Risk-based maintenance for asset management of power

transformer: practical experience in Thailand

Thanapong Suwanasri
1,3
, Rattanakorn Phadungthin
1,3
and Cattareeya Suwanasri
2,3
*
,
1
The Sirindhorn International Thai-German Graduate School of Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand
3
King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Bangkok, Thailand
SUMMARY
Nowadays, the requirement on diminishing operating and maintenance costs is highly concerned for utilities
in competitive electricity market. Power transformer is rst focused due to its acquisition costs and failure
consequences (FCs). Traditional preventive maintenance for power transformer is generally applied. However,
it is very costly and does not take into account actual transformer condition. Hence, risk-based maintenance is
introduced in this paper to facilitate the maintenance works of power transformers. The conditions of power
transformers are evaluated from electrical test, insulating oil test and visual inspection by using the ranking
and weighting techniques. In addition, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is proposed to determine the im-
portant weighting factor of each transformer component. The three main criteria of the AHP are maintenance
difculty, FC and failure history. Moreover, the Weibull distribution techniques are applied to analyze failure
causes. The computerized web-application program is developed and implemented for practical use in a utility
in Thailand. The power transformers installed in 115 kV and 230 kV transmission systems in Thailand are
assessed due to availability and quality of data. From statistical analysis of failure records, the conditions of
power transformer can be divided into three different zones as risk, moderate and healthy zone. The defective
components in risk zone with higher proportion of failure should be carefully focused. The components and
overall condition of the transformers are perceived from the analysis of test results. Subsequently, the
risk-based maintenance is properly planned according to the actual condition. Therefore, maintenance of power
transformer eet can be effectively managed resulting in higher availability and reliability, lower risk of failure
and lower cost of maintenance. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: Analytic Hierarchy Process; pairwise comparisons; power transformer; condition assessment;
failure analysis; condition-based maintenance
1. INTRODUCTION
Power transformer is one of the most important high voltage equipment in power system. Its function
is to transform the voltage into an appropriate level for electricity utilization. The transformer mainte-
nance is needed to maintain systems stability and reliability. Normally, the preventive maintenance is
applied because it uses knowledge method with a simple and routine approach. However, it is very
costly and does not take into account the actual transformer condition. Thus, the condition-based main-
tenance is presently introduced to achieve the cost-effective maintenance tasks based on the actual
evaluated condition.
Different techniques are applied in transformer condition evaluation, e.g. fuzzy evaluation, fuzzy
neural network, fuzzy model multi-layers classication, rough set theory, DS evidential reasoning,
articial neural networks and evidential reasoning [13]. These techniques can determine ambiguous
and uncertain characteristic numbers; however, they are all qualitative assessment to transformer con-
dition. Therefore, one excellent technique so called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is proposed
*Correspondence to: Cattareeya Suwanasri, King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangsue,
Bangkok 10800, Thailand.

E-mail: cattareeyas@kmutnb.ac.th
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEMS
Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/etep.1764
to deal with the interdependent criteria involving both quantitative and qualitative issues [48]. The
AHP has various abilities to structure a complex of problems such as multi person, multi attribute
and multi period [9]. In addition, it has a unique technique to quantify judgmental consistency.
This paper aims to determine the critical components of power transformers and their failure caused
by using the failure statistics, to estimate expected lifetime of the critical components by using the
Weibull distribution and to evaluate the component as well as overall conditions of power transformers
by using the historical test results for setting up the condition-based maintenance strategy. The scoring
and weighting technique is applied to evaluate the condition of the transformer components whereas
the AHP technique is applied to obtain important weighting factor of the transformer components.
The historical test results for the condition evaluation consist of electrical test, insulating oil and visual
inspection. The computerized web-application program is developed for the proposed condition-based
maintenance strategy so that power transformer eet can be effectively managed.
2. POWER TRANSFORMER ASSET MANAGEMENT
The asset management process of power transformer is shown in Figure 1. Historical test records are
used to assess condition of power transformer, while network data is used to assess importance of the
transformer. The transformer risk is obtained from combining the condition and the importance. In ad-
dition, economic aspect regarding nancial information should be taken into account. Subsequently,
the decision with the most cost-effective task can be made, and the asset management strategies are
nally planned appropriately.
In this paper, the power transformer asset management includes failure analysis and condition-based
maintenance. The software program is also developed and implemented for the analysis. The compo-
nents of power transformer are classied into seven categories, e.g. active part, insulating oil, bushing,
arrester, on load tap changer, tank and protective devices.
2.1. Failure statistics
Failure events of power transformers should be systematically recorded and analyzed in order to deter-
mine critical components and failure causes. For accurate failure analysis and forecasting as well as
aging and reliability assessment, the well-known Weibull distribution method is applied [10,11].
The three main Weibull parameters are Beta, Eta and Gamma. Beta parameter (b) indicates type of fail-
ure modes as burn-in, random or wear-out period. Eta parameter (Z) is Weibull characteristic life as a
measure of the scale or spread in data distribution. Gamma parameter (g) is the location parameter in-
dicating the time shift from the origin of the distribution. According to these parameters, Weibull sta-
tistical properties in terms of probability distribution (PDF), cumulative distribution functions (CDF),
reliability, failure rate, as well as Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) or expected life time can be
calculated as follows.
Figure 1. Power transformer asset management.
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
A. PDF
f t
b

