100 Years of Gas Monitoring in Transformers

Michel Duval
TSUG 2018
A Brief History of Transformers
-1887: Nikola Tesla
-1890: electric chair
-1892: George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison
-1893: General Electric
-1986: GE Transf. US shuts down
-1998: Westinghouse Transf. US goes bankrupt

2
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
-1917: first 213 kV transformer built in the US.
-1921: Buchholz gas alarm relays, to detect gases
formed by faults in transformers.
-1950s: -observation that gases formed in gas relays
are “combustible”.
-combustible gas detectors, borrowed from
the mining industry, to detect and measure
them.
-2018: -limits of “combustible gas concentrations”
(TDGC) still used in the IEEE Gas Guide
today.
3
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
-1960s: development of laboratory methods to extract gases dissolved in oil
itself, using:
-either vacuum and mercury: Toepler Pump (Central Europe), Partial
Degassing (Canada, ASTM Method A). Still today the most accurate methods.
-or bubbling of a gas through the oil (France, ASTM Method B).

4
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
- -then, the ”Head-Space (HS) extraction” method in 1989 (Perkin Elmer),
using the partition of gases between an oil and a gas phase in a glass vial.

-HS mostly used today, primarily thanks

to the pressure on laboratories to eliminate
mercury.

-however, more difficult for laboratories to

obtain accurate and reproducible results
with HS method, especially when using ASTM Method C.

-requires to use gas-in-oil standards for calibration (IEC 60567), which

Method C does not specify.
5
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
-1966: first 765 kV transformers used in Canada (HQ).
Lots of initial failures, hence the need to analyze more precisely the
individual gases formed in oil.

-1968: gas chromatographic (GC) methods in the laboratory thus developed

for dissolved gas analysis (DGA), in Europe (France, Switzerland), then in
Canada (ASTM Method A).

6
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
- -gases formed and dissolved in oil were first obtained from oil
samples taken from transformers at regular intervals, e.g., every
year, then analyzed by the laboratory.

-1975, development in Canada (HQ)

of the first on-line detector of H2
dissolved in oil (Hydran), based on the
fuel-cell principle and able to detect
H2 produced by faults between two oil
samples.

-still in use today, in addition to other

sensors based on Pd (e.g., TM1, Calisto2).
7
Analysis of Gases in Transformers
-early 2000s: attempts to develop on-line monitors for gases other than H2
failed (Micromonitors).

-late 2000s: first “multi-gas” monitors developed in the US (Serveron’s TM8)

and Canada (Morgan Shaffer’s Calisto 8), using the same techniques as
laboratories (GC and TCD).

-followed by monitors using IR and PAS (Kelman/GE), plagued by

contamination and recalibration problems.

-today, more than a dozen on-line multi-and single-gas monitors are available
commercially, and are under evaluation by CIGRE.

8
Analysis of Gases in Transformers

(Serveron)

9
Failures in Service
-the failure rate of power transformers in service (internal failures needing
repairs) typically is 0.3% per year.

-for a population of 2000 transformers, this means 6 transformers will fail in

the next year.

-1994 will not fail, 1800 will operate normally,

-200 (i.e., 10% of the population at or above IEEE/IEC condition 1) may

develop signs of abnormal operation.

10
Failures in Service
-20 to 40 will have quick-developing gas formation and faults detectable only
with on-line gas monitors.

-6 may have quick-developing faults detectable without failure only with

multi-gas monitors.

-less than 1 will fail catastrophically

11
Gas Formation in Transformers
Hydrogen H2
Methane CH4
Ethane C2H6
Ethylene C2H4
Acetylene C2H2
Carbon monoxide CO
Carbon dioxide CO2
Oxygen O2
Nitrogen N2

12
Gas Formation in Transformers

-some of these gases are formed in larger or smaller

quantities depending on the energy content and temperature of
the fault
-in practice, mixtures of gases are always formed.
-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.

13
Gas Formation in Transformers

14
Gas Formation Patterns
-are related only to the materials used and faults involved
-are the same in all equipment where these materials are used:
-power transformers, sealed or air-breathing, core or shell-type
-reactors
-instrument transformers
-bushings
-LTCs
-cables

15
The 6 Basic Types of Faults Detectable by DGA
-PD: corona partial discharges (in a gas phase)
-D1: low-energy discharges (including sparking PDs)
-D2: high-energy discharges (Buccholz alarm)
-T1: thermal faults, T<300°C (overheating)
-T2: thermal faults, 300°C<T<700°C (hot spots)
-T3: thermal faults, T>700°C (very hot spots, core)

16
The 4 Sub-Types of Thermal Faults (since 2008)
-S: stray gassing (overheating) of oil, T<200°C (chemical instability of
oils)
-O: overheating <250°C (no paper carbonization)
-T3-H: hot spots in oil only
-C: carbonization of paper >300°C

-S, O, T3-H et PD are relatively minor faults in transformers

-C, D1 et D2 are potentially more dangerous

17
Occurrence of Faults in Service (CIGRE WG47)

18
Fault Identification Methods
-are all using hydrocarbon gases and H2 :
-one gas at a time (“Key Gas Method”)
-two gases (“Rogers Ratios”, “IEC Ratios”)
-three gases (“Duval Triangles 1 to 7”)
-five gases (“Duval Pentagons 1 to 3”)

-CO, CO2 and furans are then used to confirm if the fault involves
paper or not.

19
Fault Identification Methods - Limitations
-Key Gas: ~50% of wrong diagnosis
-Rogers, IEC: 30% to 20% of cases with no diagnosis.
-Triangle 1: always provides a diagnosis, mostly accurate, allows to
visually follow the evolution of faults.
Sometimes difficult with Triangle 1 to distinguish between faults PD et
S (around zone PD).
-Triangles 4 and 5 developed to detect faults S, O, PD and T3-H.
-combinations of Triangles and Pentagons to identify mixtures of
faults.

20
Fault Identification Methods (Triangle 1)

Triangle 1
21
Fault Identification Methods (Triangle 4)

Triangle 4

22
Fault Identification Methods (Triangle 5)

Triangle 5

23
Fault Identification Methods (Pentagon 1)

Pentagon 1

24
Fault Identification Methods (Pentagon 2)

Pentagon 2

25
Minimum Gas Levels for Using Fault Identification
Methods
-at least one of the gas concentration values in ppm should meet the
requirement of IEC for accuracy (± 15% above 10 ppm of gas).

-between 10 and 5 ppm, the required accuracy is ± 30%. If the DGA

point is close to a fault zone boundary, the uncertainty on the DGA
point may need to be calculated.

-if the laboratory cannot certify the accuracy of its ppm values, the
recommendation of IEC is that at least one concentration value in
ppm is above typical 90% concentration values.

26
Mixtures of Faults

27
Detection of Mixtures of Faults in Transformers

-First clue is if there is a change in gas pattern. Second clue is if Triangles 1,4,
5 and Pentagons 1, 2 do not provide the same diagnosis. This may be an
indication of multiple faults.

-this is because each graphical representation is more sensitive to some

gases. For instance, Triangle 4 is more sensitive to H2 and therefore to faults
S or PD than even the Pentagons.

28
When to Use the Triangles and Pentagons ?
-if interested only by the 6 basic types of faults and by single faults,
display the evolution of faults in Triangle 1 and Pentagon 1.

-if also interested by the 4 sub-types of thermal faults (S, O, T3-H, C),
switch to Triangles 4 or 5 and to Pentagon 2.

29
When to Use the Triangles and Pentagons ?
-if interested also to detect mixtures of faults, compare the diagnosis
provided by Triangles 1, 4 or 5 and Pentagons 1 or 2.

If they do not agree, this may be an indication of multiple faults,

which may be identified.

-the interest of detecting multiple faults is not only academic but

practical during visual inspections.

30
Fault Identification Methods (esters)

Triangle 1 Mineral Oil Triangles 3 FR3 ester oil

31
Fault Identification Methods (esters)

Pentagons 3 for esters oils

32
IEC 90% percentile Typical Concentration Values (ppm)
-IEC 60599
(vs source)

33
IEEE 90% percentile Condition 1 Concentration Values
(ppm)
-IEEE C57.104
(vs MVA, age, % O2
2017)

34
IEEE Status 1 (90% percentile) Concentration Values (ppm)
-IEEE C57.104
(2018)

35
IEEE Status 2 (95% percentile) Concentration Values (ppm)
-IEEE C57.104
(2018)

36
CIGRE Influence of O2/N2 Ratio on Condition 1
Concentration Values (ppm) and Occurrence of Faults
-CIGRE WG47 (2018)

37
IEEE Status 1 Maximum Change in Concentration Values
(ppm)
-IEEE C57.104
(2018)

38
IEEE Status 1 Gassing Rate Values (ppm/ month)
-IEEE C57.104
(2018)

39
CIGRE Gas Concentration Levels above Typical (Condition
1) Values (ppm)
-CIGRE TB # 443
PFS = probability of having a
failure-related event in service
in %, vs concentration of
gases in ppm

P = prefailure value
T = typical (condition 1) 90%
percentile value

40
CIGRE Gas Concentration Levels above Typical (Condition
1) Values (ppm)
-CIGRE TB # 443 (2010) / WG 47 (2018)
-for a transformer to move into higher condition level, only one gas
needs to exceed its gas level.
CIGRE Table 1

41
CIGRE Gassing Rates Levels above Typical (Condition 1)
Values
-CIGRE TB # 443 (2010) / Rev WG 47 (2018)
-Manual sampling; with on-line monitors, multiply values by 10.
-Typical rates in ppm/year; other rates in ppm/month
CIGRE Table 2

42
CIGRE Recommended Actions on the Equipment vs Gas
Levels
-CIGRE TB # 443 (2010) / Rev WG 47 (2018)

43
CIGRE 90% percentile Typical (Condition 1) Concentration
Values (ppm) vs type of fault
-CIGRE WG47 (2018), calculated from WG DGA database.
-gases not indicated in Table 3 are not affected by type of fault.
CIGRE Table 3

44
CIGRE Concentration and Rate Levels above Typical
Values vs Type of Fault
-the influence of type of fault can reasonably be assumed to be the
same for intermediate and PF values as for typical values:

-e.g., in case of a fault S, multiply all H2 values in CIGRE Tables 1 and 2

by 463/118 (463 = typical value of H2 in case of a fault S in Table 3
divided by 118 = typical value of H2 in Table 1 when the type of fault is
not known);
-in case of a fault O, multiply C2H6 values by 550/111;
-in case of a T3-C, multiply C2H4 values by 314/56;
-etc.

45
CIGRE Concentration and Rate Levels vs Specific Locations
of Faults
-in case of faults D1 in oil only, high levels of C2H2 (e.g., 1400 ppm) are
observed without failure yet.
-therefore prefailure values, as well as typical and intermediate values
of C2H2 in CIGRE Tables 1 and 2, can be multiplied by 1400/450 (with
450 = PF value of C2H2 in Table 1 when the location of fault is not
known). The corresponding typical value of C2H2 becomes 8 (1400/45)
= 25 ppm

-however, in case of faults D1 in paper of windings, failure usually

occurs at 45 ppm or less. Therefore, C2H2 values in Tables 1 and 2 can
be multiplied by 45/450, with a typical value of only 0.8 ppm.
46
CIGRE Concentration and Rate Levels vs Specific Locations
of Faults
-in case of faults C in paper, the PF value of C2H4 becomes 800
(314/56) = 4480 ppm when the location of the fault is not known.

-however, failures have been observed at around 2900 ppm of C2H4

when the fault C is in leads, 970 ppm when the fault is on the outside
of windings, and 27 ppm when it is between turns.

-values of C2H4 in CIGRE Tables 1 and 2 can therefore be multiplied by

2900/4480, 970/4480 and 27/4480, respectively (with corresponding
typical concentration values of 203, 68 and 2 ppm, respectively).

47
CIGRE Typical and PF Values vs Type and Location of Fault

48
Exceptional Gas Values in Transformers
-CIGRE cases of exceptionally high values of gases without failure,
observed in less than 1% of DGA cases:

49
Exceptional Gas Values in Transformers
-CIGRE cases of exceptionally low values of gases followed by failure,
probably because it occurred suddenly between two oil samplings.
Observed in less than 0.5% of DGA cases.

-in 98% of DGA cases, CIGRE Tables 1 and 2 apply.

50
Exemples of Stray Gassing in Oil S
-sealed transformer with coated paper

-overheating of pressboard between windings found by inspection (S.Bhumiwat)

51
Exemples of Stray Gassing in Oil S
-faults S and PD and O in Peru

52
Exemples of Stray Gassing in Oil S
-faults S (160 C) in Korea (H.Seo)

53
Exemples of Stray Gassing in Oil S
-90% typical values in wind farm transformers (CIGRE WG47)

54
Exemples of Stray Gassing in Oil S
-90% typical values in bushings (CIGRE WG47), with signatures of faults S

55
Exemples of Corona DPs in Bushings
-very high values of H2 in bushings have been reported in India without
failure (CIGRE A2-208, 2018), between 15,700 and 76,052 ppm, due mostly to
corona PDs, sometimes in combination with stray gassing S.

-high values of H2 in bushings reported in Sweden without failure (CIGRE A2-203,

2018), between 20,000 and 27,000 ppm, due to faults S or corona PDs

56
Distinction between Stray Gassing in Oil S and Corona PD
-Stray gases formed by some oils at 120 °C are sometimes very close to the
boundary between zones S (stray gassing) and PD (corona partial discharges)
of Duval Triangles 4 and Pentagons 1-2.

-In such cases, it is recommended to perform a stray gassing test in the

laboratory on a sample of oil taken from the transformer, to verify that gas
formation in it may indeed be due to stray gassing of oil .

-A PD test on the whole transformer may also confirm or not the presence of
corona PDs.

57
Distinction between Stray Gassing in Oil S and Corona PD

(S.Eeckoudt)

58
Distinction between Stray Gassing in Oil S and Corona PD

(T.Bucchaz)
59
Examples of Overheating Faults O < 250°C

(E.Alzieu)

60
Examples of Overheating Faults O < 250°C
-fault O in 345 kV, 460 MVA GSU transformer, with 1216 ppm C2H6, 416 ppm CH4,
no failure (W. Johnson)

61
Examples of T3 Faults in Oil Only (T3-H)
-rectifier
- 20kV, 20 MVA

-burnt selector in oil found by inspection, as predicted (T3-H) (A.M. Dale)

62
Examples of T3 Faults in Oil Only (T3-H)

(A.Nunez)

63
Examples of T3 Faults in Oil Only (T3-H)

(A.Constant)
64
Examples of Faults C in Leads
-transformer 24kV, 40 MVA

-Buchholz alarm, carbonized leads found by inspection (C) (A.M.Dale)

65
Examples of Faults C in Leads

(A.O’Malley)

66
Examples of T3 Faults C in Leads and T3-H

(A.O’Malley)

67
Examples of Faults T3-H and C in Leads

(O.Amirouche)

68
Examples of Faults C in Leads and T2-H
(M.Foata)

69
 Examples of Faults C in Leads
(S.Dorieux)

70
 Examples of Faults C in Leads

(Serveron)
71
Examples of Faults C in Pressboard

(S.Dorieux)

72
Examples of Faults C in Windings

-paper burnt through found by inspection (C) (Serveron)

73
Examples of Faults C in Windings

-fault T3-C in paper in a 230 kV 336 MVA,

with 6035 ppm C2H4, 5126 ppm CH4 (fault C),
detected by acoustic tests but no failure.
(A.Nunez)

74
 Examples of Faults C in Windings
-voltage transformer 400kV

-burnt paper in Faraday cage and upper part of windings found by inspection (C)
(M.Martins)
75
Examples of Faults C in Windings and Leads

(A.M.Dale)
76
Example of Fault C in Winding Turn

(A.Fieldsen-Roxborough)
77
Example of Fault C in Winding Turn

-fault due to the carbonization of paper on middle winding turn of reactor, because of
wrongly placed washer in oil cooling duct (design problem), followed by arcing.
-fault wrongly attributed to low DP of paper (200) on winding turn.

78
Examples of Faults D1 in Oil

-arcing in oil, 480 ppm

C2H2, no failure

79
Examples of Faults D1 in Oil

80
(A.Constant)
 Exemples of faults D1 in Paper
-Bushing 230 kV (Omicron)

81
 Exemples of faults D1 in Paper
-Bushing 230 kV

82
 Exemples of Faults D1 in Paper
-transformer 400 kV (E.Alzieu)

83
 Exemples of Faults D1 in Oil

84
(S.Spremic)
 Exemples of faults D1 in Paper

-overheating of leads and windings and arcing D1 in windings found by inspection (S.Spremic)
85
 Exemples of faults D2 in Paper

-arcing on windings and hot spot on lead found by inspection (S.Spremic)

86
 Example of Fault D2 in Windings

(O.Amirouche)

87
Example of Fast Occurring Fault C in Paper
-fast occurring fault C in paper confirmed by
inspection in bottom of LV windings (L.Paulhiac).

88
Example of Fast Occurring D2 Fault
Day 2 – 16:00

Day 3 – 12:00

Day 2 – 12:00

Day 3 – 04:00
Day 3 – 00:00
Day 2 – 20:00

Day 3 – 16:00

Day 3 – 08:00

Day 23 – 04:00 to
Day 24 – 08:00
Followed by
transformer failure

(Serveron)
89
Example of Fast Occurring D1 Fault

(Serveron)
90
Advantages/ Limitations of On-Line Gas Monitors
-will catch abnormal formation of gases and quick-developing faults occurring
suddenly between two oil samplings, whatever the time interval (year or week).

-more expensive than laboratory DGA

-some monitors are not calibration-free and maintenance-free as claimed by
their manufacturers.

91
General Types of On-Line Gas Monitors

(CIGRE WG47)
92
Faults Detectable by On-Line Gas Monitors

93 (CIGRE WG47)
Which Monitors for Which Transformers?

(CIGRE WG47)

94
Advantages/ Limitations of Multi-Gas Monitors
-Multi-gas monitors are able to detect all types of faults, even in their early
stages at condition 1, and without false alarms since they provide DGA
diagnosis on-line.

-The recommendation of CIGRE (TB # 409, 2010) is therefore to use multi-gas

monitors in critical transformers (e.g., GSU, nuclear, transmission), and in
abnormally gassing transformers.

-Multi-gas monitors, however, are more expensive than hydrogen monitors

95
Advantages/ Limitations of Hydrogen Monitors
-Hydrogen monitors are less expensive than multi-gas monitors.

-however, they do not provide DGA diagnosis on-line and will not detect arcing
faults D1 and thermal faults T3, T2, C, O in their early stages, only in their late
stages, sometimes too late.

-The recommendation of CIGRE (TB # 409, 2010) is therefore to use hydrogen

monitors in non-critical transmission and distribution transformers, and in
transformers with no previous gassing history.

96
Limitations of Hydrogen Monitors

-Hydrogen monitors are very sensitive to faults S and corona PDs, which are of
relatively minor concern in power transformers.
-in case of faults T1, O, C, T2, T3, T3-H, much lower levels of H2 are formed than of
the other hydrocarbons gases.
-in case of faults D1, D2, most hydrogen monitors cannot detect the low H2 levels (~
6 ppm) associated with the typical C2H2 formations (~ 2 ppm) to detect.
-choosing threshold values of H2 in H2 monitors may therefore be a challenge.

97
Limitations of CO Monitors
-interpretation of CO readings is the main challenge of monitors M2.

-e.g., sealed transformers may have high concentrations of CO not due to a fault in
paper, but to oil oxidation under conditions of low O2 supply.

-in case of faults involving a small amount of paper (see examples above), CO
values often are not be high enough to be detectable, and require knowledge of
hydrocarbon gases.

-finally, in order to confirm a fault in paper, CO only is usually not enough, and
requires knowledge of the CO2/CO ratio.

98
Cost/ Benefit of DGA Monitoring Techniques
-based on a population of 2000 power transformers with a failure rate of 0.3%
per year, i.e,
-1800 of them with normal gas formation,
-200 abnormal gas formations,
-20 to 40 fast occurring gas/ fault formations,
-6 failures
-less than 1 catastrophic failure.

-based on an average cost of 6 M$ for a new transformer, 50 k$ for a multigas

monitor and 10k$ for a H2 monitor.

99
Cost/ Benefit of DGA Monitoring Techniques
-cost of not monitoring at all by DGA (including laboratory DGA): 35 M$

-savings provided by laboratory DGA: 7 M$

-additional savings provided by installing H2 monitors on all transformers: 6 M$

-additional savings provided by installing multi-gas monitors on selected

transformers, critical or with potentially dangerous faults detected by DGA: 18
M$.

100
Fault Identification Methods for LTCs

Triangle 2 for compartment-type LTCs Triangles 2 for MR-LTCs

101
 Examples of Faults in Compartment-Type LTCs

Triangle 2 for compartment types

102
 Example of Fault in an MR-LTC

Triangle 2 for MR-LTC

103
The Importance of Accuracy for DGA Diagnosis
-the IEC specifies an accuracy of ±15% above 10 ppm

15% and 30% from 15% to 70%

104
Accuracy of DGA Analysis and Diagnosis
-Method C1 = Head Space of IEC 60599

105
Accuracy of DGA Monitors
-CIGRE WG47

106
Accuracy of DGA Analysis and Diagnosis

-when results between DGA results from laboratories and on-line

monitors differ to the point where they create an uncertainty on DGA
diagnosis, the IEC and CIGRE recommend to verify the accuracy of
laboratories and on-line monitors with gas-in-oil standard samples
and following CIGRE procedures in TB # 409 and WG47.

107