White paper

www.vaisala.com

The world of DGA – and its uncertainties

Dissolved gas analysis (DGA)

is the only way to detect a
range of internal faults in
transformers. Although it isn’t
an exact science, evaluation
and interpretation based
on statistics has been used
for transformer condition
assessment for decades.

Online DGA monitoring has been

available since the late 1990s and
there are now various online gas
monitors on the market each with
their own technical specification,
making it challenging for
transformer owners to compare
and evaluate the different options.
To make the field even more
complicated for utilities, laboratory
DGA plays a role too. This paper zone boundary. In addition, PD

describes various factors to inaccurate results may lead to the T1

consider when examining a
monitor’s technical specifications
and evaluating its performance,
especially against laboratory
DGA results. The main challenge
wrong action being taken on a
transformer if concentration
values are close to alarm
values used at a utility.
T2

is that there isn’t any explicit

international reference available
%
→

C2
4

for DGA; instead, all methods

CH

H4
→
%

include calculation and oil-specific

parameters. Even various mineral
oils are not equal from a DGA
perspective.

Online monitors have proven

their value over oil samples in gas
trending and detecting quickly
evolving and changing faults.
However, adequate accuracy is D1 D2 DT T3
← % C2H2
also needed, because inaccurate
DGA results may lead to erroneous Figure 1 Effect of accuracy on fault diagnosis uncertainty in
fault diagnoses, especially if transformers when using Duval Triangles[1]. Accuracy ±15% in
gas ratios are close to a fault blue and ±30% in red, respectively.
Measurement accuracy
The quality of a measurement
device is often evaluated with a
simple question: How accurate
is the measurement? While
this question seems simple
enough, the answer may not
be. Choosing the most suitable
measurement instrument requires
an understanding of the factors
that contribute to measurement
uncertainty. This in turn provides
an understanding of the
manufacturer’s specifications.
Measurement performance
is defined by dynamics like
measurement range, response
time, accuracy, and stability,
meaning tolerance for aging and
harsh environments. Of these,
accuracy is often considered the
most important quality; it is also
one of the most difficult to specify.
instrument often has some random
variation, and the effect of this
can be minimized using averaging.
Repeatability alone is often a
minor source of measurement
uncertainty, but if repeatability
performance is poor it should be
noted that it weakens DGA-based
transformer diagnostics, which
relies on distinguishing trends and
patterns in gassing.
Accuracy specification probably
does not include hysteresis,
temperature dependency, non-
linearity, or long-term stability,
and if the accuracy specification
doesn’t include other uncertainties,
it may give the wrong impression
of actual measurement
performance.
cy
ra lity
cu tabi
ea
re ac
It is important to note that
accuracy is always related to a
particular measurement situation,
including the conditions, time since
calibration, gas concentrations,
and oil type. When speaking about
accuracy one should also specify
the conditions it covers. The
accuracy specifications of online
DGA monitors are only specified at
the point of calibration. However,
there is seldom any information on
performance or accuracy in real
applications, meaning what the
user could expect in a transformer
installation with very old oil at
+40°C, five years after calibration,
for example..
Go Good
od
re a
p

cc tab
The relationship between the

ur ilit
Go oor

ea
p

ac y
change in measurement output
P
od

y
and the change in measured
quantity is called sensitivity.
Ideally, this relationship is linear,
but in practice all measurements
involve some imperfections or
uncertainty. The agreement of
the measured value with the true
value is often called “accuracy”,
but this again is a somewhat vague
Repeatability

term. The challenge with DGA is

that neither measured value nor
true value is known precisely,
meaning they both have their own
uncertainty. The true value of a
measured parameter is normally
determined with laboratory DGA,
in which uncertainty is seldom
reported or even defined.
ac ty
Po

The specified accuracy may or

u r ili
or or a

cc atab
y
Po

may not include repeatability,

re c

ea
ep
p

c u ta b
e

which is an instrument’s ability ra i l i t y o rr da

cy Po o
to provide a similar result when Go
the measurement is repeated Accuracy
under constant conditions.
The reading of a measurement Figure 2 Schematic picture showing accuracy and repeatability,
also called precision.

2
Another parameter related to
measurement performance is
the lower detection limit (LDL),
which is the lowest concentration
that the measurement instrument
can reliably distinguish from
zero. Once again, “reliably” is a
somewhat vague term, which
can be determined, for example,
as a 95% confidence level.
There is a relationship between
measurement repeatability and
LDL – averaging reduces random
variation in the measurement,
improving repeatability and
lowering LDL. In practice, the
LDL specification could be, for
example, twice the standard
deviation of the measurement
readings at a 0-ppm gas level. As
an example, if the measurement
device shows a higher value
than that, there is about 2.5%
probability that the true value
would be 0 ppm. It is important to
note that it is very challenging to
create reference samples with very
low gas concentration, e.g. <1 ppm,
making the LDL almost impossible
to measure in practice; it needs to
be defined theoretically based on
the repeatability.
Laboratory DGA
When comparing the analysis
results of different methods, one
should be aware of uncertainties
relating to them both. The most
common uncertainty sources
are, for example, the oil-sampling
method and quality, the gas-
extraction method, used partition
coefficients, differences in
standards used, and so forth. It is
also important to understand that
a measurement cannot be more
accurate than the reference used
in calibration.
Laboratory DGA and related
uncertainties
Laboratory DGA is affected
by many factors, ranging from
the quality of the oil sample to
the equipment, the standard
used for analysis, and human
3
inconsistencies present in manual
laboratory work. Examples of
uncertainty sources in laboratory
analysis include:
• Sample preparation and GC-
signal repeatability
• Calibration and calibration
sample preparation uncertainty
• Partition coefficient uncertainty
(K)
• Vial volume uncertainty
• Sample mass uncertainty
• Oil density uncertainty
Oil sampling
The biggest uncertainty source is
usually related to the quality of the
sample: how it was collected, the
condition of the equipment used
to collect it, how the sample was
stored, and how it was transported
will all affect the quality. A
significant amount of gases like
H2 and CO can escape from oil,
and humidity and ambient air
gases like oxygen can contaminate
the sample, resulting in erroneous
laboratory analysis. This makes
it essential for the oil not to be in
contact with air at any point during
sample collection, and the sample
vessel must be completely filled
using the appropriate sampling
procedure. The best working
solutions to achieve this are high-
quality syringes and aluminum
bottles as they can tolerate
pressure variations during air
cargo transportation, for example.
Laboratory analysis work
The uncertainty of laboratory
work also needs to be taken into
account when evaluating DGA
results, or when comparing results
to data from an online monitor.
The first step in a laboratory is
to transfer a small amount of oil
from the sampling vessel into a
gas chromatography (GC) vial.
This part of the process involves
a human factor, because in many
laboratories it is done completely,
or at least partially, manually.
Any human error that allows air
or other contaminants into the
oil sample inevitably becomes
visible in the results as well. The
laboratory’s reproducibility – its
ability to repeat DGA results with
identical samples day after day
regardless of the operator – is an
excellent parameter to determine
the quality of the laboratory’s
processes.
It is recommended by IEC 60567
that every laboratory determines
its own accuracy[2], meaning
in practice its uncertainty. This
information should then be
made available for users of the
laboratory’s services. Accredited
laboratories must have this
available as a requirement of
their accreditation. If official
numbers for uncertainty are not
available, ask if the laboratory has
participated in any international
inter-laboratory comparison
tests – so-called round robin tests
(RRT) – and if their results are
available. This will give a good
rough indication of the expected
uncertainty level.
The IEC 60567 standard gives
examples of accuracies obtained
when using its overall experimental
procedure. These values are
defined from IEC and CIGRE inter-
laboratory tests made on two
gas-in-oil standards and involving
44 laboratories worldwide.
Laboratory DGA uncertainty
depends on the gas extraction
method used, the gas type, and
the gas concentration level. The
headspace (HS) method has
higher uncertainty than vacuum
or stripping methods. If no other
uncertainty data is available, you
can use a ±15% average when
evaluating laboratory DGA results
and when comparing them to
an online monitor. The number
for a specific laboratory may
be significantly higher, but also
somewhat lower for high-quality
analysis.
Variation due to standard method Table 1 Examples of accuracy levels for various extraction methods
in use according to IEC 60567 ed4-2011[2].
The two most commonly used
Accuracy in presentage of the nominal value
standards in laboratory DGA
worldwide are IEC 60567 and EXTRACTION MEDIUM LOW
PROCEDURE CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
ASTM D3612, and each have
subsections concerning specific TOEPLER 13 35
gas-extraction methods: vacuum,
PARTIAL DEGASSING 13 30
stripping, or HS. IEC, CIGRE,
ASTM, and the Institute for STRIPPING 18 23
Inter-Laboratory Studies in the
Netherlands have executed a HEADSPACE 18 37
number of RRTs to evaluate the
MERCURY-FREE TOEPLER 15 1 14 1
variation between the analysis
for different standard extraction MERCURY-FREE PARTIAL DEGASSING 11 1
methods. The differences between
the laboratory methods used SHAKE TEST 15 44
are shown in Table 3. The results 1)
Based on a limited number of analyses.
clearly show that it is more difficult
for laboratories to obtain accurate
results with the HS method. Table 2 Accuracy levels of an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory using HS
method vs IEC 60567:2011 at different gas concentration levels.
In the table, “average accuracy” ACCURACY (%) ACCURACY (%) ACCURACY (%)
means the average of accuracies IN LOW IN MEDIUM IN HIGH
for each gas in the measured CONCENTRATIONS CONCENTRATIONS CONCENTRATIONS
oil samples while “number of H2 15.6 9.5 5.9
inaccurate laboratories” means
the percentage of laboratories CH4 13.9 8.3 6.7
participating in the RRTs that did
C2H4 26.7 10.6 3.8
not meet the IEC requirements
for accuracy (e.g. ±15% above C2H6 26.2 22.3 6.3
100 ppm).
C2H2 33.6 18.8 8.3
It is important to note that ASTM
CO 26.5 14.1 8.9
and IEC standards calculate gas
volume at different temperatures, CO2 10.7 11.3 11
0°C and 20°C respectively[2, 3]. This
alone accounts for 8% difference LAB. AVERAGE 21.9 10.4
in defined concentrations for IEC 60567:2011
identical samples, which has 37 18
FOR HS
to be taken into account when
comparing DGA results from
a monitor and a laboratory. All Table 3 The accuracy of laboratories using gas extraction methods A
(partial degassing), B (stripping), and C (HS). The IEC specification is
measured ppm values should
shown on the bottom row[1].
first be converted to the same
condition, either 20°C (IEC) or 0°C AVERAGE ACCURACY OF NUMBER OF INACCURATE
(ASTM), depending on preference. LABORATORIES (%) LABORATORIES, % OF
PARTICIPANTS

METHOD > 100 ppm < 8 ppm > 100 ppm < 8 ppm

A 12 18 17 0

B 19 65 60 63

C 28 51 75 42

IEC SPECIFICATION 15 30

4
Partition coefficients and gas
extraction
In dissolved gas analysis whether
in laboratory or online, gases have
to be extracted from the oil to
take the measurement. The more
complete the extraction, the less
uncertainty there will be related
to concentration calculations. The
extraction efficiency depends on
the method used. For example, the
Toepler method has almost 100%
efficiency, whereas in the worst
cases HS can achieve less than
30% efficiency.
In the HS method, the proportion
of gas extracted equals
where VOIL is the volume of oil and
VGAS is the volume of gas phase in
the GC vial and K is gas-specific
partition coefficient.
In the standard HS method,
the volume ratio in a GC vial is
typically 10:12.
The relationship in concentrations
(C) between oil and gas phase
is dependent on the gas-to-oil
volume ratio in an extraction vessel
(VGAS/ VOIL).
where VOIL is the volume of oil and
VGAS is the volume of gas phase
in the GC vial, and K is the gas-
specific partition coefficient.
Gases vary in their tendency to
stay dissolved in oil: some prefer
to stay there whereas others will
‘escape’ immediately if possible.
This tendency is the gas solubility
in oil, and it is defined by so-called
partition coefficients (K), which
vary by gas, oil type, oil quality,
and temperature, for example.
The K variation can be significant
even between different mineral
oil types. As only part of the gas
can be extracted from oil and
5
measured, the coefficients are
needed to calculate the initial
gas concentration in oil. The less
gas is extracted, as with HS, the
more results are dependent on
calculations and thus coefficients.
The majority of analysis
laboratories and on-line DGA
devices use the HS method or a
derivative of it with a membrane or
tube, because it is less complicated
and more cost efficient. However,
very few take into account the
differences in partition coefficients
between oils from different
sources, which can be a significant
source of error.
Gas chromatography
GC is a traditional method to
identify gases and measure
how much of them are in a gas
mixture. A gas sample is injected
from a sample vial into a thin GC
column and pushed through by a
helium (He) carrier gas. Different
gas components are separated
in the column by their molecule
size, and because the retention
time is component specific the
small molecules come out first
and larger ones later. After the
column, the gases go to detectors.
Gas identification is based on
their retention times through the
CH4
H2
O2
N2 CO
0.0
Figure 3 Example of a GC chromatogram.
column and the individual amounts
are defined by the strength of the
detector signal as a function of
time (peak area).
GC is not a fundamental analysis
method where the retention
times or signal strength are
universal; it requires equipment-
specific calibration. There are
two different methods commonly
used for GC calibration, traceable
reference gas mixtures and
gas-in-oil standards with known
gas concentrations. Calibration
defines a unique retention time
for each gas component, and
the peak areas from the detector
signal are proportioned to the gas
concentrations of the calibration
reference.
The challenge with gas-in-oil
standards is that they use a
specific oil and the question
remains how representative it
is in regard to the gas solubility
values (partition coefficients)
of oil samples from various
transformers, especially when the
HS extraction method is used.
Reference gases in calibration have
the same challenge that analysis
results are dependent on the
partition coefficients of different
gases.
C2H4
CO2 C2H6
C2H2
(min) 8.0
On the right is an example of
the effect of using the gas-in-oil
standard for GC calibration if the
specific partition coefficients of
the oils have not been taken into
account and defined. What would
the DGA results be for ethane,
if different partition coefficients
were used? Which one of the two
different DGA results is right, or
are neither accurate? This is just
one example of how you could get
varying readings from different
analyses. The partition coefficients
used in this example are from
IEC60567 3rd ed., 2005[4].
To run a laboratory GC reliably
requires high levels of expertise in
order for the operator to maintain
adequate calibration and ensure
high overall performance of the
equipment. In addition, the inner
surface of the column changes
over time due to contamination
with larger hydrocarbon molecules,
for example. The condition of
a column can be monitored by
checking its ability to separate
small molecules and if peaks begin
to have extra tails, which could
cause erratic interpretation in
determining the concentrations.
In addition, the detector may drift
over time – even in the short term
if a large number of samples are
run right after each other. This can
be detected by having reference
samples within the actual analysis
series.
Online DGA monitors
Around the world, experiences
using online DGA increasingly
show that all types of internal
transformer faults, which might
otherwise go unnoticed between
regular oil sampling intervals, can
be identified at an early stage.
To get useful input for a
transformer condition assessment
the laboratory analysis of an oil
sample taken infrequently must
be accurate immediately. With
online monitors there is more
flexibility and averaging and
6
12 ml A
10 ml
1. GC calibration with
gas in oil standard
GC vial
CGAS = 30.4 μl/l
Gas chromatograph
APEAK = 12
CC2H6 = 100 ppm
= 100/(2.09+12/10)
APEAK unit = 30.4/12 = 2.53 μl/l
KC2H6 = 2.09
12 ml
A
10 ml
2. Sample X
CC2H6 = ? ppm
GC vial
CGAS = ?
Gas chromatograph
APEAK = 8.5 →
KC2H6 = e.g. 2.09 or 1.73 CGAS = 8.5 × 2.53 μl/l = 21.53 μl/l
Using the same K as the oil standard (2.09) → COIL1 = 70.8 ppm
Using K = 1.73 → COIL2 = 63.1 ppm
10% difference! Which one is correct or neither?
Figure 4 Example of using the gas-in-oil standard for calibration (1).
Effect of partition coefficient on sample analysis (2).
offset correction can also be oil type and age via the partition
used to ensure reliable data for coefficients, especially if the HS
diagnostics. Then again, having method with or without tubes
data without averaging allows a or membranes is used for gas
fast response time to diagnose a extraction. This means that the
quickly evolving fault. Following reported accuracy specifications
the rate of change of gases with are not applicable as such for
online monitoring is more reliable a real transformer in operation,
than with laboratory samples[5]. because the oil in a transformer
and its partition coefficients are
most likely not the same as the
Datasheet monitor specification
ones used for monitor calibration.
Most monitors have their
accuracy specified at the point
All of this is important to bear in
of calibration against traceable
reference gases, or some use the
mind when writing a purchase
specification for online DGA
gas-in-oil standard as reference.
monitors. It is worth spending
A DGA monitor should always
some time to determine the real
be accompanied by a calibration
requirements and needs at the
certificate showing the difference
utility. The smallest numbers
between results observed with the
on paper do not mean the best
monitor and a reference reading
and most useful option for a
in the desired ranges. Additionally,
transformer monitor. Especially
it should specify the reference
when buying online monitors for
method used and whether
larger fleet of transformers, you
the calibration is traceable to
should consider testing the devices
international references or not.
under review in real conditions.
The best way to get a true picture
Regardless of the calibration type,
of monitor performance in
pure gases or gas-in-oil standards,
operation is to test it over a longer
both methods are dependent on
period with a live transformer, for
example six months. This would
also give a first indication of the
stability of the measurement.
At least three to five oil samples
should be drawn simultaneously,
preferably for two independent
laboratories who can supply the
uncertainty values for their own
processes. Samples should be
taken throughout the whole test
period, for example once a month.
Measurement ranges
Commercial online monitors have
varying specifications for their
measurement ranges. Whether the
widest ranges are necessary or not
can be evaluated by considering
the likely concentrations of
gases and the explosive limits of
flammable gases, for example.
It is also a question of safety as
to whether monitors can really
be tested at extremely high
concentrations of explosive gases.
Just as an example, if testing H2
concentration of 20,000 ppm in
oil, one should use a gas cylinder
with 36% hydrogen which is well
above its lower explosive limit (LEL
4%). The situation becomes even
more demanding if gas mixtures
with an extremely high level of
explosive gases need to be tested.
Such facilities would require extra
safety measures to be taken, for
example to have ATEX-approved
equipment in the gas-in-oil
preparation.
The 90-percentile values from
various sources show relatively
low values compared to specified
measurement ranges. However, in
some rare cases extremely high
concentrations have been reported
for methane, ethane, and ethylene
in the case of a T3 fault in oil[6].
Those are typically in transformers
with a smaller volume of oil.

Table 4 90-percentile typical values found in transformers that are operating normally[6, 7, 8].

SOURCE NUMBER OF DGA H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2 CO CO2

CIGRE TB771 >300,000 118 85 111 56 5 700 6,300

IEEE C57.104* >800,000 40-100 20-110 15-150 25-90 2 500-900 3,500-9,000

IEC 60599 NA 50-150 30-130 20-90 60-280 2-20 400-600 3,800-14,000

*Data divided by transformer age and O2/N2 ratio

Table 5 Examples of gas concentrations in oil and the required concentration in gas phase to prepare a gas-in-oil
standard. The lower explosive limit of the gases is also presented.

GAS GAS-IN-OIL CONCENTRATION, PPM GAS-IN-GAS CONCENTRATION, PPM LEL PPM (IN AIR)
(K AT +70°C, IEC 60567)

METHANE 20,000 45,455 50,000

ETHANE 20,000 9,569 30,000

ETHYLENE 20,000 13,605 27,000

ACETYLENE 20,000 21,505 25,000

CARBON
20,000 166,667 125,000
MONOXIDE

HYDROGEN 20,000 270,270 40,000

7
Comparing online monitor
and laboratory DGA
When evaluating an online
monitor by comparing it to lab
references, the quality of the
samples and the uncertainty of
laboratory procedures must be
taken into account. Furthermore,
it is important to remember that
every analysis method, whether
laboratory or online monitor, has
its own uncertainties. These should
be considered when comparing
results and making conclusions on
monitor performance.
In conclusion, due to various
uncertainties related to dissolved
gas analysis, whether on-line or
off-line, one should expect some
differences in results even if the
sample and the sampling method
were ideal[1]. A significant deviation
Figure 5 Methane (CH4) data over 2.5 years from Vaisala OPT100 monitor
and laboratory references. Monitor specification 10% plotted grey and 15%
uncertainty for laboratory (average[2]).
Please contact us at
www.vaisala.com/contactus
www.vaisala.com
is possible if the methods used
follow different standards. Factors
affecting uncertainties include:
• Calibration methods
• Gas extraction methods
• Gas partition coefficients
• Oil sample quality
• Human factors
• Reference standard used
Unfortunately, there is no standard
to help in testing and evaluating
the performance of online
monitors in the field. However,
the recent CIGRE working group
D1/A2.47 has published a detailed
procedure describing how such
tests could be executed: Procedure
for evaluating the accuracy of gas
monitors and laboratory results
in Appendix F of the technical
Scan the code for
more information
brochure 783, DGA monitoring
systems[1]. The procedure
also includes an evaluation of
laboratory performance. It may
not be an ideal test description,
but it is definitely the most
comprehensive onsite evaluation
criteria published for online
monitors by an independent
organization.
Below is another example of how
to evaluate a monitor. Instead of
looking at the readings at just
one point, the monitoring data
is evaluated over a long period.
In this case, there is just one
gas, methane, as an example.
Vaisala OPT100 DGA monitor
data is plotted over 2.5 years
with an accuracy specification
of ±10%. Since the uncertainty of
the laboratory was not known,
±15% was used, based on the
average lab accuracy examples
published in IEC 60567[2]. In
order to compare a lab to an
online DGA, it is more relevant
to compare the trends than the
actual measurements, while
also considering a possible bias
between the two. If the trends
are similar and the areas with
uncertainties are overlapping,
one can conclude that the two
different methods are in broad
agreement.
References:
1 CIGRE Technical Brochure 783
2 IEC 60567 4th ed., 2011
3 ASTM D3612
4 IEC 60567 3rd ed., 2005
5 CIGRE Technical Brochure 409
6 CIGRE Technical Brochure 771
7 IEEE C57.104
8 IEC 60599 3rd ed., 2015
Ref. B212007EN-A ©Vaisala 2020
This material is subject to copyright protection, with all copyrights
retained by Vaisala and its individual partners. All rights reserved.
Any logos and/or product names are trademarks of Vaisala or its
individual partners. The reproduction, transfer, distribution or
storage of information contained in this brochure in any form
without the prior written consent of Vaisala is strictly prohibited.
All specifications — technical included — are subject to change
without notice.