_ _
t g

_ _
b1
e

tg

b
; tg (1)
B. CDF
F t 1 e

tg

b
; tg (2)
C. Reliability
R t 1 F t e

tg

b
; tg (3)
D. Failure rate
l t
f t
R t

_ _
t g

_ _
b1
(4)
E. MTBF
MTBF g : 1
1
b
_ _
(5)
where 1
1
b
_ _
is the gamma function evaluated at the value of 1
1
b
_ _
[12].
2.2. Condition-based maintenance
Presently, a condition-based maintenance [13] is introduced to maintain the asset as power transformer
because it takes into account the actual transformer condition resulting in the reduction of operating
and maintenance costs. In this paper, power transformer components are classied into seven catego-
ries, e.g. active part, insulating oil, bushing, arrester, on load tap changer, tank and protective devices
as given in Figure 2.
2.2.1. Scoring and weighting technique for component condition evaluation. Diagnostic technique for
component condition evaluation consists of three categories as electrical tests, insulating oil tests and
visual inspection. The electrical tests and the insulating oil tests [1418] from online and ofine tests
Main tank
Figure 2. Power transformer components.
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
are usually evaluated for transformer component condition, whereas the visual inspection is regularly
investigated on daily and weekly basis. The multi-criterion analysis form [19] is applied in the trans-
former component condition evaluation. The scoring technique is used for classifying the condition
into several levels such as good, suspect and poor. The weighting technique is used for ranking the pre-
cision and importance of each diagnosis.
In this paper, the diagnostic techniques for active part are the measurements of exciting current, core
insulation resistance, winding insulation resistance, 1f winding leakage impedance, 3f winding
equivalent leakage impedance, winding ratio and DC winding resistance obtained from [20], as shown
in Table I. The diagnostic techniques, which have the better ability to access the actual condition, will
be assigned with the higher weighting number for the active part (i.e. the weighting numbers for the
winding exciting current are assigned to be 3, and if the percent deviation of the exciting current
compared to the commissioning value lies between 0 and 2, the condition is good; as well as that
for the magnetic core insulation and winding insulation resistance is assigned to be 5). Diagnosis
techniques of other components are summarized in Table II.
Thereafter, the condition of each component is evaluated in the percentage of component condition
index (CI) (%index) as shown in Equation [6].
%index

n
i1
S
i
W
i

n
i1
S
max;i
W
i
_ _
100 (6)
where:
S
i
= Scoring number
S
max,i
= Maximum score
W
i
= Weighting number
n = Number of diagnostic tests
Table I. Diagnostic technique for active part.
Diagnosis
Condition
Weight Good Suspect Poor
Core insulation resistance >100 10100 010 5
Exciting current 02 210 >10 3
1f impedance 00.5 0.53 >3 4
3f impedance 00.5 0.53 >3 4
Ratio 00.1 0.10.5 >0.5 4
DC resistance 01 15 >5 3
Winding insulation (%PF) 0-0.5 0.52 >2 5
Table II. Diagnostic technique for other components.
Components Diagnosis Components Diagnosis
Insulating oil Dielectric Breakdown OLTC Transition Resistance
Moisture Content Contact Wear
Power Factor Dissolved Gas Analysis
Color Color
Acidity Water Content
Interfacial Tension Dielectric Breakdown
Power Factor
Leakage Current
Bushing Power Factor Arrester Watt Loss
Capacitance Insulation Resistance
Visual Inspection Visual Inspection
Tank Visual Inspection Protection Visual Inspection
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
The percentage of component CI (%index) is further ranked within the intervals for indicating the CI
of each component; therein, color indicators as green, yellow and red stand for good, suspect and poor
conditions, respectively.
2.2.2. AHP for component important weighting. AHP is a exible and powerful technique to determine
the important weighting factor (Wj) [2126]. It is also a classical technique for Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis or Multi-Criteria Decision Making. The AHP is suitable for complex decisions concerning the
comparison, which is difcult to quantify [27]. As the AHP is based on pairwise comparisons of decision
criteria, all individual criteria must be rst paired against the others when the qualitative criteria are iden-
tied and organized in a hierarchical structure. Finally, the goal of the structure as important weighting
factors will be determined. The AHP methodology is summarized step by step in [2831].
To implement the important weighting factor of each component of power transformer using the
AHP technique, a hierarchy decision model is developed as presented in Figure 3. The model is sep-
arated into ve main levels including goal, criteria, two sub-criteria and alternative levels. The goal is
component ranking using three criteria as maintenance difculty (MD), failure consequence (FC) and
failure history (FH). In the rst sub-criteria, MD consists of detectability, resource and effort. FC is
composed of operability and environment. The second sub-criteria showing different important criteria
(e.g. D1-D3, R1-R3, etc.) are used to estimate the important weighting factors of the power trans-
former components. The AHP evaluation is judged by four different groups of experts who are special-
ized in power transformer research, high voltage testing laboratory, maintenance and repair shop, as
well as power transformer and transmission system management. The complete detail of the AHP is
shown in Appendix.
2.2.3. Overall condition evaluation of power transformer. To evaluate overall condition of power
transformer, the CI (CI
j
) and the important weighting factor (W
j
) estimated from AHP technique of
transformer components (e.g. active part, insulating oil, bushing, arrester, on load tap changer, tank
and protective devices) are combined together in order to obtain the overall condition (%CI) as shown
in Equation [7].
%CI

m
j1
W
j
CI
j
_ _
100 (7)
GOAL
Importance Weighting Factor
Maintenance Difficulty Failure Consequence Failure History
Detectability Resource Effort
R2 R1 R3 E2 E1
Operability Environment
O2 O1 O3 V2 V1
Power Transformer Components
Active Part, Insulating Oil, Bushing, Arrester, OLTC, Tank, Protective Device
D2 D1 D3
Note: D1 = shutdown, D2 = normal monitoring, D3 = special testing,
R1 = repairability, R2 = spare availability, R3 = knowledge, E1 = cost,
E2 = time, O1 = transformer operation, O2 = other component,
O3 = other equipment, V1 = social, V2 = people
Figure 3. AHP structure model of transformer component.
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
where:
W
j
= important weighting factor
CI
j
= condition index of transformer components
m = number of transformer components, in this paper m is 7.
Similarly, the overall condition of power transformer will be indicated as green, yellow and red that
stand for good, suspect and poor conditions, respectively.
3. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
It is necessary to develop a decision support tool for condition-based maintenance of power trans-
former. The tool consists of database management system for a convenient data record, analytical pro-
cess and user interface module via web application as shown in Figure 4. The database module is
developed to work with web application program in order to retrieve the information from database
for analyzing and back-recording the data. The Spring MVC framework with JAVA language applica-
tion has been developed for web application.
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1. Failure analysis and statistical results
Power transformers in Thailand are mainly used in transmission system as tie-transformer in 500 kV
and 230 kV levels; whereas, loading transformers are used in 115 kV. Failures and their causes of each
main component are calculated and shown as a percentage for tie transformer rated 230/115 kV,
200 MVA and loading transformer rated 115/22 kV, 50 MVA.
The number of the tie transformer population is 117 units with 30 failure records, whereas a loading
transformer population is 186 units with 59 failure records. Thus, the total 89 failure events of 303
power transformers are systematically recorded and analyzed for the critical component and failure
causes. The largest proportion of the 200 MVA tie transformer as shown in Figure 5 is tank with
Figure 4. Database management program using spring MVC framework.
Figure 5. Defective components of tie-transformer 230/115 kV, 200 MVA.
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
40%, while the smallest proportion is self-protective devices or protection with 3.3%. However, active
part and arrester have not failed during the last 10 years. For the 50 MVA loading transformers as
shown in Figure 6, the largest proportion is OLTC with 25.4%, while the smallest proportion is insu-
lating oil with 1.7%.
Failure causes are classied into several types, i.e. ashover, leakage, winding short circuit and so
on as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. For example, the highest proportion of failures occurred in
the 200 MVA tie transformer is tank, which is mostly resulted from oil leakage. Similarly, for the
50 MVA loading transformer, the highest proportion of failure occurs with OLTC by oil leakage.
Figure 6. Defective components of loading transformer 115/22 kV, 50 MVA.
3.3%
13.3%
16.7%
40.0%
13.3% 13.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Insulating Oil Tank Protection OLTC Bushing Others
Test not passed
Dirty
Loose
Broken
Others
Wrong operation
Leakage
Figure 7. Failure statistics for tie-transformer 230/115 kV, 200 MVA.
3.4%
10.2%
15.3%
20.3%
3.4%
20.3%
1.7%
25.4%
30.0%
Flashover
Test not passed
Dirty
Loose
Unsmooth
Broken
Not work
Damage
Short circuit
Others
Wrong operation
Leakage
Hotspot
3.4%
10.2%
15.3%
20.3%
3.4%
20.3%
1.7%
25.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Active
Part
Insulating
Oil
Tank Protection OLTC Bushing Arrester Others
Figure 8. Failure statistics for loading transformer 115/22 kV, 50 MVA.
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
4.2. Weibull distribution analysis
For the transformers rating 230/115 kV 200 MVA and 115/22 kV 50 MVA, the failure components,
causes and calculated values of Weibull parameters are summarized in Table III.
The tank leakage of the 200 MVA transformers and the OLTC leakage of the 50 MVA transformers
are considered for the highest percentage of failure. For the tank leakage, the b of the 200 MVA trans-
formers is 2.25, leading to an increasing failure rate with increasing time, called wear-out period. The
Z and the MTBF are 15.04 and 13.32 years, respectively. The average lifetime of the tank is approx-
imately 13 years longer than that of the 50 MVA, approximately 7 years because the tank design of the
large transformers could be thicker than the smaller units. In case of OLTC, the b of OLTC leakage is
4.65, which is also in wear-out period. The Z and the MTBF are 17.82 and 16.30 years, respectively.
This implies that the average lifetime of the OLTC is approximately 16 years when the leakage prob-
lem is concerned. Unfortunately, the number of OLTC leakage of the 200 MVA transformers is only 1
record so that its average lifetime used to compare with the 50 MVA cannot be possibly estimated by
Weibull. However, OLTC of small transformers seems to fail more frequently than larger units due to
their load variation.
4.3. AHP analysis
As the tie transformers rating 230/115 kV, 200 MVA and loading transformer rating 115/22 kV, 50
MVA are selected in the analysis, component important weightings of these two groups are assessed
separately by using AHP technique.
4.3.1. AHP results for 230/115 kV 200 MVA tie transformers. Eigenvectors and the relative weights of
the pairwise comparison matrices are judged. Weights or priorities of criteria, sub-criteria and alterna-
tives are then determined and aggregated. Finally, the percentage of important weight factors of 230/
115 kV, 200 MVA power transformer components is accomplished reasonably as illustrated in
Table IV.
The result shows that the highest percentage of the importance weighting is bushing with 28.97%,
while the lowest is protective devices with 4.27%. This results from the fact that the decision makers
judge the bushing as the most critical component due to its experienced FC.
4.3.2. AHP results for 115/22 kV, 50 MVA loading transformers. Most eigenvectors and relative
weights of AHP pairwise comparison matrices for 50 MVA transformers are assumed equal to that
Table III. Weibull parameters for life time estimation.
Component Failure Rating b MTBF
Tank Leakage 230/115 kV 200 MVA 2.25 15.04 13.32
Tank Leakage 115/22 kV 50 MVA 3.94 7.35 6.66
Bushing Leakage 230 kV System 2.26 17.47 15.48
Bushing Leakage 115 kV System 1.39 12.29 11.22
OLTC Leakage 115/22 kV 50 MVA 4.65 17.82 16.30
Table IV. Important weighting for 230/115 kV, 200 MVA transformer components.
Transformer Components Important Weighting (%)
Active Part 13.48
Insulating Oil 11.00
Bushing 28.97
Arrester 9.75
OLTC 19.48
Tank 13.05
Protective Devices 4.27
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
of the 200 MVA transformers except the ones with respect to quantitative aspect, e.g. acquisition cost,
repairing time and FH. After the numbers in these matrices are normalized, the important weighting
factor in form of percentage for the 50 MVA transformer components can be concluded in Table V.
It has no doubt that bushing is the highest weighted component with 30.24% because the decision
makers judged that it is the most critical component due to its experienced FC, while the lowest pro-
portion is tank with 5.53%. Furthermore, the number of bushing failure record is in the second highest
proportion whereas the OLTC is the highest one.
4.4. Condition evaluation
The condition evaluations of 18 transformers as rating of 230/115 kV, 200 MVA tie transformers and
115/22 kV, 50 MVA loading transformers are presented. However, for describing the method, analysis
and result, only one transformer (T1) as the worst condition transformer is described as an example.
4.4.1. Condition of transformer (T1). The transformer T1 was installed in 1976 as rating of 115/22 kV,
50 MVA. Some test results are shown in Tables VIVIII. The condition of transformer T1 component is
assessed and shown by color indicators in Table IX.
Insulating oil of the OLTC is contaminated due to exceeding water content value. The dielectric
property of the oil deceases due to below limit value of dielectric breakdown and over limit of
power factor. In addition, the rate of C2H4 gas produced is higher compared to C2H2 gas
produced in the oil. By visual inspection, bottom color of silica gel of the OLTC conservator is
Table V. Overall priorities for 115/22 kV, 50 MVA transformer components.
Transformer Components Important Weighting (%)
Active Part 14.51
Insulating Oil 8.03
Bushing 30.24
Arrester 10.70
OLTC 23.23
Tank 5.53
Protective Devices 7.76
Table VI. Diagnostic test results of HV winding.
Exciting Current Leakage Impedance Ratio DC Winding Winding Insulation
[%Error] [%Error] [%Error] [%Error] [%PF]
8.47 1.85 (1f), 1.73 (3f) 0.38 11.17 0.25
Table VII. Diagnostic test results of on load tap changer.
Contact Contamination Dielectric Property
Transition Resistance Contact Wear Color Moisture Dielectric BD Power Factor
[%Error] [mm/100k times] - [ppm] [kV] [%]
7.80 0.50 0.5 24 40.06 0.4
Table VIII. Diagnostic test results of DGA of on load tap changer insulating oil.
CH
4
C
2
H
6
C
2
H
4
C
2
H
2
H
2
[ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm]
5023 5633 22 881 13 771 11 535
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
changed more than a quarter, and there are dried oil stains because oil leakage in the conservator
and OLTC compartment. This can be veried that the condition of the OLTC is poor and indi-
cated by red color.
For active part, the values of exciting current, leakage impedance, ratio and DC winding resis-
tance tests are above the maximum limit. After the analysis, the condition of windings is suspect
and indicated by yellow color. The windings might have a problem of short-turn and insulation
deterioration. This result can be conrmed by the higher CO2 gas concentration from dissolved
gas analysis test. In case of bushing, the exceeding power factor values and dark color of oil
detected by visual inspection provide suspect condition denoted by yellow color.
Arrester is also in suspect condition owing to below limit of insulation resistance.
For insulating oil, the value of interfacial intension is below the limit, while the values of acidity and
power factor are above. This means that the oil condition is suspect, represented by a yellowindicator.
Tank and accessories are in suspect condition as well, resulting from tear gasket of transformer
control cabinet, animal net found in radiator, dirty condition and support insulation as well as
loosing terminal connecter of neutral ground reactor, as observed by visual inspection.
The critical component required to be maintained rst is OLTC, while the other parts are focused
next. Therefore, the actual condition of the components is used to calculate the overall condition, ap-
proximately 64%, which is suspect and needs careful intension.
Table IX. Component condition of transformer T1.
Component Subcomponent Result Condition
Active Part Core Yellow Suspect
HV Winding Yellow Suspect
LV Winding Yellow Suspect
TV Winding Yellow Suspect
Bushing HV, LV, TV Yellow Suspect
Arrester HV, LV, TV Yellow Suspect
OLTC - Red Poor
Insulating Oil - Yellow Suspect
Tank - Yellow Suspect
0
20
40
60
80
100
T14 T15 T16 T17 T18
Active part
Bushing
Arrester
OLTC
Insulating oil
Tank
Protection
Overall
condition
Transformer condition
70%
35%
Transformer
Figure 9. Component and overall conditions of 200 MVA power transformers.
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
4.4.2. Conditions of a total 18 power transformers. The overall condition and the component condi-
tion of 18 sample transformers are evaluated and plotted in Figure 9 and Figure 10 for the 200 MVA
and the 50 MVA transformers, respectively. The higher percentage of the condition means poor con-
dition, which lies between 71 and 100%. The suspect condition is between 36% and 70%, while the
good condition is between 0% and 35%.
In case of 200 MVA transformers as presented in Figure 9, the active part is the critical components
with poor condition of transformers T14 and T18. Thus, it should be paid attention. However, T15,
T16 and T18 are the worst transformers of this group with 60% of overall condition. For the 50 MVA
transformers as presented in Figure 10, the active part is critical component with poor condition of
T4, T7, T9 and T10 while OLTC is that of T1 and T4. Furthermore, the worst transformer is T1 with
64% of overall condition. In practice, the evaluated transformer condition is veried by untanking some
transformers at the repair shop in the utility for internal investigation, especially windings. This provides a
response to an adjustment of scoring and weighting parameters in the evaluation to achieve the actual con-
dition. Finally, the developed power transformer condition-based maintenance program is implemented
as a decision support tool in a utility via web application in order to effectively plan the maintenance tasks.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The failure statistics of power transformers are analyzed to identify the percentage of failure and its
causes of each component. The Weibull distribution is used to determine the average lifetime of failed
components. The conditions of transformer components are evaluated by visual inspection, electrical
and insulating oil tests. The scoring and weighting technique is applied to assess the component con-
ditions whereas the important weighting factor of the components is determined based on AHP tech-
nique. Combining scoring, weighting and the AHP technique, the overall condition of the transformer
is assessed. The results show that by using the historical records with Weibull distribution techniques,
from a total of 303 transformers, the critical component for transformers rated 115/22 kV, 50 MVA is
OLTC with leakage failure and 16-year expected lifetime whereas the critical component for trans-
formers rated 230/115 kV, 200 MVA is tank with leakage failure and 13-year expected lifetime.
The developed method has been applied to 18 transformers, and it is found that the critical components
are active part and OLTC. The transformer T1 rated 115/22 kV, 50 MVA is the worst transformer
0
20
40
60
80
100
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Active part
Bushing
Arrester
OLTC
Insulating oil
Tank
Protection
Overall
condition
70%
35%
Transformer condition
Transformer
Figure 10. Component and overall conditions of 50 MVA power transformers.
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
with suspect overall condition. With the proposed condition-based maintenance strategy, power
transformers can be effectively maintained according to its actual condition. Finally, high avail-
ability and reliability, low risk of failure, lifetime extension and cost reduction for power trans-
former can be achieved. The proposed method will be further applied to other high voltage
equipment in Thailand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Transmission System Maintenance Division at Electricity Generating
Authority of Thailand (EGAT) for data support of this work.
REFERENCES
1.Xie Q, Li Y, Xie H, Lv F, Peng P. Large power transformer condition evaluation based on multilevel extension theory.
Proceeding of Internatinal Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies,
2008. Nanjing, China, 69 Apr. 2008, pp.933936.
2.Tang W.H., Spurgeon K, Wu Q.H., Senior Member, IEEE, Richardson Z.J. An evidential reasoning approach to
transformer condition assessments. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 2004, 19(4):16961703.
3.Liao R, Zheng H, Grzybowski S, Yang L, Zhang Y, Liao Y. An integrated decision-making model for condition as-
sessment of power transformers using fuzzy approach and evidential reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Power Deliv-
ery, 2011; 26(2):11111118.
4.Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1977;
15:5962.
5.Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, 1980.
6.Saaty TL. An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper: remarks on the analytic hierachy process. Management
Science 1990; 36(3):259268.
7.Chen Y, Yu J, Shahbaz K, Xevi E. A GIS-based sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights. Proceeding of 18
th
World IMACS/MODSIM Congress 2009, Cairns, Australia.
8.Grace K, Lee L, Edwin H, Chan W. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal
proposals. Social Indicators Research 2008; 89:155168.
9.Tahriri F, Osman MR, Ali A, Yusuff RM. A review of supplier selection methods in manufacturing industries.
Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology 2008; 15(3):201208.
10.Abernethy RB. The new weibull handbook 5
th
edition: reliability and statistical analysis for predicting life, safety,
supportability, risk, cost and warranty claims. Abernethy R B Publsher 2006.
11.Lai CD, Xie M, Murthy D.N.P. A modied weibull distribution. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2003; 52
(1):3337.
12.Dodson B. Weibull analysis handbook. 2nd Edn. 2006.
13.Schneider J, Gaul AJ, Neumann C, Hograefer J, Wellssow W, Schwan M, Schnettler A. Asset management tech-
niques. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 2006; 28:643654.
14.IEEE Std 621995 IEEE guide for diagnostic eld testing of electric power apparatus-part 1: oil lled power trans-
formers, regulators, and reactors. 1995.
15.IEEE Std C57.104-1991 IEEE guide for the interpretation of gases generated in oil-immersed transformers. 1992.
16.Mollmann A, Pahlavanpour B. New guidelines for interpretation of dissolved gas analysis in oil-lled transformers.
Electra, CIGRE France 1999; 186:3051.
17.Lin CE, Ling JM, Huang CL. An expert system for transformer fault diagnosis using dissolved gas analysis. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery 1993; 8:231238.
18.Wang M., Vandermaar AJ, Srivastava KD. Review of condition assessment of power transformer in service. IEEE
Electrical Insulation Magazine 2002; 18(6):1225.
19.Naderian A, Cress S, Piercy R, Wang F. Service J. An approach to determine the health index of power transformers.
Proceeding of IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 912 Jun.
2008. pp.192196.
20.Zhang X, Gockenbach E Asset-management of transformers based on condition monitoring and standard diagnosis.
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine 2008; 24(4):2640.
21.Daneshmand SV, Heydari H, Shakeri S. Multicriteria optimal winding scheme in HTS transformers by analytical hi-
erarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Appled Superconductivity 2011; 21(1):212.
22.Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering application:
some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering 1995; 2(1):3544.
23.Braglia M. MAFMA: multi-attribute failure mode analysis. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management 2000; 17(9):10171033.
24.Pirdashti M, Ghadi A, Mohammadi M, Shojatalab G. Multi-criteria decision-making selection model with applicaion
to chemical engineering management decisions. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49, 2009;
pp.5459.
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
25.Ahmad N, Laplante PA. Software projects management tools: making a practical decision using AHP. Proceedings of
the 30
th
Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop SEW-30, 2006, Columbia, Apr.2006, pp.7684.
26.Bozoki S, Rapcsak T. On Saatys and Koczkodajs inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of
Global Optimization 2008; 42(2):157175.
27.Goh HH, Kok BC. Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in load shedding scheme for electrical power sys-
tem. Proceeding of 9
th
International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), 2010, Prague,
Czech Republic, 1619 May 2010, pp.365368.
28.Tanaka H, Tsukao S, Yamashita D, Niimura T, Yokoyama R. Multiple criteria assessment of substation conditions by
pair-wise comparison of analytic hierachy process. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 2010; 25(4):30173023.
29.Saaty TL. Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making: why pairwise comparisons are central in
mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors-the analytic hierarchy network process. Review of the Royal
Spanish Acedemy of Sciences 2008; 102(2):251318.
30.Ozdagoglu A, Ozdagoglu G. Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making process with
linguistic evaluations. stanbul Ticaret niversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Yil: 6 Say:11Bahar2007/1 s. 6585. 2007.
31.Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services Sciences 2008; 1
(1):8398.
APPENDIX
PAIRWISE COMPARISON BY FOUR DECISION MAKERS
As the AHP evaluation is judged by the four different groups of experts in the utility, the aggregation
process is claried with an example of the main criteria in the analysis. Pairwise comparison matrices
lled by the four groups (A, B, C, D) with the three criteria, i.e. maintenance difculty (MD), failure
consequence (FC) and failure history (FH) are shown in Table A.I to Table A.IV, while Table A.V
shows the aggregated evaluation.
According to the evaluation of group A, the geometric mean in the rst row is calculated as follows.

1 1=7 2
3
_
0:6586
The mean values in the second and the third rows as well as in other tables are calculated corre-
spondingly. Subsequently, the mean values of each table are summed up as illustrated in the row.
The normalized weight can be determined by dividing each mean value by the sum. Note that the
weight values of each table must be totally equal to 1. For the aggregation evaluation, each element
of the matrix is calculated similarly by the geometric mean technique. For instance, the aggregated
value of criteria MD against FC is determined from the following equation.

7 5 9 1=5
4
_
2:8173
The inverse value is then determined as follows.

1=7 1=5 1=9 5

4
_
1=2:8173
The rest values in this aggregated matrix as well as the mean and the normalized weight are
determined in the similar calculation as above. The normalized weights of the sub-criteria including
shutdown (D1), normal monitoring (D2), special testing (D3), repair ability (R1), spare availability
(R2), knowledge (R3), acquisition cost (E1), repairing time (E2), transformer operation (O1), other
component (O2), other equipment (O3), social (V1) and people (V2) are calculated and summarized
in Table A.VI.
In the alternative level or the power transformer components in this case, pairwise comparisons of
one component against the others with respect to each sub-criterion are performed and aggregated;
for example, the comparison for transformer operation (O1) of the failure consequence is shown in
Table A.VII, while normalized weights of the transformer components with respect to the failure his-
tory are shown in Table A.VIII for 50 MVA transformers.
The normalized weights of the transformer components by several sub-criteria for the 200 MVA and
50 MVA transformers are summarized in Table A.IX and Table A.X, respectively. Consequently, the
values of each row are summed to achieve the important weighting of each power transformer compo-
nent, whereas C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 and W represent active part, insulating oil, bushing, arrester,
on load tap changer, tank, protective and weight, respectively.
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
Table AI. AHP evaluation by group A.
MD FC FH Mean Weight
MD 1 1/7 2 0.6586 0.1312
FC 7 1 9 3.9791 0.7928
FH 1/2 1/9 1 0.3816 0.0760
- - - 5.0193 1
Table AII. AHP evaluation by group B.
MD FC FH Mean Weight
MD 1 1/5 1/9 0.2811 0.0629
FC 5 1 1/3 1.1856 0.2654
FH 9 3 1 3.0000 0.6716
- - - 4.4668 1
Table AIII. AHP evaluation by group C.
MD FC FH Mean Weight
MD 1 1/9 1/3 0.3333 0.0704
FC 9 1 5 3.5569 0.7514
FH 3 1/5 1 0.8434 0.1782
- - - 4.7337 1
Table AIV. AHP evaluation by group D.
MD FC FH Mean Weight
MD 1 5 9 3.5569 0.7514
FC 1/5 1 3 0.8434 0.1782
FH 1/9 1/3 1 0.3333 0.0704
- - - 4.7337 1
Table AV. AHP aggregated evaluation.
MD FC FH Mean Weight
MD 1 1/2.8173 1/1.1067 0.6845 0.2027
FC 2.8173 1 2.5900 1.9396 0.5743
FH 1.1067 1/2.5900 1 0.7532 0.2230
- - - 3.3773 1
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
Table AVI. Normalized weights of sub-criteria.
Main criteria Sub-criteria Sub-criteria Weight
Maintenance Difculty, 0.2027 Detectability D1 0.0487
D2 0.0190
D3 0.0148
Resource R1 0.0205
R2 0.0265
R3 0.0164
Effort E1 0.0511
E2 0.0057
Failure Consequence, 0.5743 Operability O1 0.3884
O2 0.0921
O3 0.0364
Environment V1 0.0431
V2 0.0144
Failure History, 0.2230 - - 0.2230
Table AVII. AHP aggregated evaluation with respect to transformer operation.
Active
part Oil Bushing Arrester OLTC Tank Protective Mean Weight
Active part 1 2.63 1/2.21 1.26 1/1.57 6.90 4.86 1.64 0.1694
Oil 1/2.63 1 1/4.40 1/1.73 1/3.36 4.23 2.21 0.75 0.0778
Bushing 2.21 4.40 1 3.46 2 8.45 6.44 3.23 0.3333
Arrester 1/1.26 1.73 1/3.46 1 1/2.45 6.19 4.16 1.23 0.1266
OLTC 1.57 3.36 1/2 2.45 1 7.44 5.42 2.21 0.2284
Tank 1/6.90 1/4.23 1/8.45 1/6.19 1/7.44 1 1/2 0.24 0.0246
Protective 1/4.86 1/2.21 1/6.44 1/4.16 1/5.42 2 1 0.39 0.0398
- - - - - - - 9.69 1
Table AVIII. Normalization of weight with respect to failure history.
Number of failures Weight
Active part 2 0.0426
Oil 1 0.0213
Bushing 12 0.2553
Arrester 2 0.0426
OLTC 15 0.3191
Tank 6 0.1277
Protective 9 0.1915
47 1
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
X
.
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
0
M
V
A
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
s
.
D
1
D
2
D
3
R
1
R
2
R
3
E
1
E
2
O
1
O
2
O
3
V
1
V
2
F
H
W
C
1
0
.
0
1
1
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
2
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
6
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
1
3
5
C
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
3
4
0
.
1
1
0
C
3
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
4
3
0
.
2
9
0
C
4
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
4
9
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
9
8
C
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
8
9
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
3
4
0
.
1
9
5
C
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
1
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
C
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
4
3

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
T. SUWANASRI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
T
a
b
l
e
A
X
.
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
5
0
M
V
A
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
s
.
D
1
D
2
D
3
R
1
R
2
R
3
E
1
E
2
O
1
O
2
O
3
V
1
V
2
F
H
W
C
1
0
.
0
1
1
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
6
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
1
4
5
C
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
8
0
C
3
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
5
7
0
.
3
0
2
C
4
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
4
9
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
1
0
7
C
5
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
8
9
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
7
1
0
.
2
3
2
C
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
0
5
5
C
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
4
3
0
.
0
7
8

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE, POWER TRANSFORMER, CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep