Next Article in Journal
Estimating Chlorophyll Content of Leafy Green Vegetables from Adaxial and Abaxial Reflectance
Next Article in Special Issue
High-Resolution FBG-Based Fiber-Optic Sensor with Temperature Compensation for PD Monitoring
Previous Article in Journal
Geometry Optimisation of a Hall-Effect-Based Soft Fingertip for Estimating Orientation of Thin Rectangular Objects
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dissolved Gas Analysis Equipment for Online Monitoring of Transformer Oil: A Review

School of Industrial Engineering, University of Cantabria, Av. Los Castros s/n, 39005 Cantabria, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(19), 4057; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194057
Submission received: 20 August 2019 / Revised: 10 September 2019 / Accepted: 16 September 2019 / Published: 20 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensors for Smart Grids)

Abstract

:
Power transformers are the most important assets of electric power substations. The reliability in the operation of electric power transmission and distribution is due to the correct operation and maintenance of power transformers. The parameters that are most used to assess the health status of power transformers are dissolved gas analysis (DGA), oil quality analysis (OQA) and content of furfuraldehydes (FFA) in oil. The parameter that currently allows for simple online monitoring in an energized transformer is the DGA. Although most of the DGA continues to be done in the laboratory, the trend is online DGA monitoring, since it allows for detection or diagnosis of the faults throughout the life of the power transformers. This study presents a review of the main DGA monitors, single- or multi-gas, their most important specifications, accuracy, repeatability and measurement range, the types of installation, valve or closed loop, and number of analogue inputs and outputs. This review shows the differences between the main existing DGA monitors and aims to help in the selection of the most suitable DGA monitoring approach according to the needs of each case.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The most important and expensive asset in power transmission and distribution networks is the power transformer, so there must have a well-defined maintenance strategy from commissioning to withdrawal to ensure an appropriate level of reliability throughout the operational life of the transformer.
According to [1,2,3], different asset maintenance strategies coexist depending on the condition and available information of the components and subcomponents of the substation equipment, as seen in Figure 1. The current trend in maintenance strategies for substation assets is to maintain a predictive maintenance approach based on prognostics, understanding that the prognostic tools do not strictly assess the remaining operating time but can be used to assess the future degradation of an asset [1].
In predictive maintenance strategies, the lifetime management of high-voltage substation equipment is pursued [1], with the aim to manage the risks of the assets of a substation. To perform lifetime management of the transformers, it is necessary to have all the possible data throughout the lifetime of the transformer, which can be obtained through condition-based maintenance and through online continuous monitoring technologies [1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12].
According to [13], the risk is defined as the “effect of the uncertainty in the objectives,” so risk management of the assets has the purpose to evaluate, create and protect the correct operation of assets throughout the lifetime. The risk of an asset is represented by the risk index. The risk index is a function of the probability of failure and the consequences of failure [1,5,6,14]. The probability of failure refers to the health index of an asset, while the failure consequence evaluates and defines the consequences of a failure event.

2. Health Index of the Power Transformer

The GB Distribution Network Operators (DNO) created a Network Asset Indices Methodology [14] that aims to create a common framework of definitions, principles and methodologies for calculating the health index (HI). This report is adopted by all GB DNO.
From [14], it was observed that more parameters are used in calculating the transformer HI than for the HI calculation of any other asset; for this reason, it was necessary to establish an order of importance for the parameters that are used. All condition criteria that can be used to calculate the transformer HI [15] are shown in Table 1. Figure 2 aims to show the location of the parameters, which are measured for the HI calculation of the transformer.
In a previous study [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], the parameters that were used in their equations or algorithms have different weights. These weight differences, equations and algorithms between studies are discussed in [32], and this review assumes that the subjective judgement of the weighting factor leads to different values of the final HI. Power transformers, mainly above 30–40 MVA, are custom designed machines [33], so for the HI calculation, it is necessary to take into account the differences of the transformers in the limits and weights that are applied in the equations and algorithms.
Thus, the best way to calculate the transformer HI is to always know as many parameters as possible (Table 1); however, although all the parameters are important, they are often partially unknown, difficult to collect or difficult to automatically incorporate into computer programs. For example, the thermal images of the transformer cannot be included easily in computer programs for the calculation of the transformer HI. Because an expert is necessary to interpret the thermal images which makes the calculation of the transformer HI slower. Therefore, the most used and most important parameters for calculating the transformer HI are dissolved gas analysis (DGA), oil quality analysis (OQA) and the content of furfuraldehydes (FFA) in the oil.
  • DGA: The DGA method measures the gas concentrations in oil that are formed by the insulation decomposition processes, which occur when the transformer has faults. Depending on the type of fault, different types of decomposition processes can occur. When electrical and thermal defects occur in the transformer oil, they degrade generating combustible gases, such as hydrogen ( H 2 ), ethylene (C 2 H 4 ), acetylene (C 2 H 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and ethane (C 2 H 6 ). When decomposition occurs in cellulosic insulation, the generated gases are carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and these gases indicate a thermal fault. Depending on the gas concentration that is measured, the type of fault can be identified by using the interpretation method that was collected in [34,35].
  • OQA: The OQA consists of a combination of electrical, physical and chemical tests. The list of all the tests that can be performed on the transformer oil is shown in IEEE Std C57.106 [4]. The most important and common are the dielectric breakdown voltage (BDV), the water content, the power factor, the interfacial tension (IFT), acidity and colour. The results of these tests are used to prevent incipient failures and to evaluate the preventive maintenance processes, such as the replacement or recovery of transformer oil [36]. Even the use of these tests are different and have different weights when calculating the HI, depending on the study [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
  • FFA: The content of FFA in the transformer oil indicates the decomposition processes of the cellulosic material that constitute the transformer solid insulation [37]. The furanic components remain adsorbed by the paper, while a small part is dissolved in the oil. Its presence in the oil is used to diagnose the equipment in service as a complementary information to the DGA. Although the content of FFA in the transformer oil is a very important parameter in the calculation of HI, there are no recommendations for the interpretation of the results in the standards, as indicated by [24,28,38,39], so in each of the studies [15,16,17,19,20,22,23,26,30] a different limit value is taken in the HI calculation.

