THE MOST IGNORED MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL ITEM IN THE PLANT

ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

Gabriel Paoletti, P.E.
Eaton Electrical
2608 Tauton Drive
Pennsauken, NJ 08109
USA

Mark Stephens, P.E.

Eaton Electrical
7 Chelsea Pkwy - 700
Boothwyn, PA. 19061
USA

Abstract - Electrical preventative and predictive maintenance

are important aspects in assuring the reliability and integrity of
electrical distribution systems. However, one of the most
overlooked maintenance items in operating facilities today is the
medium voltage switchgear internal line-side bus structure.
Typically maintenance is focused on the breaker compartments,
the cable compartments, the circuit breakers and the protective
relays. By far the most under-maintained component in plant
electrical distribution systems is the main bus insulation system
of medium voltage switchgear.
I.

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the following as they apply to medium

voltage switchgear:

Reliability and Failure Statistics

Why the Main Bus is not inspected and tested

Several case studies of observed MV switchgear bus

failure modes will be presented

Recommendations of various maintenance guidelines

and options

How the continuous monitoring of partial discharges can

overcome these major maintenance deficiencies.
Index Terms Bus Failure Rates, Partial Discharge
Monitoring, Continuous Monitoring, Switchgear Reliability.

II.

RELIABILITY AND FAILURE STATISTICS

The IEEE Standard 493-1997, IEEE Recommended Practice

for Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
[1] (Gold Book) presents the results of end-user surveys during
the 1970s time period concerning switchgear bus systems. The
data related to switchgear bus failures is an interesting study.
The standard includes the results of the initial study, dated 197173, which indicated bare bus having a lower failure incidence
that insulated bus (Appendix A - Table 10). These results
initiated much discussion resulting in an IEEE Committee Report
Reasons for conducting a new reliability survey on switchgear
bus-insulated and switchgear bare-bus [2]. The results of this
follow-up study are also included in IEEE Standard 493-1997
(Appendix E Table 1). In the follow-up study, bare bus had a
higher failure incidence than insulated bus. Both sets of the
data above were evaluated, but were considered not valid for this
discussion for the following reasons:
a)

The surveys conducted in 1970s appear to focus on

ANSI designed equipment and may not include IEC
designs to the extent required for a balanced analysis.

George Herman
Eaton Electrical
690 Rahway Ave
Union, NJ 07083
USA

b)

Michael Whitehead
Eaton Electrical
175 Vista Blvd
Arden, NC 28704
USA

Surveys conducted in the early 1970s would not be

valid for current ANSI switchgear system designs.
Table 60, of Appendix B, indicates that 52% of
switchgear bus-insulated systems were more than 10
years old in the 1970s, which would put those
systems at over 45 years old today, or at least one or
two generations behind current day designs.

One very interesting comment in the follow-up study

(Appendix E) does relate to our discussion concerning
maintenance of MV switchgear bus systems [1] p. 261, An
area of primary concern is maintenance because of its
obvious relation to failure rate. However, this is the most
difficult datum to obtain in complete and uniform format for
meaningful results. Responses in this survey did not permit
these results to appear, partly due to the respondents failure
to submit information and partly due to the survey format.
And a concluding statement under Types of Maintenance
[1] p. 265, regarding end-user responses to maintenance on
switchgear bus systems, This is a very important
category regarding reliability, and hopefully the next survey
will produce better results.
We have two IEEE end-user surveys, both resulting in
incomplete data on MV switchgear bus maintenance. The
authors feel a valid reason does exist for the apparent lack
of valid maintenance data. That reason being the answer to
the question, What consists of maintenance on MV
switchgear bus system? This question shall be discussed
further in the paper.
The original IEEE survey [1] did provide data regarding
the effect of various equipment-type failures on production
loss. This data would continue to be valid since it primarily
pertains to the position of the equipment within the
distribution system. For example, a motor starter is located
further downstream in the electrical distribution system and
therefore would affect a lower percentage of production lost.
In contrast, a failure of the electric utility incoming power
supply, or the failure of the primary switchgear bus at 15kv
or above, are obviously further upstream in the electrical
distribution system and would result in a greater percentage
loss of production.
The results are discussed in Table 1 below, with two
additional columns: Most Common Highest Level in the
Distribution System and Common Maintenance Practices.
These results are also illustrated in Figure 1.

TABLE 1
PERCENT OF FAILURES RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 30% PRODUCTION LOSS
IEEE 493-1997 Appendix B - Table 58
Percent of Failures
Resulting in > 30%
Equipment
Production Loss
Switchgear Bus - Bare
50%
27%
Electric Utility
Switchgear Bus - Insulated
20%
Cable Terminations
18%
Bus Duct
15%
Transformers
15%
Generators
15%
Open Wire
13%
Cable
13%
Cable Joints
9%
Circuit Breakers
8%
Motors
3%
Motor Starters
2%

Additional Comments
Accessible Most Common Highest
for
Level in Distribution
Maintenance
System
Common Maintenance Practices
No
5/15 kv
Past - Difficult: Today: Partial Discharge
No
= or > 15 kv
No
5/15 kv
Past - Difficult: Today: Partial Discharge
Yes
5/15 kv
Thermography of Connections
Yes
5/15 kv
Thermography - Joints / Bus Plugs
Yes
5/15 kv
Gas-in-Oil, Doble, Turns Ratio Test
Yes
5/15 kv
Megger, Partial Discharge, Vibration
Yes
5/15 kv
Thermography of Connections & Megger
Yes
< 600 Vollts
Megger
Yes
< 600 Vollts
Thermography of Connections
Yes
< 600 Vollts
High-Pot, Inspection, Cleaning & Lube
Yes
< 600 Vollts
Megger, Partial Discharge, Vibration
Yes
< 600 Vollts
Megger, Inspection, Cleaning

Motor Starters
Motors
Circuit Breakers
Cable Joints
Cable
Open Wire
Generators
Transformers
Bus Duct
Cable Terminations
Sw itchgear Bus - Insulated
Electric Utility
Sw itchgear Bus - Bare
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FIGURE 1
PERCENT OF FAILURES RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 30% PRODUCTION LOSS
Shown above is the accessibility to maintenance and some
common maintenance practices for each type of equipment.
Some of the maintenance practices are predictive in nature and
therefore are normally conducted in a safe manner when the
equipment is energized, while some of these maintenance
practices do require an outage [3], [4].
For switchgear bus systems, predictive or on-line testing was
not possible in the past, but is possible today via partial
discharge continuous monitoring. Examples of this approach are
discussed later in this paper.

Concerning switchgear bus within an industrial site, the

need for continuous production and the difficulties of
completing maintenance on MV switchgear bus are also
reviewed further within this paper.
Some plants may apply a high-potential test occasionally,
but for the most part, specifically the MV line-side bus that
runs the length of the gear is not inspected nor provided any
level of maintenance or testing. This is further discussed in
the next section.

III. WHY THE MAIN BUS IS NOT INSPECTED OR TESTED

There are many reasons why the main bus of MV switchgear is
not inspected nor tested. Listed are some typical plant conditions.
No redundancy built into the overall plant system to allow for
outages of the main MV switchgear bus.
Complete outage may be required to test MV switchgear
line-side bus, and this is unacceptable in most cases, even
during outages since power is required for other
maintenance activities throughout the plant.
Plants dont view bus as an active piece of equipment like a
transformer or circuit breaker.
And probably most importantly, this can be costly and time
consuming to remove covers and inspect all the insulation
as compared to testing a circuit breaker or transformer.
Basically, a complete visual inspection of non-segregated
is sometimes practically impossible without a substantial
outage and extensive labor to remove many panels.
Due to the long-lead time to failure of MV switchgear bus
systems, some plants actually become complacent with the
minor crackling sounds they hear coming from their
switchgear.
To an experienced field engineer that
crackling and the smell of ozone are obvious trouble-signs,
but to some less-experienced personnel this just becomes
part of the switchgear operating characteristics.
While the majority of MV switchgear bus failures are
extremely catastrophic and as previously shown from the
IEEE statistics account for major production losses, there
is a substantial time period between such failures, which
creates a false sense of security.
The difficulty in observing the primary line-side bus of MV
switchgear is illustrated in figures 2 and 3. The covers in Figure
2 must be removed to expose the bus shown within Figure 3.
The 4-star bolts in Figure 2 are holding the covers to the bushing
stand-off bus supports shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3
EXPOSED LINE-SIDE BUS AFTER
REMOVAL OF REAR COVERS SHOWN IN
FIGURE 2

Figure 4 illustrates a separate section of switchgear,

which shows the red-insulated bus that is exposed by
removing the rear cover. This figure also shows that other
cables may restrict access to covers and removal of these
covers may cause potential damage to other MV cables.

FIGURE 4
MV CABLES OBSTRUCTING ACCESS TO COVERS
In general, MV switchgear line-side bus is isolated for the
length of the gear as shown in Figure 5.
FIGURE 2
REAR COVERS ISOLATING MV SWITCHGEAR BUS

PT

F2

F3

PT

M1

TIE

CT

M2

F4

F5

F6

CT

FIGURE 5
TYPICAL SWITCHGEAR LINE-UP (11 CUBICLES) WITH LINE-SIDE BUS ISOLATED
FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF EACH SIDE OF THE SWITCHGEAR LINE-UP
IV. CASE STUDIES OF OBSERVED MV SWITCHGEAR
BUS FAILURE MODES
When switchgear bus failures occur, they typically last for a
few days or longer depending on the severity of the failure.
Depending on the age of the switchgear, spare bus pieces may
not be readily available and custom manufacturing requires
additional time. In the interim, cable bypasses are usually
applied, which is labor intensive and this requires a second
complete outage to restore the damage bus and insulation with
permanent replacement equipment.
It has been observed by the authors and other contributors to
this paper that in many cases a short final bridging of medium
voltage to ground can have devastating effects. Part of this is
due to the ionization of the air within the switchgear bus
compartment after the arc is initiated. This ionized air becomes a
conductor without any additional help from contamination or
conductive paths to ground. The ionized air will continue to
bridge other areas of MV voltage to ground.

- Internal Copper
Bus
- Internal Void
- Bus Insulating
Sleeve
- Internal Void
- Cubicle Barrier
FIGURE 6
OLDER MV SWITCHGEAR BUS AND INTERNAL VOIDS

Another factor is the inherent air-gaps which were part of the

designed of early MV switchgear systems. These air-gaps
resulted in high potential stresses, which caused partial
discharges across the air-gaps and resulted in insulation
deterioration until eventual failure if not detected by a visual
inspection or detected by the smell of ozone.
For example, older MV switchgear internal bus consisted of
squared-copper bar, within an insulation sleeve. This sleeve
then penetrated the switchgear cells through a surrounding
insulating support barrier. This design contains small air gaps, or
voids, between the copper bar and the insulation sleeve, and
between the insulation sleeve and the support barrier. This is
illustrated in Figure 6 and by the actual observed corona at these
air-gaps in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7
MV SWITCHGEAR BUS WITH CORONA EVIDENCE
AT AIR-GAP BETWEEN BUS INSULATING SLEEVE
AND OUTER CUBICLE BARRIER

This sense of security with the low failure rate on MV

switchgear bus systems can be deceiving. For switchgear
systems ten years or older, we most often find signs of partial
discharges or corona during detailed inspections or during bus
change-outs or upgrades. By the time the switchgear reaches
twenty to thirty years in life, it is very common to find pitting,
active tracking and treeing within the bus supports.
Additionally, one of the weakest points within the MV
switchgear are the rear compartment barriers of draw-out type
Potential Transformers (PT) or Control Power Transformer
(CPT) drawers. Under normal conditions these deteriorating
components may holdup but if system conditions or
environmental conditions were to change they may result in
immediate catastrophic failures.
The following Figures illustrate various failure modes
observed for MV switchgear, some of which did result in
catastrophic failures and others, which were identified prior to
becoming catastrophic failures.
Figure 8A shows the initial findings of the MV switchgear bus
failure and the resulting conductive carbon contamination.
Figure 8B shows the failed section of bus after it was cleaned
for inspection. The failed area is where the bus passed
through the outer insulating barrier.

FIGURE 8B
BUS FAILURE POINT WHERE BUS PASSED
THROUGH OUTER INSULATING BARRIER

Figure 9A shows signs of tracking from partial

discharges on the line-side bus with porcelain insulators
and Figure 9B shows the damage on the insulation of a
breaker bus stud. Close observation of Figure 9A shows
the arcing (blue-glow) at the top left-hand corner of the
bus.

FIGURE 9A
TRACKING WHICH LED TO FULL DISCHARGE / FAILURE

FIGURE 8A
INITIAL BUS FAILURE FINDINGS WITH CARBON
CONTAMINATION THROUGHOUT THE CUBICLE
FIGURE 9B
INSULATION DAMAGE IDENTIFIED AFTER
DISASSEMBLY OF BREAKER STUD

Figure 10 illustrates tracking damage on the rear of the circuit

breaker bus connection. This section of bus is connected to
the line-side MV switchgear main bus.

incoming main circuit breaker current transformers and all

outgoing feeder current transformers. See Figure 5, where
the zone protection would include Main Breakers M1 and
M2 to the output of all six Feeder Circuit Breakers F1 to F6.
This would not prevent the MV switchgear bus initial failure,
but would limit the damage since the fault would be more
quickly extinguished.
In general, due to the design of MV switchgear, there are
no effective preventive methods without the application of
new partial discharge continuous monitoring.

VI. SOLUTIONS: CONTINUOUS PARTIAL

DISCHARGE MONITORING
FIGURE 10
CIRCUIT BREAKER CONNECTION TO LINE-SIDE
BUS TRACKING DAMAGE

V.

MAINTENANCE OPTIONS

To prevent failure, without modern methods to be discussed in

the next section, only complete inspections are recommended.
Thermography, which works very well for LV systems, does not
apply to MV systems. First, thermographic inspections require
direct line-of-sight of connections to determine heating and in
many cases, active corona does not generate intense heat that is
detectable by a thermograph gun.
The installation of
thermograph viewing windows does improve both the capability
of these inspections as well as provide for personnel safety since
the windows eliminate the need to remove covers, or open rear
doors on energized equipment, but in either case, this will not
allow for inspection for the MV line-side main bus. Even if
viewing windows were installed, the operator would be required
to maneuver around existing energized MV cables, which can
result in an unsafe working environment. See Figure 4.
In addition, these types of failures usually result in substantial
burning of insulation systems, which releases large amounts of
airborne conductive carbon. This carbon creates additional
conductive paths to ground and requires extensive time to
remove and clean-up. The failure mode of the insulation system
was also shown by the end-user input from the IEEE Gold Book
[1] and is summarized on Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
END-USER SURVEY OF DAMAGED PART OF BUS
Table 36 - Failure, Damaged Part
Switchgear Bus - Insulated
Insulation - Other
Insulation - Bushing
Other Electrical - Auxiliary
Total

%
90.0%
5.0%
5.0%
100.0%

Another option, not concerning preventing, but minimizing the

extent of the damage would be to install zone-protection or
differential protection around the switchgear line-up. This would
require zone-protection or differential relaying interfaced to the

Corona and surface tracking are the key root causes of

solid insulation deterioration in the MV switchgear bus
systems. If left untreated, corona and surface tracking will
lead to irreversible insulation damage by creating a
conductive path between the live conductors and ground,
therefore resulting in a fault.
Partial discharges are small arcs that occur within or
between insulation materials, usually across a gas-filled void
in the electrical insulation. It has been found that voids of 1
mil size break down at approximately 360 Volts, with a void
of 0.3 mils having a breakdown voltage of 240 Volts [5], [6].
In medium voltage systems, the potential of 300 Volts can
be easily developed across an internal void in the insulation
system, resulting in the internal arcing, or partial discharge
activity.
It should be noted that in low voltage systems, the voltage
across the insulation is not sufficient to develop the required
300-Volt potential across a small void, therefore we do not
witness corona damage or surface tracking in low voltage
systems.
Corona can often be heard as a distinct cracking sound.
Although occurring in air, this arcing also causes
deterioration of the solid insulation, which breaks down into
a white powdery residue on its surface. Another by-product
of corona is the smell of ozone, which is the result of the
oxygen molecule decomposition. Corona can also be
observed visually if the arcing is severe and the area is in
complete darkness. Corona arcing is also accompanied by
emission of electromagnetic waves at radio frequencies from
100 kHz to 100 MHz. Such radiation can be detected on the
outside if the arcing is severe, directly observable or not
shielded by metal barriers. As the internal insulation of the
medium voltage metal-clad or metal-enclosed switchgear is
very effectively shielded by design, the task of reliable
sensing of partial discharges and corona poses a significant
technical challenge.
Even clean and dry insulation will exhibit corona damage,
as is often the case with older switchgear. This very
problem was detected by on-line partial discharge analysis.
Figure 11 shows the level of partial discharge activity for
each cubicle across a subject MV switchgear line-up.

Continuous partial discharge monitoring now allows for

ongoing monitoring with multiple rate-of-rise, low and high
partial discharge alarm set-points as well as remote
diagnostics and analysis.

PD Pow er
1.2
1

mW

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Cub 16

Cu b1 5

Cub 14

Cu b1 3

Cu b1 2

Cu b9

Cub 11

Cub 8

Cu b7

Cub 6

Cu b5

Cu b4

Cub 3

Cu b2

Cub 1

FIGURE 11
MEASURED PARTIAL DISCHARGE ACTIVITY
ACROSS ENTIRE SWITCHGEAR LINE-UP

An example of MV switchgear bus detected by continuous

partial discharge monitoring is shown in Figure 13. Here the
PD had started to accelerate in the months from May to
August and showed a rapid jump in September. At this time,
an outage was scheduled and the severe damage illustrated
in Figure 13 was identified.

High PD levels at cubicles # 8 and # 9 supported the

recommendation for an internal inspection during a scheduled
outage. Inspection revealed severe insulation deterioration at
the bus transition sections between cubicles # 8 and # 9 (Figure
12).

FIGURE 13
PARTIAL DISCHARGES DETECTED BY CONTINUOUS
MONITORING

FIGURE 12
BUS CORONA DAMAGE IDENTIFIED BY PARTIAL
DISCHARGE MONITORING
The damage was at the line-side of the feeder circuit breakers
where the bus is totally enclosed by metal barriers. This section
is neither visible nor accessible by the front or rear hinged doors.
For the above reason, this type of deterioration is not normally
detectable by hand-held ultra-sonic detectors due to the single
and multiple metal barriers. Hand-held ultra-sonic detectors can
help to pinpoint the specific source of PD within a switchgear cell,
during an off-line AC High Potential test. This can be completed
during the next scheduled outage, should on-line PD
measurements indicate a potential problem.

Figure 14 shows the Partial discharge growth. The partial

discharges are detected with permanently mounted sensors
within the MV switchgear. The sensors can be added during
one-scheduled outage to provide ongoing continuous
monitoring. The sensors are not required in every cubicle,
but placing sensors only at the ends of the switchgear bus
has proven to be not effective due to the attenuation of the
partial discharge signals. As shown in Figure 11, there was
very little PD measured at the end cubicles, whereas
substantial PD activity existed at Cubicles # 8 and # 9. The
proper allocation of PD sensors throughout the entire line-up
ensures full coverage of any potential PD activity. A central
partial discharge monitor can normally obtain data from
fifteen (15) individual PD sensors, as well as monitor other
parameters such as humidity, temperature and load
currents. These parameters have been shown to greatly
help pinpoint the cause of partial discharge activity and help
provide immediate recommendations for investigation and
correction. The continuous monitor can provide low and
high-alarm contacts for local indication as well as RS485
remote connection for remote expert monitoring and

FIGURE 14
CONTINUOUS PARTIAL DISCHARGE MONITORING DETECTION OF PENDING BUS FAILURE
SHOWN IN FIGURE 13

analysis.
The advances in partial discharge continuous monitoring
technology now allow its use as a viable addition to new and
existing MV switchgear systems. A comparison of ANSI/IEEE
and IEC requirements for Metal-Clad Switchgear [7] was
completed by Baldwin Bridger, Jr. in 1997. IEC 298 [8] does
allow partial discharge testing to be used as a routine test,
subject to agreement between the manufacturer and the user.
ANSI has no provisions for partial discharge testing of new
equipment.

d)
e)

f)
g)

For maximum system reliability, uptime and safety, it is the

opinion of the authors that partial discharge testing should be
required on new MV switchgear bus systems. This would allow
for the evaluation of new designs such as the fully-enclosed
epoxy resin insulated systems as shown in Figure 15.

h)

Identification of deteriorated MV switchgear of older

bus designs.
Older switchgear designs can be retrofitted to
include continuous partial discharge monitoring as
well as new switchgear systems containing
continuous monitoring.
Remote diagnostics provides immediate expert
support for analysis and corrective actions
Improvements in personnel safety due to
diagnostics without access to energized equipment
and reduction of the use of high voltage test
equipment to simulate operating voltages. Also,
since all switchgear doors remain closed, this
eliminates any potential relay vibration.
Regardless of the preventive or predictive test
methods, safety concerns, including a review of Arc
Flash hazards and the required personal protective
equipment, should always be given the highest
priority and checked prior to any actions.
Allows for the recommendation for continuous
partial discharge monitoring on systems at 15kv
and mandatory continuous monitoring on systems
at 24kv and above.

VIII.

FIGURE 15
EPOXY RESIN-BASED INSULATION TECHNOLOGY
CASTING OF VACUUM INTERRUPTERS AND ALL
BUS AND CONNECTIONS
In addition consideration should be given to the
recommendation for continuous partial discharge monitoring on
systems at 15kv and mandatory continuous monitoring on
systems at 24kv and above.

VII. SUMMARY
The implementation of continuous partial discharge
monitoring has been successfully applied to MV switchgear.
This technology also provides a method to properly address
the long-standing maintenance requirements of MV switchgear
bus. This technology was previously employed on MV
generators and motors in utility generation stations. The
expansion of this technology to MV Switchgear Bus provides
the following system improvements are:
a)
b)
c)

Reliability improvements via predictive maintenance at

actual operating voltages.
Reduced number of unexpected outages.
Improved outage planning and allocation of limited
outage resources to investigate potential areas of
excessive bus insulation deterioration without inspection
of entire switchgear bus.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals provided input concerning failure

modes, field photographs or other material to support his
paper: Terence Hazel, William Sexton, William Oomen,
Robert Yanniello, John M. Pozonsky, Miroslav Kostic, P.E.,
Carl Parker, George Colligan, Lamonte Redington, Igor
Blokhintsev, Charles Sherman, Jeff Biggs, Richard Orman,
David Durocher, Michael Vujovic, Brian Griffith, Larry Stahl,
John Dence, David Bates, Doug Beck, Martin Binnendijk,
Paul Schoten, Ron Gadagno, Mike Kellis, Timothy
Robirds, Christian Bouwmeester, Larry Yonce, Gerard
Schoonenberg, and Leo Pronk.

IX.

REFERENCES

[1] IEEE Standard 493-1997, IEEE Recommended

Practice for Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems Gold Book, IEEE Inc., New York, NY,
1998.
[2] IEEE Committee Report, Reasons for conducting a
new reliability survey on switchgear bus-insulated and
switchgear bus-bare, Industrial and Commercial Power
System Technical Conference, May 1977, Conf. Rec. p. 9195.
[3] Moubray, J, Reliability Centered Maintenance, 2nd
Edition, Industrial Press Inc, New York, NY,1997-Appendix 4
[4] P. Gill, Electrical Power Equipment Maintenance and
Testing, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1998
[5] Paoletti, G, Blokhintsev, I, Golubev, A., On-Line
Condition Assessment of MV Electrical Switchgear and
Ancillary Equipment via Partial Discharge Technology,
EPRI 9th Annual Substation Conference, New Orleans, Feb.
2000

[6] Smith, James E, Corona (Partial Discharge) Testing of

Metalclad Switchgear, The Association of Professional
Engineers of the Province of Ontario, 1985
[7] Bridger, Jr., Baldwin, Comparison of ANSI/IEEE and IEC
Requirements for Metal-Clad Switchgear, 1995 Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Technical Conference, Denver, CO. Sept. 1113th.
[8] A.C. Metal-Enclosed Switchgear and Controlgear for Rated
Voltages above 1kv and up and including 52kv, IEC Standard
298, 3rd ed. 1990.

X.

VITA

Gabriel J. Paoletti, P.E. received a B.S.E.E degree from

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa. in 1976. Mr. Paoletti has
over twenty-eight years of engineering service experience with
Westinghouse, ABB and Eaton Electrical (Cutler-Hammer)
Engineering Service.
His electrical distribution equipment
experience includes field-testing, predictive and preventive
maintenance, partial discharge technologies, RCM programs,
applications engineering, failure analysis, and power systems
studies. He has design experience with vacuum circuit breaker
modernization, low voltage circuit breaker cell-retrofits and motor
and transformer repair experience. He is also a patent participant
for the switchgear partial discharge sensor. Mr. Paoletti is a
Senior Member of IEEE and a Registered Professional Engineer
in the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Mr. Paoletti has
had technical papers published in the IEEE-IAS concerning
microprocessor-based protective relays (1990), vacuum
modernization of MV circuit breakers (1997), partial discharge
technology related to MV motors and MV switchgear (2001) and
condition-based maintenance of MV switchgear (2002). Mr.
Paoletti is currently Division Applications Engineering Manager
for the Eaton Engineering Services and Systems Division. He
also was a contributing author to the IEEE-Buff Book regarding
topics on maintenance, testing and calibration (2002).
Mark Stephens, P.E. graduated from Widener University in
1995 in Chester Pennsylvania with a Bachelors degree in
electrical engineering. Since graduating Mark has been in the
Field Service Engineering field focusing on power distribution
maintenance. In 1996 Mark joined the Engineering Services
Division at Westinghouse Electric Corporation where he entered
the engineer in training (EIT) program. After completing the
program in September of 1996 he joined the Philadelphia office
as a Field Service Engineer with a focus on the maintenance,
testing and repair of distribution systems.
While at
Westinghouse Mark was involved in the testing of switchgears
and rotating machinery using partial discharge technology and all
other traditional techniques. In February of 1999 Mark joined
Eaton Electrical (formerly Cutler-Hammer) as a Field Service
Engineer and continued his work with power distribution systems.
Mark currently holds the position of Division Negotiations &
Applications Engineer and is a registered Professional Engineer
in the state of Delaware.
George Herman received a
Jersey Institute of Technology,
Herman has over ten years of
Westinghouse and Eaton
Engineering Service. His field

B.S.E.E. degree from New

Newark, N.J. in 1994. Mr.
field service experience with
Electrical (Cutler-Hammer)
services experience involved

testing and startup of all types of distribution equipment.

The past six years involved designing, working and
managing large projects that involved numerous design
build installations.
Experiences includes Generator
Control System designs, SCADA installations, generator
excitation systems, MV switchgear retrofits and controls.
Mr. Herman is a current member of the IEEE and is
currently pursuing a PE license in the State of New Jersey.
Mr. Herman is currently an applications engineer for the
Eaton Engineering Services & Systems Division.
Michael Whitehead received a B.S.E.E.T degree from
Southern Polytechnic State University, Marietta, Ga. in
1994. Mr. Whitehead has been involved in the electrical
business for approximately 22 years and 11 of these years
have been concentrated in the engineering services/power
distribution business. His electrical distribution experience
includes field-testing and commissioning of various types
and brands of power distribution equipment while employed
with Westinghouse, Siemens, and Eaton Electrical (CutlerHammer) Engineering Service. He has two years of
international field experience performing field commissioning
of Dynamic Voltage Restorers (DVRs) and Distribution
Static Var Compensators (DSTATCOMs). Mr. Whitehead
previously held the Medium Voltage Distribution QA
Manager position at Eaton Electricals Greenwood, S.C.
facility for the Medium Voltage Assemblies and Medium
Voltage Switch product lines. He currently is positioned as a
Negotiation Application Engineer in the Avery Creek Facility
located in Arden, N.C. and is preparing to pursue his M.B.A.