That concerns
sub-questions describing in details practices or experience of those who replied positively on
the basic question. The selected base is always mentioned.
The GIS voltage ranges, i.e. voltage classes, were divided in the questionnaire and are
described here as follows:
Expression of a voltage Expression of a voltage class in chapter Expression of a voltage class
class in the questionnaire tables and graphs [kV] in a chapter text
60<= ... <100 kV 60 U<100 kV class 1
100<= ... <200 kV 100 U<200 kV class 2
200<= ... <300 kV 200 U<300 kV class 3
300<= ... <500 kV 300 U<500 kV class 4
500<= ... <700 kV 500 U<700 kV class 5
>=700 kV 700 kV class 6
6.4 Participation in the Survey
Having in mind the above mentioned need to copy multi-class responses, an overview of
participating utilities is shown in Table 6-1 and the number of responses within individual
voltage classes is shown in Table 6-2 (absolute numbers) and Table 6-3 (percentage
distribution where base is number of responses received within individual voltage classes).
Figure 6-1 shows the graphical distribution of data in Table 6-3. There were no cards
received from South American and African utilities.
Table 6-1: Number of received cards (with different content) country and utility division
Europe Asia Australia North America Total
Number of countries 12 2 1 1 16
Number of utilities 20 11 2 1 34
Number of cards 20 14 6 1 41
3
Table 6-2: Number of responses within individual voltage classes (absolute)
Voltage class Europe Asia Australia North America Total
60 U<100 kV 1 12 2 0 15
100 U<200 kV 12 7 0 1 20
200 U<300 kV 3 10 2 1 16
300 U<500 kV 7 9 0 1 17
500 U<700 kV 0 9 2 0 11
700 kV 0 1 0 0 1
Total 23 48 6 3 80
Table 6-3: Number of responses within individual voltage classes (in %)

Voltage class Europe Asia Australia North America
60 U<100 kV 6,7 80,0 13,3 0,0
100 U<200 kV 60,0 35,0 0,0 5,0
200 U<300 kV 18,8 62,5 12,5 6,3
300 U<500 kV 41,2 52,9 0,0 5,9
500 U<700 kV 0,0 81,8 18,2 0,0
700 kV 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0
Total 28,8 60,0 7,5 3,8
Figure 6-1: Region contribution to GIS practices evaluation
Findings and Commentary

16 countries and 34 utilities participated in the survey. The total number of received cards
was 41 cards (49% from Europe, 34% from Asia, 15% from Australia and 2% from North
America).
4
Analyzing the number of responses by individual voltage class provides the working group
and reader with a participation experience picture. All together 80 responses were received,
29% from Europe, 60% from Asia, 7% from Australia and 4% from North America. These 80
responses show the utilities experience within six voltage classes representing 20% (class
1), 25% (class 2), 20 % (class 3), 21% (class 4), 14% (class 5) and 1% (class 6) of
responses. The contribution of voltage classes is thus quite even (with exception of class 6).
As the distribution of responses is not distributed evenly by region, the analysis provided
below shows the regional influenced on maintenance strategies and practices. The results
for classes 1, 3, 5 and 6 are dominated by Asian utilities and for class 2 by European utilities.
In class 4 the contributions of Asia and the rest of the world (but predominantly Europe) are
almost equal. Class 2 analysis can thus provide a certain picture of differences between
Europe and Asia.
6.5 Commissioning (present practice)
High voltage (HV) testing and on-site commissioning of GIS is one of the special aspects in
which GIS differs from AIS. There is a discussion as to what HV test(s) should be applied to
minimize the risk of accepting a GIS that is not in perfect dielectric conditions (due to
improper transport or erection) and controlling the cost to perform these HV tests. Different
tests have different sensitivity to different defects that might occur inside the GIS.
International standards offer several options that can be chosen by the utility. The aim of this
part of the survey was thus to find out the present testing practices.
Questions were asked in the following areas of HV testing:

Questions about HV testing practices
Questions about practices after a flashover during on-site HV tests
Questions about changes in HV testing practices
6.5.1 HV Testing Practices
The following questions referencing HV test practices were asked:

a) Do you apply power frequency voltage test as a dielectric test at commissioning?
b) Do you apply any kind of impulse voltage test (Lightning Impulse-LI or Switching
Impulse-SI) in addition to power frequency voltage test at commissioning?
c) Do you specify PD measurements during commissioning tests? If yes which kind
(conventional method (IEC 270), UHF/VHF, acoustic)? Multiple answers allowed.
Questions a, b and c, i.e. questions about HV testing practices, were answered by all
respondents. Table 6-4 and Table 6-5 shows an overview of responses to questions a, b,
and c by individual voltage classes (Table 6-4 in absolute numbers, Table 6-5 in %
distribution). The base used for questions a, b and c relative distribution is number of
responses received within individual voltage classes. The base for sub-questions in question
c is number of positive responses in question c. In Figure 6-2 shows the normalized
percentage distribution of positive responses within individual voltage classes.
5
Table 6-4: HV testing practices - number of responses within individual voltage classes
(absolute)
Voltage class Do you apply Do you apply any Do you PD PD PD PD
power kind of impulse specify PD conven- UHF/ acous- other
frequency HV HV test in measure- tional VHF tic
test at com- addition to power ments during method
missioning? frequency commissio-
voltage test at ning tests?
commissioning?
No of Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
60 U<100 kV 14 1 1 14 11 4 10 1 0 0
100 U<200 kV 18 2 2 18 14 6 13 1 0 0
200 U<300 kV 16 0 1 15 14 2 14 2 1 0
300 U<500 kV 17 0 2 15 14 3 12 2 4 0
500 U<700 kV 11 0 2 9 10 1 8 2 0 0
700 kV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Total 77 3 9 71 64 16 57 9 5 0
Four users provided additional PD measurement comments: in class 2 one user accepts all
methods (does not specify it) and one user accepts conventional and UHF/VHF methods, in
class 3 one user accepts all methods (does not specify it), two users accept conventional
and acoustic methods.
Table 6-5: HV testing practices - number of responses within individual voltage classes (in %)
Voltage class Do you apply Do you apply any Do you specify PD PD PD
power kind of impulse HV PD measure- conven- UHF/ acoustic
frequency HV test in addition to ments during tional VHF
test at com- power frequency commissioning method
missioning? voltage test at tests?
commissioning?
% of Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
60 U<100 kV 93,3 6,7 6,7 93,3 73,3 26,7 90,9 9,1 0,0
100 U<200 kV 90,0 10,0 10,0 90,0 70,0 30,0 92,9 7,1 0,0
200 U<300 kV 100,0 0,0 6,3 93,8 87,5 12,5 100,0 14,3 7,1
300 U<500 kV 100,0 0,0 11,8 88,2 82,4 17,6 85,7 14,3 28,6
500 U<700 kV 100,0 0,0 18,2 81,8 90,9 9,1 80,0 20,0 0,0
700 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
Total 96,3 3,8 11,3 88,8 80,0 20,0 71,3 11,3 6,3
Figure 6-2: Application of test voltage at GIS commissioning
6
The most frequently used HV dielectric commissioning test was the power frequency voltage
test. Only 3 respondents (all 3 from Europe) specified that they do not perform this test (one
in class 1, two in class 2).
Impulse voltage tests, as a complimentary method to power frequency voltage test is not a
widely used method; however, its application appeared in classes 1 and 2. For classes 1, 2
and 3 impulse voltage tests were mentioned in less than 10% of cases, in class 4 in a bit
more than 10 % and in class 5 its portion raised to about 20% of applications. The only one
user who answered the questionnaire in class 6 applies the impulse test. The importance of
this method thus seems to rise with voltage class, i.e. with the importance of the substation in
the network.
On the other hand, the PD measurement, as an additional method used to power frequency
voltage test, is widely used. In voltage classes 1 and 2 it was mentioned in about 70% of
cases. In voltage classes 3, 4 and 5 the level reaches almost 90% of applications. The
conventional PD measurement method mentioned in IEC 60270 is still preferable (around
90% of applications). One user accepts all methods (does not specify it), one user at class 2
accepts conventional and UHF/VHF methods, two users at class 3 accept conventional and
acoustic methods. The high portion of PD measurements using conventional methods for on-
site testing is surprising, mainly at higher GIS voltage classes where this method is very
sensitive to any background noise. A proper method selection is very important. For example
IEC 62271-203 [8] provides a description of all possible available methods (characteristic
features and limitations) in its Appendix C, chapter C.7 Partial discharge detection methods.
In the WGs expert opinion, utilities should use at least one HV dielectric test during on-site
commissioning. Even if HV dielectric tests are performed on individual GIS transport units at
the factory, the on-site HV tests are very important to prove proper transport and erection of
the GIS. The power frequency test alone is not always able to discover all possible problems.
It is therefore recommended to apply at least one additional method, i.e. either PD
measurement or impulse voltage test or both. This consideration is more significant at higher
GIS voltage ratings and higher GISs network importance. For example IEC 62271- 203 [9]
requires a dielectric test on the main circuits as a mandatory test after installation on site
(Para 10.2.101). It recommends procedure A (1 minute power frequency voltage test) for GIS
of 170 kV and below, and procedures B (1 minute power frequency voltage test with PD
measurement) or C (1 minute power frequency voltage test and lightning impulse voltage
test) for GIS of 245 kV and above. A combination of B and C procedures is also possible.
6.5.2 Practices After Flashover During HV Tests
The following questions concerning actions taken after a HV test flashover test were asked:
d) If you have a flashover during on-site power frequency testing, do you always
internally inspect the failed component? If not what procedures do you apply following
breakdown (flashover) during power frequency on-site tests?
e) If you have a flashover during on-site LI voltage testing, do you always internally
inspect the failed component? If not, what procedures do you apply following
breakdown (flashover) during on-site lightning impulse tests?
Questions d and e have to be answered only by those who apply the respective testing
(reported YES in question a or b in chapter 6.4.1). An overview of their practices is shown in
Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 (Table 6-6 in absolute numbers, Table 6-7 in % distribution where
the base is the number of positive answers within individual voltage classes).
7
Table 6-6: Practices after flashover during HV tests - number of responses within individual
voltage classes (absolute)
Voltage class If you have a flashover during on- If you have a flashover during on-site
site power frequency test do you LI voltage test do you always
always internally inspect the failed internally inspect the failed
component? component?
No of Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 14 0 1 0
100 U<200 kV 14 4 1 1
200 U<300 kV 15 1 1 0
300 U<500 kV 14 3 2 0
500 U<700 kV 11 0 2 0
700 kV 1 0 1 0
Total 69 8 8 1
Table 6-7: Practices after flashover during HV tests - number of responses within individual
voltage classes (in %)
Voltage class If you have a flashover during on- If you have a flashover during on-site
site power frequency test do you LI voltage test do you always
always internally inspect the internally inspect the failed
failed component? component?
% of Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
100 U<200 kV 77,8 22,2 50,0 50,0
200 U<300 kV 93,8 6,3 100,0 0,0
300 U<500 kV 82,4 17,6 100,0 0,0
500 U<700 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
700 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
Total 89,6 10,4 88,9 11,1