3. Dissolved Gas-In-Oil Analysis

Given the most important parameters in calculating the transformer HI defined above, the parameter that currently allows simple online monitoring of an energized transformer is the DGA [5,6,7,8,40].
DGA can be applied to various types of insulation oil used to fill the transformer [34,35,41,42,43,44]. Aging, thermal properties of each oil as well as the methods for the faults identification in the transformer oil are different depending on the oil used to fill the transformer. This review focuses on transformers filled with mineral oil and DGA equipment for online monitoring that measure the gas concentration in this type of oil.
Accurate online DGA monitoring makes it possible to detect or diagnose, almost instantaneously, any incipient failure that occurs in the liquid or solid insulation of the transformer, avoiding a major failure.
The use of gas concentrations limits and the methods for faults identification defined in the standards [34,35] allow for the detection and identification of early failures.
The gases that best detect an incipient fault are hydrogen and carbon monoxide. According to the gas generation based on temperature [45] and the key gas method (KGM) [34], as seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Hydrogen is present, in higher or lesser amounts, in all the electrical faults and thermal faults that occur in the oil. Figure 3 shows the approximate generation of combustible gases based on temperature. The band on the left shows the approximate proportions of gases that are generated under partial discharge conditions; as shown, the amount of hydrogen is much greater than the rest of the gases. From the gas generation chart, it can be observed how hydrogen is present in all temperatures, from 150 to >800 C , while the rest of the gases, such as ethylene or acetylene, need high temperatures, such as from 350 to 500 C , respectively, to be generated; or in very high temperatures, gases such as methane and ethane are not generated.
Carbon monoxide is produced when the solid insulation is decomposed due to thermal faults according to KGM (Figure 4).
Therefore, a monitoring process aimed at detecting incipient faults in the transformer should at least measure the concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. As seen below, all DGA monitors measure oil moisture, so the measurement of the carbon monoxide concentration is not essential, since the degradation of the solid insulation is indicated by the increase of oil moisture. The measurement of these three concentrations (hydrogen, carbon monoxide and moisture) would allow a basic initial diagnosis, by differentiating between thermal and electrical faults or leaks into oil, according to Table 2.
There are many methods for the faults identification in the transformer insulation [34,35,47], in Table 3 the main characteristics of the most used methods are summarized.
Several studies [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56] indicate that the best method for the faults identification in the transformer insulation is the Duval triangle method (DTM).The Duval pentagon method (DPM) was created to improve DTM results. Several recent studies [48,49] indicate that the DPM success rate improves those of the DTM, since the DPM allows to identify the normal aging of the transformer insulation. Although the DPM is shown as the best method of identifying faults, it should be noted that it is a fairly new method that should be studied further to improve its validity. So the DTM is the method considered as the best and most established to diagnose faults in the transformer insulation.
The DTM, as seen in Figure 5, uses the concentration ratio of three combustible gases (acetylene, ethylene and methane) to identify the fault. The concentration ratios of the three gases are calculated as
% C 2 H 2 = 100 · x x + y + z % C 2 H 4 = 100 · y x + y + z % CH 4 = 100 · z x + y + z
where x, y and z are gas concentrations in ppm of acetylene, ethylene and methane, respectively.

4. DGA Monitors

Online gas-in-oil monitors measure the gas concentrations in the transformer oil and detect or identify transformer faults.
CIGRE made a report on gas monitors for oil-filled electrical equipment [57] in which a list of the main monitors available in 2007 and the most important specifications were shown.
Table 4 shows the list of online gas-in-oil monitors and the main specifications that were analysed in this study. These monitors measure up to nine gas concentrations (hydrogen, ethylene, acetylene, methane, ethane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, propane or propene) from a single gas concentration (hydrogen). The amount of gas concentrations that this equipment can measure determines their functionality.
The equipment that measures from one to two gas concentrations is a fault detection monitor, known as single-gas DGA. Normally, these monitors measure hydrogen and carbon monoxide concentrations, which are the gases that indicate thermal and electrical faults in the transformer oil and thermal faults in the solid insulation [34]. There are equipment that also measure acetylene, ethylene or carbon dioxide, in addition to measuring hydrogen and carbon monoxide; although these monitors measure more gas concentrations, they do not identify faults. The fault detection monitor is used to monitor abnormal gassing in the transformer oil.
The equipment that measures nine gas concentrations is the fault diagnosis monitor, known as a multi-gas DGA. Using the values of gas concentrations and the methods defined in the standards [34,35], these monitors identify transformer faults. The fault diagnosis monitor is used to monitor the abnormal gassing in the transformer oil and diagnose faults.
As shown in Table 4, each manufacturer of DGA monitors uses a different technology for the detection and diagnosis of dissolved gases in the online monitoring transformer oil. The main manufacturers use predominantly gas chromatography (GC), photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS), solid-state (IC), thermal conductivity detector (TCD), non-dispersive infrared (NDIR), infrared (IR), near infrared (NIR), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), fuel cell (FC), micro-electronic sensor or electrochemical cell [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. Several studies [86,87,88,89,90,91] present a review of these gas sensor technologies for the detection of different gases.Table 5 shows the advantages and disadvantages collected in [86,87,88,89,90,91] of the gas detection methods of the DGA online monitoring equipment presented in Table 4.
According to the report on gas-in-oil monitors published by CIGRE [57], most manufacturers use the gas extraction method based on the headspace principle [92,93,94]. In this study, all monitors use the gas extraction method based on the headspace principle by direct contact between the oil and a small gas phase above or through a membrane separating the two phases (membrane of semipermeable PTFE or another polymer), as shown in Table 4. The extraction of gases is performed under different conditions of pressure (atmospheric or under partial vacuum) and temperature (at oil temperature, at ambient temperature, or at a fixed temperature), with or without pumping the oil continuously on the monitor. Once the gas extraction is performed, each gas measurement technology [86,87,88,89,90,91,92] measures the gas concentrations present in the oil sample.
Monitors that use GC measurement technology need carrier and calibration gases. Helium is used as a carrier gas to transport the sample gases that are extracted from the transformer oil. Gas chromatography monitors perform automatic calibration using on-board National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable calibration gas. Table 4 shows the elapsed time between automatic calibrations, depending on the manufacturer.
Monitors that use the fuel cell as a measurement technology need to replace the sensor every several years and perform sensor calibration every time the sensor is replaced.

4.1. Installation of The Monitor

The installation of the online gas-in-oil monitors is different depending on the type of sensor and transformer [95]. According to the manufacturers [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85], the installation of the monitors is performed using one or two different valves of the transformer. Table 4 shows the type of installation used by each sensor that is analysed in this study, and Figure 6a shows the possible valve locations on a power transformer.
The installation of the monitor using a single valve is performed by mounting the monitor directly on the valve using a thread or a flange (Figure 6b). In this type of installation, the best place to install the monitor is the valve located in the straight section in the cooling loop outlet pipe (Figure 6a), because there is oil flow, which makes the sample representative. An alternative installation, if the previous one is not available, consists of using a valve far enough from the bottom to ensure adequate oil flow, like the fill valve (Figure 6a). The drain valve is the worst location to install the monitor because it is located in the bottom of the transformer, where there is no oil flow and there is a risk of oil sludge.
The installation of the monitors using two valves consists of creating a closed loop in which the oil passes through the monitor (Figure 6b). One of the valves is the supply valve and the other is the return valve. As in the case of single valve installation, the supply valve must take oil where there is oil flow, and the valve that is located in the straight section in the radiator outlet pipe, the fill valve or a valve that is far enough from the bottom are good choices. The return valve can be the drain valve or an auxiliary valve whenever it is below the supply valve.
Two types of installation (Figure 6b) have several differences, apart from the number of valves they use. In the installation of the monitor in a valve, the oil sample is taken from and returned to the same valve, and the sensor or sensors are in this area where there is only circulation of the oil inside the tank. Other monitors with the installation in a valve generate oil circulation in the valve area through the heating of a pipe inside the valve to obtain a better oil flow. Although the best and most representative oil flow is achieved by using an oil loop installation, in addition to the internal flow in the tank, new flow is added due to this loop, thus making the oil sample in the monitor as representative as possible.

