Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Paper 0703
Reliability Measures: Failure and Root Cause Analysis (FRCA) for GIS Early Failure
ABSTRACT
GIS circuit breaker (CB) consists of high voltage parts,
control and auxiliary, and operating mechanism.
Operating mechanism is one of subassemblies
responsible for most failures in GIS CB. Although
hydraulic oil leakage in the operating mechanism has
been considered as one of examples of minor failures, it
consistently nags customers so manufacturers or
maintenance service providers cannot ignore the pressure
of complaints from them and ends up with hydraulic
pressure drop, motor overload, and mechanism or CB
malfunction. This study performs failure and root-cause
analysis and suggests how to deal with the cause of early
failures such as external oil leakage issues of hydraulic
operating mechanism for GIS.
INTRODUCTION
GIS circuit breaker (CB) should be highly reliable on
time due to its most important protection role for an
electric power system. Operating mechanism is one of
subassemblies responsible for most failures (43 % for
major failures and 44% for minor failure [1]) as well as
the indispensable functional element in GIS CB.
Examples of minor failures mentioned in CIGRE
international surveys on circuit breaker reliability data [2]
include hydraulic oil leakage, small SF6 gas leakage due
to corrosion or other causes and change in functional
characteristics. Definition of major and minor failure in
this paper also follows CIGRE.
Failure and root cause analysis for operating mechanism Figure 1 Process Flow Diagram of Failure and Root Cause Analysis
failures continues to be a topic of major interest for GIS
reliability because determination of root cause is a good material handling, part precision machining, storing, and
engineering practice that crosses functional boundaries assembling before installation or during installation. And
within company and is an integral part of the quality causes leading to hydraulic oil leakages are various and
assurance and continuous reliability improvement [3]. same failure modes could happen due to multiple causes
An external oil leakage issue of hydraulic operating or combination of them.
mechanism for GIS installed at one of customer’s site In this study, a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality
2013 was reported to a manufacturer as one of failures Analysis (FMECA) based on the severity and frequency
June of 2016 and chosen to investigate for this study. of occurrence of an item failure was performed firstly in
External oil leakage means oil leaking out of operating order to prioritize work scope for corrective actions. Non-
mechanism, while internal oil leakage does not leak out destructive and destructive evaluation was followed for
but mechanism characteristic such as velocity, time detail failure analysis [4]. 1st step in failure analysis was
response, hydraulic pressure, and internal noise changes. to clean and isolate a suspected culprit (failed part or
Investigation for early failures during product life cycle specimen) so no extra damage can be introduced during
like this case exposed that defects had mostly been handling. 2nd step is to perform non-destructive
impregnated during manufacturing processes such as evaluation such as macroscopic/microscopic examination
Paper 0703
/X-ray diffraction inspection to find fracture origin or Table 1 Failure Modes and Effect Criticality Analysis
failure sites. 3rd step is a destructive evaluation process No Manufactu
. ring Date
Failure Date Repair Date
Failure
Component
Repair Information Failure Mode
using metallographic equipment (light microscopy, 1 2014 16.05.26 16.05.26 Pump Unit Pump Assy Replacement 1.2 External Leakage
scanning electron microscopy, or laser optical 2 2013 16.01.15 16.05.27 Pump Adaptor
O-ring & Teflon
3-1. Wrong Torque Level
Tape Replacement
microscopy) to identify root-cause of failure. Wet Accumulator
Accumulator
3 2016 16.05.20 Oil Cap Machining 7-1.Part Management Error
chemical and composition analyses with hydraulic oil of Failure
Reproduction
Figure 1 illustrates the process flow diagram of failure 13 2013 16.06 16.06 Bush, Rod, Seal Component Replacement 1.2 External Leakage
Risk Analysis
and root cause analysis (FRCA) regarding external oil No Risk
Failure Effect Failure Cause Response Method Occur Downtime Repair
leakage issues of hydraulic operating mechanism for GIS, .
rence /Repair time Difficulty
Level
The failure modes and effect criticality analysis is termed 7 External Leakage Damaged Gasket Gasket Replacement 1 1 1 1
8 Motor Overrun/Overload Broken Spring Process Improvement 5 3 2 30
as a bottoms up analysis. The FMEA is based on a
9 External Leakage Disapproved Process Process Improvement 1 2 1 2
qualitative approach, whilst the FMECA takes a 10 External Leakage Spool Scratch Product Replacement 4 2 2 16
quantitative approach and is generally viewed as an 11 Motor Overrun/Overload
Machining
Process Replacement 5 3 2 30
Process Defect
analysis, which should be implemented during the design 12 Trip Free Poppet Roughness Process Improvement 1 3 1 3
phase, to have maximum influence and impact on the 13 Motor Overrun/Overload
1.Seal Scratch Defect
2.Rod Defect
Process Improvement 1 4 4 16
final design, with respect to reliability performance
characteristics. It is a primarily a quality planning tool to Table 2 Failure Modes of Hydraulic Operating Mechanism
identify failure and effect and prioritize the risks on Failure Modes Details
1-1 Internal Leakage
system, product or service. It is used to establish control, 1 Hydraulic Oil Leakage
1-2 External Leakage
prioritize process and prevent process errors. Table 1 2-1 Size Defect
shows the result of FMECA applying to claimed failures 2-2 Concentricity Defect
2-3 Angle Defect
of hydraulic operating mechanisms. Models focused for 2 Machining Defect 2-4 Roughness Defect
this analysis belong to lower voltage rates of GCB than 2-5 Parallelism Defect
2-6 Surface Treatment Defect
400 kV. Failures in FMECA were all reported within 3 2-7 Welding Defect
years after installation. Table 2 is failure modes of 3-1 Wrong Torque Level
hydraulic operating mechanisms defined for internal use 3. Assembly Defect
3-2 Assembly Direction Fault
3-3 Cleaning Issue
only. Table 3 presents failure consequences and level of 3-4 Missing Component
severity determined for risk analysis after discussion with 4 Design Defect
5 COTS Defect COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf)
maintenance/repair service department. From FMECA, 6 Material Defect
priority of failure modes in order, to concern, is as 7 Human Error
7-1 Part Management Error
7-2 Document Management Error
follows: external leakage, internal leakage, and assembly 8 Malfunction
defect. 9 Emotional Dissatisfaction
Paper 0703
Paper 0703
Paper 0703
The cost of field failures like this case is very high when
considering cost to repair, down time, and customer
dissatisfaction. There are a few suggestions to
recommend in order to get rid of same or similar failure
causing defect from machining process and to improve
reliability of hydraulic operating mechanisms.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Mr. Wonil Kim, CEO of
LSIS for his encouragement to let us investigate this
failure issue and Mr. Jaekuk Jeon, production engineer at
LSIS for his willingness to help for this project.
REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE Working Group 13.06, 1994, “Final report
of the 2nd international enquiry on high voltage
circuit breaker failures and defects in services”,
CIGRE TB 83
[2] CIGRE Working Group A3.06, 2012, “Final report
of the 2004-2007 international enquiry on reliability