The majority of respondents indicate that the utilities open gas compartments after a power
frequency or impulse voltage test flashover occurs. In about 10% of the cases it was
commented that in case of the first flashover the test has to be repeated and if flashover
occurs again the respective gas compartment is open. That is because the first flashover
may have cleaned the insulation system (so called insulation formation).
In the WGs expert opinion, the issue isnt as simple as the questions may make it look.
Before the decision of whether to open or not to open the GIS is made, it is important to
identify the disruptive discharge characteristics (breakdown in self-restoring or non-self-
restoring insulation), magnitude of the arc energy dissipated during the discharge, shape and
material of solid insulation and the strategic importance of the installation. The
manufacturers contribution is very important in this respect. Moreover, it is recommended to
follow the Repetition tests recommendations described in chapter C.6 in an informative
Appendix C of IEC 62271-203 [8] that provides the following two procedures (quotes):
C.6.2.1 Procedure a)
If the disruptive discharge occurs along the surface of a solid insulation it is recommended
that wherever practical, the compartment should be opened and the insulation carefully
inspected for impairments. After taking any necessary remedial action, the compartment
should then be subjected to the specified dielectric test once more.
8
C.6.2.2 Procedure b)
A disruptive discharge in the gas may be due to contamination or a surface imperfection
which may be burned away during the discharge. It may be acceptable, therefore, that the
test may be repeated at the specified test voltage. Another test voltage may be agreed
between manufacturer and user before the site tests have been started. If the repetition test
fails, Procedure a) should be followed.
NOTE 1: It is assumed that the manufacturer can satisfy the user that the gaseous insulation
may be regarded as self-restoring for the arc energy dissipated in the discharge.
NOTE 2: In the event of a disruptive discharge occurring during dielectric tests on site,
secondary discharges can occur in other parts of the test section.
6.5.3 Changes in HV testing practices
The following questions referencing changes to historical HV testing practices were asked:
Have you implemented any changes in your commissioning tests practice and quality
control procedures in comparison to the practices and procedures used in the past?
Do you apply the same commissioning tests after major failure repair?
Questions about changes of historical HV testing practices and about HV testing after major
failure repair were to be answered by all respondents. An overview of their practices is
shown in Table 6-8 and Table 6-9 (Table 6-8 in absolute numbers, Table 6-9 in % distribution
where base is number of responses received within individual voltage classes.). In Figure 6-3
the distribution of positive responses within individual voltage classes is presented.
Table 6-8: Changes in HV testing - number of responses within individual voltage classes
(absolute)
Voltage class Have you implemented any changes in Do you apply the same commissioning
your commissioning tests practice and tests after major failure repair ?
quality control procedures in
comparison to the practices and
procedures used in the past?
No of Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 14 1 14 1
100 U<200 kV 9 11 16 3
200 U<300 kV 14 2 15 1
300 U<500 kV 13 4 14 3
500 U<700 kV 11 0 11 0
700 kV 1 0 1 0
Total 62 18 71 8
Table 6-9: Changes in HV testing - number of responses within individual voltage classes (in
%)
Voltage class Have you implemented any changes in Do you apply the same commissioning
your commissioning tests practice and tests after major failure repair?
quality control procedures in
comparison to the practices and
procedures used in the past?
% of Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 93,3 6,7 93,3 6,7
100 U<200 kV 45,0 55,0 84,2 15,8
200 U<300 kV 87,5 12,5 93,8 6,3
300 U<500 kV 76,5 23,5 82,4 17,6
500 U<700 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
700 kV 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
Total 77,5 22,5 88,8 10,0
9
Figure 6-3: Changes in commissioning tests and tests after a major failure

About 80% of the total respondents indicated that they have changed their commissioning
tests practice and quality control procedures in comparison to the practices and procedures
used in the past. This trend is supported by more than a 75% positive response in all voltage
classes except class 2. Bearing in mind what is written about the uneven contribution of
different regions to the survey (chapter 6.4) it appears that European utilities are more
conservative than Asian utilities and do not change their test strategies. The questionnaire,
unfortunately, didnt ask about the character of the change.
Almost 90% of the total respondents indicated that the voltage test procedure performed
after a major failure repair is the same as at the time of commissioning. There is no
significant difference in this statement across all voltage classes. The obtained percentage
of negative answers (10%) corresponds to a portion of answers in which lightning impulse
was mentioned as commissioning test. In these cases the after major repair test doesn't
include impulse voltage test and is thus different from a commissioning test.
In the opinion of WG experts, the change or no change of on-site HV tests practices depends
very much on experience with finding defects. Good experience (no service failures the root
of which can be found in transport and erection) does not mean that the on-site HV tests are
not important and that they could be minimized or neglected. GIS technology is not repair
friendly. Any major failure always represents a time consuming and cost activity. The on-site
test can thus prevent serious problems in the future. This statement is also valid to a certain
extent for test after major repairs (after gas compartment disturbance). In this case, special
attention has to be paid to the extent of re-testing original GIS parts and who is responsible
for the occurrence of a flashover involving original parts.
6.6 In Service Experience Monitoring, Diagnostics and Their

Accessories
As mentioned above, any major failure that occurs inside the very compact GIS represents a
much larger problem than if it occurs inside AIS equipment. Just-in-time prevention or
disclosing of minor failures and defects is of greater importance in GIS than in AIS. This
process, frequently described as condition based maintenance, is enabled by application of
monitoring (permanent installations) or by performing diagnostic tests (temporary, on
purpose, measurements). The aim of this part of the survey was thus to find out the present
and future utilities field monitoring and diagnostic practices.
10
The following questions about field monitoring and diagnostic activities were asked:
Questions about monitoring
Questions about partial discharges diagnostics versus monitoring:
Questions about diagnostics
Questions about accessories
6.6.1 Monitoring
The following questions about monitoring were asked:

a) Have you included monitoring (other than media pressure/ density and number of
Close-Open (CO) operations) in your existing GIS? If yes, which ones?
b) Do you specify monitoring (other than media pressure/ density and number of CO
operations) for your future GIS? If yes, which ones?
c) Has the application of monitoring (other than media pressure/ density and number of
CO operations) avoided an internal breakdown?
Questions a and b, i.e. questions about monitoring, were answered by all respondents.
Question c was reported only by those whose answer in question a was positive. Table 6-10
and Table 6-11 show an overview of responses of questions a, b, and c by individual voltage
classes (Table 6-10 in absolute numbers), In Table 6-11 is shown only the YES responses in
% distribution (the base is the number of responses received within each individual voltage
classes). Figure 6-4 is the distribution of data found in Table 6-11.
Table 6-10: Monitoring practices - number of responses within individual voltage classes
(absolute)
Voltage class Have you included Do you specify Has the application of
monitoring (other than monitoring (other monitoring (other than
media pressure/ density than media pressure/ media pressure/
and number of CO density and number density and number of
operations) in your of CO operations) for CO operations)
existing GIS? your future GIS? avoided an internal
breakdown?
No of Yes No Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 4 11 2 13 3 1
100 U<200 kV 6 14 4 16 4 2
200 U<300 kV 4 12 4 12 2 2
300 U<500 kV 5 12 3 14 4 1
500 U<700 kV 1 10 2 9 1 0
700 kV 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total 21 59 16 64 15 6
Table 6-11: Monitoring practices - number of responses within individual voltage classes (in %,
only positive answers)
Voltage class Have you included Do you specify Has the application of
monitoring (other than monitoring (other than monitoring (other than
media pressure/ density media pressure/ density media pressure/ density
and number of CO and number of CO and number of CO
operations) in your operations) for your operations) avoided an
existing GIS? future GIS? internal breakdown?
% of Yes from answers
% of Yes from all % of Yes from all indicated present
responses responses application of monitoring
60 U<100 kV 26,7 13,3 75,0
100 U<200 kV 30,0 20,0 66,7
200 U<300 kV 25,0 25,0 50,0
300 U<500 kV 29,4 17,6 80,0
500 U<700 kV 9,1 18,2 100,0
700 kV 26,3 20,0 71,4
Total 26,7 13,3 75,0
11
Figure 6-4: GIS monitoring practices

In question a and b the respondents were to also mention the kind of monitoring they apply
or are planning to apply in the future. The following monitoring methods were mentioned:
partial discharges, circuit breakers operation, pole discrepancy and operation time, circuit
breaker operating mechanism characteristics (e.g. pressure of hydraulic and or number of
pump starts, circuit breakers contact movement curves), mal-operation of disconnectors (lack
of the stroke in closing and opening operation), leakage and discharge currents of surge
arresters.
Present as well as future monitoring strategies were reported by about 20% of utilities. There
was no significant difference between voltage classes however the reported trust in
monitoring effectiveness was not very high. Three utilities who presently use monitoring in
their GIS (one in classes 1,2,3,4, one in classes 2,3,4 and one in classes 1,2,4, 5) indicated
they are not going to specify monitoring in their future GIS. Four utilities (one in class 2, two
in class 3, one in class 4 and one in class 5) reported that they presently do not use
monitoring in their GIS and indicated they are going to specify it for their future GIS.
The strategy change reported by three utilities as well as the small portion of those who
apply monitoring is surprising as the portion of reported success in discovering problems
before they developed into breakdown is significantly high (70% in total and greater than
50% in all voltage classes).
The results of the survey show that there is still a low level of trust in GIS monitoring. In the
WGs expert opinion that could be caused by the following:
There is still significant room for monitoring system improvement, i.e. instrumentation
reliability and correct interpretation of their results.
Or
The GIS technology is considered so reliable that monitoring is not necessary as it
increases total life cycle cost.
6.6.2 Monitoring Versus Diagnostic
Questions about diagnostics versus monitoring were asked:

Do you apply PD measurement at your existing equipment? If yes, as diagnostic or
monitoring? If yes, which kind?
Do you apply PD measurement at your future equipment? If yes, as diagnostic or
monitoring? If yes, which kind?
12
Questions about the present and future application of partial discharge measurements were
answered by all respondents. Their sub-questions, i.e. whether the PD application is used as
a diagnostics or as monitoring tool were answered only by those who answered the leading
questions positively. Table 6-12 and Table 6-13 show an overview of responses by
individual voltage classes (Table 6-12 in absolute numbers, Table 6-13 only the YES
responses in % distribution). Figures 6-5 show the graphical distribution of data in Table
6-13.
Table 6-12: PD measurement application - number of responses within individual voltage

classes (absolute)
Voltage class Do you apply PD if yes as if yes as Do you apply PD if yes as if yes as
measurement at diagnostic monito- measurement at diagnos- monito-
your existing ring your future tic ring
equipment? equipment?
No of Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 13 2 12 1 13 2 11 2
100 U<200 kV 10 10 8 2 13 7 10 3
200 U<300 kV 13 3 9 4 13 3 8 5
300 U<500 kV 12 5 10 2 13 4 10 3
500 U<700 kV 11 0 10 1 10 1 8 2
700 kV 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total 60 20 50 10 63 17 48 15
Table 6-13: PD measurement application - number of responses within individual voltage

classes (in %, only positive answers)
PD application As As PD application As As
at existing GIS diagnostic monitoring at future GIS diagnostic monitoring
% of Yes from answers % of Yes from answers
% of Yes from indicated present % of Yes from indicated future
all responses application of PD all responses application PD
60 U<100 kV 86,7 92,3 7,7 86,7 84,6 15,4
100 U<200 kV 50,0 80,0 20,0 65,0 76,9 23,1
200 U<300 kV 81,3 69,2 30,8 81,3 61,5 38,5
300 U<500 kV 70,6 83,3 16,7 76,5 76,9 23,1
500 U<700 kV 100,0 90,9 9,1 90,9 80,0 20,0
700 kV 75,0 83,3 16,7 78,8 76,2 23,8
Total 75,0 83,3 16,7 78,8 76,2 23,8
13
Figures 6-5: PD measurement practices

Based on the results of the survey it seems that most utilities (75% in total) at all voltage
classes apply PD measurement as a GIS condition evaluation tool for existing as well as
future GIS. The PD measurement is used mainly as a diagnostic tool at present but it seems
that in the future it will be also used often for monitoring. Nevertheless its wider use is not
foreseen. The most common PD method used now is ultrasonic, using acoustic emission
(AE) sensors (micro wave sensors). The UHF method was also mentioned mainly for
monitoring purposes. No one mentioned conventional PD measurement.
In the WGs expert opinion, present PD monitoring practices can be negatively influenced by
difficulties in application or retrofit activities (installation of internal/external permanent
sensors). The difficulties associated with a clear interpretation of the measurement might
also be an issue.
6.6.3 Diagnostic
The following questions about diagnostics were asked:

a) Do you specify diagnostic tests for your existing GIS? If yes, which ones?
b) Do you specify diagnostic tests for your future GIS? If yes, which ones?
c) In your opinion, has already the application of diagnostic test avoided an internal
breakdown?
d) Do you apply diagnostic tests for the auxiliary equipment? If yes, which ones?
e) Do you apply any diagnostic on the closing resistor and the grading capacitor of
circuit breaker?
f) Do you check the accuracy of GIS instrument transformers? If yes, how often?
g) Do you apply any EMC measurements (induced electromagnetic field during
switching operations)?
h) How often do you perform SF6 quality check (humidity, by-products, % of SF6
contents)? At period 5 years, >5 and 10 years, >10 years?
14
6.6.3.1 Diagnostic Strategies - Questions a, b, c
Similar to monitoring questions a and b above, questions about diagnostic strategies were
answered by all respondents. Question c was answer only by those who provided a positive
response to question a. Table 6-14 and Table 6-15 show an overview of responses of
questions a, b, and c by individual voltage classes (Table 6-14 in absolute numbers, only
YES responses in % distribution). Figures 6-5 shows the graphical distribution of data in
Table 6-15 .
Table 6-14: Application of diagnostic tests - number of responses within individual voltage
classes (absolute)
Voltage class Do you specify Do you specify Has the application of
diagnostic tests for your diagnostic tests for diagnostic tests
existing GIS? your future GIS? avoided an internal
breakdown?
No of Yes No Yes No Yes No
60 U<100 kV 15 0 10 5 4 11
100 U<200 kV 15 5 12 8 6 9
200 U<300 kV 14 2 10 6 2 12
300 U<500 kV 17 0 10 7 8 9
500 U<700 kV 11 0 8 3 3 8
700 kV 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total 73 7 51 29 24 49
Table 6-15: Application of diagnostic tests - number of responses within individual voltage
classes (in %, only positive answers)
Voltage class Do you specify Do you specify Has the application of
diagnostic tests for your diagnostic tests for your diagnostic tests avoided
existing GIS? future GIS? an internal breakdown?
% of Yes from answers
% of Yes from all % of Yes from all indicated present
responses responses application of diagnostics
60 U<100 kV 100,0 66,7 26,7
100 U<200 kV 75,0 60,0 30,0
200 U<300 kV 87,5 62,5 12,5
300 U<500 kV 100,0 58,8 47,1
500 U<700 kV 100,0 72,7 27,3
700 kV 100,0 100,0 100,0
Total 91,3 63,8 30,0
Figure 6-6: Application of diagnostic tests on GIS
15
In questions a and b, the respondents mentioned the kind of diagnostics they currently apply
or are planning to apply. The following measurements were mentioned: PD (mainly acoustic),
primary resistance, timing, contact movement curve and speed and operation mechanism (at
minimum supply voltage and minimum SF6 pressure incl.) characteristics of circuit breakers
and disconnectors, SF6 gas quality (humidity, SF6 content, by-products content and density),
thermal scan (IR) and X-ray checks of enclosure. In general there was no significant
difference between the referred tests and tests of AIS equipment with exception of periodical
X ray checks of enclosure integrity. There was no difference between the list of tests
currently applied and those planned for the future.
91% of the total responses confirmed they currently use diagnostic techniques to assess the
condition of GIS. There are no significant differences among voltage classes. In classes 1, 4,
5 and 6 (i.e. those dominated by Asian utilities) the portion reached 100%. Also a balance for
prevention of breakdowns is quite good (30 % from those who indicated diagnostics
application simultaneously indicated that it helped them to avoid an internal breakdown). The
more surprising is that some utilities do not consider diagnostic testing useful anymore and
are going to reduce their application in the future. Only two utilities (in classes 2, 3 and 4,
both European) are going to substitute GIS diagnostics tests by monitoring in the future. The
others (8 utilities, 4 from Europe, 4 from Asia and 1 from Australia, referring to all voltage
classes) are presently performing diagnostic tests and are not going to continue in this
practice nor apply monitoring. Even if GIS shows high reliability, it is not possible to identify
the reason for stopping diagnostics. The WG suspects that these companies may have
decided to employ a run-to-failure strategy, opted for the application of a mechanical time
based maintenance strategy instead of diagnostic testing or there are others external
boundary impacts. In any case the WG experts emphasize that diagnostics and/or monitoring
are necessary for the application condition based maintenance strategy.
The surprising findings resulted in a need to make the same analysis as above but across
the number of received cards instead of across received responses, and to compare
monitoring and diagnostic practices. The result is shown in Figure 6-7. Based on the
survey results, it is evident that the selection of a base does not influence significantly the
picture, and the picture still shows reduction in application of diagnostic tests as well as in
application of monitoring.
Figure 6-7: Diagnostic and monitoring practices
16
6.6.3.2 Special Diagnostic Tests - Questions d, e, f and g
Questions d to g focused on special diagnostic tests on auxiliary equipment, closing resistors
and grading capacitors used in GIS Circuit Breakers, Instrument Transformer accuracy
checks and EMC measurements. Table 6-16 and Table 6-17 show an overview of positive
responses (Table 6-16 in absolute numbers, Table 6-17 in % distribution where base is
number of responses received within individual voltage classes). Figure 6-8 shows the
graphical distribution of data in Table 6-17.
Table 6-16: Application of some special specific diagnostic tests number of positive
responses within each individual voltage classes (absolute)
Application of Application of DT on Check of Application of any EMC
Voltage class DT for the the closing resistor accuracy of GIS measurements (induced
auxiliary and the grading instrument electromagnetic field
equipment capacitor of circuit transformers during switching
breaker operations)
No of YES YES YES YES
60U<100 kV 11 0 4 0
100U<200 kV 9 1 3 1
200U<300 kV 10 1 3 1
300U<500 kV 9 0 3 1
500U<700 kV 9 1 3 0
700 kV 0 0 0 0
Total 48 3 16 3
Table 6-17: Application of special specific diagnostic tests number of responses within
individual voltage classes (in %, only positive answers)
Application of Application of DT on Check of Application of any EMC
Voltage class DT for the the closing resistor accuracy of GIS measurements (induced
auxiliary and the grading instrument electromagnetic field
equipment capacitor of circuit transformers during switching
breaker operations)
% of YES YES YES YES
60U<100 kV 73,3 0,0 26,7 0,0
100U<200 kV 45,0 5,0 15,0 5,0
200U<300 kV 62,5 6,3 18,8 6,3
300U<500 kV 52,9 0,0 17,6 5,9
500U<700 kV 81,8 9,1 27,3 0,0
700 kV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Total 60,0 3,8 20,0 3,8
Figure 6-8: Application of specific GIS diagnostic methods
17
In question a which dealt with auxiliary equipment testing, the respondents were supposed to
answer an additional question about what kind of diagnostic tests they currently apply or are
planning to apply in the future. The respondents listed the following measurements: pressure
gauge, pressure switches and safety valves functions and parameters (SF6 and operating
mechanisms), operation time of different operating mechanism components (e.g. oil pump
and compressors), tests of relays and tests of batteries.
Based on received responses it is evident that respondents understood the question in

different ways. Some concentrated on auxiliary equipments that are parts of GIS technology
(delivery), some on auxiliary equipment found throughout the station.
In part c of the question concerning instrument transformer accuracy checks, the

respondents provided an interval for this check. Most respondents specified that GIS IT
accuracy checks were made on IT that is used for revenue metering at periods ranging from
4 to 10 years. Three utilities check the accuracy of all ITs at a frequency of 4, 5 and 6 years.
Three utilities check IT accuracy only at commissioning. One utility identified that they use
the same practice as with AIS. There were also several comments indicating they would
check the ITs if there were any doubt as to their accuracy.
It was very rare to test CB closing resistors and grading capacitors and perform any kind of
EMC.
6.6.3.3 SF6 Quality Check - Question h
Question h asked about a time interval for performance of SF6 quality check (humidity, by-
products, % of SF6 contents). There were provided with three options: periods 5 years, >5
and 10 years, >10 years. The question was answered by all respondents. Table 6-18 and
Table 6-19 show an overview of responses (Table 6-18 in absolute numbers, Table 6-19 in
% distribution where base is the number of responses received within individual voltage
classes). Figure 6-9 shows the graphical distribution of data in Table 6-19.
Table 6-18: SF6 quality checks periodicity number of responses within individual voltage
classes (absolute)
Period for SF6 quality checks (number of answers)
Voltage class 5 years >5, 10 years >10 years total
60U<100 kV 3 6 6 15
100U<200 kV 2 12 6 20
200U<300 kV 2 9 5 16
300U<500 kV 1 10 6 17
500U<700 kV 2 4 5 11
700 kV 1 0 0 1
Total 11 41 28 80
Table 6-19: SF6 quality checks periodicity responses within individual voltage classes (in %)
Period for SF6 quality checks (% of positive of answers)
Voltage class 5 years >5, 10 years >10 years
60U<100 kV 20,0 40,0 40,0
100U<200 kV 10,0 60,0 30,0
200U<300 kV 12,5 56,3 31,3
300U<500 kV 5,9 58,8 35,3
500U<700 kV 18,2 36,4 45,5
700 kV 100,0 0,0 0,0
Total 13,8 51,3 35,0
18
Figure 6-9: SF6 quality measurements

With exception of voltage class 5, the majority of utilities perform SF6 quality checks at
intervals ranging from between 5 to 10 years (50% in total). More frequent quality checks are
performed by about 14% of the responders; longer periods (10 years or more) were
performed by 35% of the responders. In class 5 the longer period is the most frequent (45%
of answers).
In the opinion of WG experts, SF6 quality checks made periodically can profile the long term
behavior of switchgear and identify contact and Teflon cone wear, identify the presence of
PD, hot spots, extreme loadings, insufficient contact between parts at the same potential,
etc. Additionally, SF6 quality checks are necessary or can be very effective under the
following circumstances:
To verify proper gas quality/condition after filling or refilling.
To localize a gas compartment in which an internal fault appeared
To assess the cause of abnormal behavior (possibly highlighted by other factors).
To determine the condition of individual items of equipment following abnormal
system events.
To determine the condition of the gas prior to opening of a compartment/or applying
other test devices to ensure that appropriate gas handling measures (disposal
included) and protective measures for staff are applied/ or instruments are not
destroyed by contaminated gas.
To validate measurements obtained using other testing techniques, e.g. PD
measurements.
These additional circumstances may be even more frequent and more effective than periodic
checks.
19
6.6.4 Accessories
With increasing general demand on identifying incipient problems in time to prevent
functional failure and with an increasing demand on primary and secondary function
integration, some new accessories have been integrated into modern GIS installations. The
following question was asked with an aim at obtaining a general overview of some of these
special accessories and gaining an understanding into their frequency of usage:
Which equipment (other than media pressure/density and number of close-open (CO)
operations) do you require your manufacturer to deliver with GIS? (E.g. proximity
switches, movement transducers, coupling capacitors, etc.). Please, specify
This question was answered by all respondents. Table 6-20 and Table 6-21 show an
overview of positive responses by individual voltage class (Table 6-20 in absolute numbers,
Table 6-21 in % distribution where the base is the number of responses received by voltage
classes).
Table 6-20: Application of special GIS accessories - number of positive responses by voltage
class (absolute)
Number of Proximity Movement Coupling Other
positive answers switches transducers capacitors
in use of
60U<100 kV 0 3 0 0
100U<200 kV 1 2 2 1
200U<300 kV 1 3 0 0
300U<500 kV 2 4 1 0
500U<700 kV 0 2 0 0
700 kV 0 1 0 0
Total 4 15 3 1
Table 6-21: Application of special GIS accessories - number of positive responses by voltage
class (in %)
Number of Proximity Movement Coupling Other
positive answers switches transducers capacitors
in use of
60U<100 kV 0,0 20,0 0,0 0,0
100U<200 kV 5,0 10,0 10,0 5,0
200U<300 kV 6,3 18,8 0,0 0,0
300U<500 kV 11,8 23,5 5,9 0,0
500U<700 kV 0,0 18,2 0,0 0,0
700 kV 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0
Total 5,0 18,8 3,8 1,3

The portion of positive answers for the special accessories was very low. There were
received only 4 positive answers for proximity sensors and 3 positive answers for coupling
implying a low level of need in GIS. The only 3 positive answers for coupling capacitors (all
from European utilities) do not correspond well to 10 answers indicating PD on/line
monitoring. That may be caused by the fact that the question in the questionnaire should
have asked for coupling sensors instead of Coupling capacitors. Coupling sensors would
cover devices such as UHF antennas and capacitive sensors. Unfortunately, utilities didnt
identify the kind of PD sensors categorized as other. Almost 20% of the respondents
employ movement (travel) transducers; this approximately corresponds to the portion of
those who indicated that they monitor the contact movement (travel) curve as a diagnosed
parameter. The one other positive answer meant they employed a special accessory for
safety/interlocking purposes.
20
The surprising findings resulted to a need to do the same analysis across number of received
cards instead of number of received responses within individual voltage classes. The result
of this additional analysis is shown in Figure 6-10. Based on the survey results it is evident
that the selection of a base doesnt influence significantly the picture, and the picture still
shows a small use of the in the questionnaire mentioned special accessories.
Figure 6-10: GIS monitoring accessories
In the WGs expert opinion it is necessary to mention that some special sensors are
necessary for some kinds of monitoring and diagnostic methods. The users should accept
their strategies regarding service conditions investigations needs in advance for them to be
sure that special sensors are available either in the equipment, in the utility storage or at
least at the service and maintenance provider. That concerns older as well as new
installations to avoid problems with modern methods applications.
6.7 Specific Service Problems of Indoor, Outdoor, Single-Phase

and Three-Phase GIS
As GIS technology offers different designs the aim of the survey was to find out whether
these different designs show some unique, design specific problems. The section titled
Specific problems the respondent would like to comment on included the following four
questions:
Are there any specific problems with indoor GIS service you would like to comment
on?
Are there any specific problems with outdoor GIS service you would like to comment
on?
Are there any specific problems with behavior of single-phase GIS you would like to
comment on?
Are there any specific problems with behavior of three-phase GIS you would like to
comment on?
As details about the individual respondents GIS populations, i.e. whether they operate
indoor or outdoor, single phase or three phase GISs, is not known it isnt possible to deduce
any comparison of the GIS designs. It is possible to provide only a summary of answers as
follows:
21
Indoor GIS service experience problems were identified on 14 cards. Indoor service
experience problems mentioned were:
SF6 leakage: 6 times
Equipment is too heavy causing problems during operation (vibrations to the building)
and maintenance (handling with the equipment): 4 times
Difficult to secure passage ways and maintenance space: 2 times
Complicated maintenance and repair that reduces the availability of the rest of GIS: 1
time
Outdoor GIS service experience problems were identified on 13 cards. Outdoor service
experience problems mentioned were:
Corrosion and rain water infiltration: 11 times
Sensitivity on huge differences in service conditions (temperature/dilatation and
humidity) causing different problems as O-rings deterioration, SF6 leakage and any
other sealing problems (in operating mechanisms incl.) : 7 times
Enclosure surface temperature rise by solar radiation: 2 times
Problems with single-phase GIS service experience were mentioned in 5 cards. In 4 cards
there were just repeated problems from above that didnt have any specific correlation to
single-phase arrangement. In one card there was mentioned a higher SF6 leakage rate due
to more sealing in comparison to three-phase arrangement.
Problems with three-phase GIS service experience were mentioned in one card. There were
problems with cable terminal enclosure in which flashovers appeared.

In the WGs expert opinion the survey just reflects the commonly known problems in GIS
service as SF6 leaks in general and sealing problems and corrosion at outdoor GIS. In
addition, the survey pointed out a need for proper indoor GIS design in respect of civil work
engineering, taking in account GIS operation (vibrations) and future maintenance (free room
and heavy material manipulation) as well as proper GIS layout and gas compartment division
engineering, taking into account mainly future maintenance (manipulation with gas
compartments and restriction on the rest GIS operation). As three-phase GIS problems are
concerned, a proper interface design was mentioned.
6.8 Major Maintenance (Overhaul) Experience (Already Performed

Work)
GIS major maintenance (overhaul) requires the opening of the gas compartment and thus
represents a very costly and time consuming work that even requires certain restrictions in
service (outages) of adjacent GIS parts that are not maintained. This type of work has to be
carefully planned in advance and preferably be condition based instead of time based.
However, sometimes it is difficult to decide when to perform maintenance if information about
internal conditions isnt sufficient and if the recommended time intervals are fixed by the
Original Equipment manufacturer (OEM). It may thus happen that a useless overhaul is
performed (the internal conditions are found to be very good), a situation that worries many
utilities. The aim of the survey was thus to obtain feedback from those utilities who have
already performed overhauls.
Only the respondents who have had real experience and had already performed major
maintenance were asked to respond the following questions:
a) Have you already performed major maintenance? If yes, at how many CB-bays?
b) What was the reason for major maintenance work? Performed on fixed time/period
basis - Predictive based on conditions (CBM) - Predictive based on reliability centered
studies (RCM) - Corrective maintenance
22
c) Has your maintenance practice changed from the original one?
d) Who undertook your maintenance? Original Manufacturer - Utility or Users Staff -
Third party / Contractor - Under Manufacturers Supervision
e) What observations did you make during maintenance of your GIS? It was time to
perform the maintenance -Unexpected additional work required - Less work required
than expected - Maintenance should have been performed earlier - Maintenance
should have been performed later
f) Did you apply retrofit and/or upgrading/updating during major maintenance?
g) What tests were performed following major maintenance? Same as before putting
into service - Less than those before putting into service - More than those before
putting into service
As question a and its sub-questions about the number of CB-bays that passed major
maintenance, etc. were answered independent of the voltage class, it is impossible to identify
voltage classes differences. Therefore the below analysis was made:
question a: for all received cards, i.e. for total independent of voltage class (base for
percentage distribution is the total number of received cards, i.e. 41)
all the other questions: for cards in which question a was answered positively (base
for percentage distribution is 14)
Tables:
Table 6-22 shows an overview of responses (in absolute numbers and in %
distribution) of questions a and b.
distribution) of questions c and d
distribution) of questions e and f. The yellow columns indicate that major
maintenance was performed on time, the pink ones that it was performed too early.
distribution) of question g.
Table 6-22: Reasons for already performed GIS major maintenance (MaM) - number of positive
responses within individual cards (absolute and in %)
Already Reason for major maintenance (base 14)
performed Performed Predictive Predictive based Corrective
major on fixed based on on reliability maintenance
maintenance time/period conditions centered studies
(base 41) basis (CBM) (RCM)
No of cards 14 6 1 2 5
% of cards 34,1 42,9 7,1 14,3 35,7
No of major 129 87 5 24 13
maintained CB-bays
% from major 100 67,4 3,9 18,6 10,1
maintained bays
Table 6-23: GIS major maintenance (MaM) practice and providers- number of positive
Practice of MaM MaM MaM performed MaM performed
MaM changed performed by performed by contractor by utility or
from the original by own staff (third party) contractor under
original manufacturer manufacturer's
supervision
No of cards 7 5 0 2 7
% of cards 50,0 35,7 0,0 14,3 50,0
23
Table 6-24: Timing and content of GIS major maintenance (MaM) - number of positive
responses within individual cards (absolute and in %) Note: columns of the same color
express similar situations
It was time Unexpected Less work MaM MaM Retrofit and/or
to perform additional required should should upgrading/
the MaM work required than have been have been updating
expected performed performed made during
earlier later MaM
No of cards 4 5 0 2 3 7
% of cards 28,6 35,7 0,0 14,3 21,4 50,0
Table 6-25: Practice of tests performed after GIS major maintenance - number of positive
Tests same as before Less tests than those before More tests than those
putting into service putting into service before putting into service
No of cards 4 10 0
% of cards 28,6 71,4 0,0
Comparison with the 2nd (1990) GIS service experience survey findings
The comparison, where possible, are given in Table 6-26, Table 6-27 and Table 6-28, and in
Figure 6-11, Figure 6-12 and Figure 6-13.
Table 6-26: Comparison of major maintenance (MaM) experience reported in previous and in
present GIS surveys - number of positive responses within individual cards (in %)
% from cards with Major Major maintenance Major maintenance was
maintenance experience performed on fixed predictive based on conditions
time/period basis (CBM or RCM)
2nd GIS survey 42,4 41
Present GIS survey 42,9 21,4
Figure 6-11: Comparison of Major Maintenance strategies
Table 6-27: Comparison of major maintenance (MaM) timing and content of GIS major
maintenance reported in previous and in present GIS surveys - number of positive responses
within individual cards (in %) Note: the same colors columns express similar situations
% from cards with Time to Unexpected Less work MaM should MaM should
Major maintenance perform the work required have been have been
(MaM) experience MaM required earlier later
2nd GIS survey 33,3 15,2 27,3 4,5 31,8
Present GIS survey 28,6 35,7 0 14,3 21,4
24
Figure 6-12: Comparison of Major Maintenance Experience
Table 6-28: Comparison of major maintenance (MaM) providers reported in previous and in
present GIS surveys - number of positive responses within individual cards (in %)
% from cards with MaM performed MaM performed MaM performed MaM performed by
Major maintenance by original by own staff by contractor utility or contractor
(MaM) experience manufacturer (third party) under manufacturer's
supervision
2nd GIS survey 47 8 9 36
Present GIS survey 35,7 0 14,3 50
Figure 6-13: Comparison of major maintenance providers
25
34% of the received cards indicated major maintenance (overhaul) experience; that
represents 129 CB-bays, mainly in classes 2 and 4. Most responders replied that major
maintenance was performed on fixed time/periodic basis (43% of cards indicated performed
major maintenance, i.e. the same as in the previous survey, and 67% of bays) or at the time
of corrective maintenance (36% cards with major maintenance experience and 10% of bays).
Predictive major maintenance based on conditions or on reliability centered studies was
mentioned in about 21% of responses (both by experience as well as bays). That is less than
reported in the previous study.
In the WGs expert opinion, the small portion of predictive based major maintenance being
performed compared to the large portion of corrective maintenance shows either that utilities
are conservative and do not trust condition based findings or that assessment methods
designed to disclose deteriorated conditions are not very effective in preventing failures. In
spite of that, current business drivers require the use of modern condition assessment
methods enabling maintenance and operating personnel to know the actual condition of the
equipment in order to prevent failures and reduce unnecessary maintenance activities. In the
WGs expert opinion there seems to be still much room for further development of condition
assessment activities.
50% of responses that indicated that they had already performed major maintenance
simultaneously reported a change in their major maintenance practice from their original
practice. This is much more than in the previous survey (only 12%). 36% of respondents
contracted the major maintenance directly with the original manufacturer, 50% invited the
manufacturer at least for supervision and only 14% hired a contractor (third party) without the
manufacturers presence. In 86% of responses the manufacturer was present during
overhaul or corrective maintenance. In the WGs expert opinion this picture just reflects the
nature of GIS technology (quite complicated and very sensitive to any maintenance error).
Moreover, it is very similar to the previous survey results.
79% of the responders indicated that major maintenance, while being costly and time
consuming, was fully justified by the problems and conditions discovered at the time of
maintenance; this is much more than in the previous survey (about 50%). Accompanying
statements such as "just in time" were mentioned in 28,6% of the responses, unexpected
additional work was discovered in 35,7% of responses and an opinion that the maintenance
should have been performed even earlier appeared in 14,3% responses. Considering that
36% of responders performed some corrective maintenance at the time of major
maintenance indicating that this corrective work could have been prevented and 79% of the
responders reported that major maintenance was performed on or behind time, questions the
commonly accepted approach of postponing this type of work. In the WGs expert opinion the
utility responses are not so surprising bearing in mind that the GIS population is getting older
and that past major maintenance experience already led utilities to extend originally planned
major maintenance periods. In the past it was common to postpone the first major
maintenance and perform major maintenance later than originally specified by the
manufacturer. Based on experience, it was OK to delay the performance of the first major
maintenance, now that the GIS are getting old, perhaps the utilities will change their practice
again. On the other hand an opinion that the maintenance wasn't necessary at that time
appeared only in 21,4% of responses (in previous survey in about 50%).
In 50% of answers there was mentioned that the major maintenance work was joint with
retrofitting, upgrading or updating of the equipment.
In 29% of responses the maintained GIS passed the same installation tests performed prior
to putting into service. In 71% of the responses, the extent of the testing was smaller, nobody
performed more tests. The fact that the testing is smaller could reflect a danger for old
adjacent GIS parts during HV testing of the maintained part and the associating share of
responsibility. Standards, e.g. IEC [8], dont provide any unambiguous recommendation. IEC
states that the application of the voltage test may be necessary after repair or maintenance.
In the WGs expert opinion, the company that performed the maintenance should prove the
correctness of the performed work.
26
IEC [8]provides the following recommendation (paragraph 10.2.101.1.2- quote):
In the case of extensions, in general, the adjacent existing part of the GIS should be de-
energized and earthed during the dielectric test, unless special measures are taken to
prevent disruptive discharges in the extension affecting the energized part of the existing
GIS. Application of the test voltage may be necessary after repair or maintenance of major
parts or after installation of extensions. The test voltage may then have to be applied to
existing parts in order to test all sections involved. In those cases, the same procedure
should be followed as for newly installed GIS.
6.9 Extension Experience (already performed work)
Similar to GIS major maintenance, GIS extension also requires opening of the gas
compartments representing a costly and time consuming work that even requires certain
restrictions in service (outages) of neighbor parts that are to be connected to the GIS
extension. This type of work has to be also carefully planned in advance, preferably already
in the engineering of the first stage of the GIS. The aim of the survey was thus to obtain
feedback from those utilities who have already performed extensions of their GIS.
Only the respondents who had real experience and had already performed GIS extensions
were asked to respond to the following questions:
Question a) Have you implemented any GIS extension? If yes:

a.1 did you use the same manufacturer?
a.2 did you use the same design?
a.3 was the new equipment compatible with the existing equipment without requiring
any adaptor pieces?
a.4 was the existing equipment HV dielectric tested together with the extension parts?
(Yes No Partly)
Question b) Who took/should take the responsibility for on-site interface testing?
Question a was answered by all respondents. Sub-questions of question a and question b

were reported by only those whose answer in question a was positive. Table 6-29 and Table
6-30 show an overview of responses of question a and its sub-questions a.1 to a.3 (Table
6-29 positive responses in absolute numbers, Table 6-30 in % distribution where the base for
question a is the number of responses received within individual voltage classes, for a.1 to
a.3 the base is the number of positive responses in question a). Figure 6-14 shows the
graphical distribution of previously performed extensions (question a). Figure 6-15 shows the
graphical distribution of the extension technology experience (question a.1 to a.3) data.
Table 6-29: GIS extensions experience - number of positive responses within individual voltage
classes (absolute)
No of positive Implemented Extension performed Extension Compatibility of the
responses GIS extensions by the same made by the new part without need
Voltage class manufacturer same design of an adaptor piece
60U<100 kV 14 14 3 9
100U<200 kV 11 11 2 5
200U<300 kV 14 14 0 6
300U<500 kV 14 14 4 7
500U<700 kV 8 8 1 5
700 kV 1 1 0 0
Total 62 62 10 32
27
Table 6-30: GIS extensions experience - number of positive responses within individual voltage
classes (in %)
% of positive Implemented Extension performed Extension Compatibility of the
responses GIS extension by the same made by the new part without need
Voltage class manufacturer same design of an adaptor piece
60U<100 kV 93,3 100,0 21,4 64,3
100U<200 kV 55,0 100,0 18,2 45,5
200U<300 kV 87,5 100,0 0,0 42,9
300U<500 kV 82,4 100,0 28,6 50,0
500U<700 kV 72,7 100,0 12,5 62,5
700 kV 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0
Total 77,5 100,0 16,1 51,6
Figure 6-14: GIS extension experience
Figure 6-15: GIS extension technology
28
Table 6-31 and Table 6-32 show an overview of responses of question a.4 and b (Table 6-31
responses in absolute numbers, Table 6-32 in % distribution where the base is the number of
positive responses in question a). Figure 6-16 shows the distribution of the extension HV
testing experience (question a.4) data in a graph and Figure 6-17 shows a graph of the
distribution of the extension HV testing responsibility experience (question b).
Table 6-31: Testing practices after GIS extension - number of positive responses within
individual voltage classes (absolute)
HV testing of HV testing of No HV testing On-site On-site interface
No of positive extension extension of the interface testing in
responses together with together with a extension testing in manufacturer's
old GIS part of old GIS together with utilitys responsibility
Voltage class old GIS parts responsibility
60U<100 kV 4 8 2 11 3
100U<200 kV 4 4 3 6 5
200U<300 kV 3 9 2 10 4
300U<500 kV 5 7 2 9 4
500U<700 kV 1 6 1 8 0
700 kV 0 0 1 0 1
Total 17 34 11 44 17
Table 6-32: Testing practices after GIS extension - number of positive responses within
individual voltage classes (in %)
HV testing of HV testing of No HV testing On-site On-site interface
% of positive extension extension of the interface testing in
responses together with together with a extension testing in manufacturer's
old GIS part of old GIS together with utility's responsibility
Voltage class old GIS parts responsibility
60U<100 kV 28,6 57,1 14,3 78,6 21,4
100U<200 kV 36,4 36,4 27,3 54,5 45,5
200U<300 kV 21,4 64,3 14,3 71,4 28,6
300U<500 kV 35,7 50,0 14,3 64,3 28,6
500U<700 kV 12,5 75,0 12,5 100,0 0,0
700 kV 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0
Total 27,4 54,8 17,7 71,0 27,4
HV testing experience after GISextension

Distribution of positive answers [%]
100.0
90.0 HV testing of
80.0 extension
together with old
70.0 GIS
60.0
HV testing of
50.0
extension
40.0 together with a
30.0 part of old GIS
20.0 Separate HV
10.0 testing of
0.0 extension (old GIS
parts not tested)
Voltage class [kV]
Figure 6-16: HV testing experience after GIS extension
29
Figure 6-17: GIS interface testing responsibility

Most of the responses (77% in total) indicated they had GIS extension experience. The least
number appeared in voltage class 2 where only 55% of responses where positive. All GIS
extensions (100%) at all voltage classes were made by their original manufacturer. The
same design as original was applied in less than 20% of the total extension cases and a
special adaptor piece for the new design was needed in about 50% of cases. That means
that in about 30% of cases, the new extension design didnt need any adaptor. In the WGs
expert opinion that might be caused by the fact the connection parts of the extension were
directly compatible with the original design.
The old GIS, or at least the part that is connected to the new extension is reported to be
tested in 82% of responses (27% reported completely, 55% reported partly). The remaining
18% of responses either didnt performed HV testing of the extension at all or they tested it
separately. The utility was responsible for testing the extension-old GIS interface in 70% of
cases and it was reported to be the manufacturer's responsibility only in 27% of the cases (a
few responses were missing).
In the WGs expert opinion it might be worth repeating IEC [8] recommendations in this
respect (quotes):
Para 5.107.4 Interfaces for future extensions: When an extension is planned, the
locations of any possible future extension should be considered and stated by the
user in the technical specification. In the case of later extension with another GIS
product and if requested by the user, the manufacturer shall supply information
preferably in the form of drawings giving sufficient information to enable such an
interface to be designed at a later stage. The procedure to ensure confidentiality of
the design details shall be agreed between the user and manufacturer. The interface
should concern busbars or busducts only, and not direct connections to active
devices such as circuit-breakers or disconnectors. If an extension is planned, it is
recommended that the interface incorporates facilities for installation and testing of
the extension to limit the part of the existing GIS to be re-tested and to allow the
connection to the existing GIS without further dielectric testing (refer to Clause C.3). It
shall be designed to withstand the rated insulation levels across the isolating
distance. The responsibility for testing the existing GIS is with the user.
30
Para 10.2.101.1.2: In the case of extensions, in general, the adjacent existing part of
the GIS should be de-energized and earthed during the dielectric test, unless special
measures are taken to prevent disruptive discharges in the extension affecting the
energized part of the existing GIS. Application of the test voltage may be necessary
after repair or maintenance of major parts or after installation of extensions. The test
voltage may then have to be applied to existing parts in order to test all sections
involved. In those cases, the same procedure should be followed as for newly
installed GIS.
Chapter C.3 in informative Appendix C: For extensions (5.107.4) the user shall be
responsible for any flashovers in the existing GIS and the manufacturer of the
extension equipment shall be responsible for any flashovers in the extension
equipment.
To summarize the WGs expert opinion: Extension of the GIS is a sensitive procedure to be
carefully planned in advance. IEC assigns a lot of responsibility to the user and doesnt
specify the responsibility for the interface. The user should carefully negotiate all conditions
with the manufacturer when contracting such a work.
6.10 New Technologies Application (Present and Future Practice)
There are not many new technologies and concepts applicable at present for GIS. However
existing technologies are widely discussed. The aim of the survey was to obtain feedback on
some of them. Questions were asked in the following fields:
Experience with GIS service transfer into present GIS engineering
Experience with new technologies in primary systems
Experience with new technologies influencing or being parts of secondary systems
Experience with functional GIS specifications and with turnkey projects
6.10.1 Experience with GIS Service Transfer Into Present GIS

Engineering
Respondents were asked to respond the following questions:
Has the use of GIS led to a simplification of your single line diagrams? If yes, how?
No line disconnectors in case the line is not a T line - No use of transfer busbars
anymore - Less number of main busbars - Other, please, specify
Have you changed your GIS single line diagrams? If yes, why? Due to higher
reliability of GIS - Due to the demand to reduce costs - Due to the new technology
use (integrated apparatus, hybrid design, electronic sensors) - Other, please, specify
These questions were answered by all respondents. As only a few cards indicated changes
in GIS single line diagrams an overview of responses in text form as follows:
The way of GIS single line diagram simplification:

There were only 3 cards indicating simplification of single line diagrams. All 3 were from
Europe referring to classes 2, 4 and 3+4. The described ways of simplification were:
Fewer numbers of busbars (3x, thereof one change to a ring busbar) and no line
disconnector (1x).
Two cards (one from Asia classes 1+2+3+5, one from North America classes
2+3+4) stated an opposite view, i.e. that GIS technology requests higher flexibility
in its single line diagram.
31
The reasons for GIS single line change:
There were 6 cards indicating a change in the GIS single line diagram; 4 from Europe
(classes 4,2,4 and 3+4), 1 from Asia (classes 1+2+3+5) and 1 from North America
(classes 2+3+4). The reasons for GIS single line diagram change were:
1x higher GIS reliability
2x reduction of cost
1x new technology (integrated apparatus, hybrid design, electronic
sensors).
In one response there was again emphasized an opinion that for GIS maintenance,
there is a higher need for redundancy and thus the scheme shall be more
complicated and have a higher flexibility than AIS schemes. One answer included a
comment on the need of GIS operation documentation unification.

In 14% of the cards there was indicated that a change in the GIS single line diagram
occurred. Thereof only 9% indicated a certain simplification - in 7% of cards it was mentioned
that the use of GIS led to simplification of the single line diagram (use of ring busbar, no line
disconnectors and a fewer number of busbars) and in 2% of the responses the simplification
concerned a use of new technology integrated apparatus. On the other hand 5% of cards
indicated just opposite trend. In their opinion and in comparison to AIS; in GIS it is necessary
to have schemes with higher redundancy (schemes with higher flexibility) to cope with the
demands associated with GIS maintenance and repairs. For those who simplified their
schemes, the prevailing reason was to reduce cost (5 responses). Increasing GIS reliability
was referred to only in 1 response.
Designing of the single line diagram is dominated by network operational requirements. The
WGs expert opinion is that the responses indicated that most utilities do not apply different
approaches to GIS and AIS when considering these two different technologies in their single
line designing diagrams and they should. The improved reliability advantage provided by GIS
is compensated by disadvantages in GIS maintainability.
6.10.2 Experience with New Technologies in Primary Systems
Respondents were asked to respond the following question:

Have you any experience with combined function apparatus service in your GIS? If
yes, their use has led to: Decreased investment cost - Increased-decreased failure
rate - Decreased maintenance demand (cost, time, system redundancy reduction,
etc.) - Increased maintenance demand (cost, time, system redundancy reduction,
etc.) - Other, please, specify
This question was answered by all respondents. As only a few cards indicated any
experience with new technologies in primary systems the overview of responses is provided
in the following text form:
There were 5 cards indicating experience with combined function apparatus service in
GIS; 4 from Europe (classes twice 2, 2+4 and 2+3) and 1 from Asia (classes
1+2+4+5). The experience consequences reported were: decreased investment costs
mentioned 4 times and decreased maintenance demand once. The other categories
(options) werent mentioned at all.
32
Only 12% of cards indicated any experience with combined function apparatus (mostly
combined disconnector/earthing switches). The respondents think that the main reason for
this is decreased investment cost and possibly decreased maintenance demand. Nobody
selected reliability as influencing factor.
6.10.3 Experience with New technologies in Secondary Systems
In the part the full title of which was Experience with new technologies influencing or being
parts of secondary systems, respondents were asked to respond the following questions:
Do you specify or accept optical sensor or electronic instrument transformers?
Do you accept proximity sensors to replace auxiliary contacts?
Do you select GIS numerical control systems independently from the GIS
manufacturer?
Do you accept integrated control and protection system?
These questions were answered by all respondents.
Table 6-33 and Table 6-34 show an overview of positive responses by individual voltage
classes (Table 6-33 in absolute numbers, Table 6-34 in % distribution where base is number
of responses received within individual voltage classes). Figure 6-18 shows the graphical
distribution of data in Table 6-34.
Table 6-33: Acceptance of new technologies in GIS - number of positive responses within
individual voltage classes (absolute)
No of positive Acceptance of Acceptance of Selection of GIS Acceptance of
responses optical sensors proximity sensors control system integrated control and
or electronic IT to replace auxiliary independently on protection systems
Voltage class contacts GIS manufacturer
A B C D
60U<100 kV 2 0 4 4
100U<200 kV 1 1 7 4
200U<300 kV 3 0 3 4
300U<500 kV 2 2 7 5
500U<700 kV 2 0 2 2
700 kV 0 0 1 1
Total 10 3 24 20
Table 6-34: Acceptance of new technologies in GIS - number of positive responses within
individual voltage classes (in %)
% of positive Acceptance of Acceptance of Selection of GIS Acceptance of
responses optical sensors proximity sensors control system integrated control and
or electronic IT to replace auxiliary independently on protection systems
Voltage class contacts GIS manufacturer
A B C D
60U<100 kV 13,3 0,0 26,7 26,7
100U<200 kV 5,0 5,0 35,0 20,0
200U<300 kV 18,8 0,0 18,8 25,0
300U<500 kV 11,8 11,8 41,2 29,4
500U<700 kV 18,2 0,0 18,2 18,2
Total 12,5 3,8 30,0 25,0
33
Figure 6-18: Specific types of new technology acceptance.
(A= Acceptance of optical sensors or electronic IT, B= Acceptance of proximity sensors to replace
auxiliary contacts, C= Selection of GIS control system independently on GIS manufacturer, D=
Acceptance of integrated control and protection systems)

The selection of GIS control systems independently on GIS manufacturer and acceptance
of integrated control and protection systems are more common (30%, resp. 25% of total
responses within individual voltage classes) than the other options. The acceptance of
optical sensors reached about 13% in total and the acceptance of proximity sensors is
negligible. There arent any significant differences in voltage classes in these aspects. One
difference can be seen in responses concerning the selection of GIS control systems
independently on GIS manufacturer category where a higher frequency appeared in classes
2 and 4 that were influenced by European utilities.
6.10.4 Experience with Functional GIS Specifications and with Turnkey

Projects
Respondents were asked to respond the following questions:

Are you going to issue functional specification tenders (inquiries) for the future GIS?
Have you any experience with turnkey GIS projects and deliveries? If yes, the
experience is basically: Positive Negative
These questions were answered by all respondents. Table 6-35 and Table 6-36 show an
overview of responses in individual voltage classes (Table 6-35 in absolute numbers, Table
6-36 only positive responses in % distribution where the base is number of responses
received within individual voltage classes). Figure 6-19 shows the graphical distribution of
data in Table 6-36.
34
Table 6-35: Experience with GIS turnkey projects and functional specifications - number of
positive responses within individual voltage classes (absolute)
No of Experience with turnkey GIS projects and deliveries Issuing functional
responses positive negative no experience specifications for
Voltage class future tenders
60U<100 kV 11 0 4 1
100U<200 kV 10 0 10 5
200U<300 kV 10 0 6 1
300U<500 kV 8 0 9 2
500U<700 kV 9 0 2 0
700 kV 0 0 1 0
Total 48 0 32 9
Table 6-36: Experience with GIS turnkey projects and functional specifications - number of
positive responses within individual voltage classes (in %)
% of positive Positive experience with turnkey Issuing functional
responses projects specifications for future tenders
Voltage class
60U<100 kV 73,3 6,7
100U<200 kV 50,0 25,0
200U<300 kV 62,5 6,3
300U<500 kV 47,1 11,8
500U<700 kV 81,8 0,0
Total 60,0 11,3
Figure 6-19: Turnkey project and functional specifications experience

The experience with turnkey projects was positive in 60% of the responses (in class 5 it
reaches 80%). There were no negative experiences reported, however utilities still do not
trust in functional specifications. Only 11% of responses showed an intention to issue a GIS
functional specification in the future.
In all of the above mentioned aspects in section 6.10, there is no evidence to assume that
the GIS practice significantly differs from AIS practice.
35
6.11 Recommendation for Future Surveys
The GIS Practices (so called GIS maintenance card) part of the questionnaire was created
to gather information about some quite specific issues regarding GIS operational practices.
The questions did not provide much room for misinterpretation and there were enough
places for the respondents to express their views and opinions. That made the analyses
more difficult but the result is more precise. There are no special recommendations to be
mentioned for the future surveys.
6.12 Summary - Conclusions
Detailed analyses of responses together with their commentaries are provided in each
section above. The commentaries are based on the questionnaire results, on
recommendations given in standards (mainly IEC) and on the WG members experience. In
the summary section 6.12, only the highlights are presented.
Commissioning (present practice)
Power frequency voltage testing with simultaneous PD measurement is the most frequently
used HV test at time of GIS commissioning. Impulse voltage test, as a complimentary
method used to power frequency voltage test, is not a widely used method. However, it
seems that its application increases with increased GIS voltage rating. A few responses
indicated to no commissioning tests were performed. The majority of respondents moreover
indicated that the voltage test procedure performed after a major failure repair is the same as
at commissioning.
Most utilities open gas compartments after flashover during power frequency voltage as well
as during impulse voltage testing. However, their strategies vary from immediate opening to
repetition of tests. Before the decision is taken to open a gas compartment, it is important to
identify the disruptive discharge origin and characteristics. The manufacturers contribution is
very important in this respect.
Many utilities indicated that they have implemented changes in their commissioning tests
practices and quality control procedures in comparison to the past. The questionnaire,
unfortunately, did not ask about the character of the change.
In the WGs expert opinion, utilities should use at least one HV dielectric test during on-site
commissioning. Even if individual GIS transport units are routinely HV dielectric tested in
factory, HV tests on-site are very important to prove proper GIS transport and erection. The
change or no change of on-site HV tests practices depends very much on experience with
finding defects. However, good experience (no service failures the root of which can be
found in transport and erection) doesnt mean that the on-site HV tests are not important and
that they could be minimized or eliminated. GIS technology is not repair friendly. Any major
failure always represents a time consuming and cost activity. The on-site HV tests thus can
prevent serious problems in the future. As tests after repair are concerned, special attention
has to be paid to the extent the original GIS parts are re-tested and the party responsible for
repairing the original parts if a flashover occurs. The manufacturers contribution is very
important in these areas:
36
In service experience regarding condition monitoring and diagnostics (present
practice and future plans, incl. accessories)
The results of the survey show that there is still a small trust in GIS monitoring values. This
also concerns PD measurement that is widely used only as a diagnostic tool. Diagnostic
methods, in general, are widely used. Their content does not differ much from methods
applied at AIS. The only exceptions are more extensive and intensive application of different
SF6 parameter measurements and periodic X ray checks of enclosure integrity.
As the future is concerned, the responses show a reduction in the application of diagnostic
tests as well as in monitoring. This result is surprising as the reported effectiveness (% of
responses that indicated avoiding internal breakdown) of monitoring as well as diagnostic
methods is very high. It is 30% for diagnostic and even 70% for monitoring.
The surprising result could be, In the WGs expert opinion, caused by problems in reliably
interpreting the results of current monitoring and diagnostic systems or by high GIS reliability
that doesnt justify the cost of additional monitoring. Monitoring practices (mainly PD
measurements) can furthermore be negatively influenced by difficulties in their application or
the need to perform retrofit activities. Diagnostic method efficiency is influenced very much
by proper selection of diagnostic time intervals or circumstances influencing their application
and in some cases, by special sensors availability.
Specific service problems of indoor, outdoor, single-phase and three-phase GIS
In the WGs expert opinion the survey just reflects the commonly known problems in GIS
service (SF6 leaks in general and sealing problems and corrosion for outdoor GIS). In
addition, the survey pointed out a need for a proper indoor GIS design with respect to civil
engineering work (vibrations, maintenance space and heavy material manipulation) as well
as of a proper GIS layout and gas compartment division (for manipulation with gas
compartments and restrictions for the rest GIS operation). As for three-phase GIS problems,
a proper interface design was mentioned.
Major maintenance (overhaul) experience (already performed work)
Only a third of the received cards indicated any experience with major maintenance
(overhaul). The prevailing reasons for performing major maintenance are fixed time/period
base and corrective maintenance. Predictive major maintenance based on equipment
condition or on reliability centered studies was mentioned in only about one fifth of the
responses. This fact is caused (as mentioned above) by a relatively small application of
monitoring and reduction in diagnostics that both could help to predict a failure.
Half of the responders having major maintenance experience reported that they are changing
their original maintenance practices. That is much more than in the previous survey. The
portion of just on time or even late maintenance performance increased. In more than
three quarters of responses the manufacturer was present at these major maintenance
activities.
In the WGs expert opinion the small portion of predictive based major maintenance and the
large portion of corrective maintenance show either that utilities are conservative and do not
trust condition based maintenance activities or that methods to disclose the deteriorated
conditions before they develop into a failure are not very effective. Another reason could be
that in the past it was common to postpone the first major maintenance and perform it later
than originally specified by the manufacturer. Based on experience, it was OK to do this but
37
now that the GIS are getting older, perhaps the utilities should change their maintenance
practices again. Current business drivers require the use of modern condition assessment
methods enabling maintenance and operating personnel to know the actual condition of the
equipment in order to prevent failures and reduce unnecessary maintenance activities. In the
WGs expert opinion there seems to be still much room for further development of condition
assessment activities. There is also a significant room for manufacturers collaboration in
predictive activities and in planned as well as evaluation of corrective maintenance results to
avoid re-occurrence of problems.
Extension experience (already performed work)
Most responders indicated experience with their GIS extensions. All reported GIS extensions
were made by their original manufacturers and in one third of cases there was not even a
need for any adaptor. In the majority cases, the old GIS or at least the interface was HV
tested with the new extension under the utilitys responsibility.
In the WGs expert opinion, the respondents represented the lucky group as in cases where
the original manufacturer does not exist anymore the users have to tackle bigger problems.
Any GIS extension is a sensitive procedure that needs to be carefully planned in advance. In
standards (namely IEC) there is given a lot of responsibility to the user without any detailed
specification for the interface treatment and manufacturers duties. The user thus must
carefully negotiate all conditions with the manufacturer when contracting such a work.
New technologies application (present and future practice)
Designing of the single line diagram is dominated by network operating requirements. The
responses indicated that most utilities do not apply different approaches to GIS and AIS. The
experience with combined function GIS apparatus is small. The respondents think that the
main reason for their application is decreased investment cost. As selected secondary GIS
systems new technology is concerned the selection of GIS control systems independently
on GIS manufacturer and acceptance of integrated control and protection systems options
are more common (about a third of total responses) than the acceptance of optical sensors
option (very small) and the acceptance of proximity sensors: option (negligible). The
experience with turnkey projects is positive in more than a half of the responses and there
was no negative experience reported. In spite of that, utilities still do not trust in functional
specifications. Only in a tenth of responses there was expressed an intention to issue a GIS
functional specification in the future.
In the WGs expert opinion, in all of the above mentioned aspects, there is no evidence to
assume that the GIS practice significantly differs from AIS practice. Even if both technologies
significantly differ the above mentioned findings could be influenced by the fact that GISs
reliability advantage is offset by its maintainability disadvantage.
38
6.13 References
Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of high voltage
equipment associated CIGRE technical brochures
[1] CIGR WG A3.06: Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 International Enquiry on
Reliability of High Voltage Equipment, Part 1 - Summary and General Matters,
CIGR Technical Brochure no. 509, 2012.
Reliability of High Voltage Equipment, Part 2 - SF6 Circuit Breakers, CIGR
Technical Brochure no. 510, 2012.
Reliability of High Voltage Equipment, Part 3 - Disconnectors and Earthing Switches,
CIGR Technical Brochure no. 511, 2012.
Reliability of High Voltage Equipment, Part 4 - Instrument Transformers, CIGR
Reliability of High Voltage Equipment, Part 5 - Gas Insulated Switchgear CIGR
Other Publications
[6] CIGRE brochure 390 Evaluation of Different Switchgear technologies (AIS, MTS,
GIS) for Rated Voltages of 52 kV and above, August 2009
[7] CIGRE brochure 150 Report on the Second International Survey on HV gas
insulated Substations (GIS) Service Experience, February 2000
[8] IEC 62271-203 High-Voltage switchgear and controlgear Part 203: Gas-insulated
metal-enclosed switchgear for rated voltages above 52kV.
[9] CIGRE brochure 125 User Guide for Application of GIS for Rated Voltages 72.5 kV
and Above, 1998
39
Appendix 1 - GIS Questionnaire
1.1 Cover Page
Appendix 1-40
1.2 GIS Maintenance card
You are about to fill in a
GIS Maintenance Card
back to main
If this was en error, you can return to the main menu.
menu
To proceed, please keep in mind the following rules:
The rated voltage must be greater than or equal to 60 kV.

For further information please click on the '?' buttons
This card may be filled out only once if the companys strategy does not change within the 4 years
period of the survey.
This card is voltage class focused. If your strategy is identical for several GIS voltage classes, you can
fill data in one common sheet for these classes.
Please, use English in those parts where you are supposed to write text. If you cannot use English,
please, select from one of the languages mentioned in pull-down list in the very first MENU sheet of the
survey.
Do not leave any answers incomplete: populate with best available information or expert opinion
Go to GIS Maintenance card
Appendix 1-41
Appendix 1-42
Appendix 1-43
Appendix 1-44
Appendix 1-45
Appendix 1-46
Appendix 1-47
Appendix 1-48
Appendix 1-49
Appendix 1-50
Appendix 1-51
Appendix 2- Definitions
Rated voltage classes

Rated voltage of the equipment. (The rated voltage indicates the upper limit of the highest voltage of
systems for which the switchgear and controlgear is intended / the nameplate value)
Class 1 : 60<= Un<100 kV
Class 2 : 100<= Un<200 kV
Class 3 : 200<= Un<300 kV
Class 4 : 300<= Un<500 kV
Class 5 : 500<= Un<700 kV
Class 6 : Un>=700 kV
Note for utilities in Japan:
The voltage class 2 includes the JEC rated voltage level of 204 kV.
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.
Diagnostic
IEC 60694
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.
Retrofit
Work (activity) to equip a device with new parts or equipment not available previously.
Upgrading
Work (activity) to improve the quality of equipment.
Updating
Work (activity) to bring equipment up to modern standards.
Overhaul (Major Maintenance)

IEC 60694
Work done with the objective of repairing or replacing parts which are found to be out of tolerance by
inspection, test, examination, or as required by the manufacturer's maintenance manual, in order to
restore the component and/or the switchgear to an acceptable condition.
Note : For the purpose of this questionnaire the major maintenance = Overhaul.
Extension
The addition or change of power system function by the construction of, e.g. new exits after the
substation has entered service.
Appendix 2-52

TB514 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TB514 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

514

Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 International

Part 6 Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) Practices

Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 International Enquiry on

Part 6 Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) Practices

M. Runde (NO) Convener, C. E. Slver (SE) Past Convener, A. Carvalho (BR),

B. Bergman (CA), S. Tsukao (JP)

TB 509 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 510 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 511 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 512 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 513 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 514 Final Report of the 2004 - 2007 international enquiry on reliability of

TB 514 presents an overview of utility practices concerning commissioning (high voltage

6.3 Description of the Survey and the Way of its Analysis

6.4 Participation in the Survey

Table 6-3: Number of responses within individual voltage classes (in %)

Figure 6-1: Region contribution to GIS practices evaluation

Findings and Commentary

6.5 Commissioning (present practice)

Questions were asked in the following areas of HV testing:

6.5.1 HV Testing Practices

The following questions referencing HV test practices were asked:

Figure 6-2: Application of test voltage at GIS commissioning

6.5.2 Practices After Flashover During HV Tests

Findings and Commentary

6.5.3 Changes in HV testing practices

Findings and Commentary

6.6 In Service Experience Monitoring, Diagnostics and Their

The following questions about monitoring were asked:

Findings and Commentary

6.6.2 Monitoring Versus Diagnostic

Questions about diagnostics versus monitoring were asked:

Table 6-12: PD measurement application - number of responses within individual voltage

Table 6-13: PD measurement application - number of responses within individual voltage

Findings and Commentary

The following questions about diagnostics were asked:

Figure 6-6: Application of diagnostic tests on GIS

Figure 6-7: Diagnostic and monitoring practices

Figure 6-8: Application of specific GIS diagnostic methods

Based on received responses it is evident that respondents understood the question in

In part c of the question concerning instrument transformer accuracy checks, the

6.6.3.3 SF6 Quality Check - Question h

Findings and Commentary

Findings and Commentary

Figure 6-10: GIS monitoring accessories

6.7 Specific Service Problems of Indoor, Outdoor, Single-Phase

Findings and Commentary

6.8 Major Maintenance (Overhaul) Experience (Already Performed

Figure 6-11: Comparison of Major Maintenance strategies

Figure 6-13: Comparison of major maintenance providers

6.9 Extension Experience (already performed work)

Question a) Have you implemented any GIS extension? If yes:

Question a was answered by all respondents. Sub-questions of question a and question b

Figure 6-14: GIS extension experience

Figure 6-15: GIS extension technology

HV testing experience after GISextension

Voltage class [kV]

Figure 6-16: HV testing experience after GIS extension

Findings and Commentary

6.10 New Technologies Application (Present and Future Practice)

6.10.1 Experience with GIS Service Transfer Into Present GIS

The way of GIS single line diagram simplification: