Dissolved Gases in Transformer Oils

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012
Oil Tutorial – Dissolved Gas

Analysis
Richard Heywood – Doble UK
pa ny
om
10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA
ng C
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© in a Transformer
Fluids
Why use fluids in a transformer?

• It is an efficient cooling/heat transfer medium
• It provides sufficient dielectric strength (in conjunction
with paper)
• Quenches arcs
• Properties remain stable over lifetime
• It can be used to transfer easily accessed diagnostic
information as it passes around the transformer.
10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 2

Fluids in use- but we will concentrate on mineral oils
• Mineral oil
– Naphthenic
– Paraffinic
– Inhibited/ uninhibited
• Silicones for fire risk reduction in buildings
• Esters
– Synthetic for high temperature use
– Natural for environmental impact reduction

pa ny
3
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© content- Oil diagnostics
Tutorial
Chapter 1
Oils and their important properties
Detecting deterioration of oil. The impact of deteriorated
oil on transformer performance
Chapter 2
Detecting transformer deterioration- dissolved gases
and Furans

Chapter 1- Oils
• What are the oils in use
• Optimisation of oil properties
• Oil deterioration – the problems for a transformer
• Detection of oil deterioration

pa ny
5
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Use Mineral Oils
Why
• Price and availability good- or has been!

• Efficient cooling/heat transfer medium
• Provides sufficient dielectric strength
• Fills voids in the core and coil assembly thus providing
better insulating properties
• Restricts oxygen and moisture permeation into paper and
other materials
• Stable for many years
– no sludging and low acidity
– retains essential electrical properties

Why paper and oil?
• The dielectric strength of oil is:

» 12 kV per mm
• The dielectric strength of paper is:
» 40 kV per mm
• The dielectric strength of oil impregnated paper is:
» 64 kV per mm
There is a 12kV synergy effect per mm which represents a

23% increase in dielectric strength for the paper/oil
insulation system

pa ny
7
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Naphthenic and paraffinic crude oil
Mineral oils are a mix of molecules- it is

just the proportion that means one is
referred to as naphthenic or
paraffinic
Paraffinic content (IR)* Considered as
CP 42-50% Naphthenic
CP 50-56% Intermediate
CP 56-65% Paraffinic
*These levels are not exactly defined but more

intended as a guideline

Specifications
Basic International Standards for mineral oil for electrical

use:
IEC 60296, and ASTM D 3487
BUT these standards state the minimum requirement for electrical

grade oils
Some other standards seek to enhance the requirements
for large transformers
IEC60422, Doble TOPS

pa ny 9
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© 2 Oil Testing
Chapter
Oil Testing to diagnose problems with a

transformer
1. Dissolved gas analysis (DGA)
2. Furans
3. Oil Quality Will discuss if there is sufficient time
4. Sulphur Corrosion

Difficulties of using DGA
• Deciding on an appropriate sampling interval
• Sampling is important
• Laboratory procedures
• Deciding when a result is abnormal
• Deciding on seriousness of a fault

pa ny
11
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Dissolved Gas Analysis - History
1920s
Users were concerned about safety and whether Buchholz
gases were combustible- so used flame at vent.
Essentially looking for Hydrogen.
1930-50
Able to identify H2, C2H2 and CO in relay gas
1950-60- development of chromatography

Realised better to test the oil rather than relay gas.
Able to detect all combustible gases
Why Measure Dissolved Gases in Oil (DGA)
• Ideal condition monitoring tool
– Sensitive, broadband
• Sampled by site staff and analysed by oil laboratory
• Or by Online Gas Sensors

pa ny
13
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Dissolved Gas Analysis
• Lab Analysis involve gases extracted from the oil and the
analysed through a Gas Chromatograph (GC)
• Method A - Vacuum extraction/GC Analysis
• Method B - Stripper Column/GC Analysis
• Method C - Headspace/GC Analysis
• Online methods use different detectors but still require the

gases to be separated from the oil.