4.2. Fault Detection Monitor (Single-Gas DGA)

Fault detection monitors send out warnings when the gas concentration exceeds a set limit, which is normally the limits of each gas used are those indicated by the IEEE [34] and IEC [35] standards, or are calculated using the methods or recommendations proposed in [41,96,97,98,99].
Table 6 shows the gas concentrations that were measured by the fault detection monitors; it also shows the monitors that measure the oil moisture.
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 show the range, accuracy and repeatability of the measurements of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and moisture concentrations by the fault detection monitors, respectively, according to the manufacturers [58,61,63,64,65,70,72,74,75,78,79,81,82].
The measurement range indicates the lower detection limit (LDL) and the upper detection limit (UDL) in parts per million (ppm) that the monitor measures. The LDL is the minimum gas concentration that the monitor is able to measure; cases in which the manufacturers indicate a lower measurement range equal to 0 ppm does not indicate that the LDL is 0 ppm, but measurements below the LDL will be considered to be 0 ppm. The LDL is the most important parameter in the measurement range, because it allows for the detection of changes at very low concentrations. The accuracy and repeatability are shown in ppm and in percentage (%); the highest value is always taken.
The lower the ppm and the percentage of accuracy and repeatability and the lower the LDL ppm from Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9, improve fault detection monitoring [91].
In observing the moisture measurement values (Table 9), all fault detection monitors had similar specifications, with differences approximately 1 ppm or 1% in accuracy and 1–2% in the measurement range.

4.3. Fault Diagnosis Monitor (Multi-Gas DGA)

Fault diagnosis monitors, in addition to sending out warnings when the gas concentration exceeds a set limit, also diagnose the fault using the standards of IEEE [34] and IEC [35].
Table 10 shows the gases measured by the fault diagnosis monitors; it also shows the monitors that measure the oil moisture.
Table 11 shows the range, accuracy and repeatability of the gas concentration measurements by the fault diagnosis monitors according to the manufactures [59,60,62,66,67,68,69,71,73,76,77,80,83,84,85].
As in the case of the fault detection monitors, accuracy and repeatability are different depending on the monitor and the manufacturer, and the accuracy and repeatability in the moisture measurement are very similar among monitors. Accuracy and repeatability are the main characteristics to be observed in the diagnosis and online monitoring of transformer oil to obtain reliable results.

4.4. Analogue Inputs and Outputs of DGA Monitors

As mentioned above, online monitoring of power transformers allows having an asset maintenance strategy oriented to predictive maintenance. Most gas-in-oil monitors have analogue inputs and outputs whereby different external sensors can be connected to monitor other asset conditions. These external sensors measure, among others, the ambient temperature, oil temperature, moisture-in-oil and loading conditions.
All the monitors that have analogue outputs use DC current ( I D C ) in the 4–20 mA range for their analogue outputs. In the case of analogue inputs, most monitors also use the DC current in the 4–20 mA range, but there are several monitors that also use the AC current ( I A C ), AC voltage ( V A C ) or DC voltage ( V D C ), in the ranges of 4–20 mA + 20%, 0–80 V + 20% and 0–10 V + 20%, respectively.
Table 12 shows the analogue inputs and outputs of the fault detection monitors and the fault diagnosis monitors.

5. Conclusions

The dissolved gas analysis of the transformer oil is one of the most important parameters when evaluating the health status of a power transformer. Online DGA monitoring aims to support predictive maintenance of the power transformers by detecting incipient faults in the liquid or solid insulations.
A review of DGA equipment for online monitoring of power transformers was performed in this study. The main monitors that were available on the date of writing of this study (2018) were presented. A classification of the types of existing DGA monitors was defined in this study of fault detection monitors and fault diagnosis monitors. Fault detection monitors measure the concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide that are present in the transformer oil, so they only detect the fault, whereas fault diagnosis monitors measure the concentrations of five to nine gases, so they are able to diagnose the type of fault. Apart from the amount of gases they measure, DGA monitors have differences in accuracy, repeatability and measurement range. DGA monitors have two types of installation, in a valve or in a closed loop. Finally, each monitor has a different number of analogue inputs and outputs to connect to other sensors and to obtain better monitoring of the asset.
Another point to consider in the selection of a fault diagnosis monitor is the method to be used for fault identification. Depending on the number of gases required for faults identification of the method to be used, the selection of the monitor is limited. The comparison between the main methods for the faults identification, type of faults identifiable and gas concentrations required by each method was shown in this review.
This review aims to help the selection of DGA monitors, fault detection or diagnosis monitors, the required specifications depending on the importance of the transformer, the number of valves needed by the monitor and the number of valves in the transformer and the need to connect other sensors to the monitor through analogue inputs, or to connect the analogue outputs of the monitor to other equipment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, S.B., M.M. and A.A.; formal analysis, S.B and R.M.; investigation and resources, all authors contributed equally to this work; data analysis, S.B., P.C. and A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, review and editing, all authors contributed equally to this work; funding acquisition, M.M.

Funding

This research was funded by the EU Regional Development Fund (FEDER) and the Spanish Government under RETOS-COLABORACIÓN RTC-2017-6782-3 and by the University of Cantabria Industrial Doctorate 19.DI12.649.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support received from Viesgo.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BDVBreakdown voltage
C 2 H 2 Acetylene
C 2 H 4 Ethylene
C 2 H 6 Ethane
CH 4 Methane
COCarbon monoxide
CO 2 Carbon dioxide
DGADissolves gas analysis
DNODistribution network operators
DPMDuval pentagon method
DRMDoernenburg ratio method
DTMDuval triangle method
FCFuel cell
FFAFurfuraldehyde
FTIRFourier transform infrared
GCGas chromatography
H 2 Hydrogen
HIHealth index
ICSolid state sensor
IFTInterfacial tension
IRInfrared
IRMIEC ratio method
KGMKey gas method
LDLLower detection limit
LTCLoad tap changer
NDIRNon dispersive infrared
NIRNear infrared
NISTNational Institute of Standards and Technology
OQAOil quality analysis
PASPhotoacoustic spectroscopy
PTFEPolytetrafluoroethylene
RRMRogers ratio method
TCDThermal conductivity detector

References

  1. CIGRE. Ageing High Voltage Substation Equipment and Possible Mitigation Techniques; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2018; Volume 725. [Google Scholar]
  2. De Faria, H.; Costa, J.G.S.; Olivas, J.L.M. A review of monitoring methods for predictive maintenance of electric power transformers based on dissolved gas analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Christina, A.J.; Salam, M.; Rahman, Q.; Wen, F.; Ang, S.; Voon, W. Causes of transformer failures and diagnostic methods—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1442–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IEEE Guide for Acceptance and Maintenance of Insulating Mineral Oil in Electrical Equipment; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
  5. CIGRE. Guide for Transformer Maintenance; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2011; Volume 445. [Google Scholar]
  6. CIGRE. Guide on Transformer Intelligent Condition Monitoring (TICM) Systems; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2015; Volume 603. [Google Scholar]
  7. Power Transformer Maintenance and Application Guide; Technical Report; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2002.
  8. Saad, M.; teNyenhuis, E. On-line gas monitoring for increased transformer protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 22–25 October 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khederzadeh, M. Transformer Overload Management and Condition Monitoring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–12 June 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bian, J.; Yang, S.; Sun, X. The optimal maintenance strategy of power transformers based on the life cycle cost. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-FSKD), Guilin, China, 29–31 July 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Freitag, S.C.; Sperandio, M.; Marchesan, T.B.; Carraro, R. Power transformer risk management: Predictive methodology based on reliability centered maintenance. In Proceedings of the Simposio Brasileiro de Sistemas Eletricos (SBSE), Niteroi, Brazil, 12–16 May 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Irungu, G.K.; Akumu, A.O.; Munda, J.L. Transformer condition assessment for maintenance ranking: A comparison of three standards and different weighting techniques. In Proceedings of the IEEE AFRICON, Cape Town, South Africa, 18–20 September 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Risk Management. Guidelines 31000:2018; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  14. Working Group DNOs and NIE. DNO Common Network Asset Indices Methodology; Technical Report; Ofgem: London, UK, 2017.
  15. Jahromi, A.; Piercy, R.; Cress, S.; Service, J.; Fan, W. An approach to power transformer asset management using health index. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2009, 25, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ashkezari, A.D.; Ma, H.; Saha, T.K.; Ekanayake, C. Application of fuzzy support vector machine for determining the health index of the insulation system of in-service power transformers. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2013, 20, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Abu-Elanien, A.E.B.; Salama, M.M.A.; Ibrahim, M. Calculation of a Health Index for Oil-Immersed Transformers Rated Under 69 kV Using Fuzzy Logic. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2012, 27, 2029–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jürgensen, J.H.; Godin, A.S.; Hilber, P. Health index as condition estimator for power system equipment: A critical discussion and case study. CIRED Open Access Proc. J. 2017, 2017, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ortiz, F.; Fernandez, I.; Ortiz, A.; Renedo, C.J.; Delgado, F.; Fernandez, C. Health indexes for power transformers: A case study. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2016, 32, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hernanda, I.G.N.S.; Mulyana, A.; Asfani, D.A.; Negara, I.M.Y.; Fahmi, D. Application of health index method for transformer condition assessment. In Proceedings of the TENCON 2014: IEEE Region 10 Conference FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle, Bangkok, Thailand, 22–25 October 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alqudsi, A.Y.; ElHag, A.H. A cost effective artificial intelligence based transformer insulation health index. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Condition Assessment Techniques in Electrical Systems (CATCON), Punjab, India, 16–18 November 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Naderian, A.; Cress, S.; Piercy, R.; Wang, F.; Service, J. An Approach to Determine the Health Index of Power Transformers. In Proceedings of the Conference Record of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Nice, France, 22–26 September 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haema, J.; Phadungthin, R. Condition assessment of the health index for power transformer. In Proceedings of the 2012 Power Engineering and Automation Conference, Wuhan, China, 18–20 September 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scatiggio, F.; Pompili, M. Health index: The TERNA’s practical approach for transformers fleet management. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2–5 June 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Taengko, K.; Damrongkulkamjorn, P. Risk assessment for power transformers in PEA substations using health index. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Krabi, Thailand, 15–17 May 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wattakapaiboon, W.; Pattanadech, N. The new developed Health Index for transformer condition assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis (CMD), Xi’an, China, 25–28 September 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ghazali, Y.Z.Y.; Talib, M.A.; Rosli, H.A. TNB Experience in Condition Assessment and Life Management of Distribution Power Transformers; IET: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Scatiggio, F.; Fraioli, A.; Iuliani, V.; Terna Rete Italia; Pompili, M. Health Index: The TERNA’s Practical Approach for Transformers Fleet Management. In Proceedings of the CIGRÉ Biennial Session A2-107, Paris, France, 24–29 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Picher, P.; Boudreau, J.F.; Manga, A.; Rajotte, C.; Tardif, C.; Bizier, G.; Gaetano, N.D.; Garon, D.; Girard, B.; Hamel, J.F.; et al. Use of Health Index and Reliability Data for Transformer Condition Assessment and Fleet Ranking. In Proceedings of the CIGRÉ Biennial Session A2-101, Paris, France, 24–29 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Saha, T.K.; Ma, H.; Ekanayake, C.; Martin, D.; Allan, D. Pattern Recognition Techniques for Determining the Health Index of Oil-Paper Insulation of In-service Power Transformers. In Proceedings of the CIGRÉ Biennial Session A2-105, Paris, France, 24–29 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  31. Németh, B.; Vörös, C.; Csépes, G. Health index as one of the best practice for condition assessment of transformers and substation equipments—Hungarian experience. In Proceedings of the CIGRÉ Biennial Session A2-103, Paris, France, 24–29 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  32. Azmi, A.; Jasni, J.; Azis, N.; Kadir, M.A. Evolution of transformer health index in the form of mathematical equation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 687–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Orosz, T.; Sőrés, P.; Raisz, D.; Tamus, Z. Analysis of the Green Power Transition on Optimal Power Transformer Designs. Period. Polytech. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2015, 59, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008. [CrossRef]
  35. IEC 60599:2015: Mineral Oil-Filled Electrical Equipment in Service—Guidance on the Interpretation of Dissolved and Free Gases Analysis; IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  36. CIGRE. Life Management Techniques For Power Transformers; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2003; Volume 494. [Google Scholar]
  37. IEC 61198:1993: Mineral Insulating Oils—Methods for the Determination of 2-Furfural and Related Compounds; IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
  38. CIGRE. Furanic Compounds for Diagnosis; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2012; Volume 494. [Google Scholar]
  39. Urquiza, D.; Garcia, B.; Burgos, J.C. Statistical study on the reference values of furanic compounds in power transformers. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2015, 31, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sun, H.C.; Huang, Y.C.; Huang, C.M. A Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis in Power Transformers. Energy Procedia 2012, 14, 1220–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. CIGRE. In DGA in Non-Mineral Oils and Load Tap Changers and Improved DGA Diagnosis Criteria; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2010; Volume 443.
  42. Mehta, D.M.; Kundu, P.; Chowdhury, A.; Lakhiani, V.K.; Jhala, A.S. A review on critical evaluation of natural ester vis-a-vis mineral oil insulating liquid for use in transformers: Part 1. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2016, 23, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scatiggio, F.; Pepe, F.; Sacco, S.; Serafino, C. Increased Loadability of Transformers Immersed in Natural Ester. In Proceedings of the IEEE 20th International Conference on Dielectric Liquids (ICDL), Roma, Italy, 23–27 June 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Baruah, N.; Maharana, M.; Nayak, S.K. Performance analysis of vegetable oil-based nanofluids used in transformers. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2019, 13, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Transformer Maintenance - Facilities Instructions, Standards, and Techniques; United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  46. Serveron White Paper: DGA Diagnostic Methods; Serveron Corporation: Hillsboro, OH, USA, 2007.
  47. CIGRE. Advances in DGA Interpretation; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2019; Volume 771. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pattanadech, N.; Wattakapaiboon, W. Application of Duval Pentagon Compared with Other DGA Interpretation Techniques: Case Studies for Actual Transformer Inspections Including Experience from Power Plants in Thailand. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology (ICEAST), Luang Prabang, Laos, 2–5 July 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pattanadech, N.; Sasomponsawatline, K.; Siriworachanyadee, J.; Angsusatra, W. The conformity of DGA interpretation techniques: Experience from transformer 132 units. In Proceedings of the IEEE 20th International Conference on Dielectric Liquids (ICDL), Roma, Italy, 23–27 June 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Basuki, A.; Suwarno. Online Dissolved Gas Analysis of Power Transformers Based on Decision Tree Model. In Proceedings of the Conference on Power Engineering and Renewable Energy (ICPERE), Solo, Indonesia, 29–31 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wattakapaiboon, W.; Pattanadech, N. The state of the art for dissolved gas analysis based on interpretation techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis (CMD), Xi’an, China, 25–28 September 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Golarz, J. Understanding Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) techniques and interpretations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D), Dallas, TX, USA, 3–5 May 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Piotrowski, T.; Rozga, P.; Kozak, R. Analysis of excessive hydrogen generation in transformers in service. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2015, 22, 3600–3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bakar, N.A.; Abu-Siada, A.; Cui, H.; Li, S. Improvement of DGA interpretation using scoring index method. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Electrical Materials and Power Equipment (ICEMPE), Xi’an, China, 14–17 May 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abu-Siada, A.; Islam, S. A new approach to identify power transformer criticality and asset management decision based on dissolved gas-in-oil analysis. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2012, 19, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Duval, M.; Dukarm, J. Improving the reliability of transformer gas-in-oil diagnosis. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2005, 21, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. CIGRE. Report on Gas Monitors for Oil-Filled Electrical Equipment; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2010; Volume 409. [Google Scholar]
  58. Calisto 2. Available online: https://www.morganschaffer.com/products.php?id=4 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  59. Calisto 5. Available online: https://www.morganschaffer.com/products.php?id=2 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  60. Calisto 9. Available online: https://www.morganschaffer.com/products.php?id=1 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  61. SmartDGA Guard™. Available online: https://www.lumasenseinc.com/EN/products/gas-sensing/smart-dga-for-transformers/smart-dga-guard-4-gas/smartdga-guard.html (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  62. SmartDGA Guide™. Available online: https://www.lumasenseinc.com/EN/products/gas-sensing/smart-dga-for-transformers/smart-dga-guide-9-gas/smartdga-guide.html (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  63. Kelman MINITRANS Multiple Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/md/catalog/minitrans.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  64. Hydran 201Ti Single Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/MD/catalog/hydran201Ti.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  65. Hydran M2-X Single Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/MD/catalog/hydranm2x.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  66. Kelman TAPTRANS Multiple Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/md/catalog/taptrans.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  67. Kelman TRANSFIX Multiple Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/md/catalog/transfix.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  68. Kelman MULTITRANS Multiple Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/md/catalog/multitrans.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  69. Kelman DGA 900 Multiple Gas Transformer DGA. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/md/catalog/DGA900.htm (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  70. Moisture, Hydrogen and Temperature Transmitter MHT410. Available online: https://www.vaisala.com/en/products/instruments-sensors-and-other-measurement-devices/instruments-industrial-measurements/mht410 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  71. Optimus™ DGA Monitor OPT100. Available online: https://www.vaisala.com/en/products/instruments-sensors-and-other-measurement-devices/instruments-industrial-measurements/opt100 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  72. CoreSense™ Gives Continuous Online Monitoring of Transformer Gases, Such as Hydrogen and Moisture. Available online: https://new.abb.com/products/transformers/service/advanced-services/coresense (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  73. CoreSense M10 Multi-Gas DGA Analyzer. Available online: https://new.abb.com/products/transformers/service/advanced-services/coresense-m10 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  74. DGA 150/250/400 Submersible Single Gas Monitor. Available online: https://www.qualitrolcorp.com/products/dissolved-gas-analyzers/single-gas-analyzers/qualitrol-dga-150250400-submersible-single-gas-monitor/ (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  75. Serveron® TM1 Single Gas On-line Dissolved Gas Monitor. Available online: https://www.qualitrolcorp.com/products/dissolved-gas-analyzers/single-gas-analyzers/serveron-tm1-single-gas-on-line-dissolved-gas-monitor/ (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  76. Multi Gas Serveron® TM3 On-line Gas Chromatography Dissolved Gas Monitor. Available online: https://www.qualitrolcorp.com/products/dissolved-gas-analyzers/multi-gas-analyzers/serveron-tm3-multi-gas-analyzer-multi-gas-on-line-dissolved-gas-monitor/ (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  77. Multi Gas Serveron® TM8 On-line Gas Chromatography Dissolved Gas Monitor. Available online: https://www.qualitrolcorp.com/products/dissolved-gas-analyzers/multi-gas-analyzers/serveron-tm8-multi-gas-on-line-dissolved-gas-monitor/ (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  78. Hydrocal Early Warning. Available online: https://www.mte.ch/products/transformer-monitoring/early-warning-10026 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  79. Hydrocal 1004 GenX. Available online: https://www.mte.ch/products/transformer-monitoring/hydrocal-genx-10024 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  80. Hydrocal Intensive Care. Available online: https://www.mte.ch/products/transformer-monitoring/intensive-care-10023 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  81. SITRAM H2 Guard—Early Fault Detection in Transformer Oil. Available online: https://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/services/power-transmission-distribution-smart-grid/condition-monitoring/for-hv-gis/sensors-and-accessories.htm (accessed on 12 November 2018).
  82. SITRAM Multisense 5—Monitoring and Diagnostics. Available online: https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/webassetpool/mam/tag-siemens-com/smdb/energy-management/services-power-transmission-power-distribution-smart-grid/customer-services/cs-ff-en-sitram-multisense-9-v-1-2.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2018).
  83. SITRAM Multisense 9—Monitoring and Diagnostics. Available online: https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/webassetpool/mam/tag-siemens-com/smdb/energy-management/services-power-transmission-power-distribution-smart-grid/customer-services/cs-ff-en-sitram-multisense-9-v-1-2.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2018).
  84. TOTUS G5-DGA. Available online: https://www.camlingroup.com/product/totus-g5 (accessed on 12 November 2018).
  85. TOTUS G9-DGA. Available online: https://www.camlingroup.com/product/totus-mt (accessed on 12 November 2018).
  86. Chauhan, P.S.; Bhattacharya, S. Hydrogen gas sensing methods, materials, and approach to achieve parts per billion level detection: A review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hübert, T.; Boon-Brett, L.; Black, G.; Banach, U. Hydrogen sensors—A review. Sens. Actuators Chem. 2011, 157, 329–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dennison, J.C.; Trout, J.M. Transformer oil DGA monitoring technology study 2015. In Proceedings of the IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D), Dallas, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yunusa, Z.; Hamidon, M.N.; Kaiser, A.; Awang, Z. Gas Sensors—A Review. Sens. Transducers J. 2014, 168, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  90. Bakar, N.; Abu-Siada, A.; Islam, S. A review of dissolved gas analysis measurement and interpretation techniques. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2014, 30, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Instrument Engineers’ Handbook, Vol. 1: Process Measurement and Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003.
