EnergyPulse Article Page 1 of 5

[Link]

Transformer Dissolved Gas Analysis Diagnostics

9.21.07 Steven Jennings, Vice President of Marketing, Serveron Corporation

Article Viewed 1658 Times

0 Comments

As an asset class, power transformers constitute one of the largest investments in a utility's
system. For this reason transformer condition assessment and management is a high priority.
In several parts of the world the transformer fleet is operating beyond its design life and with
higher average loads than ever before. Some statistics on the North American power
transformer fleet follow:

 The average age of power transformers is >42 years and increasing 0.6 years per year.
 Transformer failure rates, both catastrophic and non-catastrophic, continue to increase.

Funding the cost to replace enough power transformers to reduce or flatten the growth of the
average age is not an alternative for most utilities. This situation demands the best asset
management and condition assessment approaches available to garner the most value from
the existing fleet while maintaining reliability to ever increasing standards. Dissolved Gas
Analysis (DGA) of transformer insulating oil is considered the single best indicator of a
transformer’s overall condition and is practiced universally today. However, interpretation of
DGA data through the use of DGA diagnostic tools is not always “state of the art”.

The use of appropriate DGA diagnostic methods can improve the conclusions from the DGA
process which results in improved service reliability, avoidance of transformer failure and
deferred capital expenditures for new transformer assets.

Key Gas Procedure

This is one of the most frequently used diagnostic tools and, unfortunately, one of the weakest
in our arsenal. The combination of frequent use and poor diagnostic capability unite with the
result being the source of a significant number of misdiagnoses in the field. Why is the Key Gas
Procedure so frequently used when it is not accurate? Because it is a good “shortcut” or
“approximation” technique that can be implemented quickly.

Key gases are defined in the IEEE guide as “gases generated in oil-filled transformers that can
be used for qualitative determination of fault types, based on which gases are typical or
predominant at various temperatures.”

The IEEE guide Key Gas Method offers diagnosis through calculating the relative proportions (in
percent) of these key gases to the rest of the gases in the transformer. The proportions
indicate the general fault type and these fault types with their relative proportions of gases (in

[Link] 4/14/2008
EnergyPulse Article Page 2 of 5

percent) are identified in Table 1.

There are a few issues that contribute to the Key Gas Method’s poor diagnostic accuracy:

 There are only four generalized fault types named while other diagnostic methods offer more
detailed fault type identification
 Transformers will typically not exhibit the exact relative proportions of gases outlined by the IEEE
guide and users need to make a “judgment call” as to which fault type is being indicated
 Users frequently mistake the IEEE-defined qualitative nature of this diagnostic to be more
absolute as in the nature of a quantitative method

Studies based on the IEC data bank of inspected transformers have shown the Key Gas Method
to arrive at an incorrect diagnosis 58% of the time. This is a significant error and suggests that
this method should be subordinated or eliminated in favor of more accurate approaches to DGA
diagnostics.

The problem gets still larger when a “modified” version of the Key Gas Method is practiced.
This version, not found in any guide, nor supported by any empirical evidence, matches the
change in a single gas to a general fault type. There are no normal, caution or warning levels
defined; only the judgment of the practitioner determines the level of the problem. The method
is based on a number of assumptions shown below along with an analysis of the assumptions:

 Assumption No. 1: Acetylene in a transformer is caused by an arc; therefore it is possible to

diagnose an arcing condition solely by looking at acetylene.

Analysis:

This assumption does not enable the practitioner to understand the nature of the arc. Is it a
harmless case of sparking partial discharge in oil from a poorly grounded part or, is it the early
stages of a dangerous high energy discharge? Could it be acetylene formed in a localized high
temperature fault in oil rather than in an electrical arc? Maybe it is the result of communication
between the oil of the main tank and LTC tank? None of these questions can be answered

[Link] 4/14/2008
EnergyPulse Article Page 3 of 5

without taking the ratio of acetylene to other gases into account. The lack of an accurate
diagnosis could mean that either a harmless situation is over-treated (de-energizing, draining
and inspecting the tank and finding no evidence, because partial discharges typically cannot be
visually identified) or, allowing a serious problem to worsen.

 Assumption No. 2: CO in a transformer indicates overheated cellulose, therefore it is possible to

diagnose cellulose problems solely by looking at CO

Analysis:

Based on the IEC data bank of inspected cases in service when using the formation of CO only
to detect paper involvement in a fault, a wrong diagnosis will be provided in about 65% of
cases .

Furthermore, increasing amounts of CO in service do not necessarily mean that there is a fault
involving paper. This very much depends on the corresponding amounts of CO2. Indeed, in a
large number of cases, CO increases are related to oil oxidation only, as a result of
overheating, even in transformers equipped with air-preservation systems, where some oxygen
is always present because of leaks in these systems.

CO ppm by itself is not a reliable indicator of localized paper-insulation damage because:

a) the level is usually reduced by dilution in a large quantity of oil,

b) the level is affected by oil-temperature (absorption & de-sorption by paper insulation)
caused by load and/or ambient-temperature changes and
c) its tendency to escape depending upon the type of oil expansion system and how tightly the
transformer is sealed.

 Assumption No. 3: Hydrogen indicates partial discharge as well as other faults, therefore it is
important to measure hydrogen

Analysis:

Hydrogen appears in almost all fault conditions (see Table 1) and is therefore an indicator and
not a diagnostic gas. It must be combined in a ratio-based analysis with other gases in order to
begin to diagnose an incipient fault. Unfortunately, the three gases listed here in the “modified”
key gas method do not combine into any meaningful ratios with the exception of a H2/C2H2
ratio indicating LTC communication with the main tank. In fact, when gas ratios are used,
methane offers better diagnostic capability than hydrogen. This is because hydrogen is the
least soluble gas in oil and also has a high diffusion rate (escapes easily from the transformer
or laboratory oil sample) making the exact quantification of hydrogen difficult.

This “modified” key gas approach has not been formally evaluated regarding its accuracy due
to the fact that it is an undocumented “de-facto” approach. The documented Key Gas Method
offers the worst diagnostic record of any approach evaluated here and the “modified” version
has elements in it that would lead us to believe it is inferior even to the Key Gas Method.
Further, with the gaining popularity of on-line DGA monitors the pitfalls of this approach using
on-line monitors are exacerbated. This is because a monitor with this three gas combination

[Link] 4/14/2008
EnergyPulse Article Page 4 of 5

cannot support any diagnostics, as explained above, and would simply offer more frequent
misdiagnoses.

Ratio-based Diagnostic Tools

The Doernenburg Ratios, Rogers Rogers, Basic Gas Ratios diagnostic tools have a more
effective diagnostic accuracy rate. They involve more calculation and therefore aren’t always
the first choice. However, these tools can offer superior results and there are now more
automated means of calculating these results.

The ratios used by three of the methods are listed below. The process for each method uses a
subset of these ratios with diagnosis of fault type based on the fit of each ratio result to a
specific range of values.

Ratio 1 (R1) = CH4/H2

Ratio 2 (R2) = C2H2/C2H4
Ratio 3 (R3) = C2H2/CH4
Ratio 4 (R4) = C2H6/C2H2
Ratio 5 (R5) = C2H4/C2H6

Another ratio-based method is the Duval Triangle found in the IEC guide Annex B.3. The
Triangle method was developed empirically in the early 1970’s. It is based on the use of 3
gases (CH4, C2H4 and C2H2) corresponding to the increasing energy levels of gas formation.
One advantage of this method is that it always provides a diagnosis, with a low percentage of
wrong diagnoses.

The accuracy of the main diagnostic methods used has been evaluated, using the IEC data
bank of inspected transformer failures and other reports. Table 2 shows the results of this
effort:

Table 2 summarizes many of the main points developed in this article. There are a variety of
diagnostic tools available to the DGA practitioner and it is important to understand which ones

[Link] 4/14/2008
EnergyPulse Article Page 5 of 5

to apply and when.

On-line DGA and Diagnostic Tools

On-line DGA is gaining in popularity worldwide and, because of its frequency and accuracy of
measurements, provides the best data set for the ratio-based diagnostic tools. The advent of
on-line DGA has enabled the DGA practitioner to go from infrequent snapshots in time of
transformer condition to understanding the dynamic behavior of gases over the operating
cycles of the transformer. On-line DGA data is delivering new insights previously unavailable.
The trending of the diagnostic ratios rather than just the basic gas data is the breakthrough.
The value is in rate of change of diagnostic ratio indicators, not in static snapshots. On-line
DGA monitors are available now with different combinations and counts of the 8 diagnostic
gases. Software and services also accompany these monitors that automate the calculation and
display of some of the diagnostic tools.

However, let the buyer beware: To deliver on the new insights, on-line DGA monitors must
offer the right combinations of gases measured that support the diagnostic tools you prefer to
use. As an example: If the gases measured by the on-line monitor only support a key gas type
of approach, (or worse, the “modified” key gas method highlighted earlier) then the promise of
trending diagnostic ratios and delivering correct diagnoses is not fulfilled. It would just become
a more expensive way to misdiagnose transformer faults.

Summary

Progress has been made by the DGA community in developing and refining diagnostic tools.
Some tools are proving to perform better than others and DGA practitioners can benefit from
reviewing the latest information and incorporating it into their DGA procedures. The imperative
for transformer asset managers in the current environment of an aging transformer fleet that
needs to perform more reliably than ever under increasing loads: Be as effective as possible in
transformer condition assessment through a robust DGA diagnostic program incorporating
laboratory as well as on-line DGA approaches.

For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact arowe@[Link].

Copyright 2008 CyberTech, Inc.

Copyright © 2002-2008, CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved. Read our Terms of Service.

[Link] 4/14/2008