Typical Standard Gas Chromatogram
NITROGEN
METHANE
CO2
pA
5.927 -
1750
12.150 -
4.694 -
1500
TCD1 B, (121202ST\004F0401.D) FID2 A, (121202ST\004F0401.D)

1250
ETHYLENE
1000
ACETYLENE
ETHANE
11.722CO
750
HYDROGEN
8.879 -
OXYGEN
500
9.816 -
7.933 -
250
3.455 -
4.144 -
ny
2 4 6 8 10 12

pa
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Minimum Detection Limits
(MDL) – Lab Analysis
Gas MDL MDL MDL MDL

Method A Method B Method C Method
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) IEC 60567
(ppm)
Hydrogen 5 20 0.6 2
Carbon 25 2 0.09 10
Monoxide
Hydrocarbons 1 1 0.04-0.06 0.2 –1
Online devices vary depending on technology used

What Effects the Gas in Oil Level
¾Oil Type – Stray gassing!

¾Oil Preservation Systems Systems
¾Loading
¾Historic Issues
¾Bushing faults
¾Tap changer faults
¾Was Oil Degassed
¾Partition of the Gas between headspace and the oil

pa ny
17
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© of oil type on DGA
Effect
• Oil type can change symptoms exhibited

• Different gassing characteristics
– temperature and time effects
• May also affect head-space gas extraction
• How can we allow for this ?

– need to know oil type
– need information on gassing properties
– tailor scoring/interpreation parameters for oil type

Oil Preservation Systems

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Oil Partition Coefficients
Gas Ostwald Coefficient

Oxygen 0.138
Nitrogen 0.0745
Carbon Dioxide 0.900
Carbon Monoxide 0.102
Hydrogen 0.0429
Methane 0.337
Ethane 1.99
Ethylene 1.35
Acetylene 0.938

Gas Partitioning
Gas Gas-in-Oil Estimated Estimated

ppm ppm %
(vol/vol) gas-in-gas gas-in-gas
space** space
Oxygen 28,400 206,000 20.6
Nitrogen 59,000 792,000 79.2
Carbon Dioxide 1,000 1,110 0.11
Carbon Monoxide* 100 980 0.10
Hydrogen* 100 2,330 0.23
Methane* 100 297 0.03
Ethane* 100 50 0.01
Ethylene* 100 74 0.01
Acetylene* 100 107 0.01
*Combustible gases
**Estimated value under equilibrium conditions at 25°C and 1 atm

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© of Gases in Oil
Solubility
• Hydrogen, Nitrogen, CO, and Oxygen

– increase with temperature
• CO2, Acetylene, Ethane, Ethylene
– decrease with temperature
• Methane
– essentially unchanged
• All increase proportionally with Pressure
– doubling the pressure doubles the gas
concentration in oil, in atmospheres
• All modestly increase with decreasing oil density
Solubility of Gases in Oil
• Hydrogen, Carbon Monoxide, (Methane to lesser

degree)
– proportionally higher in closed conservator than gas
blanketed
– slowly lost to atmosphere in open conservator
– Leak

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Homogeneity of Gases in Oil
• Rate of generation
• Access of fault area to flow
• Rate of mixing
• Presence of a gas blanket
• Diffusion

Oxygen and Nitrogen
• Oxygen
– increase-leak
– Decreases with overheating
– consumed in chemical reactions
• Nitrogen
– pressure and operating temperature dependent in
gas blanketed systems

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Acceptable Limits Various Sources
DGA
Hydrogen CO Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene CO2 TCG
DOBLE 100 250 100 60 100 5 -- 610
100 350 120 65 50 35 2500 720

*IEEE 101-700 351-570 121-400 66-100 51-100 36-50 2500-4000 721-1920
701-1800 571-1400 401-1000 101-150 101-200 51-80 4001-10000 1921-4630
>1800 >1400 >1000 >150 >200 >80 >10000 >4630
IEC
60599 60-150 540-900 40-110 50-90 60-280 3-50 5100-13000
Typical
Range
*IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVISED

Why DGA – where do the gases come from?
Heat is generated in a transformer by-

¾ Normal current flow -but should not exceed the permitted hot
spot of 98 or 110ºC
¾ Partial discharge around a defect or arcing at a major fault
¾ Hot spots from design, manufacturing or in service fault
- stray flux heating in the winding
- at poor connections, shunts, multiple earth paths
Oil is a coolant medium and should pass over all heated
areas. The oil will also overheat locally and breakdown
to create dissolved gases.

