High Voltage Circuit Breaker and Power
Transformer Failure Modes and Their Detection
Charbel Antoun
High Voltage Products and
Transformers, Power Grids Division
ABB Australia Pty Ltd
Moorebank NSW, Australia
charbel.antoun@au.abb.com
Abstract—This paper aims to explore the various failure
modes associated with High Voltage Circuit Breakers and
Power Transformers within transmission and subtransmission
electricity networks and identify the online monitoring
requirements to ensure effective early detection of issues. This
would enable system operators to act appropriately to prevent
unexpected failures. These requirements in the context of the
capabilities and limitations in currently available Online
Monitoring Technologies will also be discussed.
Keywords—High Voltage Circuit Breaker, Power
Transformer, Failure Modes, Online Monitoring, Reliability
Centered Maintenance
I. INTRODUCTION
Rising electricity prices, slashed utility budgets, and
unwavering pressure to maintain electricity supply quality
and reliability has led to an increased focus on more
intelligent and efficient monitoring and maintenance
solutions for electrical assets and networks. This has
provided an opportunity for manufacturers to offer flexible
and adaptable monitoring products, which would empower
utilities to implement targeted maintenance strategies and
ensure expenditures are optimized and value maximized.
Particularly critical aspects of transmission and
distribution electricity networks are high voltage switchgear
and transformers, with a focus on circuit breakers and power
transformers. Ensuring the equipment is effectively
monitored and maintained is therefore critical to the
reliability of the electricity network as a whole, and allows
for effective maintenance programs to be developed. Online
monitoring technology, and the valuable information that it
yields, empowers network operators to transition from
schedule based maintenance practices to reliability-centered
and condition based maintenance practices.
Key to ensuring the success of this initiative is verifying
that one understands the failure mechanisms that the
equipment is prone to, their root causes, and ultimately the
parameters that need to be monitored to ensure that they are
identified before faults or failures occur. On this basis, the
capabilities and limitations of online monitoring solutions in
ascertaining the health and reliability of an asset can be
established.
This paper aims to examine the statistics surrounding the
root causes of the various failure modes associated with high
voltage circuit breakers and power transformers in
transmission and subtransmission utility network contexts.
With this practical understanding of the various kinds of
issues faced in the field, the key underlying parameters and
associated online monitoring requirements to effectively
978-1-5386-4126-2/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
detect the conditions preceding potential faults or failures
within the equipment will then be identified. This analysis
also presents an opportunity for network operators to assess
whether existing monitoring and maintenance practices
provide sufficient visibility and coverage to manage the
varying levels of risk surrounding high voltage circuit
breaker and power transformer faults or failure. This also
provides motivation for manufacturers to ensure that they are
providing solutions capable of fulfilling the requirements of
the industry in doing so.
II. FAILURE MODES
To ensure that equipment failures can be mitigated or,
ideally, prevented, it is imperative to understand the various
ways in which the equipment can fail. Armed with such
knowledge, it is possible to address the root causes of these
modes of failure and effectively monitor the status and
condition of the equipment for early indications that the
equipment is approaching failure.
CIGRE has performed reliability surveys for both high
voltage circuit breakers [1] and power transformers [2],
providing a rich statistical insight surrounding asset failure.
Given that the surveys provide such significant detail and
data extrapolation, this paper will therefore provide a brief
discussion of some of the main findings with the intention of
establishing a contextual understanding for the subsequent
discussion regarding online monitoring strategies.
A. High Voltage Switchgear Failure Modes
The third (and most recent) CIGRE International Enquiry
on the Reliability of High Voltage Equipment [1] provides a
comprehensive look at the failure modes observed within an
enormous global HV circuit breaker population from 83
utilities across 26 countries. The Enquiry distinguishes
between major failure modes, which prevent circuit breakers
from performing their main function resulting in an
immediate change in system operating conditions, and minor
failure modes, which allow circuit breakers to perform their
main function but with restrictions.
1) Major Failure Modes
Major failure modes are naturally high in their criticality,
given the potential consequences of their occurrence,
however, some modes are more critical than others. For
example, a circuit breaker failing to close on command
would typically yield less dire consequences than failing to
open on command, as opening the circuit may be required
for clearing a system fault.
 Fig. 1. HV Circuit Breaker Major Failure Mode Distribution

As illustrated in Figure 1, roughly 50% of all major
failures occur as a result of uncontrolled commands. These
commands are broken down into two main categories:
 Failing to close or open on command: a command is
issued to the circuit breaker to perform a close
operation, but it is unactuated. Closing operations that
are unactuated account for 28.2% of all major
failures, while unactuated opening commands
account for 16.4% of all major failures.
 Unintended opening or closing operation: the circuit
breaker opens or closes unintentionally, without
having been issued any command. While less
common than failing to actuate commands,
unintentional open operations represent 5.4% of
major failures, while unintentional close operations
represent only 0.2% of major failures.
The remaining major failure modes are comprised of four
main categories:
 Unintentional electrical locking in open or closed
position: the inability to operate a circuit breaker due
to unintended electrical blocking within the circuit
breaker control system, for cases other than when it is
discovered upon trying to perform an operation (as
this would be represented in the above statistic). This
accounts for 25.1% of major failures.
 Loss of mechanical integrity: mechanical damage to
parts of the circuit breaker such as insulators or
within operating mechanisms, and reflects 8.1% of
major failures.
 Electrical breakdown in main circuit: issues
surrounding electrical conductivity or breakdown,
which represent 11.3% of major failures. This would
include failure to conduct current in the closed
position (representing 1.3% of major failures), or
some kind of electrical breakdown internally or
externally, representing 10% of major failures.
 Other causes: representing the remaining 5.2% of
major failures.
The CIGRE Enquiry presents several interesting
observations. Almost half of major failures occurred while
equipment was in service and an operation was requested,
while almost a third occurred while the equipment was in
service without an operation occurring. The contribution of
environmental factors to major failures was observed to be
particularly small at 11.9%, with over a third of those having
observed lightning as a contributing environmental factor.
Overall, the major failure frequency per 100 circuit
breaker years was observed to be 0.30 major failures per 100
circuit breaker years (MaF/100CBy). Those circuit breakers
implemented for shunt reactor switching exhibited a
substantially higher frequency of failure compared to other
kinds of service – 2.46 MaF/100CBy, while capacitor bank
switching circuit breakers were the second highest at 1.04
MaF/100CBy. The major failure frequency was generally
observed to increase exponentially as the rated voltage level
got higher.
2) Minor Failure Modes
While minor failure modes don’t necessarily debilitate
the ability of a circuit breaker to fulfil its primary purpose, it
is important to ensure that they are identified and prevented
from progressing to a stage where they can develop into a
major fault. As illustrated in Figure 2, the minor failure
modes are categorized as follows:
 Fluid leaks: more than half of minor failures can be
accounted for in fluid leaks, with small SF6 leaks
Fig. 2. HV Circuit Breaker Minor Failure Mode Distribution
 accounting for 35.8% and operating mechanism air or
hydraulic leaks accounting for 20.4% of minor
failures. Grading capacitor oil leakage, typically
applicable to higher voltage circuit breakers, account
for 1% of minor failures.
 Changes in functional characteristics: almost a third
of minor failures involve a change in functional
characteristics.
 Mechanical changes: e.g. contact travel speed during
open or close operations, damping issues, etc.,
accounting for 6.8% of minor failures.
 Electrical changes: e.g. increased contact resistance,
presence of partial discharge, etc., accounting for
3.3% of minor failures.
 Control or auxiliary system changes: e.g. non-critical
component damage or failures, increased charging
motor run times, etc.) accounting for 18.4% of minor
failures.
 Other causes: representing the remaining 14.3% of
minor failures.
Roughly two thirds of minor failures occur or are
identified during normal service outside of normal circuit
breaker operations being performed, while slightly more than
a fifth occur during or after testing and maintenance. Minor
failures occurring during normal switching operations was
observed to be particularly small, at 3.7%. Environmental
factors were observed to be contribute minimally with 5.1%
of failures having been indicated to involve environmental
factors.
3) Operating Mechanisms
Given that operating mechanisms constitute half of the
components responsible for major failures and over a third of
components responsible for minor failures, as can be seen in
Figure 3, there is value in looking at the failure frequencies
and failure modes of the different types of operating
mechanisms.
Hydraulic operating mechanisms have the highest failure
frequency at 0.19 MaF/100CBy, while pneumatic and spring
operating mechanisms presented lower failure frequencies at
Fig. 3. HV Circuit Breaker Distribution of Components Responsible
for Failure
0.13 MaF/100CBy and 0.11 MaF/100CBy, respectively. The
survey points out, however, that modern hydraulic
mechanisms have a vastly increased reliability compared to
previous generations, and that they are comparable in
reliability to modern pneumatic or spring operating
mechanisms, although no further information is provided.
Failures involving locking in the open or closed position
represented just over half of major failures in hydraulic
operating mechanisms, while failing to open or close on
command represented roughly a quarter. The dominant
failure modes of pneumatic operating mechanisms were
failing to close on command or open on command, each
representing about a third of all major failures, while the
major failure mode for spring operating mechanisms was
failing close on command, representing 60% of the major
failures encountered.
B. Power Transformer Failure Modes
The Transformer Reliability Survey [2], published in
2015, spanned 964 failures across 56 utilities from 21
countries, with a total population of 23,884 transformers
representing 167,459 transformer-years. The units within the
sample were manufactured as early as the 1950’s, up until
2009. The Survey focused only on major failures due to
historically poor data collection experiences of previous
working groups. A major failure was defined as “any
situation which required the equipment to be removed from
service for investigation, remedial work or replacement”.
The failure modes identified within the Survey were
aggregated at a relatively high level and, as such, the
information presented was particularly scarce with regards to
detail surrounding the failures themselves. While the
distribution of failure modes was relatively consistent, the
Survey differentiated between substation transformers and
generator step-up transformers. The failure mode distribution
for the two transformer types as well as the aggregate is
shown in Figure 4. The failure modes listed are:
 Electrical: Open circuit, short circuit and poor joint
or contact failures, comprising 16% of failures.
 Chemical: Contamination (moisture, particles, gas)
Fig. 4. Power Transformer Failure Mode Distribution by Percentage
 and corrosion failures, comprising only 3% of
failures.
 Thermal: General overheating and localized hotspot
failures, comprising 11% of failures.
 Dielectric: Partial discharge, tracking and flashover
failures, comprising 37% of failures, the largest
individual failure mode.
 Mechanical: Bending, breaking, displacement,
loosening and vibration failures, comprising 20% of
failures.
 Mode of Failure: 13% of failures were unable to be
attributed to any specific mode of failure.
The overall failure rate, across all voltage classes and
transformer types, was observed to be 0.57%. When
differentiating between substation transformers and generator Fig. 5. Power Transformer Failure Location Distribution
step-up transformers, the failure rates were observed to be
0.53% and 0.95%, respectively.
The failure locations within the failed transformers was
outlined in the Survey, and provides some valuable further
context regarding the manner in which the failures occur. As
Figure 5 shows, more than half of all failures occurred within
the windings, followed by more than a fifth of failures
occurring within the bushings.

III. ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFICATION

With an understanding of the failure modes that the
equipment being discussed is prone to, identification of their
root causes of those failure and the components responsible
will ultimately enable an effective online monitoring strategy
to be developed.

A. High Voltage Circuit Breakers Failure Root Causes

As can be seen in Figure 6, The leading root cause of
both major and minor failures is Wear/Ageing at 42.3% and
55.9%, respectively. The next highest root causes of failures
were those introduced before putting the equipment into
service, in particular during design or manufacturing,
representing 19.9% of major failure root causes and 13.6%
of minor failure root causes.
The remaining root causes of major failures are relatively
well distributed between incorrect maintenance at 3.8%,
stresses in excess of ratings (in particular environmental,
mechanical or lightning) at 4.8%, corrosion at 4.4% and
other causes (in particular abnormal service conditions,
incorrect operation or monitoring, external damage, or
human error). Corrosion was the main remaining root cause
for minor failures at 8.8%, with the remaining causes
representing 4.1%.
It is worth noting that for a considerable number of both
major and minor failures, the root cause was unknown, at
16.5% and 14.1%, respectively.
More specifically with regards to operating mechanisms,
each type has a different dominant component which tends to
fail more commonly relative to the rest of their construction:
energy storage systems for hydraulic operating mechanisms,
mechanical transmission systems for spring operating
mechanisms and charging mechanisms (compressors,
motors, pumps, etc.) for pneumatic operating mechanisms.
Fig. 6. Distribution of Major (top) and Minor (bottom) Failure Causes
 These conclusions are intuitive, given the application of
technology within each type of operating mechanism and the
parts of the system which are under mechanical duress.
B. Power Transformer Failure Root Causes
Of particular note when reviewing the power transformer
failure root causes for the failures that were analysed is that
roughly two thirds were due to external or unknown factors.
With regards to external factors in particular, failures
attributable to design and manufacturing comprise roughly a
fifth of failures, while external short circuits account for
11.63% of failures. The root cause of 29.08% of failures was
unknown.
Aging was evidently the most influential internal root
cause of failure compared to others, however, having been
attributed as the cause for only 12.35% of all the failures
analysed, a holistic view must still be taken to ensure that an
effective monitoring strategy is developed to minimize the
risk of failure.
IV. EFFECTIVE MONITORING TO IDENTIFY ISSUES
Understanding the asset failure modes and their root
causes allows the development of an effective asset
monitoring strategy. On this basis, it is possible to ascertain
the health of an asset based upon analysis of signals provided
by its local control and monitoring system, as well as offline
inspections and measurements.
The health of an asset is typically expressed as either a
health index or a probability of failure. A health index
comprises several parameters which constitute the condition
of an asset, each of which are weighted, and ultimately
combined to produce a single value. A probability of failure,
on the other hand, is an aggregation of the various
likelihoods of failure associated with the parameters being
monitored. As those parameters deteriorate in terms of an
Fig. 7. Power Transformer Failure Root Cause Distribution
increased likelihood of failure, the aggregated probability of
failure naturally increases. In practice, a probability of failure
provides a greater qualitative view on the health of the asset
than a health index approach, due to the more refined
approach with regards to the impact on the health and
reliability of the asset.
Traditionally, offline monitoring has been emphasized
due to the technological limitations and shortfalls of online
monitoring technologies, however, with the advancement in
measurement, analytical and communications technologies,
online monitoring products and strategies have become more
reliable and accessible. While offline monitoring activities
remain important, the scope of this discussion will be
confined to online monitoring, and its capabilities and
shortfalls in the context of high voltage circuit breakers and
power transformers.
A. Online Monitoring Visibility
The primary objective behind online monitoring, which
should underpin any asset management strategy, is to
monitor assets with a view towards identifying conditions
that would indicate incipient failures. To do so, there are a
range of parameters that can be monitored, and a range of
devices that are capable of monitoring those parameters.
In discussing this topic, it is important to distinguish
between monitoring to identify a fault and monitoring to
identify incipient faults – while both are important,
identifying incipient faults can enable the asset owner to
avoid a situation where the fault eventuates, potentially
reducing or eliminating downtime, mitigating the extent of
financial ramifications and maximizing personnel safety.
To ascertain the extent to which failure modes and their
causes are encompassed by an online monitoring strategy,
they must be correlated to the various parameters which can
be monitored online which would be indicative of those
Fig. 8. Correlation Charts, mapping correlations between failure modes and online monitoring solutions for Power Transformers (left) and High
Voltage Circuit Breakers (right).
failures developing. Once a correlation has been established,
the risk of failure can be managed more effectively as
addressing a failure mode by incorporating the correct type
of online monitoring allows the reduction of anticipated risk
of the failure mode occurring.
To that end, the Correlation Charts of Figure 8 have been
developed. The failure modes listed down the vertical axes
are those of the CIGRE surveys, and the risks of failure
associated with each of those failure modes are incorporated
as per the findings of the surveys. Along the horizontal axes,
currently available online monitoring solutions are listed.
Within the chart area, an ‘X’ is placed to indicate that the
particular failure mode can be addressed to some extent by a
particular monitoring solution.
B. Online Monitoring White Spots
By applying the complete regime of online monitoring
capabilities indicated across the horizontal axes of the
Correlation Charts of Figure 8, the maximum risk of failure
mitigation can be achieved. However, it must be noted that
doing so does not completely neutralize the risks, nor does it
cover all foreseeable root causes of failure.
The format of the Correlation Charts not only indicates
what failure modes can be addressed using existing solutions,
it also facilitates analysis of any areas lacking either partial
or full visibility. The most obvious example is the
monitoring for grading capacitor oil leaks – there are
currently no standard mechanisms to monitor for this beyond
offline inspections.
All other failure modes, as outlined by the CIGRE
Sureys, are covered to some extent or another. An in-depth
analysis can be performed to identify all the root causes
associated with each failure mode and to quantify the
reduction in the risk of failure as a result of addressing each
item.
In general though, it is clear that online monitoring
capabilities still require further development to cover the
spectrum of diagnostics that are available via offline
methods, such as dynamic contact resistance tests for high
voltage circuit breakers indicating poor contacts or
connections, and sweep frequency response analyses for
power transformers indicating mechanical displacements or
degradations within the transformer.
Beyond this, there will always be the risk of external and
unknown events that cannot be addressed within the strict
context of online asset-level monitoring.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Online monitoring offers real-time visibility on the health
of assets which comprise critical electrical infrastructure.
This new asset management paradigm enables network
operators to act more rapidly and precisely in scenarios
where asset health is deteriorating. This is the result of
increased access to valuable condition data, which allows
more powerful trend analysis and monitoring, as well as
automated diagnostics and maintenance planning.
Ultimately, online monitoring enables a targeted, data-
driven approach in transitioning from schedule based
maintenance to condition based maintenance, enabling the
allocation of resources more efficiently, avoidance of the
costs associated with an increased risk of failure [3] and
ensuring that the management of the asset risk of failure is as
comprehensive as possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author gratefully acknowledges A. Poeltl, ABB Inc.,
and B. Myburgh, ABB Australia Pty Ltd, for their support
while writing this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE Working Group A3.06, “Final report of 2004-2007
international enquiry on reliability of high voltage equipment, Part 2 -
reliability of high voltage circuit breakers,” CIGRE TB 510, Oct.
2012.
[2] CIGRE Working Group A2.37, “TRANSFORMER RELIABILITY
SURVEY,” CIGRE TB 642, Dec. 2015.
[3] Economics of Transformer Management, CIGRE WG A2.20 TB 248,
2004.
[4] B. Desai, M. Walther and J. Haufler, "If It Ain't Broke...," in IEEE
Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 48-52, Nov.-Dec.
2010.
[5] IEEE Guide for the Selection of Monitoring for Circuit Breakers,
IEEE Std C37.10.1, 2000.