Together We Power The World

Techniques for Interpretation of Data for DGA From Transformers

Lance Lewand, Doble Engineering

Purpose of DGA
To provide a non-intrusive means to determine if a transformer incipient fault condition exists or not Too conservative Too liberal To have a high probability that when entering an transformer a problem is apparent To prevent an unexpected outage To reduce risk to the unit and the system/company

2006 IEEE Conference

Interpretation Techniques
Incipient Fault Types, Frank M. Clark, 1933/1962 Drnenburg Ratios, E. Drnenburg, 1967, 1970 Potthoffs Scheme, K. Potthoff, 1969 Absolute limits, various sources, early 1970s Shanks Visual Curve method, 1970s Trilinear Plot Method, 1970s Key Gas Method, David Pugh, 1974 Duval Triangle, Michel Duval, 1974
2006 IEEE Conference

Interpretation Techniques
Rogers Ratios, R.R. Rogers, 1975 Glass Criterion, R.M Glass, 1977 Trend Analysis, various sources, early 1980s
total volume per day ppm per day

Church Logarithmic Nomograph, J.O. Church, 1980s Expert System Analysis, Richard Lowe, 1985

2006 IEEE Conference

Interpretation Techniques
Expert System Monitor Program, Karen Barrett, 1989 Transformer Fingerprinting IEEE C57.104, Limits, rates and TDCG, 1978/1991 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and Fuzzy Logic
X. Ding, E. Yao, Y. Liu and Paul Griffin, 1996 Vladimiro Miranda and Adriana Garcez Castro, 2004 Donald Lamontagne, 2006
2006 IEEE Conference

Interpretation Techniques
IEC 60599 Ratios, Limits and gassing rates, 1999 Datamining and Log Transformation, Tony McGrail, 2000 Vector Algorithm, Nick Dominelli, Mike Lau & David Pugh, 2004

2006 IEEE Conference

Most Commonly Used

Duval Triangle IEEE C57.104, Limits, rates and TDCG Straight Limits Key Gas Method Drnenburg Ratios Rogers Ratios IEC 60599 Ratios and Limits Trend Analysis Fingerprints Expert System Analysis
2006 IEEE Conference

Dissolved Gas Acceptable Limits Various Sources

H2
*IEEE

CO

CH4
120 121-400 401-1000 >1000 42.2

C2H6
65 66-100 101-150 >150 85.6

C2H4
50 51-100 101-200 >200 74.6

C2H2
35 36-50 51-80 >80 --

CO2
2500 2500-4000 4001-10000 >10000 3771

TCG
720 721-1920 1921-4630 >4630 520

**Electra (CIGRE) IEC 60599 Typical Range Manufact.

350 100 101-700 351-570 701-1800 571-1400 >1400 >1800 28.6 289

60-150

540-900

40-110

50-90

60-280

3-50

5100-13000

200 (250)

500 (1000)

100 (200)

100 (200)

150 (300)

15 (35)

---

1065 1985

*IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVISED **CORRECTED VALUES 1978 ( ) VALUE 6 7 YEARS

2006 IEEE Conference

Key Gases - Arcing

100 90 80 Combustibles, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2

2006 IEEE Conference

Key Gases - Overheating, Oil

100 90 80 Combustibles, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2

2006 IEEE Conference

Key Gases - Partial Discharge

100 90 80 Combustibles, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2

2006 IEEE Conference

Key Gases - Overheating, Paper

100 90 80 Combustibles, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2

2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Ratio Method Started out as only two ratios

CH4/H2 C2H2/C2H4 plotted on a log-log scale. The areas corresponded to thermal deterioration, arcing and partial discharge too many faults missed - went to 4 ratios

Ratio 1 (R1)=CH4/H2 Ratio 2 (R2)=C2H2/C2H4 Ratio 3 (R3)=C2H2/CH4 Ratio 4 (R4)=C2H6/C2H2

2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Ratio Method Used to determine 3 general fault types

Thermal faults Electrical Faults, low intensity discharges Electrical Faults, high intensity arcing

2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Ratio-Minimum
Gas Levels (Drnenburg & IEEE Levels)
Hydrogen Methane Carbon Monoxide Acetylene Ethylene Ethane 200 50 1000 15 60 15 100 120 350 35 50 65

2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Ratio
Criteria for application - a fault exists
One Gas > 2 x minimum level At lest one gas > minimum level

Determine Validity, L1 norm test

One gas in each ratio > minimum

Compare ratios to Fault Diagnosis Table All fall within one condition-valid diagnosis

2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Ratio-Fault Diagnosis Table, from the oil

R1 CH4/H2 1-Thermal Decomp 2-Low Intensity PD 3-Arcing >1.0 <0.1 >0.1,<1.0

R2 R3 R4 C2H2/C2H4 C2H2/CH4 C2H6/C2H2 <0.75 Not Sig >0.75 <0.3 <0.3 >0.3 >0.4 >0.4 <0.4

Valid only if all the ratios for a particular fault type are met.
2006 IEEE Conference

Drnenburg Flowchart

From IEEE C57.104 - 1991

2006 IEEE Conference

Initial Rogers Ratios

Took information from Halsteads thermal equilibrium and Drnenberg ratios along with information from faulted units Originally developed four ratios CH4/H2 C2H6/CH4 C2H4/C2H6 C2H2/C2H4 Came up with a 4 number code that identified 11 incipient fault conditions and a normal condition
2006 IEEE Conference

Halsteads Thermal Equilibrium

2006 IEEE Conference

Initial Rogers Ratios

Ratio Range
0.1 >0.1 <1 1 <3 3 <1 1 <1 1 <3 3 < 0.5 0.5 <3 3

Code
5 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2
2006 IEEE Conference

CH4/H2 C2H6/CH4 C2H4/C2H6 C2H2/C2H4

Rogers Fault Diagnosis Table

CH4/H2 C2H6/CH4 C2H4/C2H6 C2H2/C2H4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Diagnosis Normal Partial Discharge Slight Overheating below 150C Slight Overheating 150C to 200C Slight Overheating 200C to 300C General conductor overheating Winding circulating currents Core and tank circulating currents, overheated joints Flashover without power follow through Arc with power follow through Continuous sparking to floating potential Partial discharge with tracking

2006 IEEE Conference

Refined Rogers Ratio Three ratios

Ratio 1 (R1)=CH4/H2 Ratio 2 (R2)=C2H2/C2H4 Ratio 5 (R5)=C2H4/C2H6

No minimum levels
suggested when normal levels exceeded

2006 IEEE Conference

Refined Rogers Ratio-Fault Diagnosis

Case R2 C 2H 2/C 2H 4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1-3.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 R1 CH 4/H 2 >0.1,<1.0 <0.1 0.1-1.0 >0.1<1.0 >1.0 >1.0 R5 C 2H 4/C 2H 6 <1.0 <1.0 >3.0 1.0-3.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 Fault

0 1 2 3 4 5

Normal Low energy PD Arcing Low temp thermal Thermal <700C Thermal >700C

2006 IEEE Conference

Rogers Ratios Flowchart

From IEEE C57.104 - 1991

2006 IEEE Conference

IEC 60599 Identifies 6 different fault types

PD: Partial Discharge D1: Discharge of low energy D2: Discharge of high energy T1: Thermal fault, t <300C T2: Thermal fault, 300C < t < 700 C T3: Thermal fault, t > 700 C

Uses a combination of ratios (based on Rogers Ratios), gas concentrations and rates of gas increase
2006 IEEE Conference

IEC 60599 Ratio-Fault Diagnosis

R2 C 2 H 2 /C 2 H 4 NS >1 0.6-2.5 NS <0.1 <0.2 R1 C H 4 /H 2 <0.1 0.1-0.5 0.1-1 >1 (N S) >1 >1 R5 C 2 H 4 /C 2 H 6 <0.2 >1 >2 <1 1-4 >4 Fault

PD D 1 -Low energ y D 2 H igh energ y T 1 <300C T 2 >300C <700 C T herm al >700 C

NS = not significant regardless of value

Concentrations should be 10 x S (MDL)

2006 IEEE Conference

IEC 60599 Rates of gas increase >10% increase per month above typical levels = active fault >50% per week or evolving faults of higher energy = serious

2006 IEEE Conference

IEC 60599 Typical Gas Levels

H2
IEC 60599 Typical Range Communi cating OLTC 60-150

CO
540-900

CH4
40-110

C2 H6
50-90

C2 H4
60-280

C2H2
3-50

CO2
5100-13000

75-150

400-850

35-130

50-70

110-250

80-270

5300-12000

Note in IEC 60599: Typical values are higher in sealed transformers than free breathing transformers

2006 IEEE Conference

Ratio Methods Advantages

quantitative independent of oil volume can be computer programmed

Disadvantages
dont always yield an analysis not always correct dependence of preservation system Dornenburg has fallen out of favor because it misses too many incipient faults
2006 IEEE Conference

Ratio Methods Solid insulation handled separately using carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide ratios

2006 IEEE Conference

Trend Analysis Historical Information

Has the percent TCG in the gas space risen suddenly? Has the percent TCG in the oil risen suddenly? Nameplate information How old in the transformer?

2006 IEEE Conference

Trend Analysis
Did a bushing fail at some point? Did the transformer fail previously? If the unit has been repaired and was the oil filtered or degassed? Is the unit heavily loaded or overloaded? Previous dissolved gas-in-oil test?

2006 IEEE Conference

Transformer Fingerprints

GAS (PPM)
Hydrogen Methane Carbon Monoxide Ethane Carbon Dioxide Ethylene Acetylene

Initial
350 44 670 26 3000 9 --

3
260 61 650 25 1900 5 --

Initial
110 11 520 3 5000 8 --

3
210 13 630 4 3900 10 --

2006 IEEE Conference

Transformer Fingerprints
GAS (PPM)
Hydrogen Methane Carbon Monoxide Ethane Carbon Dioxide Ethylene Acetylene

Initial
0 92 370 2300 6000 180 0

3
1 69 400 2300 6800 180 0

Initial
0 15 33 560 1800 9 0

3
0 18 57 520 2200 6 0

2006 IEEE Conference

Carbon Oxide Gases and Ratios Cellulose Insulation

Shell form > CO2 than core form - due to mass Accidental CO2 CO2/CO : 3 -14:1 CO2/CO Avg. 7:1 Approach 1 high temperature faults High CO2 with low CO-lack of cooling/general overheating
2006 IEEE Conference

Pitfalls Gases produced not as a result of incipient fault condition

Leaking between tap changers and main tank lower voltage transformers having higher CO and CO2 values as a result of non-vacuum Hitreatment Welding producing acetylene and other gases Out-gassing of paints and gaskets, usually CO and CO2 Stray gassing characteristics
2006 IEEE Conference

Pitfalls Incipient Faults not really covered

production of hydrogen from overheated oil thin films on core laminations (>140C) Oxidation and thermal heating of the oil causing the production of CO and CO2

Gases produced not as a result of incipient fault condition

Leaking between the tap changer and main tank
2006 IEEE Conference

Pitfalls
Galvanic reactions (steel + water + O2 = hydrogen production) lower voltage transformers having higher CO and CO2 values as a result of non-vacuum treatment, oxygen + heat Welding producing acetylene and other gases Out-gassing of paints, gaskets & polymers, usually CO and CO2

2006 IEEE Conference

Pitfalls
Stray gassing characteristics (highly refined oils H2) Contaminants produce gases Decomposition of additives such as passivators can produce gases as well (H2 and CO2)

2006 IEEE Conference

In Reality - Expert Systems are Used History Key gases Ratios Fingerprints - similar populations Trend analysis Internal databases Total combustible gas Use the tools in Rate of gas generation the toolbox, not just one!!! A human expert
2006 IEEE Conference

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

2006 IEEE Conference

IEEE/PES Transformer Committee Montreal, Canada Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Dissolved gas analysis and the Duval Triangle

by Michel Duval

-DGA is for Dissolved Gas Analysis. -DGA is probably the most powerful tool for detecting faults in electrical equipment in service. -Over one million DGA analyses are performed each year by more than 400 laboratories worldwide.

-Gases in oil always result from the decomposition of electrical insulation materials (oil or paper), as a result of faults or chemical reactions in the equipment. -for example, oil is a molecule of hydrocarbons, i.e., containing hydrogen and carbon atoms, linked by chemical bonds (C-H, C-C).

-some of these bonds may break and form H*, CH3*, CH2* and CH* radicals.

All these radicals then recombine to form the fault gases observed in oil:

-in addition to these gases, the decomposition of paper produces CO2, CO and H2O, because of the presence of oxygen atoms in the molecule of cellulose:

The main gases analyzed by DGA

Hydrogen Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene Carbon dioxide Oxygen Nitrogen H2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2 CO2 O2 N2

Carbon monoxide CO

-some of these gases will be formed in larger or smaller quantities depending on the energy content of the fault. -for example, low energy faults such as corona partial discharges in gas bubbles, or low temperature hot spots, will form mainly H2 and CH4.

-faults of higher temperatures are necessary to form large quantities of C2H4. -and finally, it takes faults with a very high energy content, such as in electrical arcs, to form large amounts of C2H2. -by looking at the relative proportion of gases in the DGA results it is possible to identify the type of fault occurring in a transformer in service.

Gas formation patterns -are related only to the materials used and faults involved. -are the same in all equipment where these materials are used (e.g., sealed or air-breathing power transformers, reactors, instrument transformers, LTCs, etc).

Standards/ Guides for the interpretation of DGA: -IEC Publication 60599 (1999). -IEEE Guide C57.104 (1991) (under revision).

Other useful information in: -IEEE EI.Mag., Apr. 2001, June 2002, Aug. 2005. -CIGRE Brochure # 296 (2006).

6 basic types of faults detectable by DGA have been defined by the IEC: 1.Partial discharges of the corona-type (PD). -typical examples: discharges in gas bubbles or voids trapped in paper, as a result of poor drying or poor oil-impregnation.

2.Discharges of low energy (D1) -typical examples: partial discharges of the sparking-type, inducing carbonized punctures in paper. -or low-energy arcing, inducing surface tracking of paper and carbon particles in oil.

3.Discharges of high energy (D2) -typical examples: high energy arcing, flashovers and short circuits with power followthrough, resulting in extensive damage to paper, large formation of carbon particles in oil, metal fusion, tripping of the equipment or gas alarms .

4.Thermal faults of temperatures < 300 C (T1) Faults T1 are evidenced by paper turning: -brown (> 200 C). -black or carbonized (> 300 C). Typical examples: overloading, blocked oil ducts

5.Thermal faults of temperatures between 300 and 700C (T2) Faults T2 are evidenced by : -carbonization of paper. -formation of carbon particles in oil. Typical examples: defective contacts, defective welds, circulating currents.

6.Thermal faults of temperatures > 700C (T3) Faults T3 are evidenced by : -extensive formation of carbon particles in oil. -metal coloration (800 C) or metal fusion (> 1000 C). Typical examples: large circulating currents in tank and core, short circuits in laminations.

Several diagnosis methods have been proposed to identify these faults in service. The first one was the Dornenburg method in Switzerland in the late 1960s, then the Rogers method in UK in the mid 1970s. Variations on these methods have later been proposed by the IEC (60599) and IEEE.

All these methods use 3 basic gas ratios: (CH4/H2, C2H2/C2H4 and C2H6/C2H4). Depending on the values of these gas ratios, codes or zones are defined for each type of fault. One drawback of these methods is that no diagnosis can be given in a significant number of cases, because they fall outside the defined zones.

Another method used by IEEE is the so-called keygas method, which looks at the main gas formed for each fault, e.g, C2H2 for arcing. One drawback of this method is that it often provides wrong diagnoses.

Finally, there is the Triangle method, which was developed empirically in the early 1970s, and which is used by the IEC. 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.

Comparison of diagnosis methods.

% Unresolved diagnoses 0 33 % Wrong diagnoses 58 5 3 8 4 % Total 58 38 29 23 4

Key gases Rogers

Dornenburg 26 IEC Triangle 15 0

The triangle representation also allows to easily follow graphically and visually the evolution of faults with time. However, many people are not quite familiar with the use of triangular coordinates, so I will try to explain that in more detail today.

The triangle method.

The triangle method plots the relative % of CH4, C2H4 and C2H2 on each side of the triangle, from 0% to 100%. The 6 main zones of faults are indicated in the triangle, plus a DT zone (mixture of thermal and electrical faults).

FAQ: How fault zones have been defined in the Triangle ?

Answer: Fault zones are based on a large number of cases of faulty transformers in service which have been inspected visually.

Cases of faults PD and D1

tracking;

sparking;

small arcing.

Cases of faults D2

Cases of thermal faults in oil only

circulating currents ; laminations ; bad contacts

Cases of thermal faults in paper

brownish paper ; carbonized paper ; not mentioned

FAQ: how corona PDs, which form a lot of H2, can be identified in the Triangle without using this gas ?

Answer: in such faults, CH4 is indeed formed in smaller amounts than H2 (typically 10 to 20 times less), but can still be measured easily by DGA.

FAQ: in the Triangle, why not use H2 rather than CH4 to represent low energy faults ? Answer: because CH4 provides better overall diagnoses for all types of faults. A possible explanation (?): H2 diffuses much more rapidly than hydrocarbon gases from transformer oil. This will affect gas ratios using H2 but not those using hydrocarbon gases.

FAQ: So, how to use the triangle ? If for example the DGA lab results are: CH4 = 100 ppm C2H4 = 100 ppm C2H2 = 100 ppm First calculate: CH4 + C2H4 + C2H2 = 300 ppm.

Then calculate the relative % of each gas: relative % of CH4 = 100 / 300 = 33,3 % relative % of C2H4 = 100 / 300 = 33,3 % relative % of C2H2 = 100 / 300 = 33,3 % These values are the triangular coordinates to be used on each side of the triangle. To verify that the calculation was done correctly, the sum of these 3 values should always give 100%, and should correspond to only one point in the triangle.

Each DGA analysis received from the lab will always give only one point in the triangle.

The zone in which the point falls in the Triangle will identify the fault responsible for the DGA results.

The calculation of triangular coordinates can easily be done manually, or with the help of a small algorithm or software. Errors are often made when developing such an algorithm, so check it first with the free algorithm available from me (duvalm@ireq.ca).

For those familiar with computer graphics, it is also possible to develop a software displaying the point and the fault zones graphically in the triangle. Several software packages are available for DGA interpretation using the triangle method

The Triangle, being a graphical method, allows to easily follow the evolution of faults with time, for instance from a thermal fault to a potentially much more severe fault such as D2.

The most severe faults: -faults D2 in paper and in oil (high-energy arcing) -faults T2-T3 in paper (>300 C) -faults D1 in paper (tracking, arcing) -faults T3 in oil (>700 C)

The less severe faults: -faults PD/ D1 in oil (sparking) -faults T1 in paper (<300 C) -faults T2 in oil (<700 C) -are difficult to find by inspection

A fault in paper is generally considered as more serious than a fault in oil only, because paper is often placed in a HV area (windings, barriers). A popular ratio used to detect paper involvement is the CO2 / CO ratio. If the CO2 / CO ratio is < 3, this is a strong indication of a fault in paper, either a hot spot or electrical arcing.

The CO2 / CO ratio, however, is not very accurate, because it is also affected by the background of CO2 and CO coming from oil oxidation.

The amounts of furans in oil may also be used in some cases to confirm paper involvement, however, the interpretation of results is often difficult.

Other useful gas ratios:

. -O / N : a decrease of this ratio indicates excessive 2 2

heating (< 0.3 in breathing transformers).

-C2H2/ H2 : a ratio > 3 in the main tank indicates contamination by the LTC compartment

Gassing not related to faults in service:

.-Catalytic reactions on metal surfaces: formation

of H2 only. -Stray gassing of oil: the unexpected gassing of oil at relatively low temperatures (80 to 200 C): gassing of the T1 or T2 type.

Minimum gas formation to attempt a diagnosis: -first limit is related to lab accuracy. -second limit to economic reasons.

First limit: lab accuracy The accuracy of the average CIGRE /IEC lab is ~ 15% at medium (routine) gas concentrations (> 10 ppm for hydrocarbons).

Its accuracy decreases to ~ 30% at 6 ppm, and 100% near the lab detection limit (2 ppm).

Effect of lab accuracies of 15 and 30% on DGA diagnosis uncertainty (in red and blue).

When an area of uncertainty crosses several fault zones in the triangle, a reliable diagnosis cannot be given. This is particularly true for lab accuracies > 30%.

Diagnosis uncertainty corresponding to lab inaccuracies of 15, 30, 50 and 75 %:

This applies not only to the triangle but to all diagnosis methods.

How inaccurate are the laboratories at medium gas concentrations ?

How inaccurate are at low gas concentrations ?

Minimum gas concentrations to attempt a diagnosis. If for example lab accuracy is 15% at medium gas levels (>10 ppm): If some gases are < 6 ppm, diagnoses will be uncertain, and a calculation of diagnosis uncertainty should be done. Commercial software is available for that purpose.

If lab accuracy is between 15% and 30%, diagnoses will be uncertain at all gas concentrations, and a calculation of diagnosis uncertainty necessary. Above 30% or 50%, diagnoses become too uncertain. Lab and gas monitor accuracies can be obtained by using gas-in-oil standards. Such standards are available commercially.

Second limit: typical values A recommendation of CIGRE and the IEC is that DGA diagnosis should be attempted only if gas concentrations or rates of gas increase in oil are high enough to be considered significant. Low gas levels may be due to contamination or aging of insulation, not necessarily to an actual fault.

Also, there is always a small level of gases in service, and it would not be economically viable to suspect all pieces of equipment. So, it is better to concentrate on the upper percentile of the transformer population with the highest gas levels.

This is the philosophy behind the use of 90% typical concentrations and 90% typical rates of increase, in order to concentrate maintenance efforts on the 10% of the population most at risk. A consensus has been reached at CIGRE on typical values observed in service worldwide (CIGRE Brochure # 296, 2006).

Ranges of 90 % typical concentration values for power transformers, in ppm:

C2H2 All transformers No OLTC Communicating OLTC 2-20 60-280 H2 50150 CH4 30130 C2H4 60280 C2H6 2090 CO 400600 CO2 380014000

Ranges of 90 % typical rates of gas increase for power transformers, in ppm/year:

C2H2 All transformers No OLTC Communicating OLTC 0-4 21-37 H2 35132 CH4 10120 C2H4 32146 C2H6 590 CO 2601060 CO2 170010,000

90% typical values are within the same range on all networks, with some differences related to individual loading conditions, equipment used, manufacturers, climate, etc. Each individual network therefore should preferably calculate its own specific typical values.

Influence of some parameters on typical values: -Typical values are significantly higher in young equipment (suggesting there are some unstable chemical bonds in new oil and paper ?). -A bit higher in very old equipment. -Significantly lower in instrument transformers. -Higher in shell-type and shunt reactors (operating at higher temperatures ?).

-Typical values are not affected by oil volume (suggesting that larger faults are formed in larger transformers ?). -Typical values are very similar in air-breathing and in sealed or nitrogen blanketed equipment, contrary to a common belief in the US.

90% typical values in California vs. CIGRE values, in ppm:

C2H2 CIGRE/ IEC 220 3 H2 50150 96 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 30130 88 60280 57 2090 79 CO CO2

400- 3800600 14000 613 5991

California

When DGA results in service reach typical values: -a diagnosis may be attempted to identify the fault (if lab accuracy is good enough). -the equipment should not be considered at risk. -however, it should be monitored more frequently by DGA.

To evaluate how much at risk a transformer may become above typical values, the probability of failure in service (PFS) has to be examined. PFS has been defined as the number of DGA analyses followed by a failure-related event (e.g., tripping, fault gas alarm, fire, etc), divided by the total number of analyses, at a given gas concentration.

Probability of having a failure-related event ( PFS, % ) vs. the concentration of C2H2 in ppm at HQ
90
PFS, in %

98

99 Norm, in %

100

300

400

ppm

The PFS remains almost constant below and above the 90% typical value, until it reaches an inflexion point on the curve (pre-failure value).

DGA monitoring should be done more and more frequently as gas concentrations increase from typical to pre-failure value.

Pre-failure concentration values were found by CIGRE to be surprisingly close on different networks:
H2 2401320 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO 270- 700460 990 7501800 310600 9843000

(in ppm)

This suggests that failure occurs when a critical amount of insulation is destroyed.

In-between typical and pre-failure values, specific alarm values can be defined, depending on the tolerance to risk of the maintenance personnel, and on the maintenance budget available. For example, higher alarm values may be used when the maintenance budget is low, and lower alarm values in the case of strategic equipment.

Pre-failure rates of gas increase (slope 3) are in preparation at CIGRE.

Concentration

Time

Pre-failure rates of gas increase in power transformers, in ppm/ day

C2H2 0.5 H2 3 CH4 5 C2H4 5 C2H6 11 CO NS CO2 NS

On-line gas monitors -are best suited for measuring rates of gas increase (trends). -will detect faults between regular oil samplings. -may now also provide on-line diagnosis.

The triangle can also be used to identify faults in tap changers.

: Normal operation; :Severe coking; : Light coking; : strong arcing D2; : Arcing D1

: Heating;

Thanks a lot for your attention.

An Artificial Neural Networks Approach to Transformer Dissolved Gas Analysis and Problem Notification
Donald Lamontagne Section Leader T&D Reliability Analysis and Management Arizona Public Service EPRI Substation Equipment Diagnostic Conference XIV Marriott Hotel and Marina San Diego, CA July 17, 2006

Agenda
Events On-Line DGA Monitoring Neural Networks APS TOAN System Conclusions Questions?

Events

Westwing
6/14/2004 and 7/4/2004 Events

6/14/2004
Sustained fault on 230kV Westwing Liberty line One breaker failed to open Initial fault split between three banks Communication error on breaker status Last fault through one bank only Post event DGA and thermography

Damaged Transformers
Five 500MVA, Single Phase, 525/230/13.8kV Autotransformers w/ LTC Westinghouse 1973 vintage 14,500 gals of oil in the main tank

Damaged Phases

7/5/2004

Deer Valley
7/20/2004 T928 Type U bushing failure
167MVA, three phase, 230/69kV FPE 1978 vintage Bushing was Doble tested in 2002 with no issues

Replacement T873
167MVA, three phase, 230/69kV Westinghouse 1979 vintage Removed from service 5/2004 for upgrade to 188MVA Returned to service 7/25/2004 to replace failed T928

T873 DGA Results

O2 3/26/2004 8/18/2004 3/28/2005 627 750 2734 N2 59261 4637 66252 CO2 2131 1015 806 CO 17 54 41 H2 9 13 3922 CH4 3 37 446 C2H6 3 36 70 C2H4 2 3 617 C2H2 0 0 2635

All gases from the 8/18/2004 sample were below the IEEE C57.104 Condition 1 levels indicating the transformer was behaving normally. The 3/28/2004 sample has H2, C2H4, C2H2 and TDCG at Condition 4 and CH4 at Condition 3.

On-Line DGA Monitoring

On-Line DGA Monitoring

Began utilizing in the summer of 2003 Currently using Serveron TrueGas and TM8 models Continuously sample eight gases (hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, ethylene, CO, CO2, O2) and report every four hours through gas chromatography Currently installed on fifty-two 230kV and above transformers and shunt reactors.

Source: www.serveron.com

Laboratory Grade Gas Chromatography

Gas Accuracy Hydrogen H2 Oxygen O2 Methane CH4 Carbon Monoxide CO Carbon Dioxide CO2 Ethylene C2H4 Ethane C2H6 Acetylene C2H2 5% or 3 ppm 5% or +30/-0 ppm 5% or 5 ppm 5% or 5 ppm 5% or 5 ppm 5% or 3 ppm 5% or 5 ppm 5% or 1 ppm Repeatability <2% <1% <1% <2% <1% <1% <1% <2% Range 3-3,000 ppm 30-25,000 ppm 5-7,000 ppm 5-10,000 ppm 5-30,000 ppm 3-5,000 ppm 5-5,000 ppm 1-3,000 ppm

Artificial Neural Networks

Artificial Neural Networks

A network of nodes and weighted connections, which are loosely analogous to the neurons and synapses in the brain. Each node sums the inputs from several incoming weighted connections and then applies a transfer function to the sum. The transfer function is a smooth, nonlinear function
logistic function hyperbolic tangent

Neural Networks
i1

i2

in Input Layer

Hidden Layer 1

Hidden Layer 2 Output Layer

Neural Network Training

Underfitting and Overfitting

x x

x x x

x x

xx

x x

x x x

x x

xx

x x

x x x

x x

xx

Underfitting

Correct Fit

Overfitting

(Transformer Oil Analysis and Notification)

APS TOAN

Traditional Analysis
Testing accuracy of traditional methods
Diagnosis Methods Dornenberg Ratio Rogers Ratio IEC 599 Success 22.9% 24.8% 42.9% Error 65.2% 12.4% 24.8% Not Identifiable 11.9% 62.9% 32.4%

APS TOAN
~ 114,000 DGA samples/year Utilizes VTs ANNEPS engine (w/ modifications)
ANN combined with Expert System

Tested at ~ 93% accuracy in predicting fault type Exception based processing system

APS TOAN
Some Modifications to VTs System:
Gassing rates Nine vs. eight gases Minimum gas levels Added a Polling Engine Added a Notification Engine

TOAN Provides Answers

Who Transformer ID When When the sample was taken? What What are the gas values and what type of fault is it? How How severe is it? Where Where is the fault likely located?

Example Report Who and When

Transformer Description Taken By T629 (Four Corners 350KV) [ Level = 1 : IMMEDIATE ATTENTION ] FC3 U4 GSU SO. XFMR 345Y/199.186-22KV, 308MVA 1-P SERVERON

Sample ID 7412 7410

Sample Date 6/5/2006 5:00:00 PM 6/5/2006 1:00:00 PM

Sample Received Date 6/5/2006 5:58:25 PM 6/5/2006 2:58:09 PM

Days 0.167

What
Gas in Oil
Current Sample Hydrogen Methane Acetylene Ethylene Ethane CO CO2 O2 N2 THG TDCG TCG% 35.2 ++ 543.8 ++ 15.7 ++ 1875.4 ++ 341.5 ++ 503.8 ++ 6695.4 10613.4 59346.8 ++ 2776.4 ++ 3315.4 1.0 Previous Sample 34.7 542.1 24.6 1888.4 342.7 503.2 6681.3 10671.6 58284.8 2797.8 3335.7 1.0 Delta 0.5 1.7 -8.9 -13.0 -1.2 0.6 14.1 -58.2 1062.0 -21.4 -20.3 0.0 Rate (ppm/day) -13.806 -21.259 0.063 -21.445 -0.896 -9.113 0.260 -3.017 37.924 -36.221 -52.800 -0.093

Fault Analysis
Normal - NR High Energy Discharge - HEDA Low Energy Discharge - LED Overheating - OH Overheating of Oil - OHO Cellulose Degradation - CD

What
ANN 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.833 EPS 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.990 0.990 0.990 Combined 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.833

Duval Analysis
% CH4 22.3 % C2H2 0.6 % C2H4 77.0 Total Gas 2434.9

Duval Diagnosis

T3 - Thermal fault > 700degC

What
Diagnosis
Final Recommendation Previous Result Recommended Condition Recommended Action Simple Criteria OH Temperature HEDA Severity HEDA Diagnosis LED Diagnosis OH Diagnosis OHO Diagnosis CD Diagnosis Possible overheating of oil or cellulose. Overheating of oil involved. Degradation of cellulose involved. 1 1 Overall condition needs IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. Sample oil daily. Consider removal of unit from service. Advise manufacturer. Unit is ABNORMAL Est. temp is above 700 c degrees.

Where
Location
Fault Location Confidence LTC 0.001 Core/Tank 1.000 Bushings/Leads 0.000 Windings 0.000 Other 0.000

Fault Location 1-core/tank

Previous Fault Location 1-core/tank

Conclusions
Met our goal to build an exception based system Although accuracy is good (93%) APS is researching and training improved ANNs ANNs are capable of detecting the underlying, complex patterns of DGA and are a good partner with on-line monitoring

Questions?