pa ny
27
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© are the “key” Gases
What
• The 5 “key” gases are used to determine the type of fault
– Acetylene – C2H2
– Ethylene – C2H4
– Ethane – C2H6
– Methane – CH4
– Hydrogen H2
• Other gases
– Carbon Monoxide
– Carbon dioxide
• Lesser extent depending on preservation system
– Oxygen
– Nitrogen

Energy Required to Break Bonds and Form Gases
Various gasses are created during oil decomposition depending on the
type of fault
Low Hydrogen H H 338 kJ/mole
Temperature H
About 120 °C
Methane H C H 338 kJ/mole
H
H H
Ethane H C C H 607 kJ/mole
H H
Ethylene H H 720 kJ/mole
High C C
Temperature H H
About 700 °C Acetylene 960 kJ/mole
H C C H
pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© Gas Analysis (DGA)- Halstead 1973
Dissolved
HYDROGEN
Normal and overload temperatures plus PD
METHANE
ETHANE
ETHYLENE
Hot Spots High temperature thermal ACETYLENE

faults
Temperature
200°C 500°C 700°C

TEMPERATURE
Key Gases - Arcing
100
90
Combustibles, % 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hydrogen
Methane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
CO

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Key Gases - Overheating, Oil
100
90
80
Combustibles, %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hydrogen
Methane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
CO

Key Gases - Partial Discharge
100
90
Combustibles, % 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hydrogen
Methane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
CO

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Key Gases - Overheating, Paper
100
90
80
Combustibles, %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hydrogen
Ethylene
Methane
Acetylene
Ethane
CO

Summary Key Gases and particular faults
Fault Primary Secondary

Partial Discharge Hydrogen
Dielectric Hydrogen Ethylene
(Arcing/sparking) Acetylene
Dielectric Hydrogen Methane
(Power arc) Ethylene
Acetylene
High Operating Methane Carbon Monoxide
Temperature Ethane
Thermal hotspot Ethylene Methane
Ethane
Overheated Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dixoxide
Cellulose

pa ny 35
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
© D
Interpretation of dissolved gas analyses
¾Seems Easy...?
¾But its not always easy to interpret results so a
number of methods are used.
¾Lab software?
¾IEC/IEEE or normal/ abnormal values?
¾Trends?
¾Engineering experience of design and
application?

Interpretation of dissolved gas analyses
• The science behind gas production and temperature was

published in J. Inst Petroleum 1973 by WD Halstead of
CEGB R&D - and the previous slide was based on this.
• Ratio methods- Rogers, IEC and Duval
• Trending Gas levels
• Action levels
• Expert systems
• Key gas method of IEEE
• DGA algorithm
We will look at each in turn, then at some case studies

pa ny
37
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Important Ratios
Some
• Acetylene/Ethylene
– <10% thermal problems
– > 10 but <20% thermal problems often developing into
electrical fault – beginning of discharge activity
– >20% arcing
• Carbon dioxide/Carbon monoxide
– <3:1 indicative of high temperature localized
overheating of paper
– >10:1 general heating of the winding

Important Ratios
• Ethylene/Ethane
• >4:1 indicative of heating of bare metal
• <4:1 indicative of heating of paper-wrapped
conductor
• Not always correct but can provide indication
that paper is involved even when carbon oxides are
low
• Sometimes not enough paper overheated to
increase carbon oxides in large oil volume beyond
normal concentrations
• Sometimes paper burned away at some point and
little further deterioration in paper
pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© methods- Rogers and CEGB workers
Ratio
Going back to the Halsted work- his engineering colleagues

realised that temperature affected the ratio between gases It
was developed into the ratio method attributed to Rogers in
1974 and eventually built into IEC.
Methane/Hydrogen if >1 score 1 – if <1 score 0

Ethylene/Methane if >1 score 1 – if <1 score 0
Ethylene/ Ethane if >1 score 1 – if <1 score 0
Acetylene/ Ethylene if >1 score 1 - if <1 score 0
This produces scores 0000 (normal) , 1000, 0100, 0010…etc

Ratio methods- Rogers and CEGB workers
A- Methane/Hydrogen if >1 score 1 –overheating <150C

B- Ethylene/Methane if >1 score 1 – same 200-300C
C- Ethylene/ Ethane if >1 score 1 – conductor overheating
D- Acetylene/ Ethylene if >1 score 1 – Power flashover
If A and B scored 1- overheating -150- 200C

If A and C scored 1- circulating currents and overheated joints
If B and D scored 1 – tap changer current breaking
If C and D scored 1 – Arc with power though or persistent
sparking

pa ny
41
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Methods
Ratio
• Advantages
– quantitative
– independent of oil volume
– can be computer programmed
• Disadvantages
– don’t always yield an analysis
– not always correct
– dependence of preservation system
• Solid insulation handled separately

Duval’s triangle
The Rogers method is binary- just a simple question of the

ratio being > or < 1.
But does it matter if the ratio is just over 1 or as high as 10x?
Duval tries to make more out of the ratios by using the actual
values and produced a triangle.
He recognises the use of the key gas method- that the %TCG
proportions depend upon the fault type and builds that in.
But like the ratio method he is trying to identify the type of

fault- not to identify a malfunction at its outset.

pa ny 43
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© use of Key Gases -
Duval’s
100
90
80
Combustibles, %
70
60
50 Arcing
40 Heating Oil
30 PD
Heating Paper
20
10
0
Acetylene
Methane
Hydrogen
Ethane
Ethylene
CO

Classical Duval Triangle – Mineral Oil Filled
Transformers
PD = Corona Partial Discharges

D1 = Discharges of low energy
D2 = Discharges of high energy
T1 = Thermal faults, T < 300 °C
T2 = Thermal fauts, 300 °C < T < 700 °C
T3 = Thermal faults, T > 700 °C
DT = Mixtures of electrical, thermal faults
Note there is no
area in the triangle
for a transformer
that doesn’t have a
problem.
Provided by Michel Duval

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Use of the triangle
PD = Corona Partial Discharges

D1 = Discharges of low energy
D2 = Discharges of high energy
T1 = Thermal faults, T < 300 °C
T2 = Thermal fauts, 300 °C < T < 700 °C
T3 = Thermal faults, T > 700 °C
DT = Mixtures of electrical, thermal faults

Comment on Rogers and Duval methods
• Good for their Thermodynamic basis

• Good for diagnosing fault after a trip
• Not good at deciding if DGA result is normal
– e.g. Rogers ‘Normal Deterioration’ (0000)

code
• Errors at low gas levels- dividing one small number by
another can get infinity, when levels are at lab sensitivity

pa ny
47
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Analysis
Trend
• Look at Key gases

• Total combustible gas and not all the gases
• Rate of gas generation - important
• Fingerprints – DGA Signature
– Does it look like another transformer/same design?

Gassing Rates – Note
• Thermal and PD – general rule

– <1 ppm per day - normal, depending on loading,
previous behavior, time interval
– 1-3 ppm- indications of developing problem
– 3 + ppm increasing serious problem
– 100 ppm - immediate removal from Service

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© Analysis
Trend
Increasing gas levels considered indication of developing

fault, and gas levels constant for inactive fault but ...
• Degassing removes gases and ruins trend

• There is increase rate after de-gassing to equilibrium
levels
• solubility and dispersion effects
– different interpretation for H2 and C2H2 trends
• may not have enough results for good trend

A good trend –but when to de-energise?
3- 1996 Rapid
increase phase
2- Gas evolution
increase but
take out now?
1- 1994 Something
clearly happening

pa ny 51
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© unit- Degassing loses the trend
Another
80 T5533 Dissolved Gas levels

Oil was
Degassed
CH4
70 C2H4
C2H6
60 C2H2
H2
Gas level (ppm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
14/11/84 11/08/87 07/05/90 31/01/93 28/10/95 24/07/98 19/04/01
Date

Normal and Action Levels
• What level is significant ...

• Statistical approach is problematic:
– what exceedance should be used - 90, 95 or
97% ?
– should all gases be treated as equally
important ?
• ‘abnormal’ results are ‘unusual’ rather than
‘unhealthy’

pa ny 53
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© levels in Standards- OK if levels below…
Action
Gas IEEE CIGRE JWG Case A Case B

C57.104 15/12-01-11 What about these 2 units?
H2 <100 50 – 150 110 88
CO <350 400 – 600 120 227
CH4 <120 30 – 130 250 17
C2H4 <50 60 – 280 250 9
C2H6 <65 20 – 90 120 4
C2H2 <2 2 - 20 10 9

Case A- LV winding fault caused by
overheating
Fault was at a transition point in

innermost layer of LV.
Leakage flux in LV-tertiary gap
when tertiary loaded would have
circulated current through inter-
strand fault.

pa ny 55
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case B- hoop buckling and damage to tertiary
underneath
Note this hadn't failed!

