You are on page 1of 6

The Transition to Next-Generation

Online DGA Monitoring Technologies


Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy
Expanded Technical Insights and Results
Donal Skelly GE Digital Energy
Part 2 of a 2 part series

imagination at work

Industry White Paper

The Transition to Next-Generation Online DGA Monitoring Technologies Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy

Abstract

Dissolved Gas Analysis

Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) is recognised as a powerful


monitoring technique for the detection of developing faults within
transformer main tanks and associated oil filled equipment.
Extensive historical data, collected by laboratory analysis over the
years, allows for accurate result interpretation. Online DGA has
become increasingly relevant for timely fault detection, especially
in the context of the ageing worldwide transformer fleet.

When the oil or paper insulation in a power transformer is stressed,


such as under elevated temperature conditions associated with
high load and/or fault conditions, or over time under normal
operating conditions, both may break down to form a range of
by-products and simple gases (1). These gases normally dissolve
into the oil immediately following their creation and remain there
indefinitely (if they cannot escape from the electrical equipment
via a breather or a leak).

Aspects of laboratory DGA are presented to illustrate the evolution


from laboratory analysis to on-line DGA. The benefits of GC are
outlined together with an analysis of the difficulties associated
with the use of this technology in field based on-line instruments.
An introduction to photoacoustic technology is offered, together
with examples of benefits associated with using this robust
technology in the challenging substation environment. Examples
or successful applications of this technology are presented and
discussed.

Abbreviations
PAS: Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy
DGA: Dissolved Gas Analysis

GC: Gas Chromatography

The gases that are associated with specific fault types are
Hydrogen (H2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Ethane (C2H6), Methane (CH4), Ethylene (C2H4) and Acetylene
(C2H2). They are known collectively as the diagnostic gases.
Analysis of these gases allows for the diagnosis of developing
faults using a variety of methods, including Duvals Triangle, Key
Gas Method etc
Traditionally DGA was limited to a laboratory environment because
of the complexity of the equipment required to first extract gases
from the oil sample taken and then measure these gases, often
at quantities as low as one part-per-million (ppm). Historically gas
extraction from a sample was performed using a strong vacuum
pump called a Toepler pump apparatus (1). More recently, IEC,
ASTM and others have published a new gas extraction technique,
Headspace Gas Extraction, which is becoming standard in
laboratories due to its convenience, excellent repeatability and
perhaps more importantly its inherent suitability for automation.
Historically the DGA technique comprised of an extraction
process (such as the aforementioned headspace) and Gas

2013 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

the photo acoustic spectrum of a gas sample can be recorded. This


spectrum can then be used to identify the absorbing components
of the sample (3).
C
C
4000

Due to the time and costs involved (site visit, logistics and
laboratory analysis), DGA analysis of an oil sample would usually
be restricted to once per year, with repeated or more frequent
samples collected and tested only if significant fault gases were
detected in the routine annual sample. As many types of faults
can progress significantly in less than one year, this approach
often resulted in missed diagnostic opportunities. Faults could
occur and progress for up to 12 months before being detected
and significant damage would be caused to the transformer in the
mean-time as a result.

H 3200

X-H Attached to heteroatoms

4000

2800

2300 2100

C-H

3000

C
N

Triples
2,380
CO 2

1800

O
C

C
1500

Doubles

Finger print
Singles

1460, 1380
nujol

2000

Figure 1. Generic location of bond absorptions that can lead,


through vibrational excitation to the acoustic effect in a
Photoacoustic Spectrometer. When the exact compounds of
interest are known specific regions of the spectrum can be focused
upon for quantitative and qualitative analysis.

For this reason, there has been a dramatic increase in recent


years of technology companies offering instrumentation mounted
on the transformer and capable of performing online automated
DGA at a frequency up to one sample per hour.

Parabolic
Mirror
Radiation
Source

On-Line, Remote DGA

Chopper
Wheel

Wavelength Selection
(Filter wheel)

Recent advances in gas detection technology have seen DGA


move out of the laboratory and into the field. Starting with
composite gas detectors capable of passively sampling fault
gases through a membrane, online DGA has advanced to a
point where full 9+ gas analysis can now be performed routinely.
By adding communication to the monitoring units, users can
now remotely track daily, weekly and seasonal gassing trends
as well as detect abnormal gassing events. Based on the ever
rising number of installed instruments, it is clear that online DGA
is becoming increasingly accepted as one of the most effective
methods for monitoring oil filled electrical equipment. Applied
across generation, transmission and distribution transformers,
more than 80,000 online monitors are now in operation worldwide.
Historically, multigas on-line monitoring devices were based
around versions of laboratory GC equipment, packaged to allow
them to work in a field environment. Photo Acoustic Spectroscopy
(PAS) based DGA instruments entered the market more recently
(2). Utilising detection technology normally associated with urban
pollution monitoring, PAS based systems for DGA employ the
common headspace gas extraction technique but use an infrared/
acoustic based detector for gas measurement.
This paper will look at the application of this innovative technique
Photo Acoustic Spectroscopy (PAS), and its application to online
DGA, its challenges and benefits.

PAS Technology
Photo Acoustic Spectroscopy (PAS) works along the following
principle: A gas substance absorbs light energy following local
heating by an IR light and transforms it into kinetic energy (by
the energy exchange process). Regularly interrupting this process
causes a series of pressure waves (sound) that can be detected by
microphones. By measuring the sound at different wavelengths,

2013 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

cm-1
1000

Sample IN

Analysis
Chamber
Microphone

Microphone

Sample OUT

Figure 2. Diagram of a generic photoacoustic analyser. The IR


energy from the source is focused into the measurement cell,
containing a gas sample. The IR energy is pulsed by the action of
the rotating chopper wheel and filtered to produce a qualitative
and quantitative acoustic signal for a targeted bandwidth.
When the target gases are known, such as in the DGA application,
IR filters are used to select regions of the infrared spectrum that
overlap with the target gas absorption spectrum. Broadband IR is
produced by a black body IR source. This method achieves parts
per million gas detection levels for multiple gas species (Table 1)
Gas

Lower detection level in gas (ppm)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

<1

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

<1

Methane (CH4)

<1

Ethane (C2H6)

<1

Ethylene (C2H4)

<1

Acetylene (C2H2)

<0.2

Table 1. Gases detected using Photoacoustic Spectroscopy and approximate


lower detection level (LDL) of each gas in the gas phase.

The Transition to Next-Generation Online DGA Monitoring Technologies Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy

Chromatography (GC) as a measuring method. Standards such


as IEC60567 have acknowledged that this technique is sensitive
and repeatable for performing DGA in a laboratory environment.
Repeatability and accuracy have been documented and various
diagnostic techniques have been developed on the basis of results
obtained using such a system.

Application of PAS
Technology to DGA

This was performed in a laboratory environment with the detector


extracted from the main instrument and so does not account for
possible variability associated with environmental conditions.
However it does illustrate the ability of PAS detectors to measure
accurately, each of the target gases at medium concentrations.

Because of the long history of GC as the laboratory detector of


choice for DGA, investigations have been undertaken to establish
the capability of a PAS based system for detecting the same gases
in the same medium. This has involved direct comparison of the
capability of the detector with regards to measurement of a gas
sample and of the capability of the complete system (including
headspace gas extraction) compared to a full laboratory DGA
system.

Standard Gas-in-Oil
Samples
Gas ID:

Methodology

The Transition to Next-Generation Online DGA Monitoring Technologies Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy

Traceable gas mixtures were provided directly to a calibrated


photoacoustic gas analyser and measured. This process
was repeated ten times and an analysis for accuracy and
repeatability performed. This work was performed in a
laboratory environment and so may not account for possible
variability associated with environmental conditions.
However it does illustrate the ability of PAS detectors to
measure accurately each of the target gases at medium
concentrations.
Standard gas-in-oil samples were prepared and tested on a
portable DGA instrument which employs a PAS detector in
conjunction with an automated headspace gas extraction
system. Six samples were analysed and comparison made
between the standard sample quantity and the measured
gas quantity. This provided an assessment of the capability
of the instrument to measure gas-in-oil where the levels of
gas are known.
Oil samples from field transformers were collected and
analysed on the same portable instrument, with duplicate
samples analysed on a laboratory GC. This allows for
detection of any variability in measurement capability when
dealing with real situations.
Oil samples were collected from various transformers with
online PAS based systems. These samples were analysed in
a laboratory GC system and results compared.

Results
Gas

PGA Recorded Value (ppm)

Range :

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

UNIT :

(PPM)

(PPM)

(PPM)

Ethylene

17,4

35,1

70,2

Ethane

16,0

32,1

64,2

Methane

18,1

36,3

72,6

Carbon Monoxide

18,3

36,6

73,2

Carbon Dioxide

17,9

35,8

71,6

Acetylene

17,4

34,7

69,4

Table 3. Three concentration of gas in oil standard were prepared,


Low, Medium and High. Concentrations of gas-in-oil are shown for
each range and are normalised to 20oC
Gas ID:

Gas Concentration PPM :

Quantification
Diff.
(%)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

65

-10,9

1,87

59

63

-6,28

1,60

64

70

70

-8,17

3,27

59

57

62

58

-19,7

1,94

143

165

162

111

142

103

19,4

58

60

58

62

61

-13,8

1,60

Std.

Test
1

Test
2

Test
3

Test
4

Test
5

Test
6

Ethylene

70,2

62

61

63

60

64

Ethane

64,2

59

60

61

59

Methane

72,6

68

62

66

Carbon
Monoxide

73,2

60

57

Carbon
Dioxide

71,6

151

Acetylene

69,4

60

Table 4. High gas-in-oil result.

Actual
Value
(ppm)

PGA Recorded Value (ppm)


Min

Mean

Max

Std Dev

Ethylene

511.0

510.9

512.4

514.1

1.1

Ethane

509.0

513.8

514.3

514.7

0.4

Methane

493.0

495.0

495.3

495.7

0.3

Acetylene

499.0

504.2

504.5

504.8

0.2

Carbon Dioxide

10000.0

10088.7

10113.1

10137.5

24.4

Carbon
Monoxide

506.0

509.7

510.4

510.8

0.4

Overall, the repeatability of the test results at the given


concentrations, are shown to be very good. While Carbon Dioxide
shows around 100ppm all gasses except Carbon Dioxide, are
indicated to be marginally lower than the standard.

Table 2. Results of mixed gas sample analysis showing accuracy


and repatability of PAS detector.

2013 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

Gas Concentration PPM :

Quantification
Diff.
(%)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

35

-5,98

1,41

33

+0,73

2,66

36

38

-4,96

2,43

29

31

31

-17,6

0,98

131

121

122

+256

7,12

30

32

32

-11,1

1,17

Std.

Test
1

Test
2

Test
3

Test
4

Test
5

Test
6

Ethylene

35,1

31

33

33

32

34

Ethane

32,1

29

31

32

32

37

Methane

36,3

31

34

35

33

Carbon
Monoxide

36,6

29

30

31

Carbon
Dioxide
(CO2)

35,8

130

139

122

Acetylene
34,7 gas-in-oil
29
31 results
31
Table
5. Medium

Overall, the repeatability of the test results at the given


concentrations, are shown to be very good. The accuracy of
Ethylene, Ethane, and Methane are within 10% of the Standard,
while Acetylene at this particular concentration, can be regarded
as more than adequate for transformer DGA. All gasses except
CO2 and C2H6 (which is only slightly more positive) indicate
slightly lower than the Standard value.

Gas ID:

Gas Concentration PPM :

Quantification
Diff.
(%)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

16

-3,26

0,41

15

16

+2,08

1,21

19

18

18

+1,29

0,82

16

14

16

15

-16,2

0,82

131

124

105

111

+542

10,14

16

15

15

-9,96

0,52

Std.

Test
1

Test
2

Test
3

Test
4

Test
5

Test
6

Ethylene

17,4

17

17

17

17

17

Ethane

16,0

17

17

18

15

Methane

18,1

19

19

17

Carbon
Monoxide

18,3

15

16

Carbon
Dioxide

17,9

110

109

Acetylene
16
16
16
Table
6. Low17,4
gas-in-oil
results

Overall, the repeatability of the test results at the given


concentrations, are shown to be very good. The nominal
accuracy of all the gasses excepting Carbon Dioxide and Carbon
Monoxide are within 10% of the Standard, however at these low
concentrations a 1 to 2 ppm result difference is insignificant.
Therefore the results can be regarded as more than adequate
for transformer DGA. While in general the indicated values are
slightly below the expected Standard, Ethane, Methane and
Carbon Dioxide are shown to indicate marginally higher than the
Standard. The Carbon Dioxide result consistently indicates about
100ppm higher than the standard for all concentrations. Again for
transformer monitoring purposes this is adequate and especially
so at these very low levels.

In-service transformer oil


PAS versus GC
The consistency of results for a random sample of oil from an
in-service transformer, were checked by PAS analysis and also
the Laboratory Head Space Analysis methods. The results of
several tests by each technique, on the same specimen oil are
shown in Table 7 and Table 8. A Standard Deviation result in ppm
is produced, together with the result of the Standard Deviation
as a percentage of the average reading obtained. As there is no
true standard value to compare either method against, this is
considered a test of repeatability.
Gas ID:

Quantification
AVE
(PPM)

Std Dev (ppm)

Diff. (%)

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Ethylene
(C2H4)

145

145

144

144,7

0,58

0,39

Ethane
(C2H6)

165

164

164

164,3

0,58

0,35

Methane
(CH4)

63

65

64

64

1,56

Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)

32

31

33

32

3,13

Carbon
Dioxide
(CO2)

334

312

331

325,7

11,9

3,66

Acetylene
(C2H2)

118

119

119

118,7

0,58

0,49

Table 7. PAS and headspace analysis of gas-in-oil samples from


field transformer
Gas ID:

Quantification
AVE
(PPM)

Std Dev (ppm)

Diff. (%)

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Ethylene

161

161

164

162

1,73

1,07

Ethane

174

177

180

177

1,7

Methane

68

68

71

69

1,73

2,5

Carbon
Monoxide

38

41

44

41

7,3

Carbon
Dioxide

181

182

187

183,3

3,2

1,75

Acetylene

130

156

147

144,3

13,2

9,1

Table 8. Laboratory GC and headspace analysis of gas-in-oil


samples from field transformer
The PAS based analyser produced results which are in most
cases better than the Laboratory Head Space Analyser in terms
of repeatability, as would be expected from an online unit not
subject to sampling variance. In general the results between both
methods compared at a level that would not affect fault diagnosis.
Clearly the transformer in question has some excessive gassing
issues.
2013 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

The Transition to Next-Generation Online DGA Monitoring Technologies Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy

Gas ID:

Field Experiences
Estimates put the number of installed online DGA instruments at
more than 80,000, of which the vast majority are composite gas
monitors employed as alarms to detect developing faults. More
than five thousand PAS based DGA instruments are now installed
globally, in more than 120 countries. They are normally deployed
on critical or large transformers where their cost benefit is more
obvious.
Many examples exist of where DGA has prevented further
damage occurring to a transformer by notifying asset managers
of a developing faults through increasing gas levels .

The Transition to Next-Generation Online DGA Monitoring Technologies Utilizing Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy

PAS based systems are now providing this capability all over the
world through the provision of high quality DGA results.

Example of successful
diagnosis of developing
fault
A GE Transfix monitor was installed on a transformer in Asia.
Results observed over several months identified a thermal
problem in the transformer evidenced by:

Oxygen content of the oil decreasing,

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide content of the oil


increasing

This combination of gases indicates overheating of the paper


insulation in the transformer and, using a load sensor, the rate of
gas generation was traced to load conditions. The transformer
was left in operation until a sudden dramatic increase in gas
indicated that the fault had progressed from thermal to electrical
fault, diagnosed using the Key Gas Method. The unit was then
managed out of operation.

Figure 4. Best match (86% pattern match) to the Key gas diagnosis:
Arcing from load current

Conclusion
PAS based DGA instruments have been developed with the express
purpose of addressing the shortcomings of online GC based
instruments. They provide a real alternative to GC by matching
their performance and operating successfully in the field.
Utilising a technology historically designed for online application,
PAS instruments are very stable and repeatable monitoring
instruments suited for the tough environmental and operational
demands associated with remote transformer monitoring. PAS is
the new high-end standard for monitoring critical transformers.

References
[1] IEC 60567 standard
[2] McIlroy, C. D. PhotoAcoustic Spectroscopy. A New Technique
for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Oil. EPRI Substation Equipment
Diagnostics Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA. February 23 26,
2003
[3] McIlroy, C. D. A Comparison of PhotoAcoustic Spectrometer
and Gas Chromatograph Techniques for Dissolved Gas Analysis
of Transformer Oil. EPRI Substation Equipment Diagnostics
Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA. February 15 18, 2004

Figure 3. Decreasing Oxygen and increasing carbon monoxide and


carbon dioxide. Leading eventually to a rapid increase in hydrogen
and acetylene indicating an electrical fault.

2013 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

You might also like