1
Progress Report on Failures of High Voltage
Bushings with Draw Leads
Panel Discussion led by Phil Hopkinson, IEEE Fellow.
Other Panel Participants: Arturo Del Rio, Member IEEE, Loren Wagenaar, IEEE Fellow, Jin Sim,
Member, IEEE, Dr. Robert Degeneff, IEEE Fellow, Larry Coffeen, Senior Member IEEE, Robert
Ganser, Senior Member IEEE, Thomas Tobin, IEEE Fellow, James McBride, Senior Member IEEE,
Enrique Betancourt, Member IEEE. Bjorn Lofgren, Senior Member IEEE
Abstract—Over the past several years, several bush-
ings equipped with draw leads have failed in service.
These bushings are not isolated to a single manufactur-
er and all of them have passed standard routine and
type tests. A common characteristic of each failure is
the arcing marks found between the draw lead cable
and the tube in the center of the bushing. Most of the
bushings also failed violently, in that the bushing ex-
ploded and caused a fire.
The purpose of this panel session paper is four fold:
First, extensive investigations have already been con-
ducted on aspects of certain failure mechanisms, and
the findings will be reported. Second, other possible,
but as yet uninvestigated, failure modes are given.
Third, it is hoped this report will draw the interest of
others in the industry who will add to the knowledge
surrounding this subject. Fourth, suggestions are made
to prevent or alleviate the problem.
It is not known exactly what causes the arcing in the
first place, but it is currently thought that it is initiated
by a transient of some kind then is sustained by the
power frequency service voltage. Possible transient
generators and the ensuing failure mechanism are de-
scribed.
Index Terms— Bushings, draw leads, arcing, failure
mechanism, chopped wave, high frequency, fast front
transients, grounding resistance, SF6 breakers, discon-
nect switches, switching, re-ignition, current chopping
I. INTRODUCTION
Medium power transformers in the order of 50 MVA are
typically designed with draw lead bushings whenever the
current rating is less than approximately 800 A. The use of
such bushings allows replacement of the bushing without
lowering the oil in non-conservator transformers, thus
saving time and money.
Several different utilities have experienced failures of
230 kV bushings since 2001. A common feature of the
failures is that all of them involved damage to the draw
978-1-4244-6551-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
leads. All of the draw leads checked during the failure
investigations involved arcing footprints between the draw
lead cable and central tube at one or more locations along
the length of the bushings. Several accompanying bush-
ings had the same type of damage. All failed bushings did
so violently with explosion and usually with subsequent
fire.
Some of the bushing failures occurred on peaking pow-
er generator step-up transformers. Peaking power genera-
tors are most often natural gas fired and may consist of tens
of megawatts to several hundred megawatts. These instal-
lations consisted of the generator, an SF6 circuit breaker
and a step-up transformer to connect the generator to the
utility transmission system. A typical system has a 50 feet
separation between the transformer and the breaker. Power
is supplied on demand and is switched off when released
by the user. These systems are regularly used in many
places of the world.
Although occurrences of similar arcing between the lead
and tube have been found, such occurrences have been
rather rare in the past. The authors have performed various
individual studies in an attempt to explain the arcing phe-
nomenon and subsequent failure mode(s) involved. The
ultimate mode of failure is not yet clear, but some general
conclusions are evident.
II. PHYICAL EVIDENCE OF FAILURES
Several common elements surround the bushing failures,
and as well as a few differences. Below is a summary of
elements that seem to be present when the failures occur:
1. Draw-lead bushings
2. Arcing from lead to tube at one or more random lo-
cations above and below flange (See Table 1).
3. Leads badly arced and tubes internally marked or
developed holes.
4. Condenser bushing destroyed for multiple bush-
ings.
5. Mostly 230 kV rated 750 and 900 kV BIL.
6. Failures occurred in early morning, mostly between
midnight and 6:00 am (See Table 2)
1
 2

7. SF6 breakers and or SF6 circuit switchers generator. The load current in the HV circuit in this partic-
8. Power distribution systems rarely switched, mostly ular case was about 10 A.
lightly loaded.
9. Peaking power GSU transformers switched often, The distribution of failures according to phase placement
loaded near rating (See text). is five, three and five for phases A, B and C respectively.
10. 15 to 132 MVA base rating. All of the outside phase bushings and one of the center
11. Failures occurred within 4-13 years of installation phase bushings was mounted at an angle, whereas the other
but main tank gassing reported within 2 years of in- two center phase bushings were vertical.
stallation.
12. 50 ft separation between transformer and breaker. Figure 1 shows a cross section of a draw lead bushing
13. Overhead cables. involved in the failures The flashovers seem to occur
14. Mostly leads wrapped with only 20 mils of cotton somewhat randomly distributed over a large region above
tape. and below the flange and inside the tube. General failure
15. Occasional occurrence with insulated leads. locations were as given in Table 1. Note that all of the
16. More than one bushing manufacturer. failed bushings applied to conservator oil preservation
17. More than one transformer manufacturer. systems had major damage, often including the arc marks
18. Typically angle mounted outside phase bushings in the draw lead system, above the flange. All but one of
and vertical center bushings on 3-phase installa- the bushings using an inert gas system received major
tions (See text). damage below the flange.

Table 1. Distribution of Failures according to Failure

Location and Oïl Conservation Type
Oil Conservation Type
Failure Location Inert Gas Conservator
Above Flange 1 6
Below Flange 6* 0
Note: * One bushing also had extensive damage on upper
end

A large majority of the power distribution transformers

had circuit switchers on the HV side, and customers could
not verify any switching for at least a month prior to the
failures.

Table 2. Distribution of Failures by Time of Failure

Time of Failure Number of Failures
0:00 to 6:00 8
6:00 to 12:00 4
12:00 to 18:00 0
18:00 to 24:00 1

One other power distribution transformer was part of a

bank of three identical transformers placed in parallel and
was used to supply an on-off furnace. It failed at the end of
a heat cycle when the load was dropped.

In one application, peaking power transformers, two of

which failed within days of one another, were not subjected
to “hard” switching in that the generator was brought up to
speed while excitation was being controlled at residual,
then excitation was brought up so that the GSU output was Figure 1. Exploded view where the region of flashovers
at the system voltage, and finally, the circuit breaker was and burning is shown in the shaded area.
closed at which time the load was increased. The generator
was removed from the system by first reducing load to a Most of the failures were explosive, and at least six of
small percentage of the rating and then the SF6 HV circuit them resulted in massive fires. At least two fires caused
breaker is opened, thereby removing the GSU and the the expansion caps to be completely melted, and the upper

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3

end of the lead and cable were melted away in several this lead, but there were circular areas of thin film growth
cases. Most cases involved shards from the top porcelain, consistent with very localized heating (lower right).
shards flying across the station yard.

Figures 2 through 8 show photographic evidence of dif-

ferent components of the failed bushings. These photos are
not from the same failure but are a composite collection of
the failure evidence gathered.