CASE A- But there had been a long duration DGA
trend and 2 Buchholz alarms
250
When do you
Second Buchholz alarm
take this unit
at next attempt to load tertiary
200
- thereafter banned
out? Here at
CIGRE /IEEE
150
CH4 limit?
100 First Buchholz
50
0
25/08/95 24/09/95 24/10/95 23/11/95 23/12/95 22/01/96 21/02/96 22/03/96 21/04/96 21/05/96 20/06/96
H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2

pa ny 57
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o le E
bAction from DGA results
© D
Can you rely upon DGA?
Would you expect DGA to indicate risk in these two units?

When could you have ascribed a higher risk rating on these
two? In case B –never and in case A only very late- well after
2 Buchholz alarms!!!
So you must make sure you understand what criteria your oil
lab uses for its interpretation
– or analyse results yourself

Expert systems?
• attempt to classify similar results

• search for hidden information
• identify changes of state
• Kohonen net cluster analysis technique
• rely on human expert to ascribe significance

pa ny
59
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Alternative Interpretation Schemes DGA Scoring
Algorithm?
• Method based on IEEE Key Gas Method C57-104 1991

• Combustible gas signature - bar chart of percentage
total combustible gas (%TCG), CO, H2, CH4, C2H4,
C2H6, C2H2
• Used in IEEE to distinguish faults ie like IEC ratios used
after a trip- too late!
• Based of examples of faults/failures - to differentiate
normal and abnormal units for risk assignment.

Based on the key gas method
High [ CO ] ( 60-90 %TCG ) = normal
– ( Higher levels may be abnormal )
• High [ C2H4 ] ( > 10 %TCG ) = abnormal
• Significant [ H2 ] and [ C2H2 ] = serious
• Significant [ CH4 ] and [ C2H6 ] = not serious
Use this ratio system and add in a gas level factor to
build an algorithm

pa ny 61
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© transmission transformers
Normal
100
80
Percentage TCG
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5
Transformer
CO H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2

Normal generator transformers
100
Percentage TCG 80
60
40
20
0
I II III IV V
Transformer

pa ny 63
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Faulty transformers
100
80
Overheating Discharge/arcing
Percentage TCG
60
40
20
0
A B C D E F G
Transformer

Several with Bare metal Thermal Faults
100
90
Now with Ethylene as dominant gas and > methane
80 >ethane
70
Percentage combustible gas
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
V W X Y

pa ny 65
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
Several units with Winding Thermal Faults © D
100
90
Now have ethylene, together hydrogen dominating
80
some times acetylene coming through
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A B C D E F G H

Dielectric problems - DGA
Typical DGA results for transformers with PD faults

90
80
H2
70
60
%CO
Transformers
50 %H2
%CH4
%C2H4
40 %C2H6
%C2H2
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
Percentage TCDG

pa ny 67
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
© D
Dielectric problems - DGA
DGA Results for a family with low energy arcing/sparking faults
100
90
80
70
60 %CO
Transformers
%H2
%CH4
50
%C2H4
%C2H6
40
%C2H2
30
20
10
Acetylene
0
1 2 3 4
Percentage TCDG

Case A The thermal damage unit
So when did this problem start and is there only one

problem? The next slide shows that this should have
been identified between 1991 and 1994 and unit put on
a risk list for investigation and life management…. But
the Scoring Algorithm wasn’t being used then.
250
200
150
100
50
0
25/08/95 24/09/95 24/10/95 23/11/95 23/12/95 22/01/96 21/02/96 22/03/96 21/04/96 21/05/96 20/06/96

pa ny 69
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case A - key gas method determines fault type
and when it started.
Evidence of thermal fault years before Buchholz alarm #1
Buchholz alarm #1
Buchholz alarm #2

One Scoring system – Lapworth Algorithm
• ‘Quality’ function
– importance of gas signature
• ‘Strength’ function
– importance of gas levels
The limitation of the IEEE key gas method is it relies

upon the signature and doesn’t use level information
And its important to look at signature and gas level
pa ny
71
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© NG algorithm for DGA interpretation
DPT-
• Normal < 60
– all normal results can be ignored

• Suspect > 60
– only suspect results need to be investigated

• Serious > 100
– winding and dielectric faults

– some can be discounted

Benefits of scoring system
• Normal results can be screened out (ignored)
• Consistent, objective assessment of mass of routine

data- a first stage screen
• Based on actual failures/faults
• Resource then can be focussed on deserving cases
• Also can ignore ‘unusual’ cases
• New insights into significance of results

pa ny 73
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© the onset of abnormality- 765 kV Reactor
Detecting
400
350
100 300
250
DGA Score
90 200
150
80
100
50
70
0
31/01/93 01/02/95 01/02/97 02/02/99 02/02/01 03/02/03 03/02/05
60 Date
50
40
30
20
10
0
26/7/93 22/4/99 24/10/02 16/5/05 26/1/06
Date

Case B- So how did we handle this one?
Note this hadn't failed!

pa ny 75
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© B- Managing DGA Data and its Interpretation
Case
3-
120
1- Test 100
80
investigate
60
high scores
40
120
20
100
0
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006
80
2- Apply Score ALL 60
results
40
20
0
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006 11/02/2009
20
5 Look at past history
18
16
14
12
10
8 4 Look at gas
pattern for
6
0
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006 11/02/2009
fault type
C2H4 C2H2

Case B- The first step all DGA scored - here >50
120 The DGA score is a composite

value calculated from ratios
100
(weighted average of %TCG’s),
trained on past failures.
80
(2002 Doble Conference paper)
60
Only faulty units go above about 50

40
20
ny
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006

pa 77
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
©B- Look at DGA history for incidents/transients
Case
120
In this case the jump in DGA score was

100 due to a significant increase in H2.
This coincided with a CT failure
80
(through fault) on the HV side of the
transformer.
60
40
20
0
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006 11/02/2009

Case B- And the DGA history investigated
20
18
16
2003
CT failure
14
12
10
0
18/02/1982 17/02/1985 17/02/1988 16/02/1991 15/02/1994 14/02/1997 14/02/2000 13/02/2003 12/02/2006 11/02/2009
ny
C2H4 C2H2

pa 79
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case B- But still took us 2y to get the outage to test
T4971 LV to N 12/10/05
0
-10
-20
Amplitude in dB
-30
-40
-50
-60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Frequency in MHz
T4971
A phase B phase C phase A phase B phase C phase
Main windings 4,246 pF 3,368 pF 4,273 pF

to earth, CH 0.75 % 0.51 % 0.62 %
Clearly winding
movement and Main windings 8,277 pF 5,775 pF 9,030 pF
inspection justified. to tertiary, CHT 0.42 % 1.91 % 0.54 %
Expect hoop Tertiary winding 20,668 pF

buckling. to earth, CT 0.46 %

Case B- Drop oil and look in- significant
clamping plate damage

pa ny
81
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case B- And so to scrapping….
It is likely that the hoop

buckling to the common
winding led to crushing
damage to inner tertiary
(right) and it was PD
from here that caused
the DGA results. But the
levels were so low we
would never have
spotted the problem
from other methods.

CASE C – 240MVA Main Tank
400/132kV 240 MVA
Manufactured 1966.
Removed from
service and
replaced because of
overheating.
Originally leading
ethylene, but in later
life hydrogen
following and CO.
Furans only 0.8ppm
DGA Score follows

trend, as expected.

pa ny
83
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© C – 240MVA Main Tank
CASE
400/132kV 240 MVA
Manufactured 1966.
Removed from
service and
replaced because of
overheating.
Originally leading
life hydrogen
following and CO.
Furans only 0.8ppm
DGA Score follows

trend, as expected.

400/132kV 240 MVA
Manufactured 1966.
Removed from
service and
replaced because of
overheating.
Originally leading
life hydrogen
following and CO.
Furans only 0.8ppm
DGA Score follows trend, as expected. But fault not clear over entire history

pa ny
85
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
CASE
Ethylene/Hydrogen increasing relatively to each other in latter life


pa ny
87
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
CASE
Overheated tie bars –

Leakage flux.
Caused charring of
wood package blocks
DGA Scoring Conclusions
• Scoring system has been valuable

– more consistent and objective assessments
– resources focussed where deserved
– Still need to apply engineering knowledge
• Applicable to wider class of transformers ?
– further work required to improve
• Oil type needs to be taken into account
– further work to understand effects on stray gassing
• Vehicle for improving understanding...maybe?

pa ny
89
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© D - Selector
CASE

CASE D Selector Inspection

pa ny
91
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© E - DGA Selector
CASE
180
Stalybridge SGT1May
Inspected Blue 09
Phase
andSelector
Sep 10
160
Nothing found
140 H2
CH4
120 C2H4
) C2H6
m
p 100
p
(
l
C2H2
e
v
e
L
s 80
a
G
60
40
20

CASE E - DC Winding Resistances
Problem here but not here?

pa ny
93
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© E Spring Tension Issues
CASE

Case F McGraw Edison 550C LTC
Gas 1/19/2005
Hydrogen 177
Ethane 1,454
Methane 1,800
Ethylene 3,295
Acetylene 14.6
Carbon Monoxide 178
Carbon Dioxide 750
Oxygen 25,490
Nitrogen 67,800
Total Combustible Gas 6,919
Methane/Acetylene 123
Ethylene/Acetylene 226
(H2+Acet)/TCG-CO 0.03
Doble Condition Code 1

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case F Transformer and LTC

Case F Infrared Thermography

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
Case F Coking on Reversing Switch
Coking on reversing switch

CASE G Selector DGA
Leading Acetylene....low
levels of other gases
Inspection no arcing within selector....however oil was leaking
ny
from diverter into selector!
pa 99
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© 3 - Online DGA
Chapter
• Laboratory testing is generally a very cost effective

solution and served the industry well.
• But on-line devices are coming down in price and are
getting more reliable. Also better communications!.
• Early ones were simple hydrogen detectors, now multi
gas systems are becoming more common.
• But mass of data needs careful handling- many rely
upon Rogers and Duval- not much good in early stages…

Online DGA Tools

pa ny
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
o b le E
D
© Online DGA
Bespoke

CASE H – DGA Selector
More gassing, inspected, nothing,

online monitor installed, Aug 11
Silver Corrosion, oil
replaced in selector Oil replaced in sel
and mtnk, more
Reclaimed corrosion, next slide!
and
Inhibited
Passivated 2008, still positive to
CuS, further oil processing.

pa ny 103
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© H – Selector Inspection
CASE
2008 2011

CASE H – Online Monitoring
Red Phase Selector – Acetylene
Note No PD detected. Therefore believed to be chemical?

pa ny
105
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© I – Online DGA Monitoring
CASE
• 400/132kV 240MVA
• Manufactured 1997
• Removed from service in 2009
– After some investigation!
– Ethylene leading fault
– Lower amounts of hydrogen
• Design had been under suspicion
– Sister units overheating faults
– Core/frame insulation/circulating current issues

CASE I – 240 MVA – Main Tank DGA
Diagnostic Gas History for SEABABK SGT2 (T6991)_Main Tank
350
300
Gas concentration (ppm)

250
200
H2
150 CH4
C2H4
100
C2H6
C2H2
50
DGA Score History for SEABABK SGT2 (T6991)_Main Tank

Sample date
100
90
80
70
60
50
Score
40
30
20
10
0
ny
Sample date

pa 107
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© I Core/Frame Insulation Resistor Installed
CASE
Parts Insulation Resistance (Mohm)
19/12/1996
25/10/2008
(commissioning)
Core – earth (frame earthed) 966 15 000
Frame – earth (core earthed) 839 14 000
Core and frame – earth 1830
Core – frame 1120 5000
Lead to core/frame
Spark Gap
Lead to earth mat

CASE I DC Winding Resistances - 2008
LV-N Winding Resistance for Seabank SGT2
Measurements at Works 24/10/96
0.15
Factory Data
0.14
Winding Resistance (ohm)
0.13
0.12
0.11

0.1 0.15
0.145
0.09
1 3 5 7 9 11 0.14
13 15
Tap
0.135

A phase B phase C phase
0.13
0.125
0.12
No clear evidence LV-N. 0.115
0.11
0.105
Selector required maintaining. 0.1

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Tap

pa ny 109
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© I Online DGA Fitted 2008/Selector Maintained
CASE
Gas
continued to
rise. Unit
switched
out during
meeting

CASE I Repeated Offline DC Winding Resistances
Measurements at Works 24/10/96
0.15
0.14
Clear evidence of high

0.13
resistive joint on C
0.12 Phase LV-N.
0.11
Note Autotransformer
0.1
Measurements at Site 25/10/08
0.09
0.15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Tap

0.14
Bad joint - C phase

0.13
common winding or tap 15
lead or possible part of the 0.12
LV line lead assembly.

0.11
Repairable at site only if a

0.1
bad joint on lead to selector.
Whereas fault in common 0.09
winding or the LV line lead 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Tap
ny
assembly would probably A phase B phase C phase
a
only be repairable at works.
p
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© I Internal Inspection – Repairable?
CASE
Paper removed
and no fault found!
C Phase Riser
(Top)
C Phase Top Series

Connection

CASE I Scrapped - Fault Location
Worst DP was
approx 600
80% life left!
2-FAL 0.54ppm

pa ny 113
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
D
© I 240MVA – Conclusion
CASE
• Two design faults now identified

– Core/frame issues
– Weak joint in conductor
• Careful Judgement with existing knowledge

• Leading ethylene not always bare metal faults
• Online monitoring allowed instant decision on switch out
• Which eliminated the risk of catastrophic failure

Conclusions
• DGA is only part of the story

• Other oil tests provide Condition information
– Furan Analysis
– Oil Quality
– Including Corrosive Sulphure

pa ny 115
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D
We can learn a lot from oil testing- but
Remember- this is
not a
transformer –it
is only an oil
sample
don’t
forget the
engineering
This is ONLY a starting position

Condition assessment is more than oil testing
On-line,
Identify SURVEY
diagnostics to & non Outage
match relevant invasive investigative
failure modes testing testing
FMECA & Assess

Current Maintenance
Condition
Obtain OEM Work, future plans &
& RLA
operational
design environment
performance
Identify
priority
actions

pa ny 117
C om
ng
ine eri
n g
ob le E
© D

Dissolved Gases in Transformer Oils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissolved Gases in Transformer Oils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012

Oil Tutorial – Dissolved Gas

Richard Heywood – Doble UK

Why use fluids in a transformer?

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 2

• Silicones for fire risk reduction in buildings

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 4

• What are the oils in use

• Optimisation of oil properties

• Oil deterioration – the problems for a transformer

• Detection of oil deterioration

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

• Price and availability good- or has been!

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 6

• The dielectric strength of oil is:

There is a 12kV synergy effect per mm which represents a

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Mineral oils are a mix of molecules- it is

Paraffinic content (IR)* Considered as

*These levels are not exactly defined but more

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 8

Basic International Standards for mineral oil for electrical

IEC 60296, and ASTM D 3487

BUT these standards state the minimum requirement for electrical

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Oil Testing to diagnose problems with a

1. Dissolved gas analysis (DGA)

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 10

• Deciding on an appropriate sampling interval

• Deciding when a result is abnormal

• Deciding on seriousness of a fault

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

1950-60- development of chromatography

• Ideal condition monitoring tool

• Or by Online Gas Sensors

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

• Method B - Stripper Column/GC Analysis

• Method C - Headspace/GC Analysis

• Online methods use different detectors but still require the

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

TCD1 B, (121202ST\004F0401.D) FID2 A, (121202ST\004F0401.D)

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Gas MDL MDL MDL MDL

Online devices vary depending on technology used

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

¾Oil Type – Stray gassing!

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

• Oil type can change symptoms exhibited

• How can we allow for this ?

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA 18

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Gas Ostwald Coefficient

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Gas Gas-in-Oil Estimated Estimated

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

• Hydrogen, Nitrogen, CO, and Oxygen

• Hydrogen, Carbon Monoxide, (Methane to lesser

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

10th IndiaDoble Power Forum, 2012, Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

Hydrogen CO Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene CO2 TCG

DOBLE 100 250 100 60 100 5 -- 610