  92. Kolb, B.; Ettre, L.S. Static Headspace-Gas Chromatography; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Soria, A.C.; García-Sarrió, M.J.; Ruiz-Matute, A.I.; Sanz, M.L. Headspace Techniques for Volatile Sampling. In Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 255–278. [Google Scholar]
  94. Soria, A.; García-Sarrió, M.; Sanz, M. Volatile sampling by headspace techniques. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 71, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. IEEE Guide for Application for Monitoring Equipment to Liquid-Inmersed Transformers and Components; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012.
  96. Wang, M.; Vandermaar, A.; Srivastava, K. Review of condition assessment of power transformers in service. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2002, 18, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. CIGRE. Recent Developments in DGA Intrepretation; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2006; Volume 296. [Google Scholar]
  98. Duval, M. Calculation of DGA Limit Values and Sampling Intervals in Transformers in Service. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2008, 24, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, Y.L.; Chen, Z.Y. Evaluation of On-Line DGA Limit Values and Calculation of Detecting Intervals for On-Line Monitoring Equipment for Transformers. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 986–987, 1643–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Interrelation of maintenance strategies [1].
Figure 1. Interrelation of maintenance strategies [1].
Sensors 19 04057 g001
Figure 2. Location of the parameters measured for the HI calculation of the transformer.
Figure 2. Location of the parameters measured for the HI calculation of the transformer.
Sensors 19 04057 g002
Figure 3. Gas generation based on temperature (Not to scale) [45].
Figure 3. Gas generation based on temperature (Not to scale) [45].
Sensors 19 04057 g003
Figure 4. Fault type by the key gas method [34].
Figure 4. Fault type by the key gas method [34].
Sensors 19 04057 g004
Figure 5. Duval Triangle and list of faults detectable by DGA [37].
Figure 5. Duval Triangle and list of faults detectable by DGA [37].
Sensors 19 04057 g005
Figure 6. (a) Possible valve locations in a power transformer; and (b) installation schematic (Not to scale).
Figure 6. (a) Possible valve locations in a power transformer; and (b) installation schematic (Not to scale).
Sensors 19 04057 g006
Table 1. Parameters of the transformer health index [15].
Table 1. Parameters of the transformer health index [15].
ItemCondition CriteriaItemCondition Criteria
1DGA13Main Tank Corrosion
2Load History14Cooling Equipment
3Power Factor15Oil Tank Corrosion
4Infra-Red16Foundation
5Oil Quality17Grounding
6Overall Condition18Gaskets, Seals
7Furan or Age19Connectors
8Turns Ratio20Oil Leaks
9Leakage Reactance21Oil Level
10Winding Resistance22DGA of LTC
11Core-to-Ground23LTC Oil Quality
12Bushing Condition24Overall LTC Condition
Table 2. Initial fault identification chart [46].
Table 2. Initial fault identification chart [46].
FaultGas Generated
COH 2 H 2 O
Cellulose agingx x
Mineral oil decomposition x
Leaks into oil x
Thermal decomposition of cellulosexx
Overheated transformer corexx
Thermal faults in oil (150 to 300 C) x
Thermal faults in oil 300 to 700 C) x
Thermal faults in oil (> 700 C) x
Partial discharge x
Arcing x
Table 3. Comparison between fault identification methods [34,35,47].
Table 3. Comparison between fault identification methods [34,35,47].
MethodDescriptionFault Identification and Normal AgingGas Used
Key Gas Method
(KGM)
Uses individual gas
concentrations to
identify the fault
PD, arcing, overheated oil,
overheated cellulose
CO, H 2 ,
C 2 H 2 , C 2 H 4
Doernenburg Ratio
Method (DRM)
Uses four gas
concentration ratios:
CH 4 H 2 , C 2 H 2 C 2 H 4 , C 2 H 2 CH 4 , C 2 H 6 C 2 H 2
Thermal decomposition,
PD, arcing
H 2 , C 2 H 2 , CH 4 ,
C 2 H 6 , C 2 H 4
Rogers Ratio
Method (RRM)
Uses three gas
concentration ratios:
CH 4 H 2 , C 2 H 2 C 2 H 4 , C 2 H 4 C 2 H 6
Normal aging, PD, arcing,
low temperature fault,
thermal fault <700 C,
thermal fault >700 C
H 2 , C 2 H 2 , CH 4 ,
C 2 H 6 , C 2 H 4
IEC Ratio
Method (IRM)
Uses three gas
concentration ratios:
CH 4 H 2 , C 2 H 2 C 2 H 4 , C 2 H 4 C 2 H 6
PD, low energy discharge,
high energy discharge,
thermal faults <300 C,
between 300 and 700 C,
and >700 C
H 2 , C 2 H 2 , CH 4 ,
C 2 H 6 , C 2 H 4
Duval Triangle
Method (DTM)
Uses three gases
corresponding to the
increasing energy
content or temperature
of the faults
PD, low energy discharge,
high energy discharge,
thermal faults <300 C,
between 300 and 700 C,
and >700 C
C 2 H 2 , CH 4 ,
C 2 H 4
Duval Pentagon
Method (DPM)
Uses five gases
corresponding to the
increasing energy
content or temperature
of the faults
Normal aging, PD,
low energy discharge,
high energy discharge,
thermal faults <300 C,
between 300 and 700 C,
and >700 C
H 2 , C 2 H 2 , CH 4 ,
C 2 H 6 , C 2 H 4
Table 4. List of manufacturers and gas-in-oil monitors.
Table 4. List of manufacturers and gas-in-oil monitors.
ManufacturerEquipmentMeasurement TechnologyGas ExtractionConsumablesAutomatic CalibrationInstallation
Morgan SchafferCalisto 2 [58]TCDPTFE 2 V
Calisto 5 [59]GCPTFECalibration and
carrier gases
Every
24 hours
2 V
Calisto 9 [60]GCPTFECalibration and
carrier gases
Every
24 hours
2 V
LumaSenseSmartDGA
Guard [61]
NDIR + FCMembraneH 2 sensorAfter sensor
replacement
1 V or 2 V
SmartDGA
Guide [62]
NDIR + FCMembraneH 2 and O 2
sensor
After sensor
replacement
1 V or 2 V
GEMinitrans [63]PASHeadspace 2 V
Hydran 201Ti [64]FCMembrane 1 V
Hydran M2-X [65]FCMembraneH 2 sensor 1 V
Taptrans [66]PASHeadspace 2 V
Transfix [67]PASHeadspace 2 V
Multitrans [68]PASHeadspace 2 V
DGA 900 [69]PASHeadspace 2 V
VaisalaMHT 410 [70]ICHeadspace 1 V
OPT 100 [71]IRHeadspace 2 V
ABBCoreSense [72]ICHeadspace 1 V
CoreSense M10 [73]IC + FTIRHeadspace 1 V
QualitrolDGA 150 [74]ICHeadspace 1 V
TM1 [75]ICHeadspace 1 V
TM3 [76]GCMembraneCalibration and
carrier gases
Every
3 days
2 V
TM8 [77]GCMembraneCalibration and
carrier gases
Every
3 days
2 V
MTEHydrocal 1003 [78]Micro-electronic
sensor +
Electrochemical
cell
Membrane 1 V
Hydrocal
1004 GenX [79]
Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Membrane 1 V
Hydrocal 1005 [78]Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Membrane 1 V
Hydrocal 1008 [80]Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Membrane 1 V
Hydrocal 1009 [80]Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Membrane 1 V
SIEMENSSITRAM H2Guard [81]ICHeadspace 1 V
SITRAM
Multisense 5 [82]
Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Headspace 1 V
SITRAM
Multisense 9 [83]
Micro-electronic
sensor + NIR
Headspace 1 V
CAMLINTOTUS G5 [84]IR 2 V
TOTUS G9 [85]PAS 2 V
TCD = Thermal conductivity detector; GC = Gas chromatography; NDIR = Non dispersive infrared; FC = Fuel cell; PAS = Photoacoustic Spectroscopy; IC = Solid-state sensor; NIR = Near infrared; IR = Infrared; FTIR = Fourier-transform infrared; 1 V = Single valve installation; 2 V = Close loop installation; –: Not indicated by the manufacturer; Blank spaces indicate that monitors do not need consumables or calibration owing to the use or replacement of consumables.
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of gas detection technologies [86,87,88,89,90,91].
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of gas detection technologies [86,87,88,89,90,91].
TechnologyAdvantagesDisadvantages
GCWide range of fault gases
Highest accuracy and repeatability
Long time required to complete a test
Expensive
Frequent calibrations needed
Auxiliary (carrier) gas needed
Maintenance cost
PASWide range of fault gases
Can detect/measure very
low (ppm and ppb) gas
concentrations
Low maintenance
Results are sensitive to the wave
number range of the optical
filters and their absorption
characteristics
Accuracy influenced
by temperature,
pressure, and vibration
Limited ability to measure
high gas concentrations
Interfering gases can effect
accuracy
ICOperate under extreme
temperatures,
vibration, or in
corrosive atmospheres
Limited ability to detect very
low gas concentrations
TCDFast response
Stable
Wide measuring range
Simple construction
Robust
Sensitive to interfering gases
Reaction due to heating wire
Heating element reacts with gas
NDIRSimultaneous multi-gas
measurement
No required calibrations
Low maintenance
Fast gas measurement time
Limited ability to detect very low
gas concentrations
Interfering gases can effect
accuracy
IRUses only physical technique
Can be used in inert atmospheres
Not all gases have IR absorption
Sequential monitoring is slower on
multi point analyzers and also
more user expertise required
NIRSimultaneous multi-gas
measurement
Non-frequent calibrations
Low maintenance
Limited ability to measure high
gas concentrations
Interfering gases can effect
accuracy
FTIRSimultaneous multi-gas measurementAccuracy influenced by moisture
FCSmall sizePeriodic replacement
Single gas measurement
Micro-electronic sensorSmall sizeSingle gas measurement
Electrochemical cellSmall size
Working at high temperature is possible
Frequent calibrations needed
Short/limited life time
Single gas measurement
Cross sensitivity to other gases
Table 6. Parameters measured by fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Table 6. Parameters measured by fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
EquipmentHydrogen (H 2 )Carbon Monoxide (CO)MoistureOther Gases
Calisto 2xxx
SmartDGA GuardxxxC 2 H 2 and CO 2
MinitransxxxC 2 H 2
Hydran 201Tix
Hydran M2-Xx 1 x
MHT410x x
CoreSensex x
DGA 150x
Serveron TM1x optional
Hydrocal 1003xxx
Hydrocal
1004 GenX
xxxC 2 H 2
Hydrocal 1005xxxC 2 H 2 and C 2 H 4
H2 Guardx
Multisense 5xxxC 2 H 2 and C 2 H 4
1 : Relative sensitivity ( 15 ± 4 %).
Table 7. Hydrogen concentration measurement range, accuracy and repeatability of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Table 7. Hydrogen concentration measurement range, accuracy and repeatability of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
EquipmentMeasurement Range (ppm)AccuracyRepeatability
Calisto 22–50.000 ± 2 ppm or ± 5 % ± 2 ppm or ± 3 %
SmartDGA
Guard
5–10.000 ± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
Minitrans5–5.000 ± 5 ppm or ± 10 %
Hydran 201Ti25-2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 10 % ± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
Hydran M2-X25–2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 10 % ± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
MHT4100–5.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 % ± 15 ppm or ± 10 %
CoreSense0–5.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
DGA 15050–5.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 % ± 15 ppm or ± 10 %
Serveron TM120–10.000 ± 20 ppm or ± 15 % ± 5 ppm or ± 10 %
Hydrocal 10030–2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 15 %
Hydrocal
1004 GenX
0–6.000 ± 20 ppm or ± 10 %
Hydrocal 10050–2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 15 %
H2 Guard25–5.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 % ± 15 ppm or ± 10 %
Multisense 50–2.000±LDL ppm or ± 15 %
–: Not indicated by the manufacturer.
Table 8. Carbon monoxide concentration measurement range and accuracy of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Table 8. Carbon monoxide concentration measurement range and accuracy of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
EquipmentMeasurement Range (ppm)AccuracyRepeatability
Calisto 225–100.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 15 % ± 25 ppm or ± 10 %
SmartDGA Guard10–10.000 ± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
Minitrans10–50.000 ± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
Hydran 201Ti
Hydran M2-X
MHT410
CoreSense
DGA 150
Serveron TM1
Hydrocal 10030–2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
Hydrocal 1004 GenX0–6.000 ± 5 ppm or ± 10 %
Hydrocal 10050–2.000 ± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
H2 Guard
Multisense 50–5.000±LDL ppm or ± 5 %
–: Not indicated by the manufacturer; Blank spaces indicate what the monitors do not measure.
Table 9. Moisture measurement range and accuracy of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Table 9. Moisture measurement range and accuracy of fault detection monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
EquipmentMeasurement RangeAccuracyRepeatability
Calisto 22–100% ± 3 ppm or ± 3 % ± 2 ppm or ± 2 %
SmartDGA Guard1–99% ± 3 ppm or ± 2 %
Minitrans0–100% ± 2 %
Hydran 201Ti
Hydran M2-X0–100% ± 2 % ± 2 %
MHT4100–100% ± 2 %
CoreSense0–100% ± 2 %
DGA 150
Serveron TM10–100% ± 5 %
Hydrocal 10030–100% ± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
Hydrocal 1004 GenX0–100% ± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
Hydrocal 10050–100% ± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
H2 Guard
Multisense 50–100%±LDL ppm or ± 3 %
–: Not indicated by the manufacturer; Blank spaces indicate what the monitors do not measure.
Table 10. Parameters measured by fault diagnosis monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Table 10. Parameters measured by fault diagnosis monitors (as indicated by manufacturers).
Equipment5 Gases7 Gases9 GasesMoisture
Calisto 5x x
Calisto 9 xx
SmartDGA Guide xx
Taptrans xx
Transfix xx
Multitrans xx
DGA 900 xx
OPT100 x x
CoreSense M10 1 x
Serveron TM3 2 optional
Serveron TM8 xoptional
Hydrocal 1008 x x
Hydrocal 1009 3 x
Multisense 9 3 x
TOTUS G5x x
TOTUS G9 x x
5 gases: H 2 , CO, CH 4 , C 2 H 2 and C 2 H 4 ; 7 gases: 5 gases + C 2 H 6 and CO 2 ; 9 gases: 7 gases + O 2 and N 2 ; 1 : 7 gases + C 3 H 6 and C 3 H 8 ; 2 : measures the gases used in DTM; 3 : 8 gases (7 gases + O 2 ).
Table 11. Gas concentration and moisture measurements range, accuracy and repeatability of the fault diagnosis monitors (as indicated by the manufacturers).
Table 11. Gas concentration and moisture measurements range, accuracy and repeatability of the fault diagnosis monitors (as indicated by the manufacturers).
EquipmentH 2 Range (ppm)CO Range (ppm),CH 4 Range (ppm),C 2 H 2 Range (ppm),C 2 H 4 Range (ppm),C 2 H 6 Range (ppm),CO 2 Range (ppm),O 2 Range (ppm)N 2 Range (ppm),C 3 H 6 Range (ppm),C 3 H 8 Range (ppm),Moisture Range,
Accuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and RepeatabilityAccuracy and Repeatability
Calisto 50–20.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
0–30.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
± 10 ppm or ± 3 %
0–100.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.2 ppm or ± 3 %
0–100.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.2 ppm or ± 3 %
0–200.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.2 ppm or ± 3 %
2–100%
± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
± 2 ppm or ± 2 %
Calisto 90–20.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
0–30.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
± 10 ppm or ± 3 %
0–100.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
0–100.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
0–200.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 5 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
0–200.000
± 0.2 ppm or ± 6 %
± 0.5 ppm or ± 4 %
0–100.000
± 15 ppm or ± 5 %
± 15 ppm or ± 3 %
0–100.000
± 500 ppm or ± 15 %
± 500 ppm or ± 10 %
0–150.000
± 2.000 ppm or ± 15 %
± 2.000 ppm or ± 10 %
2–100%
± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
± 2 ppm or ± 2 %
SmartDGA Guide5–10.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
10–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
0.5–10.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–20.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
10–20.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
500–50.000
± 500 ppm or ± 5 %
5.000–100.000
± 5.000 ppm or ± 5 %
1–99%
± 3 ppm or ± 2 %
Taptrans5–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
0.5–50.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
20–50.000
± 20 ppm or ± 5 %
100–50.000
± 10 %
10.000–100.000
± 15 %
0–100%
± 3 %
Transfix5–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
0.5–50.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
20–50.000
± 20 ppm or ± 5 %
100–50.000
± 10 %
10.000–100.000
± 15 %
0–100%
± 3 %
Multitrans5–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2—50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
0.5-50.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
20–50.000
± 20 ppm or ± 5 %
100–50.000
± 10 %
10.000–100.000
± 15 %
0–100%
± 3 %
DGA 9005–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 3%
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 3 %
< 2%
2–50.000
± 2 ppm or ± 3 %
< 2%
0.5–50.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 3 %
< 2%
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 3 %
< 2%
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 3 %
< 2%
20–50.000
± 20 ppm or ± 3 %
< 3%
100–50.000
± 100 ppm or ± 5 %
< 2%
10.000–100.000
± 15 %
0–100%
± 3 %
< 3 %
OPT1000–5.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
± 15 ppm or ± 10 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–5.000
± 1 ppm or ± 10 %
± 1 ppm or ± 10 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–100%
± 2 ppm or ± 10 %
CoreSense M1025–5.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
2–5.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
1–10.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
0.5–10.000
± 0.5 ppm or ± 5 %
2–10.000
± 2 ppm or ± 5 %
2–10.000
± 2 ppm or ± 6 %
5–20.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
10–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
10–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 5 %
0–100%
± 3 ppm or ± 2 %
Serveron TM3 5–7.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
1–3.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
< 2%
3–5.000
± 3 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
0–100%
± 3 %
Serveron TM83–3.000
± 3 ppm or ± 5 %
< 2%
5–10.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 2%
5–7.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
1–3.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
< 2%
3–5.000
± 3 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
5–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
5–30.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
30–25.000
± 30 ppm or ± 5 %
< 1%
5.000–100.000
± 5.000 ppm or ± 5 %
< 20%
0–100%
± 3 %
Hydrocal 10080–2.000
± 25 ppm or ± 15 %
0–5.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–2.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–2.000
± 5 ppm or ± 20 %
0–2.000
± 10 ppm or ± 20 %
0–2.000
± 10 ppm or ± 20 %
0–20.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–100%
± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
Hydrocal 10090–10.000
± 25 ppm or ± 15 %
0–10.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–5.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–10.000
± 5 ppm or ± 20 %
0–10.000
± 10 ppm or ± 20 %
0–10.000
± 15 ppm or ± 20 %
0–20.000
± 25 ppm or ± 20 %
0–50.000
± 1.000 ppm or ± 10 %
0–100%
± 3 ppm or ± 3 %
Multisense 90–10.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–10.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–5.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–10.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–10.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–10.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–20.000
±LDL or ± 5 %
0–50.000
±LDL or ± 10 %
0–100%
±LDL or ± 3 %
TOTUS G55–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 15 %
10–20.000
± 10 ppm or ± 10 %
30–60.000
± 20 ppm or ± 10 %
3–5.000
± 3 ppm or ± 5 %
5–90.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
0–100%

TOTUS G90–5.000
± 5 ppm or ± 5 %
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
1-50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
0.1–50.000
± 0.1 ppm or ± 5 %
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
1–50.000
± 1 ppm or ± 5 %
3–50.000
± 3 ppm or ± 5 %
100–505.000
± 10 %
10.000–150.000
± 15 %
0–100%

–: Not indicated by the manufacturer; Blank spaces indicate what the monitors do not measure.
Table 12. Analogue inputs and outputs of gas-in-oil monitors (as indicated by the manufacturers)
Table 12. Analogue inputs and outputs of gas-in-oil monitors (as indicated by the manufacturers)
EquipmentAnalogue InputAnalogue Output
Fault
detection
monitor
Calisto 2 1 ( I D C ) (oil temperature sensor) 3 ( I D C )
Smart DGA Guardxx
Minitrans 1 ( I D C ) (load sensor)x
Hydran 201Ti 1 ( I D C ) x
Hydran M2-X 1 ( I D C ) 1 ( I D C )
MHT410x 3 ( I D C )
CoreSense 3 ( I D C ) 3 ( I D C )
DGA 150x 1 ( I D C )
Serveron TM1 2 ( I D C ) 3 ( I D C )
Hydrocal 1003 4 ( I D C ) + 4 ( I D C ) or 4 ( V D C ) 4 ( I D C )
Hydrocal 1004 GenXoptional 1 optional 1
Hydrocal 1005optional: 4 ( I D C ) + 6 ( I A C ) or 6 ( V A C ) 5 ( I D C )
H2 Guard 2 ( I D C ) 3 ( I D C )
Multisense 5optional: 10 ( I D C ) 5 ( I D C )
Fault
diagnosis
monitor
Calisto 5optional: 2 ( I D C ) optional: 10 ( I D C )
Calisto 9optional: 2 ( I D C ) optional: 10 ( I D C )
Smart DGA Guidexx
Taptransoptional 1 8 ( I D C )
Transfixoptional 1 8 ( I D C )
Multitransoptional 1 8 ( I D C )
DGA 900optional: 15 ( I D C ) optional 1
OPT100xx
CoreSense M10 4 ( I D C ) 8 ( I D C )
Serveron TM3 3 ( I D C ) x
Serveron TM8 3 ( I D C ) x
Hydrocal 1008optional: 4 ( I D C ) + 6 ( I A C ) or 6 ( V A C ) 8 ( I D C )
Hydrocal 1009optional: 4 ( I D C ) + 6 ( I A C ) or 6 ( V A C ) 9 ( I D C )
Multisense 9optional: 10 ( I D C ) 10 ( I D C )
TOTUS G5 4 ( I D C ) -
TOTUS G9--
x: The monitor does not have analogue inputs or outputs; 1: Not specified the number of analogue inputs or outputs; –: Not indicated by the manufacturer.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bustamante, S.; Manana, M.; Arroyo, A.; Castro, P.; Laso, A.; Martinez, R. Dissolved Gas Analysis Equipment for Online Monitoring of Transformer Oil: A Review. Sensors 2019, 19, 4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194057

AMA Style

Bustamante S, Manana M, Arroyo A, Castro P, Laso A, Martinez R. Dissolved Gas Analysis Equipment for Online Monitoring of Transformer Oil: A Review. Sensors. 2019; 19(19):4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bustamante, Sergio, Mario Manana, Alberto Arroyo, Pablo Castro, Alberto Laso, and Raquel Martinez. 2019. "Dissolved Gas Analysis Equipment for Online Monitoring of Transformer Oil: A Review" Sensors 19, no. 19: 4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop