IEEE Std C37.10.

1-2000

IEEE Guide for the Selection of

Monitoring for Circuit Breakers

Sponsor
Switchgear Committee
of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society

Approved 7 December 2000

IEEE-SA Standards Board

Abstract: Direction is provided for the selection of monitoring and for diagnostic parameters to be
used with high-voltage circuit breakers (i.e., above 100 V). Guidance on appropriate parameters to
be considered for monitoring applied to various circuit breaker technologies is also provided.
Keywords: failure characteristics; failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA); failure modes,
effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA); failure rate; high-voltage circuit breakers; monitoring;
online condition monitoring; risk assessment

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA

Copyright ' 2001 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Published 18 April 2001. Printed in the United States of America.

Print: ISBN 0-7381-2730-2 SH94905

PDF: ISBN 0-7381-2731-0 SS94905

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees of the IEEE
Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Standards Board. The IEEE develops its standards through a consensus development process,
approved by the American National Standards Institute, which brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and
interests to achieve the final product. Volunteers are not necessarily members of the Institute and serve without compensation.
While the IEEE administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the consensus development process, the
IEEE does not independently evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy of any of the information contained in its standards.

Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other damage, of
any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the
publication, use of, or reliance upon this, or any other IEEE Standard document.

The IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained herein, and expressly disclaims any
express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a specific purpose, or that the use
of the material contained herein is free from patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents are supplied AS IS.

The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase, market, or
provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint expressed at the time a
standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the state of the art and comments
received from users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is subjected to review at least every five years for revision or
reaffirmation. When a document is more than five years old and has not been reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude that its
contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to
determine that they have the latest edition of any IEEE Standard.

In publishing and making this document available, the IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other services for, or
on behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is the IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any other person or entity to
another. Any person utilizing this, and any other IEEE Standards document, should rely upon the advice of a competent
professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances.

Interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to specific
applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute will initiate action to prepare
appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is important to ensure that any
interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this reason, IEEE and the members of its societies
and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an instant response to interpretation requests except in those
cases where the matter has previously received formal consideration.

Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any interested party, regardless of membership affiliation with
IEEE. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text, together with appropriate
supporting comments. Comments on standards and requests for interpretations should be addressed to:

Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

Note: Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter
covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence or validity
of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE shall not be responsible for identifying patents for which a
license may be required by an IEEE standard or for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those
patents that are brought to its attention.

IEEE is the sole entity that may authorize the use of certification marks, trademarks, or other designations to indicate compliance
with the materials set forth herein.

Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center. To arrange for payment
of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA;
(978) 750-8400. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for educational classroom use can also be obtained
through the Copyright Clearance Center.

Introduction
(This introduction is not part of IEEE Std C37.10.1-2000, IEEE Guide for the Selection of Monitoring for Circuit
Breakers.)

This first issue of this guide, IEEE Std C37.10.1-2000, provides guidance in the selection of monitoring for
high-voltage circuit breakers. Monitoring for a particular circuit breaker is very dependent on the circuit
breaker technology, age of the circuit breaker, details of the specific application, and the risks associated with
the various failures possible with the circuit breaker and its many associated power or protection and control
and other support components.

This guide is not intended to provide guidance on the monitoring of protection and control circuits and devices
used with circuit breakers, even though such circuits and devices can have a significant effect on the overall
performance of circuit breaker functions.

NOTE This guide makes no attempt to address the many possible protection and control failure modes. These failure
modes are dependent on the technology of the protective devices as well as on the manner in which they are applied on
the power system. IEEE Std C37.10.1-2000 does not address the subject of software used in protective, control, or
monitoring devices and systems.

Several methodologies are introduced. A methodology termed failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is
presented to assist identification of significant failure modes and their causes. The concepts of risk assessment
are introduced. The subsequently derived priority and economic analysis determines when and where
monitoring is warranted.

The selection of monitoring for circuit breakers should be based on logical engineering and economic
principles. Appropriate monitoring can be selected by considering failure modes and their effects on the
circuit breaker and on the power system, the degree of risk or criticality associated with the failure, and the
economics associated with each type of failure. Monitoring can be used to reduce or replace some inspections,
optimize maintenance, enhance availability of the circuit breaker, improve safety to human and environment,
and derive information on the condition of a specific circuit breaker (or information from several circuit
breakers can be extrapolated to a larger population of identical circuit breakers).

Considerably more information can be gained by combining various signals than from an individual signal.

More advanced monitoring systems may include diagnostic analysis using tools such as artificial intelligence.
These may relate recent monitoring data to historic monitoring data and provide engineering conclusions or
actions required. Systems may be further enhanced by remote access through supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) or use of telephone dial-up systems. Eventually, it is presumed that systems will
become integral to substation automation development.

Readers of this guide are advised of ongoing standards development work now underway that will provide
useful supplementary guidance.

The IEEE Substations Committee is the draft stages of developing Draft Standard for Substation Integrated
Protection, Control, and Data Acquisition Communications. The communication requirement for devices
used to monitor substation equipment is a rapidly changing area.

The IEC is in the draft stages of producing IEC 60300, Dependability Management Part 3-13:
Application guide Project risk management.

The IEEE Transformer Committee is developing similar guidance for selecting monitoring for transformers.

iii

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Monitoring of predominant failure causes and remedying them may also significantly reduce minor failure
causes from occurring.

NOTE Many of the techniques discussed in this guide could have application with many other types of components.

At the time this standard was completed, the Working Group on the Selection of Monitoring for Circuit

Breakers had the following membership:

W. J. (Bill) Bergman, Chair

Roy W. Alexander Carlos Isaac Miklos J. Orosz
Mike Allen Richard P. Jackson William Bradley Robert Jeanjean Jon Rennie
Patrick DiLillo R. William Long Randall L. Dotson Neil Gary Schauffler
McCord Don Seay
Pete Dwyer Georges F. Montillet David Galicia Devki N. Sharma
Anne F. Morgan Charles G. Garner Raja Munayirji Rick H. Melvin Smith
J. Gavazza Yasin I. Musa R. Kirkland Smith
Mietek T. Glinkowski Jeffrey H. Nelson Victor Gor Alan D. Storms
Edward J. O Donnell John S. Tannery
John Webb
Alan Wilson
The following members of the balloting committee voted on this standard:

Roy W. Alexander Joseph L. Koepfinger Edwin Averill P. L. Miklos J. Orosz

Kolarik Gordon O. Perkins
Stan Billings David G. Kumbera Robert J. Puckett
Anne Bosma Stephen R. Lambert David N. Reynolds iv
Ted Burse W. E. Laubach Hugh C. Ross
Carlos L. Cabrera-Rueda John G. Leach Gerald Sakats
James F. Christensen George N. Lester Alexander Dixon Albert Gary Schauffler
Livshitz Larry H. Schmidt
Randall L. Dotson R. William Long J. J. Dravis Jeffrey D. Curt A. Schwalbe
Lord Devki N. Sharma
Denis Dufournet Neil McCord H. Melvin Smith
Douglas J. Edwards Nigel P. McQuin Marcel Fortin Peter R. Kirkland Smith
Meyer Guy St. Jean
Charles G. Garner Daleep C. Mohla David Stone
Ruben D. Garzon Georges F. Montillet Alan D. Storms
Mietek T. Glinkowski Anne F. Morgan David Swindler
Keith Gray Patrick Murphy Chand Z. Tailor
Charles R. Heising Yasin I. Musa Stan H. Telander
Harold L. Hess Jeffrey H. Nelson Malcolm V.
Richard P. Jackson Paul J. Notarian Thaden
Aftab H. Khan Charles L. Wagner
Larry E. Yonce
When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 7 December 2000, it had the following

Donald N. Heirman, Chair

James T. Carlo, Vice Chair
Judith Gorman, Secretary

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 Satish K. Aggarwal James H. Gurney James W. Moore
Mark D. Bowman Richard J. Holleman Gary R. Engmann Robert F. Munzner
Lowell G. Johnson Ronald C. Petersen
Harold E. Epstein Robert J. Kennelly Gerald H. Peterson
H. Landis Floyd Joseph L. Koepfinger* John B. Posey
Jay Forster* Peter H. Lips Gary S. Robinson
Howard M. Frazier L. Bruce McClung Ruben D. Garzon Daleep Akio Tojo
C. Mohla Donald W. Zipse

*Member Emeritus

Also included is the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaison:

Alan Cookson, NIST Representative

Donald R. Volzka, TAB Representative

Yvette Ho Sang
IEEE Standards Project Editor
membership:

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 v

Contents
1. Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2. References ................................................................................................................................................ 1

3. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................... 2

4. Purpose of monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 3

5. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 4

5.1 Decision-making sequence ....................................................................................................................... 4

5.2 Failure modes and effects analysis ............................................................................................................ 4
5.3 Circuit breaker failure modes, failure characteristics/patterns, and monitoring parameters ..................... 7
5.4 Risk assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 49
5.5 Cost-benefit (economic) analysis ............................................................................................................ 52
Annex A (informative) Examples of circuit breaker monitoring analysis ........................................ 60

Annex B (informative) Examples of maintenance programs with and without monitoring ............. 73

Annex C (informative) Bibliography ................................................................................................ 74

vi

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

IEEE Guide for the Selection of
Monitoring for Circuit Breakers

1. Scope
This guide provides direction for the selection of monitoring and for diagnostic parameters to be used with
high-voltage circuit breakers (i.e., above 1000 V). It provides guidance on appropriate parameters to be
considered for monitoring applied to various circuit breaker technologies.

This guide will lead a user through an analysis of circuit breaker performance and application expectations.
The analysis includes a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of the circuit breaker and associated
components, an analysis of the risks associated with failure of the specific application, and a discussion of
the items to be considered in a cost-benefit study to justify application of monitoring in its many forms.
Monitoring is dependent on the technology of the circuit breaker and monitoring available at the time of
application. FMEA as well as failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) are methods of
reliability analysis intended to identify failures that have significant consequences affecting the system
performance in the considered application.

NOTE The examples shown are for illustrative purposes only. Numeric and financial values shown are solely for the
purpose of showing that values can be assigned if so chosen. Actual circumstances will dictate values, costs, and expenses
to be used in the quantifying of risk, economic evaluation and justification, and the ultimate selection of monitoring. The
specific circuit breaker technology employed will also either restrict or broaden opportunities for monitoring.

This guide provides advice on what parameters can be monitored to derive information about the condition
of a circuit breaker. Use of techniques, such as those in CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997) 1, provides more
information on combining appropriate signals to derive greater information than either signal alone would
provide.

Circuits associated with the operation of the circuit breaker, which might include auxiliary contacts, X and
Y relays, lockout switches, and so on, are included in this guide. External control circuits are not included in
the scope of this guide. This guide is not intended to provide guidance on the monitoring of protection and
control circuits, although they can have a significant effect on the overall circuit breaker functions.

NOTE This guide makes no attempt to address the many possible protection and control failure modes. These failure
modes are dependent on the technology of the protective devices as well as on the manner in which they are applied on
the power system. This issue of the guide does not address the subject of software used in protective, control, or
monitoring devices and systems.

2. References
This guide shall be used in conjunction with the following publications. When the following publications are
superseded by an approved revision, the revision shall apply.

1
Information on references can be found in Clause 2.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 1

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

CAN/CSA-Q634-91, Risk analysis requirements and guidelines. 2

CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997), On-line condition monitoring of substation power equipment Utility
needs.3

IEC 60812:1985-07, Analysis techniques for system reliability Procedure for failure mode and effects
analysis (FMEA).4

IEEE Std C37.10-1995, IEEE Guide for Diagnostics and Failure Investigation of Power Circuit Breakers. 5

IEEE Std 493-1997, IEEE Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems (IEEE Gold Book ).

NOTES

1 Appendix J and Appendix N of IEEE Std 493-1997 contain summaries of the more comprehensive documents
in Annex C Beierer et al. [B6]5, CIGRE [B5]6, CIGRE [B8], and Diagnostic techniques [B9].

2 IEEE Std 493-1997, Appendix J, Summary of CIGRE 13.06 Working Group World Wide Reliability Data and
Maintenance Cost Data on High Voltage Circuit Breakers Above 63 kV by C. R. Heising, A. L. J. Janssen, W. Lenz, E.
Columbo, and E. N. Dialynaas (IEEE-IAS Industrial Application Conference, October 2 5, 1994, Denver, Colorado,
94CH34520, pp. 2226 2234).

3 IEEE Std 493-1997, Appendix N, Transmission Line and Equipment Outage Data, Part 3, Transmission
Equipment Reliability Data from Canadian Electricity Association by D. O. Koval (IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 32, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 1996, pp. 1 9).

3. Definitions
For the purposes of this guide, the following terms and definitions apply. The Authoritative Dictionary of
IEEE Standards Terms [B12] should be referenced for terms not defined in this clause.

3.1 continuous monitor: Monitoring installed for uninterrupted consecutive sampling or observing circuit
breaker condition. Sampling, calculation, or processing time may not yield real-time results. Ability to
monitor some characteristics may only be possible when the circuit breaker operates.

NOTE The monitored circuit breaker can be in the energized or de-energized state, with manual, or automatic on-line,
periodic, or continuous monitoring.

3.2 diagnostic analysis: Application of tools such as artificial intelligence (including expert systems, neural
nets, and fuzzy logic) to analyze the outputs from periodic or continuous monitoring. These tools may relate

2
CSA publications are available from the Canadian Standards Association (Standards Sales), 178 Rexdale Blvd., Etobicoke, Ontario,
Canada M9W 1R3 (http://www.csa.ca/).
3
CEA publications are available from Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), Research & Development, Suite 1600, One
Westmount Square, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3Z 2P9 (http://www.canelect.ca).
4
IEC publications are available from the Sales Department of the International Electrotechnical Commission, Case Postale 131, 3, rue
de VarembØ, CH-1211, GenŁve 20, Switzerland/Suisse (http://www.iec.ch/). IEC publications are also available in the United States
from the Sales Department, American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036, USA. 5IEEE
publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855-1331, USA (http://standards.ieee.org/).
5
The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex C.
6
CIGRE publications are available from the International Council on Large Electric Systems, 21, rue d Artois, 75008, Paris, France
(http://www.cigre.org/).

2 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

present or recent data to historic information. They can, however, provide engineering conclusions based on
the measured values.

3.3 failure characteristic: (A) A description of the conditional probability of failure against operating age
for an electrical or mechanical item; (B) The evolution of how a failure develops over time. Syn: failure
pattern.

3.4 failure effect: A description of what actually happens when a failure mode occurs.

3.5 failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA): Analysis based on that defined component or subassembly
level where the basic failure criteria (primary failure modes) are available. Starting from the basic element
failure characteristics and the functional system structure, the FMEA determines the relationship between
the element failures and the system failures, malfunctions, operational constraints, and degradation of
performance or integrity. To evaluate secondary and higher-order system and subsystem failures, the
sequences of events in time may also have to be considered.

NOTE See also: IEC 60812:1985-07.

3.6 failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA): A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)
that also considers the criticality or risks associated with the effects of a failure.

3.7 failure pattern: See: failure characteristic.

3.8 periodic monitor: The noncontinuous, intermittent manual, or automated monitoring of circuit breaker
condition at selected intervals. Periodic monitoring can be at very short, long, regular, or irregular intervals.

NOTE The monitored circuit breaker can be in the energized or de-energized state, with manual, or automatic on-line,
periodic, or continuous monitoring.

3.9 risk: The combined impact of the probability of an event occurring and the consequences of that event
when it occurs.

NOTE Failure, failure cause, monitor, catastrophic failure, major failure, mechanism failure, minor failure, failure mode,
failure modes and effects analysis, and continuous monitor are defined in IEEE 100 [B12].

4. Purpose of monitoring
Monitoring can be used to

a) Determine the condition of a specific circuit breaker

b) Determine the condition of the circuit breaker support and control functions and facilities
c) Optimize maintenance activity
d) Develop an understanding of the condition of a larger population of circuit breakers in similar
circumstances by examining a representative sample of the population
e) Improve circuit breaker utilization
f) Reduce circuit breaker failure rates
g) Add to the circuit breaker body of knowledge available to determine the cause of failures after the
fact
h) Improve economics of equipment operation

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 3

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

5. Methodology
Several methodologies are introduced to assist a user with arriving at a monitoring selection based on the
greatest reduction in failure rate, considering the risks of such failure and the cost benefit value introduced
by the application of monitoring.

A methodology termed FMEA is presented to assist identification of significant failure modes and their
causes. The concepts of risk assessment are then introduced. The subsequently derived priority and economic
analysis then determines when and where monitoring is warranted.

5.1 Decision-making sequence

The process described in this guide is as follows.

Stage 1:
a) Undertake an FMEA analysis to identify failure modes, causes of the failure modes, and causes of
failure characteristics for the specific family of circuit breakers. This also indicates the most
appropriate monitoring options.
b) The FMEA identifies monitoring options that are available and appropriate to observe the condition
of circuit breakers. This stage is described in the succeeding section and given in Table 2 through
Table 19. The process for Stage 1(a) and Stage 1(b) would be to identify those elements in Table 2
through Table 19 that are important for the circuit breaker group in the analysis. A column is provided
for adding the score from Stage 2(a) to Table 2 through Table 19.

Stage 2:
a) Apply a risk assessment for the specific circuit breaker application. Conduct a risk assessment to
quantify the risk associated with each specific circuit breaker failure mode (i.e., deterioration in
functional capability or failure to functionally perform). This may indicate that monitoring should be
applied almost regardless of cost. Typically, the risk assessment outcome will be used in conjunction
with cost-benefit analysis. A risk matrix, as shown in Table 20, Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23,
should be completed.
b) Undertake the cost-benefit analysis as indicated in the last section and in Table 7. Annex A provides
two specific examples.

Stage 3:
The decision to implement continuous or periodic monitoring may be unambiguously indicated from
either risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis alone. In other cases, a balanced judgment may be
more appropriate.

The process is described in the flow diagram of Figure 1.

5.2 Failure modes and effects analysis

FMEA or FMECA are methods of reliability analysis intended to identify failures that have significant
consequences affecting the system performance in the considered application. See IEC 60812:1985-07.

The term failure, when used in the context of this guide and its companion standard IEEE Std C37.101995,
is used to mean the unsuccessful performance of function regardless of cause, component, or device involved.
Failure to perform the intended function(s) need not imply that the particular component failed, but that the
component or system function was not satisfied. Functional failures are not necessarily caused by circuit
breaker or component failure. External causes, including misapplication, should also be considered.

4 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

FMEA
(Stage 1a)

Determine
Monitoring Risk
Options Analysis
(Stage 1b) (Stage 2a )

Cost-
Benefit
Analysis
(Stage 2b)

Decision
(Stage 3)
Negative Benefit

No Monitoring Positive Benefit

Implement
Monitoring

Figure 1 Monitoring decision process flow diagram

The FMEA is based on that defined component or subassembly level where the basic failure criteria (primary
failure modes) are available. Starting from the basic element failure characteristics and the functional system
structure, the FMEA determines the relationship between the element failures and the system failures,
malfunctions, operational constraints, and degradation of performance or integrity. To evaluate secondary
and higher order system and subsystem failures, the sequences of events in time may also have to be
considered (IEC 60812:1985-07). Users of this guide are encouraged to make use of CEA Project No.
485T1049 (1997), Bierer et al. [B6], CIGRE [B5], and IEEE 100 [B12].

An FMEA is used to develop an understanding of what can fail, its effect on the functional system, and what
characteristic can be monitored to observe the condition of a circuit breaker (or other devices).

This analysis derives the greatest value from being performed on a system basis rather than on a component
basis. In this discussion, a power circuit breaker is considered a system. The circuit breaker becomes a
component when applied in an electric power grid (system).

A description of circuit breaker functions leads to identification of failure modes. A failure mode is the effect
by which a failure is observed (IEC 60812:1985-07). Failure causes for various technologies of circuit
breakers can then be listed for each failure mode (IEEE Std C37.10-1995). The effect of each failure mode
can be developed, and the criticality or risk associated with each of the failure modes can then be analyzed.
The effect is what happens to the circuit breaker when the failure cause manifests as a failure mode. The
effect is the same for each circuit breaker, even though what happens to facilities (i.e., consequences)
connected to the circuit might be different for each specific application.

The evolution of how a failure develops over time is known as the failure characteristic. Failures can occur
very suddenly or over a long period of time. Failure characteristics vary with the types of devices and the
physics and chemistry of the failure mechanism. For example, some known failure characteristics are shown
in Table 1.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 5

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table 1 Failure characteristics or patterns showing failure rate versus various parameters

a) Infant mortality followed by a constant or gradually

increasing failure rate and then a pronounced wearout
region ( bathtub curve )

t
b) Constant or gradually increasing failure rate with
time followed by a pronounced wear-out region

c) Gradually increasing failure rate with no

identifiable wear-out region

d) Low failure rate when new or overhauled, followed

by a rapid increase to a relatively constant level

e) Relatively constant rate of failure at all ages

f) Infant mortality followed by a constant or slowly

increasing failure rate

g) Failure rate associated with inactivity (failure

caused because the circuit breaker is inactive for some
time since the last operation), overloading or system
stresses while in service, or environmental factors
(e.g., corrosion)

h) Load-related failure rates (e.g., higher or lower

loading causes increased failure rate)

i) Random failure rates

6 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

j) Increased failure rate immediately after maintenance

and then returning to one of the above patterns

k) Decreased failure rate immediately after

maintenance and then returning to one of the above
patterns

A more detailed understanding of the failure characteristic or pattern is important when selecting monitoring.
Monitoring is more beneficial during circuit breaker life periods of higher expected failure probability and
may be less beneficial during periods of anticipated lower failure rate. The failure pattern should be
considered when using Table 2 to select monitoring.

Generally, more appropriate monitoring can be selected if the failure cause characteristic can be understood.
Similarly, more appropriate maintenance may also be applied with this understanding. An example is
reliability-centered maintenance where maintenance tasks are selected to prevent functional failure causes
that are associated with higher risks. Reliability-centered maintenance analyzes failure modes and their
effects on function and then assigns maintenance activity directly related to reducing the failures that are
deemed most important. An understanding of failure characteristics also allows predictions to be made on
the number of expected failures for future years. The accuracy of the predictive model is dependent on the
volume of highquality data and the use of the proper forecasting technique. It is recommended that the user
acquire as much relevant data from sources such as IEEE, CIGRE, CEA, and other industry sources so that
the predictions can be as accurate as possible. Application of this data with algorithms based on the failure
cause produces future failure projections that can be significant when used in cost justification for the
purchase of monitoring equipment.

A rigorous analysis might identify all of the circuit breaker functions and their failure modes, whereas a
lessextensive analysis could concentrate on the predominant failure modes only. In many (but not all) cases,
these predominant failure modes could cover most of the circuit breaker reliability concerns with
significantly less effort.

A more complete FMECA can classify all identified failure modes according to their detectability,
diagnosability, testability, item replaceability, compensating and operating provisions (repair, maintenance
and logistics, etc.) and any other relevant characteristics (IEC 60812:1985-07).

5.3 Circuit breaker failure modes, failure characteristics/patterns, and monitoring

parameters

Table 2 through Table 197 identify several failure modes, possible effects, and some causes of the failure,
with speculation on the failure characteristic and monitoring options.

The FMEA may be applicable to the entire circuit breaker or to individual poles of a circuit breaker. There
is a benefit to a broad-based view in developing the FMEA. The circuit breaker is generally installed as part
of an integrated system. Many external situations and circumstances are beyond the control or awareness of
the circuit breaker manufacturer or application engineer and can have an impact on the circuit breaker
functional performance.

Monitoring options can be applied on a continuous or periodic on-line basis, or on a periodic manual basis.

7
The IEEE grants purchasers of this material permission to copy Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9,
Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 for their use only. Under no
circumstances are these copies to be shared or sold by purchaser. The IEEE reserves all other rights to the material.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 7

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

8
 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 9

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

10 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 11

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

12 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 13

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

14 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 15

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

16 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 17

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

18 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 19

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

20 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 21

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

22 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 23

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

24 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 25

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

26 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 27

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

28 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 29

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

30 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 31

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

32 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 33

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

34 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 35

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

36 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 37

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

38 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 39

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

40 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 41

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

42 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 43

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

44 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 45

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

46 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std 37.10.1-2000

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 47

IEEE
Std 37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR THE MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

48 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

NOTES

1 Table 2 through Table 19 are only representative FMEA charts. They are not complete for every circuit breaker and
may not include all issues of importance to the user. The end user should consider many factors, including, as an
example, the fault level at the circuit breaker compared with the circuit breaker interrupting rating and the
consequence to the circuit breaker owner as well as to downstream customers.

2 These tables are a generic listing of circuit breaker failure modes, failure effects, failure causes, failure characteristics,
and some monitoring options that are available. The listing is comprehensive, although there may be others that were
either not identified at the time this guide was produced or that are applicable to new circuit breakers developed after
this guide was developed.

3 Failure modes in bold font and indicated with an asterisk (*) are considered as predominant failure modes in this
example analysis. Predominant failure modes can sometimes be considered to include most of the likely failure
modes. A more rigorous FMEA would include all failure modes, whereas a less rigorous analysis including
predominant failure modes only may be judged adequate for some situations.

4 For the convenience of users of this guide, a column has been added to score the relative importance of each
monitoring option for the users specific circumstances.

5 These tables attempt to establish correspondence among failure cause, failure characteristic, and monitoring option.

5 Be aware that a failure cause might have occurred during a previous operation and may not be apparent until
the subsequent operation is requested.

6 Monitoring an action or characteristic may yield information that is not necessarily directly related to the root
cause of a failure.

7 This guide makes no attempt to address the many possible protection and control failure modes. These failure
modes are dependent on the technology of the protective devices, as well as on the manner in which they are applied to
the power system. Similarly, this guide does not address the issue of software used in protective, control, or monitoring
devices and systems.

5.4 Risk assessment

After the effect of a failure is determined, the criticality or risk associated with that effect should be assessed.
The risk assessment quantifies the importance of each failure effect (CAN/CSA-Q634-91).

Risk is formed from two factors: the probability of any event occurring and its consequence. Risk is high
when an event is likely to occur, and it has serious results. Risk can be moderate if the probability is low and
the consequences are high, when both are medium, or when the probability is high and consequences are
low. Risk is low if both probability and consequences are low.

By evaluating the probability of an event happening and developing an idea of how serious the situation
might be if it occurs, risk can be evaluated. High-risk items generally require action be taken to reduce the
risk, whereas low-risk items may not need to have any action taken. In this assessment, action to be taken is
implementation of condition monitoring, whereas in the area of maintenance, selection of appropriate
maintenance tasks is undertaken. Obviously, manufacturers make these assessments based on the knowledge
they have regarding the circuit breaker design and manufacture. The end user has application information
not available to manufacturers and, therefore, is in a position to conduct an assessment appropriate to each
situation.

Table 20 can be used to help quantify risk. Determine the level of probability that an event can occur and the
consequences if that event does happen (regardless of how often it happens) to develop the level of risk that
should be recognized. Consequences and probabilities can be quantified in the areas of financial impact as
well as in the areas of safety, environmental, public, employee, or regulatory impact [CEA Project No.
485T1049 (1997) and CAN/CSA-Q634-91]. A complete analysis would consider the consequences and

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 49

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

probabilities associated with risk in each of the areas of financial, safety, environmental, public, employee,
or regulatory impact; and other areas of risk appropriate to the specific installation.

Table 20 Risk matrix

Risk matrix

(Risk ≡ probability of an event occurring × consequences if that event occurs)

Consequence of an event occurring

Probability that I II III IV

an event will
occur Catastrophic Major Moderate Negligible

1 - Frequent A A B B

2 - Occasional A A B C

3 - Infrequent B B C D

4 - Improbable B C D D

NOTE Multiply chance of an event occurring times the consequence to obtain

predicted risk.

Another way of viewing risk is illustrated in Figure 2..

Unacceptable Risk

Consequences Risk Mediation Required

Probability Acceptable Risk

Figure 2 Graphic representation shows various

levels of risk

Table 21 lists EXAMPLES only of how consequence and probability might be quantified. The consequence
example uses a financial consequence. Other examples might include safety, environment, or public relations
descriptions.

50 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

The examples shown are for illustrative purposes only. Numeric financial values and consequential
descriptions are strictly for the purpose of showing that values can be assigned if so chosen. Actual
circumstances can dictate values, costs, and expenses to be used in the quantifying of risk, economic
evaluation and justification, and the ultimate selection of monitoring. The specific circuit breaker
technology employed can also either restrict or broaden opportunities for monitoring.
Table 21 Risk or criticality ranking: Example
Rank Level of risk or criticality

A Highest risk, unacceptable, immediate action required to reduce risk

B Major risk, not desirable, moderate action required to reduce risk

C Moderate risk, acceptable with controls to mitigate risk

D Minimal risk, acceptable risk without mitigating action

The examples of consequences shown in Table 22 are described in terms of financial, safety, and
environmental consequences. These are examples for illustrative purposes only and should be customized
for the specific circumstances. A user should insert values specific to their situation.

NOTE The suggested process is for the user to identify and assess the importance to their enterprise and customers of the
various levels of consequence for an event.

The examples shown in Table 23 are for illustrative purposes only. Numeric probability values are strictly
for the purpose of showing that values can be assigned if so chosen. Actual circumstances can dictate
probabilities to be used in the quantifying of risk, economic evaluation and justification, and the ultimate
selection of monitoring. The specific circuit breaker technology employed may result in probabilities specific
to that technology. These are examples for illustrative purposes only, they may not be appropriately grouped,
and they should be customized for the specific circumstances.

Several sources of failure probability are listed in IEEE Std 493-1997, Beierer et al. [B6], CEA [B2], CIGRE
[B5], CIGRE [B8], Diagnostic techniques [B9], and IEEE 100 [B12]. Table 23 has illustrative values for the
sole purpose of assisting a user in ranking probabilities for use in quantifying risk. The probabilities identified
in each level of probability are not equivalent and are intended only as a means of describing relative
probability.

Such analysis can be done for each user of the technique, applying knowledge of probabilities and
consequences suitable to the user s specific circumstances. As an example, only consider the case in which
a circuit breaker is called on to operate 5 times per year and has a probability of failure to operate of 1 in 200
operations or a 0.5% failure rate. If the consequence of this specific failure to operate is expected to be $50
000 for all costs, including those of the utility and its customers, the expected annual cost of failure is
0.005 × 5 × $50 000= $1,250.

Selection of monitoring might well be made on an FMEA and risk management basis only. It is also important
to consider consequences in areas other than the financial example provided. Other areas, which may have
significant importance to the user, are the environment, customer relations, legal or regulatory effect, safety,
or customer power quality.

Six valuable sources of information for circuit breaker performance data are given in Beierer et al. [B6], CEA
[B2], CIGRE [B5], CIGRE [B8], Diagnostic techniques [B9], and IEEE 100 [B12].

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 51

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

The expected cost of a loss is used to evaluate possible mitigation efforts, such as installing on-line
monitoring of selected circuit breakers. The expected loss with and without on-line monitoring is one of the
factors to be considered in the economic analysis.

Table 22 Description of consequences: Example

Consequence of an event occurring (Financial, safety, and environmental examples are illustrated for
example only. Additional areas of consequence could include social, regulatory, legal, public reputation, and
political impact. Each user will have specific criteria for these areas of consequence.)

ICatastrophic

Financial and facility costs or exposure threatens the long-term survival of the organization. Any long-term
impact on share value.

Fatalities (as a direct result) or serious long-term health impact on

The public
Employees
Contractors

An incident that causes long-term harm (x years or more). Ecological damage that endangers ecological
processes or significant harm to humans.

IIMajor

Financial and facility costs or exposure cause a major impact on the organization. Any long-term impact on
share value.

Permanent impairment or serious injury or illness.

An incident that causes significant ecological damage that can be controlled and lasts up to x years.

IIIModerate

Financial and facility costs or exposure cause a moderate impact on the organization. Any short-term impact
on share value.

Recordable injury (restricted work, medical aid).

An incident that causes noticeable but repairable damage, but where technology exists to mitigate the
ecological damage over time.

IVNegligible

Financial and facility costs or exposure cause a minor impact on the organization.

Minor injury / illness (first aid).

An incident that causes short-term minor ecological impacts that can be repaired quickly or through natural
processes.

5.5 Cost-benefit (economic) analysis

The following section describes some of the elements that might be included when developing a business
case tailored to a specific situation. It is important to recognize that the examples are for illustrative purposes
only. Numeric financial values are strictly for the purpose of showing that values can be assigned, if so
chosen. Actual circumstances can dictate values, costs, and expenses to be used in the quantifying of risk,

52 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

economic evaluation and justification, and the ultimate selection of monitoring. The specific circuit breaker
technology employed can also either restrict or broaden opportunities for monitoring.

Table 23 Descriptions of probabilities: Example

Probability of an event occurring

1Frequent (possibility of repeated incidents)

Current conditions indicate repeated future occurrences are possible for the system.

Average probability of occurrences about 30% per year, with 9 occurrences likely in 30 years.

Lowest probability greater than 10% per year.

1 to 3 misoperations in 10 operations.

2Occasional (possibility of isolated incidents)

Current conditions indicate isolated future occurrences are possible for the system.

Average probability of occurrence about 3% per year, with 1 occurrence likely in 30 years.

Lowest probability 1 10% per year.

1 misoperation in 30 operations.

3Infrequent (possibility of occurring sometime)

Current conditions indicate occasional future occurrences are possible for the system.

Average probability of occurrence about 0.3% per year, with 1 occurrence likely in 30 years out of 10
similar systems.

Lowest probability 0.1 1% per year.

4Improbable (not likely to occur)

Current conditions indicate only isolated future occurrences are likely for the system.

Average probability of occurrence about 0.03% per year, with 1 occurrence likely in 30 years out of 100
similar systems.

Lowest probability 0.01 0.1% per year.

This section is intended to help the users and owners of switchgear equipment consider and justify the
implementation of monitoring and diagnostics programs based on the analysis of costs and benefits. The
costs referred to in the risk assessment process are defined in greater detail, and the benefit of monitoring is
compared to the nonmonitored situation. Economic analysis should consider direct and indirect costs and
benefits. Use of a spreadsheet can assist in understanding the sensitivity of the business case to assumptions
made during the analysis.

Costs are incurred in the operation, inspection, maintenance, and restoration of failed substation power
equipment. One of the goals of monitoring and diagnostics schemes is to reduce these costs by more thorough
inspections, more appropriate maintenance tasks and maintenance intervals, and lower failure rates.
Monitoring is justifiable if a net benefit results from its application. It is prudent to review over time the
benefits intended to be achieved with the benefits actually achieved and the costs incurred. The cost of
monitoring should be related to equipment cost and its importance.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 53

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

The analysis of costs and benefits is to facilitate better business decisions around operation, maintenance,
utilization, and retirement of equipment. No monitoring scheme should be implemented without a supporting,
full cost-benefit analysis, which includes much more than direct costs.

The analysis should include the following:

a) All existing costs of inspection, operation, maintenance, testing, failure restoration, outage costs, and
risks (utility and customer) caused by equipment inspections, maintenance, and failures before
implementation of monitoring schemes
b) All reduced costs of displaced or reduced inspection, operation, maintenance, monitoring, testing,
outage costs, and risks (utility and customer) caused by equipment inspections, maintenance, and
failure caused by monitoring schemes
c) All increased costs of operation, maintenance, inspection, monitoring, testing, training, outages, and
risks (utility and customer) caused by equipment inspections, maintenance, and failure caused by
monitoring schemes; monitoring maintenance and false alarms; cost of monitoring installation; cost
to analyze data and information; communication facilities; and increased training for those installing,
servicing, maintaining, and using monitoring systems
d) All benefits from increased operability and greater utilization, more appropriate timing and degree
of maintenance, knowledge of the condition of a population of equipment from monitoring an
individual equipment condition, increased safety adjacent to equipment with condition concerns,
decreased risk exposure, and improved environmental protection

5.5.1 Inspection

Monitoring can often be used to supplement and reduce manual inspections. The decreased monitoring costs,
including travel labor and vehicle time and expenses; disassembly, manual inspection, and time and expenses
to reassemble; visual inspection; and reporting time, are to be evaluated against the cost of the automated or
manual monitoring techniques. There is obvious risk in relying only on manual periodic inspection to detect
impending failures if the failure development characteristic is much longer than the inspection interval.
Conversely, some monitoring can be best served by periodic testing. Inspection costs are to include downtime
costs to perform the inspection.

5.5.2 Maintenance

On-line condition monitoring also influences the maintenance program for substation power equipment.

Monitoring can be used to optimize the extent, timing, and specific maintenance activities to be performed.
Similar calculations can be made for the costs and benefits associated with minor and major maintenance for
each type of equipment, with and without monitoring installed.

Various power utilities and industrial power equipment owners have different maintenance programs. These
programs are based on a number of factors, including time intervals or dates, type of equipment (MV, HV,
oil, vacuum, SF6), condition of equipment, age, brand and model of equipment, reliability, and criticality of
application. Although historically the maintenance and inspection programs were primarily time-based, the
trend is toward more sophisticated maintenance schemes.

5.5.3 Consequences of failure

A method of evaluating the value of monitoring is to consider the consequences of failure when monitoring
is installed and when it is not installed. (An alternative is to consider only the reduction in failure,
maintenance, and inspection costs when monitoring is installed.)

54 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

A methodology to assess the consequences of failure is included from the CEA on-line condition monitoring
report [CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997)]. Several of these considerations can also be applied to
maintenance-caused outages as well as to the costs of inspections.

Consider the consequences of failure in terms of the degree of acceptability for a particular failure mode.

The value of on-line condition monitoring can be significant if the consequences are major (risk to personnel,
prolonged outage, disruption to large sensitive customers, etc.). The consequences may also be significant in
symbolic and pragmatic capital terms or in social terms (connection to a hospital or to a remote rural
community subject to low ambient temperatures). In contrast, the value of on-line condition monitoring can
be minimal if the consequences are minor. The consequences of failure are an integral part of the costbenefit
analysis [CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997)].

To evaluate the benefit of on-line condition monitoring applied to prevent or reduce failures, the following
information should be known for circumstances without monitoring and estimated for the following
situations in which monitoring is being considered [CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997)]:

a) Major (excluding explosive failures) failure rate (MFR) in [#failures/component/year]

b) Minor failure rate (mfr) in [#failures/component/year]
c) Explosive failure rate (EFR) [#failures/component/year]
d) Cost of repair for major, minor, and explosive failures (CR, cr, ECR) in [$/failure]
e) Cost of outages for major, minor, and explosive failures (CO, co, ECO) [$/hour]
f) Repair times for major, minor, and explosive failures (RF, rf, RE) in [hour/failure]

The above rates are average annual values. The costs can change from year to year because of changing
failure trends, cost escalation, and so on. The cost of failure (CF) in dollars per component per year can be
evaluated as

$
CF --------------------------------------component/year = MFR × CR + mfr × cr + EFR × ECR

× MFR × CO × RF + mfr × co × rf + EFR × ECO × RE

The total cost of failures (TCF) can be calculated for a type of component (type of breaker) as

$
TCF --------year = CF × (# of components of a given type)

It should be noted that CF can vary from year-to-year because of factors such as cost escalation and failure
predictions. The above formula should be recalculated for all component (breaker) types to obtain the costs
of failures of equipment.

An example inspection and maintenance program with resulting failure rates is shown in Table 24.

In addition to Table 24, the following factors should be considered when performing a cost-benefit analysis
[CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997)]:

Replacement cost of equipment (include purchase and installation costs)

Damage to adjacent equipment (utility and customer) facilities, including the costs to replace and
rehabilitate neighboring facilities

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 55

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Insurance premiums based on facility performance history

Table 24 Example inspection and maintenance program with resulting failure rates
Maintenance costs
Inspection costs (minor and major) Failure resolution costs

Example Example Example

Monthly visual inspection of circuit Minor maintenance Major (excluding

breaker, record operations counter, every 3 years, external, explosive failures) failure
compressed air pressure including contact rate (MFR) in number of
resistance, oil check, failures/component/year =
and lubrication 0.0089

Minor failure rate (mfr) in

number of failures/
Diagnostic inspection periodic contact Major maintenance component/year = 0.0782
resistance check, dielectric test, contact every 6 years, internal,
motion test every third inspection contact maintenance, oil, Explosive failure rate
interrupter, etc. (EFR) in number of
failures/component/year =
0.0019

Cost of repair for major,

minor, and explosive
failures (CR, cr, ECR) in
$/failure = $50K, $5K,
$450K

Cost of outages for major,

minor, and explosive
failures (CO, co, ECO) in
$/hour = $1.5K, $0.1K,
$5.7K/MWh

Repair times for major,

minor, and explosive
failures (RF, rf, RE) in
hour/failure = 24, 6, 144 h
Replacement cost of appropriate equipment
Costs of replacing equipment, including all labor and possible overtime rates, materials, supplies, vehicles,
specialized machinery, contractor services
Technical, engineering, and management support
Outage costs incurred by the power system, including loss of energy sales opportunities, increased system
losses during outage, reduced system reliability during outage
Outage costs incurred by affected customers, including loss of production, damage to plant facilities, start-
up costs and damage to facilities, production of less than commercial quality product during start-up,
penalties for delivery disruption, loss of sales, missed opportunities, increased marketing costs
Loss of revenue (utility and customer)
Loss of reputation (utility and customer)
Injury (utility and customer)
Loss of life of equipment or plant (utility and customer)
Problem cascading to major blackout
Nonoptimal utilization of equipment remaining life

56 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Direct or indirect failure caused by intrusive inspection or maintenance without on-line condition
monitoring
Undiscovered equipment common-type problems that may spread within a specific equipment population
Failure to meet electric supply contracts and potential liabilities
Failure modes with environmental impact (utility and customer)
Relative waste of resources using less-effective maintenance processes
Interest and overhead charges on many of the above
Costs of maintaining the monitoring systems
Costs of responding to false alarms
Cost of damage from undetected events that might have been detected with existing inspections and
maintenance
Increased costs for scheduling maintenance (maintenance driven by monitor output alone cannot be
levelized)
Cost of reading, storing, and analyzing data from monitors
All reduced benefits caused by not realizing the calculated savings from a circuit breaker monitordriven
maintenance program; a user may have difficulty levelizing his maintenance workforce with a true
circuit breaker monitor-driven maintenance program; all of the calculated savings may not be
attainable

Table 25 lists some costs involved in inspection, maintenance, and failure work associated with substation
power equipment. Although not complete for every situation, it can provide guidance in determining a
significant portion of the costs. Identifying the full cost of maintenance is vital to identifying how much
money is available for on-line condition monitoring. Often, a reduction of these full maintenance costs is
required to justify implementation of monitoring schemes. Some power equipment owners might have only
a partial appreciation of the full cost of maintenance and underestimate their full maintenance costs, perhaps
including portions of the maintenance costs with general operational costs. Some of those operations costs
would not be incurred if it were not for maintenance purposes. Similarly, the full costs of failure and of
inspections is essential to providing the complete view of costs and benefits associated with monitoring.

On-line condition monitoring (or even off-line or periodic monitoring) can modify the above costs. Several
possible benefits of such monitoring and diagnostic schemes are listed as follows:

Improved electric service delivery reliability performance

Knowledge and ability to remove equipment from service in a planned manner (albeit possibly with little
planning time), rather than having it fail unexpectedly
Knowledge and ability to make replacement decisions based on balancing outage time and duration,
coordination with customers and other parts of the power system, and delivery of suitable
replacement components or equipment.
Knowledge and ability to increase the effective service (loading) of equipment in a short- and a longterm
planned manner
Positive effect on insurance premiums
More appropriate timing and selection of maintenance

Table 25 Inspection, minor and major maintenance, and failure resolution cost
considerations
Maintenance costs
Inspection costs (minor and major) Failure resolution costs

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 57

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Example Example Example

Actual inspection labor Actual maintenance labor Actual failure analysis labor

Travel time and costs Travel time and costs Travel time and costs

Contractor services Contractor services Contractor services

Training time and costs Training time and costs Training time and costs

Reporting and inputting data Reporting and inputting data Reporting and inputting data

Analyzing results Analyzing results Analyzing results

Clerical support personnel Clerical support personnel Clerical support personnel

Technical and management support of Technical and management support of Technical and management support of
inspection activity; corporate resource maintenance activity; corporate resource restoration activity, corporate resource
overheads and loading associated with overheads, and loading associated with the overheads, and loading associated with the
maintenance function
the inspection function restoration function

Vehicles, materials, supplies, Vehicles, materials, and supplies, machinery, Vehicles, materials, and supplies, machinery,
machinery, and instrumentation and instrumentation and instrumentation

Spare parts Spare parts and equipment

Spare parts management, procurement, Spare parts and equipment management,

warehousing, delivery, interest procurement, warehousing, delivery, interest

Consumable material and supplies Consumable material and supplies

Preparation of power system switching Preparation of power system switching

schedules and orders; issuing of safe work schedules and orders; issuing of safe work
permits permits

Power system switching effort, installation, Power system switching effort, installation,
and removal of workers protective grounding and removal of workers protective grounding

Power system outage costs, e.g., increased Power system outage costs, e.g., increased
losses, loss of revenue losses, loss of revenue

Vehicles, materials, supplies, Possible damage to facilities required by Damaged equipment, damage to adjacent
machinery, and instrumentation maintenance access facilities, and equipment and facilities rebuild

Apportioned cost of system spares, purchase

of replacement equipment or components

Outage costs (loss of revenue, customer cost

of energy supply interruption, overtime, etc.)

Diagnostics and failure investigation

In and out costs of failed equipment and

replacement equipment, transportation

Other costs? Other costs? Other costs?

58 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Having completed this calculation, the present worth of the cost of failure over the expected life of the
equipment can be derived. However, even if the failure is avoided by using monitoring equipment, some
inspection and corrective maintenance is still required. The above calculation should then be repeated using
the expected lower costs of inspection, repair, and repair times with monitoring, again deriving the present
worth. The difference between the two present worth values is the avoided cost that can be achieved by the
implementation of on-line condition monitoring. Monitoring can be justified if its present worth cost is less
than the avoided cost (CEA Project No. 485T1049 (1997) and Bergman et al. [B1]).

Two examples of value analysis of monitoring costs and benefits are illustrated in Table A.1 and Table A.2.
Be aware that these are only examples used to illustrate some cost/benefit analysis and comparisons. An
electronic spreadsheet could be developed to include the many considerations for a specific or particular
application.

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 59

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Annex A (informative) Examples of circuit breaker monitoring

analysis
NOTE The following comparisons are examples only. The numbers and values are not from any valid source, but
they are used to show how a cost-benefit analysis comparison can be made to choose or reject installation of
monitoring. The business cases are examples only. Fictitious numbers have been used to show a process and how a
business model can be used. All costs are on an annualized basis. The present value of these costs has not been
calculated. Use of a spreadsheet eases calculation and permits sensitivity analysis.

The examples shown are for illustrative purposes only. Numeric financial values are strictly for the purpose
of showing that values can be assigned if so chosen. Actual circumstances can dictate values, costs, and
expenses to be used in quantifying the risk, economic evaluation and justification, and the ultimate selection
of monitoring. The specific circuit breaker technology employed can also either restrict or broaden
opportunities for monitoring.

It is important for the user to keep records to establish costs and performance representative of the specific
application being analyzed. The analysis should be performed by type of circuit breaker and type of failure
mode(s). It should consider the sources of most appropriate sources of data and information.

The user should consider the specific application of the circuit breaker. Two identical circuit breakers in
substantially different duties may behave differently, which in turn would lead to different values assigned
to monitoring.

Circuit breakers used for capacitor switching, arc furnace duty, or frequent switching of large motors may
have a shorter life expectancy and a greater value for on-line condition monitoring.

Failure rate costs should be calculated for the major and minor failure rates. Maintenance costs should be
calculated for the minor and major maintenance activities.

Monetary values show dollars and cents because some values are sufficiently small that they would not show
if dollars only were shown. The cumulative effect of many small items is shown. The assumptions underlying
the calculations may not support this accuracy.

The examples presented here were developed using a spreadsheet to calculate financial values using inputs
shown in the input values column. As a result, many financial values are small amounts; however, the sum
totals are relevant to the evaluation. The intent of the example is to illustrate the many components that go
toward making the total comparison of capital, operation, and maintenance costs.

A.1 Example cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring
Monitoring would not be economical on the basis of Table A.1. .

Table A.1 Example 1: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring
Annual direct costs

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Inspection hours/breaker without monitoring (per 0.25 3.00 $111.00

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of annual inspections without monitoring 2.00

60 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Inspection hours/breaker with monitoring (per breaker 0.25 1.00 $37.00

hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of annual inspections with monitoring 4.00

Travel time and costs (hours each way shared by four 1.00 6.00 $111.00 2.00 $37.00
breakers)

Contractor services (hours) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

Reporting and inputting data (clerical) 0.15 $4.16 0.00 $0.00

Analyzing results (maintenance staff) 0.10 $3.70 0.05 $1.85

Clerical support personnel 0.20 $5.55 0.05 $1.39

Vehicles, materials and supplies, machinery, and $90.00 $20.00

instrumentation (inspection and travel time @ light truck
hourly rate)

Other costs? $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal annualized inspection costs 9.45 $325.41 3.10 $97.24

Annual maintenance costs (major and minor)

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Maintenance hours/breaker without monitoring (per 8.00 2.00 $74.00

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of years between maintenance without 4.00

monitoring

Maintenance hours/breaker with monitoring (per 8.00 1.00 $37.00

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of years between maintenance with monitoring 8.00

Travel time and costs (hours each way shared by four 1.00 0.50 $18.50 0.25 $9.25
breakers)

Contractor services 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

Reporting and inputting data (clerical) 0.15 $4.16 0.00 $0.00

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 61

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table A.1 Example 1: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring

Annual maintenance costs (major and minor) (continued)

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Analyzing results (maintenance staff) 0.10 $5.55 0.05 $2.78

Clerical support personnel 0.20 $5.55 0.05 $1.39

Vehicles, materials and supplies, machinery, and $25.00 $12.50

instrumentation

Spare parts/maintenance @ $ $200.00 $50.00 $25.00

Spare parts management, procurement, warehousing, 10.00% $5.00 $2.50

delivery, interest (@ xx% of parts/year)

Consumable material and supplies @ $xx/maintenance $100.00 $25.00 $12.50

Preparation of power system switching schedules and 0.50 0.13 $4.63 0.06 $2.31
orders, issuing of safe work permit hours /maintenance
@ xx hours/maintenance (maintenance rate)

Power system switching effort, installation and removal 1.00 0.25 $9.25 0.13 $4.63
of workers protective grounding @ xx hours/
maintenance (maintenance rate)

Power system outage costs, e.g., increased losses, loss $0.00 $0.00
of revenue

Possible damage to facilities required by maintenance $0.00 $0.00

access

Other costs? $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal annualized maintenance costs 3.33 $226.64 1.54 $109.85

Annual failure resolution costs

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Failure rate (from user s source) 0.00100 0.0010

Failure rate decrease with monitoring @ xx% previous 25.00% 0.0003

rate

Actual failure analysis labor (xx hours/failure 40.00 0.0400 $1.48 0.0100 $0.37
maintenance hourly rate)

Travel time and costs @ 5 round trips of 0.25 hour each 0.0000 $0.00 0.0006 $0.02
way

62 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Table A.1 Example 1: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Analyzing results @ 10 hours/failure (engineer rate) 0.0100 $0.06 0.0000 $0.01

Clerical support personnel @ 4 hours/failure 0.0040 $0.03 0.0010 $0.01

Technical and management support of restoration 0.1000 $5.55 0.0250 $1.39

activity, corporate resource overheads, and loading
associated with the restoration function @ 100 hours/
failure

(continued)

osts
hout Annualized Costs with
toring hours monitoring

10 $0.00

00 $0.00

50 $0.00

00 $2.00

04 0.0003 $0.01

10 $0.03

50 $1.25

00 $1.25

22 0.01 $0.56

00 $1.25

00 $0.00

57 0.05 $7.02

62 4.68 214.10

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 63

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table A.1 Example 1: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring
osts
hout Annualized Costs with
toring hours monitoring

$500.00

0.80 $29.60

0.50 $27.75

2.00 $74.00

4.00 $222.00

Annual monitoring installation and operation (continued)

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Annual monitoring support xx hours/year (clerical 2 0.00 2.00 $55.50

hourly rate)

Subtotal annualized monitoring costs 13.31 $633.20 14.07 $1136.57

Annual subtotal direct inspection, maintenance, and 26.28 $1212.82 1.75 $1350.67
failure resolution with and without monitoring

Annual power systems cost

Costs
Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs Input values
hours monitoring hours monitoring

Cost/MWh $20.00 $0.50 $0.13

Power delivery interruption (MW) 5

Interruption duration (hours) 4

Power system outage cost to customer = xx times utility 25 $12.50 $3.13

loss of revenue

Subtotal power system costs $13.00 $3.25

64 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Table A.1 Example 1: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Annual subtotal with direct inspection, maintenance, $1225.82 $1353.92
and failure resolution costs with and without
monitoring, including power system costs

Annual benefit (per breaker) with monitoring $128.11

$ PER BREAKER

Annual indirect costs (benefits, supervision, Rate Loaded

vacation, sick time + location expense and overhead) rate

Maintenance staff labor hourly rate $20.00 $37.00

Support staff labor hourly rate $15.00 $27.75

Engineering staff labor hourly rate $30.00 $55.50

Indirect costs (benefits, supervision, vacation, sick time 1.85

+ location expense) overhead multiplier

Light truck hourly rate $10.00 $10.00

Maintenance truck hourly rate with tools/hour $50.00 $50.00

Contractor rate $0.00 $0.00

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 65

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Notes to Table A.1:

1 Repeat analysis for each failure mode and failure cause.

2 Include costs of all maintenance tasks.
3 Include all risk (or criticality) costs associated with failures. Utility damage and repair costs, loss of revenue, and
restoration of service costs are to be included. Customers costs of unsupplied energy include business or process
disruption, loss of product, facility damage, additional labor costs, waste or costs to return to commercial quality
production, and penalties. Monitoring should be able to reduce the probability of an equipment condition progressing
to the failure state by allowing prior removal from service. Consequences of the failure may also be reduced with the
early warning of an impending failure. Reduction in probability or in consequence has the effect of reducing the cost
of the failure risk, and is attributed as a benefit of condition monitoring.
4 Monitoring costs include the costs of selecting appropriate monitoring, engineering, purchase and installation,
training, operational costs associated with data retrieval and analysis, maintenance, and troubleshooting of monitoring
schemes.
5 Maintenance costs are reduced by condition monitoring triggering only appropriate maintenance tasks at the
appropriate interval, thus, eliminating unnecessary maintenance and associated activities.
6 Include all costs associated with inspections (see Table 25).
7 Include all costs associated with failure resolution (see Table 25).

A.2 Example cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring
Monitoring would be economical on the basis of Table A.2.

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring
Annual direct costs

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Inspection hours/breaker without monitoring (per 0.50 6.00 $277.50

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of annual inspections without monitoring 12.00

Inspection hours/breaker with monitoring (per breaker 0.50 2.00 $92.50

hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of annual inspections with monitoring 4.00

Travel time and costs (hours each way shared by four 1.00 6.00 $138.75 2.00 $46.25
breakers)

Contractor services (hours) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

Reporting and inputting data (clerical) 0.15 $4.72 0.00 $0.00

Analyzing results (maintenance staff) 0.10 $4.63 0.05 $2.31

66 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Clerical support personnel 0.20 $6.29 0.05 $1.57

Annual direct costs (continued)

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Vehicles, materials and supplies, machinery, and $120.00 $20.00

instrumentation (inspection and travel time @ light
truck hourly rate)

Other costs? $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal annualized inspection costs 12.45 $551.88 4.10 $162.64

Annual maintenance costs (major and minor)

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Maintenance hours/breaker without monitoring (per 12.00 3.00 $138.75

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of years between maintenance without 4.00

monitoring

Maintenance hours/breaker with monitoring (per 12.00 1.50 $69.38

breaker hours, although four breakers in one station)

Number of years between maintenance with 8.00

monitoring

Travel time and costs (hours each way shared by four 1.00 0.50 $23.13 0.25 $11.56
breakers)

Contractor services 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

Reporting and inputting data (clerical) 0.15 $4.72 0.00 $0.00

Analyzing results (maintenance staff) 0.10 $6.48 0.05 $3.24

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 67

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Clerical support personnel 0.20 $6.29 0.05 $1.57

Vehicles, materials and supplies, machinery, and $35.00 $17.50

instrumentation

Spare parts/maintenance @ $xx $200.00 $50.00 $25.00

Spare parts management, procurement, warehousing, 10.00% $5.00 $2.50

delivery, interest (@ xx% of parts/year)

Consumable material and supplies $100.00 $25.00 $12.50

@ $xx/maintenance

Annual maintenance costs (major and minor) (continued)

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Preparation of power system switching schedules and 0.50 0.13 $5.78 0.06 $2.89
orders, issuing of safe work permits hours /
maintenance @ xx hours/maintenance (maintenance
rate)

Power system switching effort, installation and 1.00 0.25 $11.56 0.13 $5.78
removal of workers protective grounding @ xx hours/
maintenance (maintenance rate)

Power system outage costs, e.g., increased losses, loss $0.00 $0.00
of revenue

Possible damage to facilities required by maintenance $0.00 $0.00

access

Other costs? $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal annualized maintenance costs 4.33 $311.70 2.04 $151.92

Annual failure resolution costs

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Failure rate (from user s source) 0.00160 0.0016

Failure rate decrease with monitoring @ xx% 25.00% 0.0004

previous rate

68 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Actual failure analysis labor (xx hours/failure 50.00 0.0800 $3.70 0.0200 $0.93
maintenance hourly rate)

Travel time and costs @ 5 round trips of 0.25 hour 0.0000 $0.00 0.0010 $0.05
each way

Analyzing results @ 10 hours/failure (engineer rate) 0.0160 $0.10 0.0000 $0.03

Clerical support personnel @ 4 hours/failure 0.0064 $0.05 0.0016 $0.01

Technical and management support of restoration 0.1600 $10.36 0.0400 $2.59

activity, corporate resource overheads, and loading
associated with the restoration function @ 100 hours/
failure

Vehicles, materials and supplies, machinery, and $0.16 $0.00

instrumentation

Spare parts and spare equipment @ $5 000.00 $8.00 $0.00

Spare parts management, procurement, warehousing, $0.80 $0.00

delivery, interest (@ 10% of parts)

Annual failure resolution costs (continued)

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Consumable material and supplies $2.00 $2.00

@ $10.00/maintenance

Power system switching effort, installation and 1.00 0.00 $0.07 0.0004 $0.02
removal of workers protective grounding @ xx hours/
failure

Power system outage costs, e.g., increased losses (@ $500.00 $0.80 $0.20
$xxx.xx/occurrence)

Damaged equipment, damage to adjacent facilities, $500.00 $0.80 $0.20

equipment and facilities rebuild @ $x xxx/failure

Apportioned cost of system spares, purchase of $6000.00 $9.60 $2.40

replacement equipment or components example 1
spare breaker of $100 000/25 breakers = $4 000.00/
breaker

Diagnostics and failure investigation (@ xx hours/ 80.00 0.13 $8.29 0.03 $2.07
investigation) (engineering hourly rate)

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 69

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
In and out costs of failed equipment and replacement $5000.00 $8.00 $2.00
equipment, transportation @ $x xxx.xx/ occasion

Other costs? $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal annualized failure resolution costs 0.39 $52.74 0.10 $12.49

Subtotal annualized direct inspection, 17.17 916.32 6.23 327.04

maintenance, and failure resolution costs

Annual monitoring installation and operation

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Monitoring capital cost (@ $xxx.xx) $10000.00 $500.00

Expected life of monitoring (years) 20

Installation labor (maintenance hourly rate) 16 0.80 $37.00

Installation labor (engineer hourly rate) 10 0.50 $32.38

Annual monitoring support xx hours/year 2 2.00 $92.50

(maintenance hourly rate)

Annual monitoring installation and operation (continued)

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Annual monitoring support xx hours/year (engineering 4 4.00 $259.00

hourly rate)

Annual monitoring support xx hours/year (clerical 2 0.00 2.00 $62.90

hourly rate)

Subtotal annualized monitoring costs 17.85 $1017.94 15.70 $1334.79

70 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE
IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Subtotal annualized direct inspection, 35.02 $1934.26 21.93 $1661.83
maintenance, and failure resolution with and
without monitoring

Annual power systems cost

Costs
Input Annualized without Annualized Costs with
Annual inspection costs
values hours monitoring hours monitoring

Cost/MWh $20.00 $1.60 $0.40

Power delivery interruption (MW) 10

Interruption duration (hours) 4

Power system outage cost to customer = xx times 25 $40.00 $10.00

utility loss of revenue

Subtotal power system costs $41.60 $10.40

Annual subtotal with direct inspection, $1975.86 $1672.33

maintenance, and failure resolution costs with and
without monitoring, including power system costs

Annual benefit (per breaker) with monitoring $303.62

$ PER BREAKER

Annual indirect costs (benefits, supervision, Rate Loaded

vacation, sick time + location expense and rate
overhead)

Maintenance staff labor hourly rate $25.00 $46.25

Support staff labor hourly rate $17.00 $31.45

Engineering staff labor hourly rate $35.00 $64.75

Annual indirect costs (benefits, supervision, Rate Loaded

vacation, sick time + location expense and (continued) rate
overhead) (continued) (continued)

Indirect costs (benefits, supervision, vacation, sick 1.85

time + location expense) overhead multiplier

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 71

 IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Table A.2 Example 2: Cost comparison with and without circuit breaker monitoring (continued)
Light truck hourly rate $10.00 $10.00

Maintenance truck hourly rate with tools/hour $50.00 $50.00

Contractor rate $0.00 $0.00

Notes to Table A.2:

1 Repeat analysis for each failure mode and failure cause.

2 Include costs of all maintenance tasks.

3 Include all risk (or criticality) costs associated with failures. Utility damage and repair costs, loss of revenue, and
restoration of service costs are to be included. Customers costs of unsupplied energy include business or process
disruption, loss of product, facility damage, additional labor costs, waste or costs to return to commercial quality
production, penalties, and so on. Monitoring should be able to reduce the probability of an equipment condition
progressing to the failure state by allowing prior removal from service. Consequences of the failure may also be
reduced with the early warning of an impending failure. Reduction in probability or in consequence has the effect of
reducing the cost of the failure risk and is attributed as a benefit of condition monitoring.

4 Monitoring costs include the costs of selecting appropriate monitoring, engineering, purchase and installation,
training, operational costs associated with data retrieval and analysis, maintenance, and troubleshooting of monitoring
schemes.

5 Maintenance costs are reduced by condition monitoring triggering only appropriate maintenance tasks at the
appropriate interval, thus, eliminating unnecessary maintenance and associated activities.

6 Include all costs associated with inspections (see Table 25).

7 Include all costs associated with failure resolution (see Table 25).

72 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

 IEEE IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS Std C37.10.1-2000

Annex B (informative) Examples of maintenance programs with and

without monitoring
The following examples illustrate different maintenance programs for a bulk oil circuit breaker. They are
provided as an example to indicate the possibilities for maintenance modifications available with monitoring.
The inspection and maintenance tasks and intervals are illustrative only and are not intended to represent
recommendations.

B.1 Example maintenance programs with and without monitoring

No monitoring

Routine maintenance (external inspection of breakers) every 2 weeks to 1 month

Internal maintenance every 2 to 10 years, regardless of the condition, age, brand, and so on

With monitoring

Inspection (visual) every 3 months

Internal maintenance condition based, expected to vary from every 1 to 17 years

B.2 Example maintenance programs with and without monitoring

No monitoring

Diagnostic inspection every 5 to 7 years, contact resistance check, dielectric test, contact motion test
every third inspection
Internal maintenance no particular time interval only based on condition, scheduled when necessary

With monitoring

Internal maintenance condition based, expected to vary from every 3 to 12 years

B.3 Example maintenance programs with and without monitoring

No monitoring

Inspection every month, visual, operate the breaker if it did not operate in the last 3 months
Minor maintenance every 3 years, external, including contact resistance, oil check,
lubrication Major maintenance every 4 to 8 years, internal, contact maintenance, oil,
interrupter, etc.

With monitoring

Inspection (visual) every 3 months

Major maintenance condition based, expected to be every 7 to 12 years

Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 73

IEEE
Std C37.10.1-2000 IEEE GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF MONITORING FOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS

Annex C (informative) Bibliography

[B1] Bergman, W. J., Peelo, D., Meehan, J., Short, D., and Eden, D., A value based methodology for selecting
on-line condition monitoring of substation power equipment, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Substation Equipment Diagnostics Conference V, New Orleans, LA, Feb. 17 19, 1997.

[B2] Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), Forced outage performance of transmission equipment
available by five year windows of performance data for periods January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1996,
1997.

[B3] Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), Guide to reporting transmission outages, Jan. 1991.

[B4] Carreau, D., Mont-Briant, M., Jolicoeur, A., Claude, R., Mercier, P. and Landry, M., A methodology
for assessing the economic justification of retrofitting on-line condition monitoring to an existing circuit
breaker installation, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Substation Equipment Diagnostics
Conference VII, New Orleans, LA, Feb. 23, 1999.

[B5] CIGRE, The first international inquiry on circuit breaker failures and defects in service, CIGRE Electra,
no. 79, Dec. 1981, pp. 21 91.

NOTE See also the second issue of this report:

[B6] Beierer, J., Kearsley, R., and Verdon, J., Maintenance of modern high voltage circuit breakers, CIGRE Electra,
no. 102, Oct. 1985, pp. 119 131.

NOTE See also the third issue of this report:

[B7] Michaca, R., Heising, C. R., and Koppl, G., Summary of CIGRE Working Group 13.06 studies on test and control
methods intended to assure the reliability of high voltage circuit breakers, CIGRE Electra, no. 102, Oct. 1985, pp. 133
175.

[B8] CIGRE, Final report of the second international inquiry on high voltage circuit breaker failures, CIGRE
Working Group, 13.06 Report, June 1994.

NOTE See also the second issue of this report:

[B9] Diagnostic techniques for high voltage circuit breakers and their applications, CIGRE Symposium on Diagnostics
and Maintenance Techniques, Berlin, Germany, Paper No. 120-07.

[B10] IEC, The second working draft of risk management terminology, ISO/TMB Working Group on Risk
Management Terminology N23, July 2, 1999.

[B11] IEC TC56, 56/669/CDV Draft IEC 60300, Dependability management Part 3-13: Application guide
Project risk management, Aug. 13, 1999.

[B12] IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition.

[B13] Storms, A. D., Circuit breaker reconditioning and replacement criteria for low and medium voltage
circuit breakers A position paper (Storms Advisory Services), Presented at the 10th Annual Electrical Power
& Protective Systems Technical Seminar, Power Distribution Services, Cincinnati, OH, Aug. 20 21, 1997.

74 Copyright ' 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.