Condensers of all failed bushings were involved in the

failures. In many of these failures, the top end of the con-
denser was completely gone, and the upper end of the tube
had melted away. The remaining lower ends of the con-
densers were charred with smoke but otherwise intact.
Teardowns of the remaining unburned parts of this and
other failed condensers always showed that the remaining Figure 3. Photo of axially cut lead with burned lead
unburned paper was still fully impregnated. inside.

Epoxy oil end casings fractured in at least six cases.

However, there was no indication of burning or flashover
from the embedded shield located at the bottom end of the
shield. Figure 2 shows the oil end of an early failure
wherein the lower casing has fractured open.

Figure 4. Internal surface of same tube showing nu-

merous arc marks.

Figure 2. Fractured lower casing on an early failure.

Several of the tubes were cut in half axially and inspected.

Figure 3 is a photo of the burned insulation and exposed
lead lying in the aluminum tube. The tape measure indi-
cates the distance from the bottom of the bushing tube.
Figure 4 is a photo of the same tube showing numerous arc
marks on the internal surface of the tube with beads of
Figure 5. Magnification of tube and strands of cable
metal.
lead that had seen arcing but had not burned through.
Figure 5 is a magnification of the corrosion pits on the
Figure 6 shows magnified views of a tube and draw lead
internal surface of the tube as well as the individual strands
that received minor damage. There were a number of
of the cable lead. There were no arcing scars evident on

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

smaller arc scars (upper left), and some showing repeated
strikes (upper right). The adjacent copper cable strands
show signs of arc scars (lower left). One of the sections of
the insulated cable shows the dark discoloration and a
small hole through which an arc passed. (lower right). The
dark discoloration on the lead insulation is due to alumi-
num and copper fretting wear This works into the cotton
cord, and it can be expected that a conductive path is
formed. Once arcing begins, the fretting wear is burned
away and is largely replaced by sludge.
Figure 6. Magnification of a draw lead where the cotton
tape and individual strands of the lead are burned (bot-
tom) and where the tube has many spots of arcing (top).
In one failure, arcing actually burned through most of
the lead strands, as shown in Figure 7. This failure also
burned a hole through the tube and destroyed the condens-
er.
Figure 7. Arced through lead from one of the failures.
Several bushings showed clear evidence of various stag-
es of erosion of the lead and tube at the site of the flashover
spots. Burned paper in the condenser was very pronounced
in several of the failed bushings, as shown in Figure 8. In
some cases, the flashover progressed from the lead through
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4
the condenser to the inside surface of the mounting flange.
Several of the upper porcelains exploded and scattered
broken shards over the substations. Arc marks were also
found on the outer surface of the top of at least two mount-
ing flanges. These marks are thought to have occurred
after the explosion of the upper porcelain and before vol-
tage could be relayed off.
Figure 8. Burn marks on the condenser paper just out-
side of the central tube.
.
III. CHRONOLOGY OF FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS [3-6]
Every bushing failure has been investigated at either the
customer’s or the bushing manufacturer’s facility. Howev-
er, it was not until the third or fourth failure that the lead
and the inside of the tube have been thoroughly inspected.
Hence, it is not known whether the early failure had the
arcing inside the tube.
Several of the condensers from accompanying bushings
mounted in the failed transformers were dissected. In all
cases, the paper insulation was fully impregnated, and the
grading foils were in their proper locations. Some of the
tubes and leads, however, showed signs of arcing within
them.
One of the 900 kV BIL bushings was also subjected to
IEEE standard routine and design tests, and satisfactorily
withstood the following tests, all made at the standard
levels or higher:
Chopped wave impulse – 2 shots at 1040 kV
Full wave impulse – 1 shot at 900 kV
Dry switching impulse – 15 shots at 750 kV positive
polarity
Power frequency – 1 minute at 425 kV
Full wave impulse – 1 shot at 1275 kV (Resulted in an
external flashover)
Full wave impulse – 1 shot at 1150 kV (Withstood)
Power frequency – 1 minute at 425 kV

Power frequency – 1 minute at 460 kV
Power frequency – 1 minute at 485 kV
After the arcing phenomena became suspect, the bushing
manufacturer set up tests to prove that a voltage difference
was present when transient waves were applied to the
bushing. The bushing was set up in air and a reduced
chopped wave impulse was applied. A flashover occurred
through a piece of print paper.
Then, a simplified Laplace Transform model was de-
rived using distributed inductances and capacitances to
represent the combination of the lead, tube and condenser.
One limitation of this model was that it did not include the
mutual inductance between these two components. It
showed that a full voltage (750 or 900 kV), 1.5 x 50 μs
impulse wave was fast enough to develop a significant
voltage at the bottom of the bushing. It also showed that
60 Hz to 60 kHz voltages are too slow to develop these
voltages between the lead and the tube...
A new 750 kV bushing was then tested for thermal sta-
bility at 175 kV. It passed with flying colors. This put to
rest any question about the long term operating dielectric
stresses within the condenser.
The concept of high frequency oscillations was then in-
troduced, and a high voltage difference was confirmed by
using the PSpice computer program on a simplified, finite
element circuit representing the tube, lead, condenser and
transformer winding. A Laplace Transform solution on an
undamped circuit confirmed that a high voltage difference
would be present when a high frequency source was placed
on the bushing terminal. This idea has progressed to the
hypothesis that the arcing starts in the tube due to a high
frequency voltage, and arcing is sustained by the 60 Hz
service voltage. Additional work was done to add mutual
inductance to the circuit and to establish other required
parameters, to be explained in detail later.
IV. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
This type of arcing is not an entirely new phenomenon.
Similar arcing marks were observed some 20 years ago at
the same general locations in several 115 kV bushings
installed as the neutral terminal in high voltage shunt reac-
tors used in a single-pole switching configuration. The
warning presented in these cases was a dramatic increase in
combustible gases in the dissolved gas analysis of the main
tank oil. Internal inspections revealed the arcing marks.
Additional insulation was added to the lead of all reactors
of this design, and the reactors are still satisfactorily oper-
ating today. In these cases, the caution was not for the
bushing, because it received negligible damage. Rather,
the fear was that the generated gases would mask other
problems within the reactor. The bushings were ANSI
Interchangeable, meaning that they could be connected to
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5
the winding with a draw-lead or with a direct connection to
the bottom of the bushing. Consequently, they had copper
tubes instead of the present aluminum tube, and the tubes
were much thicker so as to carry the bushing’s 1200 A
rating.
In addition, transient overvoltages and re-ignitions
have been studied and reported in Europe when shunt reac-
tors are switched with SF6 breakers [1, 2].
V. POSSIBLE SOURCES OF HIGH-FREQUENCY OR
FAST FRONT TRANSIENT VOLTAGES
It has become apparent that the arcing within the bushing
tube is most likely initiated by a high frequency (HFT) or
fast front transients, then sustained by the power frequency
voltage. There are at least two causes of the fast front
transients: lightning induced insulator sparkovers or circuit
switching which energizes bus, line, or equipment. The fast
front transients may be mitigated or exacerbated by circuit
topology, equipment connected to the bus (insulators,
switches, CTs, etc) and the substation grounding system.
A. Lightning Impulse Transients
It is thought unlikely that the 230 kV terminals of the
transformer were subjected to an impulse front less than the
standard 1.2 us. There are, however, two aspects of
lightning impulses that could possibly create sufficient
voltage to cause arcing. First, lightning impulses can cause
sparkovers of insulators in close proximity to the stations
generating fast front transients with rise times between 0.1
and 1.0 us. These transients can impinge on the substation
bus and transformer terminals. Second, the ground resis-
tance and the magnitude of the lightning current have a
significant effect on both the front of the impulse and the
magnitude of the voltage, which can directly or by subse-
quent sparkover introduce fast front transients.
Regarding the first possibility, a study was made to de-
termine the effect of the fast front time of a chopped wave
on the voltage difference between the 750 kV BIL bushing
lead and tube. The results are given in Table 3, and figure
9 plots.
Table 3. Effect of Front Time on Voltage Difference
(kV) between Lead and Tube for a 750 kV Peak Tran-
sient
Fast Front Time (μ s)
Distance from Top of Bushing (P. U) 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.05
0 (Top) 0 0 0 0
0.25 0.6 1.5 6.2 9.9
0.5 1.2 2.9 12 19
0.75 1.8 4.2 18 29
1.00 (Bottom) 2.3 5.5 23 38
Note that the 1.2 μs front time yields relatively little
voltage difference. However, a 0.5 μs front time yields
slightly more than double the voltage difference, and the
0.1 us front time yields an even higher voltage difference.

Hence, sufficient voltage to cause arcing can be expected if
the resulting front time of the lightning sparkover at the
transformer is less that 1.0 μs. Also note that while this
voltage difference is introduced with respect to the
lightning impulse, it also applies to the fast front transients
related to switching below
Figure 9. Effect of Front Time on the
Voltage Difference between Lead and Tube
40
Voltage Difference (kV)
35 Front
Times ( ? s)
30 0.05
0.1
25 0.5
1.2
20
15
10
5 redistribution at re-ignition
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
To Distance from Top of Bushing (Per Unit)
.
B. Switching Transients
Switching devices such as circuit breakers or disconnects
switches that close to energize dead buses, lines, or equip-
ment can induce fast front transients as the voltage across
the open contacts collapses very rapidly in 1 to 10 nanose-
conds. This creates fast front transients with a similar rise
time traveling in two directions – one toward the source
and the other into the de-energized bus. The magnitude of
the transient voltage for a routine energization is equal to
the peak of the phase to ground system voltage. Circuit
breakers at transmission voltages rapidly close the contacts
and the closing results in single energization transients.
Disconnect switches, either manually operated or motor
operated, close slowly and result in an erratic prestrike arc
in air which interrupts and reignites multiple times. The
reigntions are breakdowns of the gap that reintroduce the
fast front transients at each reignition. The magnitude of
the breakdown voltage at reignition can be more than the
peak voltage but on the average the voltages reduce as the
gap closes. The nature of these closing transients is rela-
tively independent of the bus or equipment being ener-
gized.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6
Figure 10 is a depiction of a re-ignition transient[8].
2ndp = second parallel oscillation
uo = power frequency crest voltage phase to earth
u’o = supply side capacitance voltage after charge
uma = ka uo = suppression peak voltage
1 uw = voltage across circuit breaker at re-ignition
Botto kp u0 = re-ignition overvoltage to earth
ka uo = peak to peak voltage excursion at re-ignition
Figure 10. Reigntion near the recovery peak for a circuit
with low supply side capacitance [8].
When interrupting the circuit, the performance of interrupt-
ing devices can vary significantly depending upon the
magnitude of the current, the nature of the current (that is
load current, bus charging capacitive current, magnetizing
current, etc)., and the presence of sources on both sides of
the device. Circuit breakers are designed and tested to
interrupt all of these currents but there may be a reignition
during opening that can induce a fast front transient. When
the current is interrupted, there is a transient recovery vol-
tage that can vary from 0.1 to 0.2 PU of the phase to
ground peak voltage up to 2 PU and in some cases up to 3
PU depending upon the circuit and switching device cha-
racteristics. Statistically, when large voltages occur with a
small contact gap, the circuit breaker can reignite reener-
gizing the circuit and inducing a fast front transient. The
current is reestablished and the circuit breaker simply inter-
rupts the current at a later time when the gap is larger.
Statistically, many opening operations do not result in
reignition transients .
Disconnect switches open their gap slowly and are not
designed for circuit interruption. They are used to isolate
bus, circuit breakers, and transformers which have small
energization or magnetizing currents. Opening operations
take place with numerous reigntions of increasing magni-
tude until the gap is large enough to withstand the voltage.
Bus charging currents are capacitive in nature and the vol-
tage across the switching devices approaches 2 PU of the
phase to ground peak voltage. Maximum reignitions range
 7

from 1 to 2 PU for various circuits.

Figures 11 through 13 [8] show waveforms examples of
a disconnect switch operation. The high side of a 500/230
kV auto-transformer is attached to a 500 kV ring bus by a
motor operated disconnect switch, but this switch does not
drop the bank. The transformer remains in service with
load during the switch operation. The ring bus is physical-
ly large to allow for adding new 500 kV lines in the future.
The result is that one disconnect switch on one of the 500
kV breakers is 950 ft from the breaker. To get a clear-
ance for this breaker for maintenance the disconnect switch
has to de-energize the 950 ft of bus plus the breaker bush-
ing capacitance. Figure 12. Magnification of Figure 10, where the time
The switch is about 300 ft. from the transformer, and the scale is 100 ns per large division. The drop time was
waveform was obtained from a connection to the high about 0.1 μs [8].
voltage bushing tap. The digitizer sample rate was 50
MHz, or 20 ns/sample, with 12 bit vertical resolution for
this particular case. A zoom-in of Figure 11, shown in
Figure 12, indicates that the voltage chop takes place in
five samples, or 0.1 us. Figure 13 shows the frequency
content of the waveform, as determined by the Fast Fourier
Transform technique (FFT).

Figure 13. Frequency content of Figure 12 waveform as

determined by FFT [8].

C. Observations

It is difficult to assess whether any one or a combination

Figure 11. H3 waveform of disconnect switch opening a of the transient generators listed above is actually responsi-
circuit involving energized 500 kV autotransformer [8]. ble for the failures. Each possibility has its own elements
of support and detraction with regard to it leading to the
failure.

D. Relationship of Switching Transients to Transformer

Bushing Transients

The impact of the switching transient on the transformer

bushing varies with the proximity of the switching device
to the transformer and the topology of the bus and equip-
ment connected to the switching device and transformer.
The fast front transients are “slowed” by traveling over the
bus and ground – more distance results in slowing of the
front rise time. Ground impedance at high frequencies will
affect the rise time and peak magnitude. Effectively, high-
er ground resistance translates to a more inductive ground
path with reduced damping and makes high frequency
transients more severe. Multiple bus and line taps cause
reflections which reduce the magnitude of the transient
voltage.

The most obvious switching devices are the breakers and

disconnect switches between the transformer and the rest of
the system bus. These are located on a single feed bus
about 50 to 100 feet from the transformer. For the cases

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

involved in this investigation, SF6 circuit breakers or cir-
cuit switchers are used to energize and deenergize the
transformers. The associated disconnect switches are only
used to isolate the circuit breaker from the bus or transfor-
mer and are not expected to create any transients.
About half of the transformers in this investigation are
utility distribution supply transformers and are switched
very infrequently – on a 5 or 7 year schedule for mainten-
ance. Energization to connect a transformer can occur at
the maximum peak of the source voltage (1 PU phase to
ground), results in about one-half PU fast front transient to
the transformer and the other half PU traveling into the bus.
Deenrgization is normally done after the load is transfer to
another source resulting in magnetizing current switching.
Magnetizing current interruption is relatively “mild” but
statistically a reigntion could occur with an associated fast
front transient.
For the generator peaking transformers which can be
switched 100 to 200 times per year, the nature of the
switching precludes significant switching transients as
noted above. The circuit breaker is used to synchronize the
energized transformer to the system and does so with es-
sentially zero voltage across the open contacts resulting in
no fast front transients. Removal of the transformer is the
“reverse” with the transformer staying energized after the
breaker is open with little or no voltage across the circuit
breaker. The likelihood of fast transients is eliminated.
Switching devices not directly adjacent to the transformer
can generate fast front transients at the transformer. For
example, when a dead transmission line attached to the
substation bus is energized, fast front transients are sent
down the line and also into the substation bus and ultimate-
ly to all the transformers on that bus. This can occur with
routine line switching for maintenance, or when the line
breaker recloses and reenergizes after clearing a fault.
Similar fast front transients can be generated with discon-
nect switches located throughout the substation which are
used to energize or deenergized bus sections. The magni-
tude and rise time of the front will vary depending upon the
location and voltage across the contacts.
VII. FAILURE MECHANISMS IN BUSHING
As outlined above, it is thought that arcing is initiated
by a high frequency or fast front transient and then sus-
tained by the power frequency service voltage. Following
are possible explanations for the events that occur, leading
up to failure:
A. Initial Failure due to Transient Voltage
Regardless of the source, the leading hypothesis is that a
HFT reaches the bushing and starts to reflect when it
reaches the bottom of the bushing. The bushing surge
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8
impedance is only a little less than that the overhead lines,
so the bulk of the wave splits up into two parallel paths, the
central lead and the tube in the center of the bushing. The
lead wave reaches the electrical windings where it may see
a much higher surge impedance, and may or may not be
reflected, depending on the relative surge impedances. The
tube wave reaches to the end of the tube and doubles in
magnitude.
In order to determine whether sufficient voltage is
created to cause arcing between the lead and the tube, and
whether enough energy is created by the ensuing arc path,
the bushing model shown in Figure 14 was used in con-
junction with different computer analysis programs. The
bushing tube is shown in dark gray, and the central lead
with its inductance, Ll, in black. The lead and tube are
joined at the bushing cap. The condenser element is cha-
racterized by capacitance, C4. Capacitor C1 is the effec-
tive capacitance between lead and tube. Winding capacit-
ance, C3, is the capacitance between the high voltage
winding and tank. C2 is the capacitance between high
voltage and low voltage windings. In the model, C2 and
C3 are effectively in parallel.
H1 V1
170
85
103 V3 Lc
Ll
V2
C1
60 C4
V4
C3
C2
Ls HV GND
Figure 14. Finite element model of bushing and
transformer.
Taking a simplistic view, the surge impedance in the
overhead cable and bushing are in the order of 450 and 300
ohms, respectively. Hence, about 80 % of the HFT wave
will enter the lead and the tube [10], and will proceed all
the way down the lead to the winding at point V4. If the
wave reaches the winding, point V4, it sees a surge imped-
ance of about 2900 ohms. At this point, the HFT wave will
 9

increase by 81 % in amplitude, making the total peak 1.81 about 4000 pf.
times 0.8 = 1.45 p.u. of the HFT voltage. Meanwhile, 3. C1 is the lead to tube capacitance at about 500 pf.
voltage on the tube doubles when the HFT hits the end of 4. Ll is the lead inductance at 5.2 μH
the tube, creating a peak of 1.6 p.u. 5. Lc is the tube inductance to typical point of flashover
at 3.9 μH.
This is not the complete story, however, since the veloc- 6. Transformer winding air core inductance of 0.02 H is
ities of the waves in the lead and tube must be taken into large and can be ignored.
account. They are different because of their respective 7. R is the earth resistance back to the breaker and is
inductances and capacitances, and the mutual inductance assumed to be 4 ohm.
between them. Calculations indicate that the velocity of 8. Once flashover between lead and tube occurs, switch
the lead wave is about 40 % of the speed of light, or about Sc1 is closed and ionization path resistor Rsc1 is in-
4.7 x 109 inches/sec, and the tube wave is 30 %, or about troduced.
3.5 x 109 inches/sec. Also, the lead wave must travel about V1 H1
100 inches farther than the tube wave since that is the ap- t(0-) t(0+)
proximate length of lead between the bottom of the bushing
and the winding. Hence, the time that it takes the lead Ssource
wave to reach the winding and return to the bottom of the i6 LC, μH Ll/2
bushing is:
I2 Rsc1 I1
ΔT(lead) = ΔT(top to winding) + ΔT(winding to bottom) Sc1
170 + 200 V3 C1 V2
ΔT ( lead ) = = 0.035 + 0.041 = 0.076 μs
4.9 x10 9 Vsinwt
I3 Ll/2
Meanwhile, the time that it takes for the tube wave to i5
reach the bottom of the bushing and start its return up the I4 V4
tube is:
C4 C2+C3
170 400 kV R
ΔT ( tube ) = = 0.049 μs
3.5 x10 9

Hence, the tube wave starts to return up the tube at 1.6

Figure 15. Electrical circuit used for the PSpice analy-
p.u. voltage about 0.027 μs before the lead wave returns to sis.
the bottom of the bushing. This means that the tube wave
is 0.027 μs ahead of the lead wave when the later reaches These parameters were fed into the PSpice computer
the bottom of the bushing, which in turn means that the program. Figure 16 shows a run of voltages V1, V2, V3
tube wave is double its original peak voltage (1.6 p.u.) and lead to tube voltage V2,3 versus time. Note that V2,3
while the lead wave adjacent to it at 0.049 + 0.076 = 0.125 is over 100 kV at about 0.1 μs.
μs may be at its original peak (0.80 p.u.) or something less
if the wave is decaying. For instance, if the fast front tran-
sient has a front time of 0.5 μs , then lead wave will have a
magnitude of 0.6 p.u. This difference will accentuate with
time as both waves go through their respective paths until
such time that the lead wave overtakes the tube wave.

Figure 15, shows the electrical circuit for the circuit

elements between the breaker and the transformer. . The
term Vsinωt represents the source voltage, where the 50 ft
separation between the circuit breaker and the bushing
creates a frequency of 3.7 MHz. The voltage differential,
V2,3 = V2-V3, is shown in the typical region of flashover
occurrence. Other components are as follows:

1. C4 is the condenser bushing capacitance which is

about 600 pf for the 230 kV, 900 kV BIL bushing.
2. C2 +C3 are the winding capacitances which sum to

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Figure 16. Plot versus time of V1, V2, V3 and V2,3.
Voltage V2,3 can reach over 100 kV
When and if the lead does flash over to the tube, switch
Sc1 in Figure 15 closes and current flows in resistor Rsc1,
as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17. Current I3 after Sc1 is closed.
Arcing, i.e., flashovers between the lead and tube, will
occur when the voltage differential between these parts
exceeds the dielectric strength of the insulation between
them. As discussed earlier, the voltage differential may
grow as the process progresses, and arcing may occur
through the lead insulation and the oil surrounding it.
Alternatively, arcing may occur at the liquid surface where
air dielectric strength and surface creep are at play if gas
has risen into the tube. Recall that most of the failures
have occurred on applications where the bushing is angled.
Gravity may have some effect in that the lead is lying
against the bottommost surface of the tube, and there is
only a thin oil film to contribute to the voltage withstand.
In any case, the arced through lead insulation has a lower
dielectric withstand than before.
When the voltage differential is sufficient to establish
arcing, then all the energy stored in the bushing and
winding capacitances discharges into the arc. The flashov-
ers have always resulted in discharge marks between the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
10
lead and tube interior. Referring back to Figure 17, current
can reach more than 10 kA when the arcing occurs. Figure
18, derived from the same PSpice calculation, shows the
energy dissipation during an arcing event. Discharge ener-
gy , is sufficient to burn away the lead insulation and create
a metal-metal contact between the lead and tube.
Figure 18. Energy dissipation when lead flashes to the
tube
B. Continued Erosion due to Power Frequency Voltag-
es
By calculation and by test, it has been confirmed that
once arcing occurs and if metal beads form point to point
contact between the lead and the tube, then substantial
current-sharing becomes possible with at least 55 % of the
current taking the path of the tube, dependent on the degree
of contact. Figure 19 shows a cut-away view of the lead
and one side of the tube.
Currents through the lead and tube result in a voltage
drop between the cap and the point of con-
tact. The proportion of current that flows in the lead and
outer tube will be determined by the inductance structure of
the bushing and the resistance of the contact between the
lead and outer tube. The total current is determined not by
the bushing structure but the system voltage and the trans-
former and load impedances.
A study was made assuming a 50 MVA, three phase
transformer with a 230 kV high voltage winding, resulting
in a full load current of 125.5 A. It was further assumed
that a fault occurred at the bottom of a 750 kV BIL bush-
ing, resulting in a contact impedance, R. The diameter of
the lead was 0.528 inches, and the tube had an inside di-
ameter of 1.63 inches. The current, I, flowing through R is
determined by the geometry of the bushing, including lead
and tube resistance and self and mutual impedances, as
well as the fault impedance. The contact heating loss is
determined for R ranging from 0.00001 to 1.0 ohms, and
results are shown in Table 4 and plotted in Figure 20.
Noted that losses of 10 W or more occur when R is be-
tween 0.003 and 0.007 ohms and that 8 W or more are
generated when R is between 0.002 and 0.02 ohms.
10
 11

Figure 20. Contact Losses as a Function

of Contact Resistance
12.0
Magnetic
Flux 10.0

Contact Heating, Watts

I circ 8.0
X 6.0
I circ.
4.0
V, Volts
2.0

0.0
X 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Contact Resistance, Ohms

In view of the fact that paper insulation is a good heat

insulator as well as good electrical insulation, a constant
heat source of 8 W or more results in several effects:
Contact
1. Gassing within the tube will start early with hydrogen,
Figure 19. Lead, left side of the tube, and the point of followed by ethylene, ethane and methane. These gases
contact where arcing has occurred. have been observed by Hopkinson, Dix, Kraemer and
others attributed to contact aging in mineral oil and oth-
er fluids. This gas will rise in the tube and force the oil
Table 4 level down. Over time the point of activity may not re-
Effect of Contact Resistance on Current in Lead and main oil immersed but may be above the liquid level.
Tube with Short at the Bottom and Associated Contact 2. Heating of the inside of the tube will occur at the point
Heating of contact and intensify as the contact becomes carbo-
Contact nized and or dried out. Accelerated life testing of elec-
Current in Tube
Heating trical contacts by Hopkinson, Dix, Kraemer and others
Percent
Impedance, Loss, on tapchangers has demonstrated super temperatures of
of Total
Ohms Amps Watts
several hundred degrees C can occur over time.
0.00001 69.51 55.4 0.048 3. Erosion of the lead material and tube will occur on the
0.0001 69.50 55.4 0.483 inside of the tube, increasing current density in the lead.
0.001 68.04 54.2 4.630 Eroded leads have been observed in a number of bush-
0.002 64.13 51.1 8.225 ings.
0.003 58.88 46.9 10.402 4. Aging of paper within the condenser will occur espe-
0.004 53.32 42.5 11.371 cially just outside of the point of contact. This has been
0.005 48.04 38.3 11.541 verified by measurement of the degree of polarization
0.006 43.32 34.5 11.261 of paper taken from a bushing in the field.
0.01 29.98 23.9 8.992 5. Gassing within the condenser as a result of paper dete-
0.10 3.32 2.6 1.102 rioration will increase pressure within the porcelain and
increase the likelihood of dielectric breakdown as well
1.00 0.33 0.3 0.114
as mechanical bursting of the porcelain.
6. The ultimate failure mechanism may be either as a re-
sult of arcing inside the tube from severed leads or from
a breakdown in the condenser. Both failure modes lead
to the arcing bushing failures that have been observed.
Circumstantial evidence would say that either of these
mechanisms evolve over months or years.

VIII. PREVENTION OR REDUCING THE CHANCE OF

FAILURES

The most important conditions that would prevent fail-

ures are the following with the most effective approaches

11

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 12

listed first: shipping process.

1. Perform Periodic gas sampling to look for Hydrogen
and any of the hot metals gases; Ethane, Ethylene, Me- X. Conclusions
thane and even Acetylene. This is likely to give early
warning of arc erosion within the bushing tube. A The strange draw-lead bushing failures appear to have
look at the condenser oil gases may also be important initiated from fast front transients which may cause break-
to give warning or deterioration of the condenser. down between the draw lead and the tube. If contact is
2. Where problems are suspected, heavily insulate the established between the draw lead and the tube, resulting
leads (up to 0.10” of crepe) to make flashovers less power frequency current can erode the lead from the inside
likely to occur and to prevent metal to metal contact and rapidly age insulation in the condenser elements out-
between lead and tube even if flashover does occur. side such that bushing failure may occur from either direc-
3. Add surge capacitors to the bus supplying the trans- tion.
former. The major challenge is selecting capacitors
with a small enough inductance to allow mitigation of Gassing within the bushing tube and measured by DGA
nanosecond front times. in the tank is a clear indicator that failure is in progress.
.
4. Increase the diameter of the lead. Results of studies The failure progression is believed to evolve over a pe-
similar to those reported for Table 3 except that the riod of months or years, as follows:
lead diameter was 1.38 inches instead of 0.528 inches
indicates that the voltage differences are reduced by 1. A high frequency transient enters the top of the bush-
almost 50 %. The same studies indicate that the con- ing, and the resulting travelling waves progress down
tact losses would decrease in the order of 12 % if the the cable lead and the tube at slightly different speeds.
lead diameter were increased. 2. The wave in the somewhat faster lead is reflected by
the larger impedance of the transformer winding, re-
IX. DISCUSSION sulting in a reflected wave of the same polarity as the
original. The sum of the original and reflected waves
yields a magnitude between 1.0 and 2.0 per unit of the
In order to determine the energy required to melt the
original wave.
bushing tube, Dr. Russell Crutcher of Microlab Northwest
3. The wave in the aluminum tube is reflected when it
[11] was requested to focus on burn spots on the inside
hits the open end of the tube, resulting in a reflected
walls of the tube in locations where burning had occurred
wave of the same magnitude and polarity as the origi-
but where complete penetration of the tube had not yet
nal wave. The magnitude of the resulting wave is
occurred. Dr. Crutcher indicated “The arc scars tend to be
twice that of the original wave.
hemispherical for a number of reasons. With a wall thick-
4. The distance that the lead wave has to travel is longer
ness of 5 mm, the scar would have a diameter of 5 mm.
than the tube wave because of the additional distance
That would amount to a total mass of 0.265 grams of alu-
between the bottom of the bushing and the winding.
minum. If a specific heat of 0.920 J/gram and a latent heat
Consequently, the tube wave start its return before the
of fusion of 393.296 J/gram are used, then the energy re-
lead wave returns to the bottom of the bushing
quirement to melt through the tube if it was originally at
5. Arcing between the cable lead and tube is initiated
20o Celsius would be about 260 joules.”. This mode of
when the voltage difference exceeds the withstand ca-
failure is not believed to be solely responsible for total
pability of the insulation and oil film surrounding the
bushing failure, nor does it always lead to the next step in
lead. Such flashovers have always resulted in dis-
the failure process, as evidenced by the large number of arc
charge marks, often numerous, between the lead and
marks on the interior of the tube. Rather, it is the initiator
tube interior.
of subsequent events that can take months and years to
6. Gasses from the degradation of the oil film are pro-
occur.
duced by the arcing, and arcing is eventually sustained
by the power frequency current. Erosion begins be-
In addition, it is prudent to change transformer standards
tween the lead and tube, and additional gassing occurs.
so as to help prevent this problem in the future. This is a
7. The gas level may rise in the tube, thereby pushing the
future topic of discussion for the IEEE Transformers
oil level down until it is below the region of arcing.
Committee. Wording should be added to either the bush-
This reduces the heat carrying capacity of the system
ing standard, C57.19.00, and/or the transformer test code,
since the oil has been removed.
C57.12.90, to check the draw lead insulation system during
8. When the discharges deposit sufficient carbon and/or
chopped wave testing. This would require that: 1) no alto-
ionized gasses in the region to effectively place the
rations appear on the ground current be measured during
lead in contact with the tube, then the power frequency
the chopped wave tests, and 2) the draw lead insulation be
current is able to flow, with as much as 50 percent of
inspected for punctures after testing during the pre-

12

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

the load current flowing through the tube
9. The tube heats up to the degree that it starts to degrade
the adjacent paper insulation in the bushing condenser
outside the tube.
10. The entire condenser eventually fails radially, pressure
builds up within the bushing due to gases generated by
degradation of oil and insulation, and the bushing ex-
plodes, often resulting in fire.
11. In some cases, a small hole is burned in the aluminum
tube. This may occur due to either the heat generated
by the arcing or the resultant flashover in the condens-
er.
XI. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that periodic DGA measurements be
made on the tank oil in order to prevent failures of existing
transformers and bushings. More elaborate measures on
existing transformers include:
1. removal of the bushings and adding additional in-
sulation to the draw lead.
2. Longer term, it is recommended that wording be
added to transformer/ bushing test standards to
prevent this problem from occurring in the future.
XII. FUTURE WORK
Further work is recommended on several fronts:
1. Failure mode exploration is encouraged to ex-
amine accelerated aging between lead and tube to
better understand lead and tube erosion at power
frequencies.
2. Gassing studies are encouraged for both the main
tank gases as well as the gases in the bushing con-
denser. Such gases may be the best indicators of
imminent problems in process. Gassing within the
tube would appear to push the oil column lower.
Rapid heating may be associated with arcing loca-
tions that are not fully submerged.
3. Partial discharge studies are encouraged. Gassing
within the condenser may be detectable by the
bushing capacitance tap.
4. Environmental factors may well be important con-
tributors. Many of the failures appear to be asso-
ciated with installations in particularly dry condi-
tions. Modeling is encouraged. Ideal solutions to
bushing problems will be effective in all soil con-
ditions.
5. Relevance of voltage class is an important factor.
All voltage classes need to be robust.
6. Relevance of Transformer MVA. In the analysis,
a significant portion of the current may travel
down the tube to the point of failure. This would
seem to suggest that larger transformers are more
vulnerable.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
13
7. Work is encouraged to investigate the point of fla-
shover within the tube. Some of these have been
above the flange and some below. Oil level may
be an important factor in such occurrences.
8. Industry Standards work is encouraged to assess
the adequacy of existing standards and determine
improvements that may lead to greater bushing
robustness. Bushings and lead assemblies in this
investigation are able to pass all existing industry
standards. The intention of such standards is to
have type tests and routine tests that are more se-
vere than stresses that they may be subjected to in
the field. In this case the evidence supports the
need for a relook at typical applications, utiliza-
tion techniques, ratings, and testing methods. This
is a similar finding as has been noted by the IEEE
Transformers Committee for transformers exposed
to switching devices and has led to the develop-
ment of Guide IEEE C57.142 [4].
XIII Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the managements of Trench
Limited and of Waukesha Electric Systems and of the
many supporting businesses who have sponsored and as-
sisted this investigation. The authors furthermore wish to
specifically thank Shirish (Sam) Mehta and Larry Kriege of
Waukesha Electric Systems and David Wallace and Keith
Ellis of Trench Limited for their excellent support in re-
searching events and in assisting with analysis. Other
noteworthy support was offered by Alexander D.(Don)
Kline with PSPICE simulations, by Nigel McQuin with
switching characteristics studies, and by Dr. Russ Crutcher
in examining the arc energy related beads of metal which
facilitate contact between the leads and the tube.
XI. REFERENCES
[1] An Investigation of Transient Overvoltage Generation when Switch-
ing High Voltage Shunt Reactors by SF6 Breaker, Z. Ma, C. A. Bliss,
A. R. Penfold, A. F. W. Harris, S. B. Tennakoon, IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, April, 1998, pp. 472-479.
[2] Switching Overvoltages at the Disconection of the High Voltage
Shunt Reactor in the Romanian Power System, P. C. Stroca, I. Mer-
fu, M Stroica, M Merfu, A. Campeanu, S. A. Smart, presented at the
2009 IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, Seattle,
WA, April, 2009.
[3] Engineering reports of field failures and of transformer analysis.
[4] P57.142/D5.1 Guide To Describe The Occurrence and Mitigation Of
Switching Transients Induced By Transformer, Switching Device,
and System Interaction
[5] Inductance Calculations by Frederick W. Grover, 1946, 1973, by
Dover Publications, Inc. 180 Varick St, New York, NY 10014.
[6] Elements of Power Systems Analysis by William D. Stevenson, Jr.,
McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962, New York.
13
 14

[7] IEC Technical Report TR1233, High-Voltage Alternating

Current Circuit Breakers Inductive Loading Switching, 1994 Loren B. Wagenaar, PE, has worked
[8] A Summary of NEETRAC On-line Frequency Response Analysis a total of 45 years in the electric
(FRA) and a New EPRI Commercial Prototype FRA Installation at power industry. He worked at
First Energy, L. Coffeen, J. McBride, N. Woldemariam, J. Benach, L American Electric Power in Colum-
van der Zel, presented at the EPRI Substation Equipment Mainten- bus, OH, for 24 years and was
ance Optimization & Diagnostics Conference, San Antonio, TX, responsible for all aspects in the
March,2009 procurement of power transformers,
[9] IEEE C37.09-1999 (R2007), IEEE Standard Test Procedure for AC shunt reactors and instrument trans-
High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Ba- formers, all with voltages ranging to
sis. 765 kV. He was involved with
[10] Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference Book, Fourth technical and commercial specifications, in-house and industry standards,
Edition, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, PA, 1964, p. 527. performance evaluations, cost of loss analysis, design reviews, test wit-
[11] Technical summary by Dr. Russell Crutcher dated September 3, nessing, and analysis of in-service failures. He held the position of Staff
2009 in email to PJ Hopkinson. Engineer when he retired from AEP in July 2006. Loren continues to be
active in the power industry though his own transformer consulting busi-
ness, WagenTrans Consulting.
XI. BIOGRAPHIES He received a BSEE degree from South Dakota State University in
Phil Hopkinson, PE is an IEEE Fellow June 1965. His technical career began as a transformer development
and long service Transformer Engineer. engineer at the Sharon, PA plant of Westinghouse Electric Corp, and he
He received his BS in EE from Worcester obtained a MSEE degree from Akron (OH) State University in 1968. He
Polytechnic Institute in 1966. He also was transferred to Muncie, IN in August, 1968. During his 17 years at
graduated from GE’s Advanced Engi- Westinghouse, Loren gained experience as a development and design
neering Course in 1970 and simulta- engineer on transformer insulation systems and electrical bushings up to
neously received his MS in System 1,100 kV. He also obtained a MS Math degree from Ball State University
Science from Brooklyn Polytechnic in 1973.
Institute. From 1966 to 2002, Phil held Loren is a Life Fellow Member of the IEEE and a member IEEE PES
numerous design and engineering man- and DEIS societies, and IEEE SCC 4, HVTT and the Transformers Com-
agement assignments in the transformer mittees, where he has been Chair of the Dielectric Test Subcommittee
businesses of GE, Cooper Power Systems and Square D Co in liquid since 1995. Prior to that post, he was Chair of the Bushing Subcommittee
filled, dry, and cast resin transformers of all power ratings and voltage for 12 years. He has also been a US representative to IEC Technical
classes. In 2001, Phil formed a power transformer consulting company, Committee 14, an international standards group on transformers, and a
called HVOLT Inc. and since 2002 has managed HVOLT full time. He member of IEC Working Group 24, responsible for international standar-
currently holds 15 US patents, is a Registered Professional Engineer in dization of dielectric tests and external electrical clearances for transfor-
North Carolina, and is Technical Advisor (TA) to the US National Com- mers. He holds eight US patents, has co-authored seven technical papers,
mittee for IEC TC14 for Power Transformers. as well as numerous other industry papers, on high voltage transformers
He has authored IEEE Transactions papers on the effects of DBPC in and bushings
Transformer Oil, on Low Voltage surge phenomena in Distribution Trans-
former windings, and a panel session on Natural Ester Fluids at the 2006 Arturo Del Rio started his
IEEE Transmission and Distribution Meeting and has Chaired NEMA’s professional career as a Field
activities and was primary author of NEMA TP-1 Guide for Energy Effi- Engineer in the oil fields of Colombia
ciency for Distribution Transformers. He has conducted seminars on and as an Electrical Engineer for
Circuit Breaker Switching and Transformer Interaction at the IEEE Trans- Hatch Associates consulting firm in
formers Committee in 2003, the Doble International Conference in 2006, Toronto, Canada, were he was
and the IEEE Transformers Committee meeting in 2007. He has chaired involved in several projects and
numerous IEEE and NEMA Working Groups and from 2001-2008, has studies related to electric arc furnaces
served as Chairman of IEEE’s Policy Development Coordinating Commit- and the metallurgical industry.
tee from 2001-2004 and continues on the executive board. A most recent He joined Trench Canada in 1991
accomplishment was the issuance of the IEEE Power Engineering Society and has held various design and
Policy on Energy and Environment (adopted by the Board of Governors in engineering positions in the fields of instrument transformers, power
2007). electronics and air-core reactors. He is currently Engineering Manager at
the Trench Transformer Bushings Division in Ajax, ON, Canada.
Arturo holds a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the
Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia, and an M.A.Sc. Degree in
the field of power devices and systems from the University of Toronto.
He has been an IEEE member since 1988 and is a registered Professional
H. Jin Sim, PE has a BSEE from Dankook Engineer in Ontario.
University in Korea. He attended two
graduate schools for Engineering and one
graduate school for Business Administra- Robert G. Ganser, PE, started his
tion. He has been in the transformer career with the Allis-Chalmers
industry for over 30 years in design, devel- Mfg. Company in Milwaukee,
opment, manufacturing, testing, and man- Wisconsin. During his 15-year
agement. Currently, Jin is a VP, Chief tenure at Allis-Chalmers he
Technology Officer for Waukesha Electric advanced to the management of
Systems. Jin has been active in the Electric the High Power Laboratory,
Power industry as a past chair of several Working Groups and Subcommit- Product and Development Testing
tees. Recently, he was the Chairman of the IEEE/PES Transformers of all Transformer, Regulator and
Committee for 2002-2003 and currently chairs several Working Groups / Reactor products and Quality
Task Forces. He is a member of the US Technical Advisory Group for assurance Inspection of all prod-
IEC Technical Committee 14, Power Transformers and an individual ucts within the Power Transformer division.
member of the CIGRE. He has been the NEMA and IEEE delegation to In 1978, Mr. Ganser joined the Ohio Transformer Corporation Louis-
the ASC C57 Committee before it was discontinued. ville, Ohio as Manager of Operations. During his 18-year tenure he

14

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 15

advanced to Vice President and Technical Director. Also during this time, Testing Techniques Sub-committee of the PSIM Committee. He is also an
he was responsible for the oversight of the startup of the Bradenton, active member of several working groups within the Transformers Com-
Florida operation, the transition to Magnetek and a member of the senior mittee.
management team during the purchase of the Waukesha Transformer
Operation by Magnetek. Dr. Robert C. Degeneff is president of
Mr. Ganser has been engaged in the consulting business, doing busi- Utility Systems Technologies, Inc. which
ness as Transformer Consulting Services since 1996. He has over 45 years builds electronic voltage regulators and
experience in the Transformer Industry covering the spectrum from Engi- power quality mitigation equipment and
neering, Quality Assurance, Testing and Senior Management. This expe- provides consulting to the utility industry.
rience includes both the OEM and the Repair Industry. Prior to assuming his role at UST, Dr.
Mr. Ganser holds a BSEE degree for the University of Notre Dame in Robert Degeneff was Professor of Electric
South Bend, Indiana. He also holds an MBA degree from Marquette Power Engineering at Rensselaer Polytech-
University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He attended the Magnetek Institute nic Institute in Troy, New York for 17
of Management for Senior Managers at the University of Southern Cali- years. The department was involved in
fornia in Los Angeles, California. research into the design and performance of
Mr. Ganser is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio. utility and industrial power apparatus.
He is a Life member of the IEEE, a member of CIGRE, a member of the Before joining RPI , Dr. Degeneff was with General Electric for 16 years,
Power Engineering Society and the Transformers Committee and Principal initially as a Senior Development Engineer with GE's Large Power Trans-
Member of the International Electrical testing Association Category D former Department and later, as a manager in various positions of increas-
Consultant. ing responsibility in the power transformer business, HVDC systems, and
utility planning.
Larry Coffeen is a Senior Research Dr. Degeneff received his B.Eng degree from Kettering Institute and
Engineer for NEETRAC, a re- his masters and D.Eng from RPI. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Eta
search organization with a mem- Kappa Nu and Sigma Xi. He is a PE in New York, Fellow in the IEEE
bership of power equipment and 2008 recipient of the Herman Halprin Award . He has published over
manufacturers and electric utilities. seven dozen papers (two IEEE prize papers), chapters in 5 books and
NEETRAC is also a part of the holds eight patents.
school of Electrical and Computer
Engineering at the Georgia Insti- Bjorn Lofgren has a BSEE from Stock-
tute of Technology. Larry’s holm, Sweden.
current work includes the devel- He has been in the Circuit Breaker indus-
opment of test techniques and test try for 32 years in design, development,
equipment to perform ON-line testing and management. Currently Bjorn
transformer, CCVT, and power is Circuit Breaker R&D manager for
line carrier trap frequency response analysis. Siemens Energy, Jackson, Mississippi.
Before joining NEETRAC, Larry was employed for 29 years by Geor-
gia Power Company. As a Senior Test Engineer, he performed Transmis- Bjorn is active in several working groups
sion Substation Testing and High Voltage Laboratory test work. After the of the IEEE/PES Switchgear committee.
formation of NEETRAC in 1996, Larry continued to work in the High
Voltage Laboratory and develop new field test technology for substation
equipment.
Larry received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from Geor-
gia TECH in 1970. He is a senior member of IEEE and a Member of the
IEEE, PES, and PSIM (Power System Instrumentation & Measurements)
Committee since 1987. Larry contributed actively to IEEE Std 4-1995,
“IEEE Standard Techniques for High Voltage Testing” as an active mem-
ber of the High Voltage Testing Techniques subcommittee of PSIM. He is
contributing to the current IEEE Std 4-1995 revision as a corresponding
member of HVTT PSIM. Larry has been a contributing member of the
IEEE, Transformers Committee, FRA Guide Working Group from 2003 to
the present.
Larry holds five U.S. patents relating to power transformer FRA test-
ing, MOV lightning arrester and polymer insulator field test methods.

Enrique Betancourt graduated as bachelor

Jim McBride received a Bachelor of
Electrical Engineering degree from
Georgia Institute of Technology in 1988.
He has worked in power system research
and development for 25 years. Jim has
worked extensively with calibration,
high voltage testing, and frequency
response testing. His areas of expertise
include data acquisition, software devel-
opment, and high voltage testing. Jim
has worked with many predictive main-
tenance and testing techniques used for
evaluating power equipment. He is currently president of JMX Services,
Inc., which is a provider of monitoring/testing products and services for
the power industry.
Jim has been an IEEE PES member since 1990 and was formerly secre-
tary of the PSIM Committee. He is an active member of the High Voltage
on electromechanical engineering from the
Nuevo Leon State University (UANL) in
1983. He earned the German degree on
electrical engineering (equivalent to the
Master Degree in EE) from the Technical
University of Aachen (RWTH-Aachen) in
1988. Enrique joined Prolec GE in 1989,
where he played an active role in the
process of developing a manufacturer’s
independent technology resources. He is
currently in charge of technology planing
of Prolec GE. From 1989 to date, Mr.
Betancourt has been collaborating with the
Graduate School of the Electromechanical Engineering Faculty of UANL
as assistant professor for High Voltage Engineering, Electromagnetic
Transient Analysis and New Product Design technology. His current
interests span from models for monitoring and diagnostics of power

15

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 16

equipment, through innovation and technology development processes.

Enrique is member of several WGs within the IEEE Transformers
Committee, member of CIGRE and chairman of the IEEE PES Monterrey
Chapter.

Tom Tobin is the Vice President of R&D

for S&C Electric Company, a major manu-
facturer of high-power and high-voltage
switching, protection and control systems
for utilities and large industrial power users.
In this position, Tom is responsible for the
major new product development projects,
supporting the five operating divisions.
These products span the range of circuit
breakers, rated up to 230 kV and 25 kA
interrupting rating to giant uninterruptible
power supplies (UPS) rated up to 20 MVA. In addition, the R&D organi-
zation is responsible for advance technology development that can be used
in new products, and for the high power and high voltage electrical labora-
tories. Tom is responsible for introducing good product development
practices and techniques for innovating new products starting with the
customer problems and ending with production units.

Tom graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with Bachelor and

Master Degrees in Electric Power Engineering. His career has spanned 40
years with S&C Electric Company in various roles from product develop-
ment engineer to the Director of engineering for all of S&C products.
Tom’s expertise lies in the design, testing, and application of switching
devices and controls for large electric power systems. He is a Fellow of
the IEEE and a member of various IEEE standards development commit-
tees in the area of switchgear, and is active in international standards
development through the IEC where he is the U.S. Technical Advisor to
Technical Committee 17—Switchgear and Controlgear. Tom has also
participated in several CIGRE Committees (International Council on
Large Electric Systems), providing analysis and guidance for future stan-
dards writing. He holds 23 US patents with another 5 pending, and sever-
al international patents related to high voltage switches, fuses, or circuit
interrupters, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in Illinois.

16

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de chile. Downloaded on December 11,2021 at 00:05:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.