2016 Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC), Montral, Qc, Canada, 19 - 22 June 2016

Fault Diagnostics in Oil Filled Electrical

Equipment: Review of Duval Triangle and
Possibility of Alternatives
G. K. Irungu*, A. O. Akumu**, and J. L. Munda***
Department of Electrical Engineering
Tshwane University of Technology
Private Bag X680 0001, Pretoria, South Africa.
*kimaniirungu@yahoo.com, **akumuao@tut.ac.za, ***mundajl@tut.ac.za

Abstract Fault diagnostics, identification and location in oil I. INTRODUCTION

filled electrical equipment has been a challenging task which has
been under critical focus of scientists in decades. One of the most
successful methods of fault diagnostics and identification in such
electrical equipment is the Duval triangle, which uses 3 fault gases;
methane, ethylene and acetylene. The percentages of these gases
are calculated and used to represent the sides of the triangle in a
triangular coordinate system. Similar faults map onto a specific
region of the triangle. Parallel lines representing the gas
percentages are drawn from the sides to intersect at a particular
point which identifies the fault. But is there a possibility of using
different combination of gases? There are seven gases mainly used
for fault diagnostics and identification: hydrogen, methane,
acetylene, ethylene, ethane, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide,
thus taking three gases at a time, there are thirty five different
triangles. According IEC 60599 standards faults in oil filled
electrical equipment are grouped into five categories; partial
discharge(PD), electrical discharge of low energy(D1), electrical
discharge of high energy(D2), thermal fault in paper and/or oil
with temperature below 7000C (T1 & T2) and thermal fault in oil
and/or paper with temperature 7000C above (T3). This research
aim is to find out the possibility of an alternative triangle(s) to
Duval by mapping one hundred and seventeen fault cases visually
inspected and documented in IEC TC 10 databases. The faults are
located in a triangle and analysed whether they coalesce on a
particular region. Further for each fault class, standard deviation
is calculated. If this deviation is less than that calculated for Duval
triangle, then that fault is identifiable by that triangle. Also
investigated for a particular fault class is whether equipment type
has any effect on the fault location within the fault mapped region.
From the results, there are some faults which can be better
identified using alternative triangles, and that equipment type has
no effect on fault localisation. The accuracy of triangular fault
identification technique is also compared to that of IEEE key gas
and IEC gas ratio techniques.
Keywords Discharge, Dissolved Gas Analysis, Fault
Diagnostics, Identification, Standard Deviation, Triangular
Coordinates.
Tshwane University of Technology-Pretoria, Republic of South Africa
The rapid increase in electricity demand for domestic,
commercial, agricultural and industrial use has necessitated a
surge in electrical equipment rating on the generation and
transmission front. A good number of these equipment have to
be enclosed for mechanical protection and filled with oil for
enhanced insulation and cooling. Notable among these
equipment are; transformers, cables, bushings, instrument
transformers, and reactors. A problem in such enclosed
equipment arises on how to detect the onset of a fault or even
to diagnose an active fault inside without dismantling it. One of
the most reliable and routinely applied technique of fault
detection and identification in such equipment is the dissolved
gas analysis (DGA) [1-7].
When excessive electrical and/or thermal stresses act on the
insulation system of an oil filled electrical equipment, gases
plus other chemical compounds are generated due to oil/paper
insulation decomposition. Small amounts of such substances
are also produced due to aging and will accumulate with time
[1-3]. Typical compounds produced are: methanol, aldehyde,
ketones, acids, water and soaps [8]. Gases that are mostly
generated are: hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene,
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide [1-2, 5-7]. These gases
are detectable in oil since they do not decompose easily with
time and thus they are reliable agents of signaling the presence
of faults and age. The magnitude of these gases above certain
threshold and rate of generation are indicative of fault(s)
presence and its evolution pace [7, 9-10]. Various methods have
been employed to identify the faults occurring in oil filled
electrical equipment by looking at these characteristic gases
magnitude, composition, incremental rate and/or ratios [1-2, 9-
11].
II. FAULT IDENTIFICATION METHODS IN OIL FILLED
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
After measuring the gases produced, various methods have
been applied to identify faults occurring in oil filled electrical
equipment. These include but not limit to; neural networks,

978-1-4673-8706-4/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE 174

fuzzy logic, support vector machine, IEEE key gas, Where x, y and z are in ppm. Out of the seven gases there are
Doernenburg ratios, Rogers ratios, IEC 60599 ratios, Duval thirty five possible triangles with three gases taken at a time as
Triangle and Duval Pentagon [1-4, 7-11]. Each of these given by (4).
techniques relies on the accumulated knowledge and experience 7!
of different experts rather than quantitative mathematical No. of Triangles = 7C3 = = 35 (4)
models and thus may yield different diagnosis for the same oil ( 7 3)!3!
sample [4-5, 9]. There is no universally accepted standard All thirty five triangles for mineral oil were drawn on triangular
method of fault diagnostics, but IEEE key gas, Rogers ratios, graph papers, faults were located and noted whether they were
IEC 60599 ratios and Duval Triangle methods are generally coalescing on a particular region. If a particular fault localizes
acceptable as guides to fault identification [9]. All these in one specific area without much overlap with other different
methods have advantages and disadvantages and none is known faults, then that triangle can be used for that particular fault
to be 100% accurate. The choice of any depends on the situation identification. If all fault types fall on different regions, then
at hand, equipment involved and utility operating philosophy. that triangle can be used for fault identification in oil filled
Some standards like IEEE C57.104 key gas give guidelines electrical equipment. Each fault standard deviation was
on what is to be done when a fault is suspected by DGA. calculated and compared to that of Duval Triangle, if smaller,
However, DGA interpretation is not an exact science it requires then that triangle is better than Duval for that particular fault
sound engineering knowledge and expert consultations [2, 12]. identification. Also for the same fault, and equipment type,
Duval Triangles and the recently unveiled Duval Pentagons are standard deviation was calculated to evaluate location
graphical methods which allow the user to visually follow the dispersion interdependency.
development of a fault [13]. One hundred and seventeen fault cases in oil filled electrical
equipment visually inspected by experts and documented in
III. METHODOLOGY: TRIANGULAR METHOD IEC TC 10 databases were analyzed. The number of fault cases
When oil/paper insulating material is subjected to various as per equipment are as follows; 37 power transformers without
stresses, it degrades producing gases and other chemical communicating OLTC (P), 22 power transformers with
byproducts. Of interest are the gases which are mainly used by communicating OLTC (U), 32 reactors (R), 12 instrument
experts for fault diagnostics which are: hydrogen, methane, transformers (I), 5 bushing (B), 2 cables (C) and 7 OLTC
acetylene, ethylene, ethane, carbon monoxide and carbon selector switch compartment (S).
dioxide. There are seven types of Duval triangles; triangles 1, 2 According to IEC 60599 faults in oil filled electrical equipment
& 3 uses methane, acetylene and ethylene gases [2-3, 15], are grouped into five categories of visually detectable faults [2-
triangles 4 & 6 uses hydrogen, ethane and methane gases 3]. These are:
whereas triangles 5 & 7 uses methane, ethane and ethylene partial discharges (PD) of the cold plasma type evidenced
gases. Duval pentagons uses hydrogen, methane, acetylene, by X-wax formation and deposition on paper as well as
ethylene and ethane [13-16]. small pinholes punctures in paper insulation;
Only Duval triangle 1 for mineral oil (simply referred to as discharges of low energy (D1) due to sparking, treeing and
Duval triangle) is considered in this work since it can be used tracking evidenced by significant paper punctures,
to study all thermal and electrical faults in a variety of electrical carbonization of paper surface plus carbon particles in oil;
equipment. Triangle 2 is specifically for On-load tap changers discharges of high energy (D2) e.g. arcing with power
and triangle 3 is for non-mineral based oils like silicone. follow-through evidenced by extensive carbonization of
Triangle 4 is specifically for low temperature faults (PD, T1 & paper, metal fusion and sometimes tripping of equipment;
T2) and triangle 5 is for studying in details thermal faults (T2 or thermal faults in oil and/or paper below 3000C (T1) if the
T3) both in mineral oil based equipment. Triangle 6 is for solid insulation has turned brownish and above 3000C (T2)
studying low temperature faults (PD, T1 & T2) whereas triangle but below 7000C if it has carbonized;
7 is used to analyze in details faults identified as thermal faults thermal faults in oil and/or paper of temperatures 7000C (T3)
(T1, T2 or T3) both in non-mineral based oils [13-16]. and above evidenced by carbonization of oil, metal
A triangular fault investigation method uses a triangular coloration and or fusion.
graph with each side representing the percentage of one of the Table 1 summarizes the one hundred and seventeen fault cases
three gases [17]. Where the percentages intersect, is where the as per equipment type and fault category.
fault lies. Let x, y, z be three gases, their percentages are
calculated as shown by (1) to (3). Table I. Number and fault type per equipment category.
100 x
x% = (1) Equipment I P U R C S B Total
x+ y+z Fault faults
PD 7 - 1 - - - 1 9
100 y D1 0 8 3 8 1 4 2 26
y% = (2) D2 1 15 12 17 1 2 - 48
x+ y+z
T1 & T2 4 6 2 2 - - 2 16
100 z T3 - 8 4 5 - 1 - 18
z% = (3) Total 12 37 22 32 2 7 5 117
x+ y+z

175
 IV. RESULTS
After fault mapping on the thirty five triangles, only three
emerged as possible fault identification candidates worth
consideration. These are:
Tr1 triangle with the axis; hydrogen, acetylene and ethylene;
Tr2 triangle with the axis; methane, acetylene and ethylene
which is the Duval Triangle 1;
Tr3 triangle with the axis; acetylene, ethylene and ethane.
The fault mapping on each of the three triangles Tr1, Tr2, Tr3 is
as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
Fig. 1. Fault mapping on Tr1.
Fig. 2. Fault mapping on Tr2.
From Figs. 1, 2 and 3, it is visually clear faults fall into three
distinct regions that are characterized by partial discharge
faults, electrical faults and thermal faults. It can be observed
176
that there is no clear cut boundary between electrical faults of
low (D1) and high (D2) energy discharges, and the same applies
to the thermal faults of temperatures T1 & T2 and T3. This is
practical, since it is not possible to have a clear boundary
involving two faults produced by similar stresses (thermal or
electrical). Thus a region of overlap whose size varies from
triangle to triangle is real. Triangle Tr3 as visualized is not
suitable for identifying partial discharge and thermal faults (T1
& T2) when compared with the first two. However its good for
identifying high and low energy electrical discharge faults.
Fig. 3. Fault mapping on Tr3.
The Duval Triangle (Tr2) for visualizing if there is any
association between equipment type and fault type on fault
mapping is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Equipment category and fault type mapping triangle.
 V. DISCUSSION mapping, faults map randomly. Maybe this can be attributed to
From the triangular fault identification technique, the standard the existence of independent mechanisms of their generation
from the oil/paper insulation decomposition. The possibility of
deviation (SD) of each fault category in triangle Tr1, Tr2 and Tr3
alternative Duval triangles 4 & 5 and pentagons will tried in
is as given in Table II. future should field data become available. Finally it is evident
from Table IV that triangular method has higher accuracy
Table II. Standard deviation of faults in Tr1, Tr2, and Tr3. relative to IEEE key gas and IEC 60599 gas ratio methods.
Item PD D1 D2 T1 & T2 T3 Mean
Tr1 0.0371 18.7612 11.5235 21.9404 12.0175 12.8559 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Tr2 0.3072 14.3541 9.3797 13.2753 9.9989 9.4630 The research was financed by Tshwane University of
Tr3 12.8026 12.4473 7.4727 20.4448 10.2038 12.6742
Technology. Appreciation also to Jomo Kenyatta University of
Technology- Kenya for granting Mr. G. K. Irungu study leave.
Table II shows that PD faults are best located by Tr1 followed
REFERENCES
by Tr2 and finally Tr3. D1 faults are best located by Tr3 followed
[1] IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
by Tr2 and lastly by Tr1 and the same applies to D2 fault. Transformers. IEEE std. C57.104-2008. New York, USA, 2009.
Thermal faults (T1 & T2 and T3) are well identified by Tr2 then [2] IEC Guide to the Interpretation of Dissolved and Free Gases Analysis-
by Tr3 and lastly by Tr1. Based on average SD Tr2 is the best Mineral Oil-Impregnated Electrical Equipment in Service. IEC60599,
triangle followed by Tr3 and then Tr1. The SD of fault location Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
as per type of equipment is given by Table III. [3] M. Duval & A. dePablo, Interpretation of gas-in-oil analysis using new
IEC publication 60599 and IEC TC10 data bases, IEEE Electr. Insul.
Mag., Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 31-41, March/April 2001.
Table III. Standard deviation of fault location as fault and equipment category.
[4] I. A. R. Gray, A guide to transformer oil analysis, Transformer
Equipment I P U R C S B Chemistry Service. [Available]: http://www.satcs.co.za.
Fault [5] G. K. Irungu, A. O. Akumu, & J. L. Munda, Transformer Condition
PD 0.49 - - - - - - Assessment using Dissolved Gas Analysis, Oil Testing and Evidential
D1 - 6.49 10.31 3.61 - 9.43 1.88 Reasoning Approach, Proceedings of 33rd EIC 2015, Seattle , USA, pp.
D2 - 8.69 8.24 7.94 - 7.54 - 145-149, June 2015.
T1 & T2 7.33 10.12 23.10 14.61 - - 26.87 [6] Z. Mao and J. Wen, Detection of Dissolved Gas in Oil-Insulated
T3 - 10.30 10.39 7.98 - - - Electrical Apparatus by Photoacoustic Spectroscopy, IEEE Electr. Insul.
Mag., Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 7-14, July/August 2015.
Fig. 4 and Table III show that fault location on the triangle does [7] W. H. Tang & Q. H. Wu, Condition Monitoring and Assessment of Power
not depend on equipment type but on fault category only. The Transformers using Computational Intelligence, Springer-Verlag limited.
London, UK, 2011.
accuracy of triangular method was compared with other fault
[8] J. Wada, G. Ueta, S. Okabe & T. Amimoto, Method to Evaluate the
diagnostic methods; IEEE key gas and IEC 60599 gas ratios, Degradation of Transformer Insulating Oil-Establishement of the
the results are summarized in Table IV. Here faults are Evaluation Method and Application to Field Transformer Oil, IEEE
classified into four categories as per IEEE key gas method: Trans. on Dielectrics and Electr. Insul., Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 1266-1274.
April 2015.
partial discharge, arcing, thermal faults in paper (T1 & T2) and
[9] N. A. Bakar, A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam. A Review of Dissolved Gas
thermal fault in oil (T3) [1]. Analysis Measurement and Interpretation Techniques, IEEE Electr.
Insul. Mag., Vol. 30. No. 3, pp. 39-49. May/June 2014.
Table III. Fault diagnostic accuracies of different methods.
[10] Transformer: Basics, Maintenance and Diagnostics. US Department of the
Fault PD Arcing T1 & T2 T3 Mean Interior Bureau of Reclamation. April, 2005.
Method accuracy [11] A. Abu-Siada & S. Islam, A New Approach to Identify Power
IEEE Key gas 88.89% 37.84% 50.00% 22.22% 49.74% Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision Based on
IEC gas ratios 44.44% 86.49% 62.50% 66.67% 65.03% Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Analysis, IEEE Trans. on Dielectrics and Electr.
Tr1 100% 98.65% 75% 88.89% 90.64% Insul., Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 1007-1012. 2012.
Tr2 100% 100% 87.50% 88.89% 94.10% [12] Transformer Maintenance: Facilities Instructions, Standard, and
Tr3 88.89% 98.65% 87.5% 72.22% 86.82% Techniques, FIST 3-30. US Department of the Interior Bureau of
Reclamation. October, 2000.
[13] M. Duval & L. Lamarre, The Duval Pentagon-A New Complimentary
VI. CONCLUSIONS Tool for the Interpretation of Dissolved Gas Analysis in Transformers,
IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 9-12, Nov/Dec. 2014.
A review of fault identification in oil filled electrical [14] M. Duval, Use of Pentagons and Triangles for the Interpretation of DGA
equipment using Duval triangle 1 and other possible triangles in Electrical Equipment, Proc. Of TechCon North America Conf.,
has been given. Out of the possible thirty five triangles only Albuquerque, Feb. 2016.
three proved to be reasonably useful in fault identification. It has [15] M. Duval, A Review of Faults Detectable by Gas-in-Oil Analysis in
been shown that based on average standard deviation Duval Transformers, IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 8-17,
triangle 1 (Tr2) is the best in fault identification among the three May/June 2002.
triangles although not in all fault categories. It can be concluded [16] M. Duval, State of the Art of Technical Diagnosis through Intepretation
of DGA, Proc. Of My Transfo Conf., Torino, Italy, Nov. 2012.
that equipment type does not have any effect on the fault location
as visually noted and confirmed by standard deviation statistics. [17] D. Graham & N. Midgley, Tri-plot software documentation. 2003.
[Available]: http://www.Iboro.ac.uk/research/phys-geog/tri-plot.
In addition, it was seen that triangles with axies of hydrogen or
hydrocarbon and carbon oxide gases cannot be used for any fault

177