2016 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE 2016), 20-22 October, Iasi, Romania
The Problems of Dissolved in Oil Gases Analysis
Results’ Interpretation in Information Analytical
Systems
Alexandra I. Khalyasmaa, Dmitry I. Bliznyuk, Andrey M. Verkhozin and Konstantin V. Ovchinnikov
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin
Ekaterinburg, Russia
lkhalyasmaa@mail.ru, d.i.bliznyuk@gmail.com, a.m.verkhozin@urfu.ru, konstov@gmail.com
Abstract —The power transformers state analysis based on
different DGA approaches is presented in the paper. The DGA
results interpretation complexity in modern information
analytical systems of the high voltage equipment technical state
assessment was revealed. The necessity of information analytical
systems training and self-training principles was justified.
Applying these principles for new data and formalized expert
knowledge extraction will improve estimates quality.
Keywords — transformer, DGA, Rodgers method, Duval
triangle, nomograms method, Dornenburg method, outliers.
I. INTRODUCTION
Information analytical systems (IAS), intended for data
storing, processing and analysis, are one of the most efficient
tool for power systems high voltage equipment state
management. The present systems are focused on information
gathering, accumulation, updating and analytical processing,
which serves to decisions quality improvement [1,2].
The majority of existing systems are focused on the high
voltage oil-filled equipment state assessment, as 60-70% of all
substation equipment is the oil-filled [3]. It should be
mentioned that oil is one the most informative and available
objects for high voltage equipment diagnostics [4].
Transformer oil is characterized by high purity and low
viscosity. It is used as insulation of transformer components
and nodes under voltage, for cooling, paper insulation
protection against moisture and also the oil serves as arc-
extinguishing medium [5].
Chromatographic analysis of dissolved in oil gases (DGA)
is one of the most efficient method of high voltage oil-filled
electrical equipment preliminary diagnostics, [6] which permits
to detect up to 60-70% of developing defects [7]. The two
possible defects types can be identified by means of DGA:
thermal and electrical defects. The majority of these defects
lead to increased emission of one or several gases dissolved in
oil.
The results interpretation is the most complex problem
during DGA analysis. Rodgers method [8], Duval triangle [9,
978-1-5090-6129-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
743
10] and Dornenburg method [11] are among the most famous
methods of dissolved gases analysis. In Russia the nomograms
method [12] is used in procedures guidelines for diagnostics of
defects developing in transformers equipment. The 60599 IEC
stated in 2007 [5] is used as standard abroad.
Herewith it is important to realize that the operation mode,
meteorological conditions and many other factors influence on
DGA results [8]. For instance, the following operational factors
can lead to gases concentration increasing without defects
occurrence: residual gases concentrations after defect
correction, increase in transformer load, new oil intermixing
with remaining oil, used oil refilling. etc. The following
operational factors in their turn can lead to gases concentration
decreasing: load drop or transformer long-term shutdown, oil
replacement, degasification and refilling and silica-gel
replacement.
It is also important to realize that sometimes the defect
which can’t be detected by one method, can be detected by
another methods or even only by integral analysis using
different methods. It provides the explanation that the common
usage of one method for dissolved gases analysis is not
recommended. Nowadays due to a great number of different
IAS such as [1,2,3] the DGA results interpretation problem is
especially acute as far as during the automated patterns
recognition there is a high risk of erroneous diagnosis.
Therefore, the high emphasize is placed on IAS capability of
self-training and expert data formalization [4].
II. DGA RESULTS INTERPRETATION METHODS
A set of special criteria is used for defects detection in oil-
filled transformers. The most advanced criterion, namely the
different gases pairs’ concentrations ratio criterion is used in
the paper (in some methods the present criterion is combined
with the boundary concentrations criterion). Comparison of the
characteristic gases pairs’ concentrations with each other
or/and with the boundary conditions is taken as a basis for gas
ratios criterion. The following gases pairs are called
characteristic: R1 = CH4/H2 (ethane/hydrogen), R2 = C2H2/C2H4
(acetylene/ethylene), R3 = C2H2/CH4 (acetylene/methane), R4 =
C2H6/C2H2 (ethane/acetylene), R5 = C2H6/CH4
(ethane/methane), R6 = C2H4/C2H6 (ethylene/ethane).
Different methods are used for data interpretation according
to the criterion mentioned above. The following six methods
for data analysis were used in the paper: Rogers ratio method,
Dornenburg method, IEC standard, nomograms method, ETRA
method and Duval’s triangle and also expert estimates method.
The present methods differ in gases pairs used for analysis,
detected failures, necessity of the boundary concentrations
criterion applying, analysis results visualization (including the
possibility of the indexes variation visualization). The methods
brief description is presented below.
A. Rodgers ratio method
Diagnostics according to the Rodgers method is based on
the following four gases pairs’ concentrations ratio analysis:
R1 = CH4/H2 (methane/hydrogen), R2 = C2H2/C2H4
(acetylene/ethylene), R5 = C2H6/CH4 (ethane/methane),
R6 = C2H4/C2H6 (ethylene/ethane). In this case the gases
boundary concentrations excess is not required, it means that
all DGA results can be used without their preliminary analysis.
Conclusion concerning the type of defect developing in
transformer is based on combination of the analyzed gases
pairs’ ratios and concentration values. 12 defects types are
identified.
B. Dornenburg method
In case of Dornenburg method the following gases pairs’
concentrations are analyzed: R1 = CH4/H2 (methane/hydrogen),
R2 = C2H2/C2H4 (acetylene/ethylene), R3 = C2H2/CH4
(acetylene/methane), R4 = C2H6/C2H2 (ethane/acetylene). In
common with the Rodgers ratio method the defect type is
defined on the base of analysis of the pairs’ ratios and
concentration values combination of gases dissolved in oil. In
this case the gases boundary concentrations criterion is
required and only three defect types can be identified (thermal
defects, partial discharges, arc processes).
C. 60599-2007 IEC method
The present standard is based on the Rodgers ratio method.
The following gases pairs are analyzed: R1 = CH4/H2
(methane/hydrogen), R2 = C2H2/C2H4 (acetylene/ethylene), R6
= C2H4/C2H6 (ethylene/ethane). Diagnostic inference is made as
in Rodgers and Dornenburg methods.
D. Nomogramms method
The present method is accepted as the basic method in
procedural guidelines for chromatographic analysis of gases
dissolved in oil in Russia. The method is based on the
nomograms plotting for the following five gases: hydrogen
(Н2), methane (СН4), ethane (С2Н6), ethylene (С2Н4), and
acetylene (С2Н2). Then obtained nomograms are compared
with specific nomograms for particular defect types, and by
this means the defect type is defined.
E. ETRA method
The present technique was developed by Japanese
researchers [9]. The following three gases are used for defect
744
analysis: acetylene (С2Н2), ethylene (С2Н4) and ethane (С2Н6).
The squared diagram is plotted, where C2H4/C2H6 gases
concentration is taken as X axis and C2H2/C2H6 gases
concentration is taken as Y axis. The obtained diagram is
divided into several areas. Each area corresponds to the
particular defect. The gases pairs’ concentrations ratio values
are marked on each rectangle side and the point of segments
intersection inside the rectangle is defined. This point
corresponds to a particular defect according to the area it
belongs to. The advantage of the present technique is in the
obtained results visualization and the possibility of the results
variation visual observing.
F. Duval’s triangle
In the present technique triangular diagram is plotted,
where each diagram side corresponds to the concentration of
one of three gases: methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4) and
acetylene (C2H2). The triangle is divided into seven areas, each
of them corresponds to a particular defect type. Then, as in the
ETRA method, the point inside triangle, which corresponds to
a particular defect, is defined. Duval method has the same
advantages as the ETRA method, but it permits to determine
more defects, as far as there are no non-diagnosable states for
this method and, consequently, conclusion will be drawn for
each analysis.
G. Expert estimates method
The diagnosis correctness, obtained by all methods
mentioned above, can be provided only in ideal conditions. In
actual practice many factors which distort DGA results can
influence on the oil sampling, oil transportation, DGA
procedure and indexes recording. Consequently, the incorrect
diagnostic inference can be obtained. In order to avoid this
situation, the expert estimates method is used, where the
experts with great experience in electrical equipment
diagnostics evaluate the obtained diagnosis correctness by
informal criteria [13].
III. EXPERIMENTAL DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
Calculations based on real data were performed for
validation of described methods application. Two TRDN -
25000/110/10 transformers (referred to below as T1 and T2)
located at 100 kV substation in Russian UES were taken as the
objects under investigation. The DGA results of transformers
mentioned above from 2005 to 2015 were taken as initial data.
The following gases concentrations are known: methane (CH4),
acetylene (C2H2), ethylene (C2H4), ethane (C2H6), hydrogen
(H2), carbon oxide (CO), and carbon dioxide CO2. Available
data analysis was performed with the use of Matlab program.
Most of defect detection methods use the analysis results of
the samples with dissolved gases boundary concentrations
exceed. Therefore, analysis by the boundary concentrations
exceed criterion was performed as a first step. In this case
Rodgers method doesn’t require the present criterion applying,
in ETRA method the boundary concentration exceed check is
performed only for acetylene (in case of no exceed it is used
only for thermal defects detection), the remaining methods use
the boundary values, specified in Guidelines [11].
 For the whole data set the boundary values exceed is nomograms method the thermal defect was observed in Т1
observed only in two cases: in case of Т1 24.11.2005 and Т2 24.11.2005 transformer measurement at high temperatures and
24.07.2006 transformers oil sampling. In other cases DGA the defect caused by arc was observed in T2 24.07.2006
results didn’t exceed the limits. Gases concentrations and measurement (Fig. 3-4).
relative exceed of the boundary value are presented in Table 1
(exceed are marked by bold font). Herewith the boundary During analysis of gases dissolved in Т2 24.07.2006
concentrations exceed for all cases is rather essential (by two transformer oil performed by ETRA method the defect was
times and more). The results of analysis performed by different characterized as high-power electrical discharges. According to
methods are presented in Table 2. Duval’s triangles analysis method the thermal defect was
detected for Т1 24.11.2005 transformer at temperature above
700 oС and the high-power electrical discharges were detected
TABLE I. CONCENTRATIONS VALUES OF GASES DISSOLVED IN OIL for Т2 24.07.2006 transformer. Rogers ratio method can not
define defect type for T2 24.07.2006. Therefore, carbon oxide
and carbon dioxide concentrations ratio was less than 11,
Т1 / 24.11.2005

Т1 / 15.07.2014

Т2 / 24.07.2006

Т2 / 04.08.2007

Т2 / 29.11.2007
Т1/27.09.2005

consequently, solid insulations were not touched by defect.

№ Gas The 24.11.2005 measurement was identified as thermal defect
by practically all DGA methods, based on gas ratios. The same
result was obtained by 60599 IEC, nomograms and Duval’s
triangle methods. ETRA method doesn’t identify the
1 СН4 0.00011 0.00090 0.00010 0.00063 0.00064 0.00070
transformer state as failure state.
2 С 2 Н2 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00260 0.00005 0.00005
The 15.07.2014 measurement was identified as defect,
3 С 2 Н4 0.00070 0.02260 0.00029 0.00504 0.00190 0.00177 namely insignificant overheating (200-300 oC), only by the
Rodgers method. Such result can be explained by the fact that
4 С 2 Н6 0.00020 0.00050 0.00060 0.00020 0.00039 0.00020
the Rodgers ratio method permits to identify defects even
5 Н2 0.00740 0.00050 0.00068 0.00645 0.00050 0.00050 without gases concentration exceed, which in its turn can lead
to erroneous defects identification in case of low
6 СО 0.01600 0.04690 0.00797 0.03170 0.01910 0.01260
concentrations and concentrations slight change (for instance
7 СО2 0.04170 0.46900 0.17243 0.17200 0.08470 0.13200 due to uncertainties during sampling, transportation and
analysis).
According to Rodgers method the possible transformer
defects were identified not only in one measurement
24.11.2005 (T1), but also in three other (15.07.2014 (T1),
04.08.2007 (T2), 29.11.2007 (T2)). However to Guidelines
concentration exceed wasn’t observed for all gases, herewith
one measurement with concentration exceed (24.07.2006) was
identified as undiagnosed state.
The defect in only one measurement 24.11.2005 (T1) was
detected by Dornenburg method. The defect was identified as
thermal impact. During DGA analysis according to IEC
standard it was found T1 24.11.2005 was a thermal defect in
Т1 transformer at temperature above 700 oС. According to Fig. 1. Nomogram by 24.11.2005 Fig. 2. Nomogram by 24.07.2006
(T1) measurement (T2) measurement

TABLE II. ANALYSIS RESULTS OF GASES DISSOLVED IN OIL

Expert
Transformer/ Dornenburg 60599 IEC Nomograms
№ Rodgers method ETRA Duval’s triangle estimates
Analysis date method method method
method
Low power Partial Discharges Thermal defect at
1 T1/27.09.2005 Undiagnosed state - electrical with low energy - temperature more -
discharges density than 700° C
Overheating at a Thermal defect at
High-temperature Thermal defect at
2 Т1/24.11.2005 Thermal impact temperature more - temperature more -
defect. high temperatures
than 700° C than 700° C
Insignificant
3 Т1/15.07.2014 overheating - - - - - -
(200-300° C)
High power
Defects caused by High power
4 Т2/24.07.2006 Undiagnosed state - - electrical -
arc electrical discharges
discharges
High-temperature
5 Т2/04.08.2007 - - - - - -
defect.
High-temperature
6 Т2/29.11.2007 - - - - - -
defect.

745
 concentrations after defects correction; used oil refilling or oil
intermixing with remaining oil from the oil-expansion vessel or
OLTC tank; external influence or welding on tank; insulation
aging [17,18], metal corrosion [19]; the impact of short-circuit
currents in case of external network failures; etc [20].
In this case the low number of available measurements is
the basic feature of the outliers’ detection problem. For
instance 25 and 31 DGA were performed for analyzed T1 and
T2 transformers respectively over a ten-year period. And not
all the outliers have the clearly pronounced nature.
Considering the factors mentioned above two methods were
chosen for the outliers’ distinguishing: by means of maximum
normalized deviation calculation (statistical method) and by
means of block data diagram plotting.

Fig. 3. Duval’s triangle for T1 DGA data A. Statistical method

Statistical method [21,22] permits to define the outliers
comparing the normalized deviation ξ , which is the function
+

_
*
of the arithmetic mean value η and standard deviation s ,
with the table value depending on the sample data amount. The
normalized deviation is found as follows:
_
η j −η
ξ +
= , (1)
s*
If the present value is more than the table value, it is the outlier.

B. Block diagram
Block diagram is a powerful and simple tool for data series
statistical properties analysis. In particular, it allows easy and
obvious outliers distinguishing. For this purpose the lower
Q 1 and higher Q 3 quartiles and also the interquartile
Fig. 4. Duval’s triangle for T2 DGA data
interval IQ are calculated, subsequently, the lower L and
The 24.07.2006 measurement was identified as electrical the higher U confidence data boundaries are as follows:
defect by three from seven methods: nomograms method, L = Q 1 − 3 IQ ,
ETRA method and Duval’s triangle (2)
U = Q 3 + 3 IQ . (3)
The 04.08.2007 and 29.11.2007 measurements were Data which falls outside these boundaries is the outlier.
identified only by the Rodgers method as high-temperature
defects.
C. Calculations results
No defects among all transformers measurements were Calculations of the outliers’ detection by all described
identified by the expert estimates method (during the experts methods were performed for available gases concentrations
group survey), and the values with the gases concentrations measurements. The outliers’ detection results are presented in
exceed were identified by the experts as the outliers, which can Tables 3 and 4 for T1 and T2 respectively
have a significant impact on equipment state assessment.
As it is seen from the results, when applying statistical
method, the outliers were detected in all cases, where the
IV. EXPERIMENTAL DATA ANALYSIS
defects were detected by even one of the methods. The outlier
The outliers are the gases concentrations values unsuited without the corresponding defect was also found in one case.
for analysis, which differ markedly from the values obtained
during the previous or further analysis. The use of the outliers TABLE III. OUTLIERS’ DETECTION FOR T1 DATA
for transformer failures detection can result in erroneous
decision. Therefore these measurements should be Gas
Date
rejected [14,15]. CH4 C2H4 H2 CO CO2
The outliers can occur for variety of reasons, connected 27.09.2005 - - Outlier - -
both with the measurements uncertainties [16] during DGA and
external influence on gas-oil ratio, such as: residual gases 24.11.2005 Outlier Outlier - Outlier Outlier

746
 TABLE IV. OUTLIERS’ DETECTION FOR T2 DATA
Gas
Date
C2H2 C2H4 C2H6 H2 CO
24.07.2006 Outlier Outlier - Outlier Outlier
04.08.2007 - - Outlier - -
When applying the block diagram, the outliers were also
detected in the cases with the corresponding detected defects.
However, the outliers in “normal” samples were also detected
by this method: in 6 samples for T1 (75% of detected outliers
number) and in 10 samples for T2 10 (77% of detected outliers
number).
By this means the block diagram regardless of its simplicity
has extra sensitivity during the outliers’ detection, which may
cause not erroneous data rejection. In contrast, statistical
method provides the result being consistent with the experts’
expectations. Therefore, at this study stage the preference is
given to the present measurements screening method.
However, investigations based on more real data are required
for the present approach validity check.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Both for T1 and T2 transformers it is impossible to
unambiguously define the reasons of dissolved in oil gases
concentration sharp increase and then sharp decrease and
consequently to define if the present measurements are the
outliers.
For instance, for T1 transformer the gases concentration
could increase due to welding on tank. It is indirectly supported
by the fact that the transformer is new and erection works
could be not finished by the time of transformer bringing into
operation. However, the errors during sampling, analysis or
data recording should not be excluded.
Three samples were collected for T2 in one day. In one
sample gases concentrations were rather higher than in two
other samples. On the base of operation data check it was
found that the present sample was collected from the OLTC
tank (there were other versions of gases concentration increase
before this check). We may accept that the present analysis has
mistakenly fallen in transformer tank oil analysis.
The DGA interpretation results obtained in the paper
indicate that situations difficult for identification even for the
expert or the experts group are rather frequent. This fact in its
turn shows that during data analysis in IAS not only the
additional data should be considered but also the training
system diagnosis samples should be created on the base of
precedent information. In other words, in different cases for the
same transformer type, but, for instance, being operated in
different operation weather conditions, the same gases
concentrations values in one case show that there is an
incipient defect, in other case – that there is the outlier.
Therefore, special attention should be given to the training
samples creation in IAS for quality improvement of technical
state assessment results and decisions concerning its further
operation, which will be analyzed by the authors in the next
papers.
747
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work was supported by Act 211 Government of the
Russian Federation, contract 02.A03.21.0006.
REFERENCES
[1] I.V. Davidenko, E.D. Halikova “An algorithm for prioritizing the
maintenance of power transformers,” WIT Transactions on Ecology and
the Environment, Vol. 1, pp. 335-344.
[2] G.V. Popov, Y.Y. Rogozhnikov. “The algorithm of diagnostics of oil-
felled transformers” (in russian). Electrical stations. №8, 2003, pp 54-59.
[3] B.A. Alekseev, L.G. Mamikonyants, D.S. Savvaitov “The main
electrical equipment of power plants and networks” (in russian), Electric
stations. #2, 2005, pp. 48-57.
[4] V.V. Sokolov “Measures to improve the efficiency of diagnosing of
transformers state” (in russian), Advanced electric power technology:
the IX Symposium "Electrical engineering 2030,” Publisher: Moscow,
“TRAVEK,” 2007.
[5] IEC 60599:2015 “Mineral oil-filled electrical equipment in service -
Guidance on the interpretation of dissolved and free gases analysis.”
[6] IEC 60567:2011 “Oil-filled electrical equipment - Sampling of gases
and analysis of free and dissolved gases - Guidance.”
[7] L.A. Darian, J.S. “Sung Influence of the gas tight samplers of insulating
oil on the accuracy of GC analysis,” 13 International Symposium on
High Voltage Engineering – Proceedings, 2003.
[8] R.R. Rogers U.K. Experiences in the Interpretation of Incipient Faults in
Power Transformers by Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Chromatography Analysis
(A Progress Report)// Minutes of Forty-Fourth Int. Conf. of Doble
Clients, 1977, Section 10-501.
[9] M. Duval “A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in
transformers,” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, Vol.18 , Issue: 3,
2002, pp. 8-17.
[10] Duval, M.: “New Techniques for Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Analysis” IEEE
Electrical Insulation Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 2 March/April 2003
[11] Dornenburg E, Strittmatter W. “Monitoring oil-cooled transformers by
gas analysis,” Brown Boveri Review 1974, pp.:238–247.
[12] Guidelines for the diagnosis of developing defects in transformer
equipment based on the results of chromatographic analysis of gases
dissolved in the oil (in russian), № 153-34.0-46.302-00.
[13] Anna Franzén and Lina Bertling. “State of the art - life time modeling
and management of transformers”. Royal Institute of Technology, KTH
School of Electrical Engineering RCAM. Stockholm, Sweden. 2007.
[14] Barnett, V., Lewis, T. Outliers in statistical data. 3rd ed, Wiley, 1994.
[15] Ben-Gal, I. Outlier detection. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Handbook: A Complete Guide for Practitioners and Researchers, Kluwer
Academic Publishers 2005.
[16] S. Tenbohlen, J. Aragon-Patil, M. Fischer, Z. D. Wang, M. Schäfer, I.
Höhlein Atanasova. “Investigation on Sampling, Measurement and
Interpretation of Gas-in-Oil Analysis for Power Transformers”. CIGRE
2008, D1-204.
[17] S. Abdi, A. Boubakeur, A. Haddad. “Influence of thermal aging on
transformer oil properties”, 2008 IEEE International Conference on
Dielectric Liquids. June 30 2008-July 3 2008.
[18] Mohammad R. Meshkatoddini. “Aging Study and Lifetime Estimation
of Transformer Mineral Oil”. American J. of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 1 (4): 384-388, 2008.
[19] Siemens AG. Power Transmission and Distribution. Transformers
Division. “Corrosive sulfur in transformer oil”.
[20] EL-Sayed M. M. EL-Refaie, Mohamed R. Salem, and Wael A. Ahmed,
"Prediction of the Characteristics of Transformer Oil under Different
Operation Conditions" World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology Conference, 2009.
[21] Barnett, V. 1978. The study of outliers: purpose and model. Applied
Statistics, 27(3), 242–250.
[22] V.J. Hodge, J. Austin. “A survey of outlier detection methodologies”.
CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.109.1943.