C57.

104 IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil Immersed Transformers Tuesday, March 13, 2012 Nashville, Tennessee, USA Minutes of WG Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chair Rick Ladroga at 3:15pm. Vice Chair Claude Beauchemin and Secretary Susan McNelly were also present. There were 47 of 83 members present. There were 44 guests, and 7 guests requesting membership. A membership quorum was achieved. Guests attending the WG meeting for the first time who request membership will be deferred until the next meeting attended. Guests requesting membership were (those identified with an asterisk (5 of the 7) will be added as WG members): Jagdish Burde Frank Damico* Shawn Galbreath* Rowland James* Agenda 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Anthony McGrail* Nicholas Perjanik* Pugal Selvaraj

Welcome & Introductions Quorum Check Approval of Minutes from fall 2011 Boston meeting. Status Presentation by Claude Beauchemin on Data New Business Adjourn

The minutes from the fall 2011 Boston, Massachusetts meeting were approved as written. Review of recent activities: Rick gave a summary of recent activities and indicated that offsite meetings/webinars will be held between TR Committee meetings. He is tentatively looking at the 3rd week in May. The framework, case work, and bibliography have been done or are in progress. The intent is to provide recommendations at the fall 2012 meeting in Milwaukee for the WG to discuss. Rick requested case study information from utilities. Presentation by Claude Beauchemin - Analysis Preview - Review of results to date from analysis of DGA database Claude extended a thank you to the following people for their efforts: Michel Duval Norman Field Luiz Cheim Lan Lin - for the tremendous work done to date on data analysis All anonymous data suppliers - To give us the opportunity to answer old questions

C57.104 Table1 What was the choice for limits?

Personal Experience ? One user database analysis ? Consensus from early users ? Lab recommendation ? Early mention in 1978 of 90% probability norms for some levels (now limit condition 1) 1991 mention for table 1 Consensus values based on the experience of many company Condition 1: < 90% of DGA population? Condition 2: 90% to 95% ? Condition 3: 95% to 99% ? Condition 4: > 99% ?

We are using these values for analysis purpose only Process of data analysis: Database filtered to remove inconsistent entries Obvious error Missing important information Non transformer Population curve computed for each gas and each studied condition 90% to 99.5% population value used for evaluation

Source of data (479,191Samples)

F,1.5% B,7.8% A,2.2% C,6.0% D,0.1% E,2.2% G,0.9% J,7.0%

A B C D E F G H I J

Utility Lab Utility IndustrialUser Utility InsuranceCo. Utility Lab Lab Utility

H,11.5% I,60.9%

Data Analysis: Values proposed need to be sound from a statistic point of view Original data used to set table 1 is unavailable Comparison between table 1 and actual data indicate a mix of good and poor correlation using the 90, 95 and 99% hypothesis CAUTION: LARGE DISPERSION OF RESULTS Table 1 VS Percentile, All data
Condition 12 23 34 H2 100 700 1800 CH4 120 400 1000 C2H2 1 10 35 C2H4 50 100 200 C2H6 65 100 150 CO 350 570 1400 CO2 2500 4000 10000 TDCG 720 1920 4630

Percentile 90 95 99

H2 93 215 1706

CH4 85 162 869

C2H2 1 5 78

C2H4 56 124 1124

C2H6 92 191 600

CO 717 912 1386

CO2 7491 10223 18435

TDCG 1034 1429 5439

Delta% 90 95 99

H2 7% 69% 5%

CH4 29% 60% 13%

C2H2 0% 50% 123%

C2H4 12% 24% 462%

C2H6 42% 91% 300%

CO 105% 60% 1%

CO2 200% 156% 84%

TDCG 44% 26% 17%

Example of data dispersion

5,000

TDCG vs Data Source

J

4,500

4,000

I
3,500

A
3,000

G H

2,500

All data
2,000

E
1,500

F
1,000

D
500 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Problematic of data analysis: Dispersion between sources is large Different Network? Different History? Different Utilisation? Different Laboratories? This fact must be taken into account during the analysis process What parameters influence DGA levels ? Age ? Size ? Voltage Class ? Sealed / open ? Energized TC VS Non-Energized TC ? GSU / Transmission / Distribution ? North / South (Weather) ? Utility / Industrial ? Laboratories used ? Other? Each individual parameter have to be studied to see if it has an influence Each influence has to be properly isolated Quantification of influence has to be statistically sound and documented

Example of a possible influential parameter: Age

24.2%
25.0%

22.8%

22.3%

20.0%

17.9%

15.0%

10.0%

8.4%

5.0%

3.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100 110

0.0%

010

1020

2030

3040

4050

5060

6070

7080

8090 90100

TDCG 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 99.5
10,000

all 1034 1087 1148 1222 1311 1429 1602 1904 2656 5439 11386

010 747.3 783 820 865 920.8 980.6 1071 1193.4 1391.3 2239.7 4481.3

in Operation 1020 Years 20 30 3040 993 1061 1123 1033.9 1107 1169 1086 1154 1220 1141.9 1212 1271 1212 1276 1337 1309.4 1367.6 1415 1445 1498 1521.8 1661 1724.5 1669.2 2147.9 2266.7 1924 4061.9 3418.3 2848.9 7501 5177.7 4295.7

4050 1179.3 1233 1292.6 1350.6 1430 1525.6 1665.6 1856 2181.7 3261.9 6376.1

5060 1177 1207.9 1266.3 1307.7 1371.2 1432 1512.5 1641.9 1925.2 2902.5 3803.1

6070 1391.1 1438.7 1458.2 1495.1 1528.4 1569.8 1671.8 1834.8 2071.5 2282.2 2471.5
30 40

7080 1062.8 1133.1 1173.8 1205 1346 1403.2 1447.4 1482 1568.3 1975.3 2723.8

TDCG vs Age
4050

20 30

5060 60 70
1,000

70 80 10 20 010

All data
100 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

TDCG90%
5000 Condition4 4500 4000 3500 3000 PPM 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 010 1020 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 Condition2 Condition3

Condition1

TDCG90%,95%and99%
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 PPM 2500 2000 1500 Condition2 1000 500 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 Condition1 90% 99% 95% Condition3 Condition4

TDCG90%,95%and99%
2.50

2.00 Actual/ ConditionLimit

1.50

90%

1.00 95% 0.50 99%

0.00 010 1020 20 30 3040 Age 4050 5060 60 70 7080

H290%,95%and99%
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 PPM 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 Condition2 Condition1 90% 99% Condition4

Condition3 95%

CO90%,95%and99%
1800 1600 1400 1200 PPM 1000 800 600 Condition2 400 200 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 90% Condition4

Condition3

99%

95%

Condition1

CO290%,95%and99%
18000 16000 14000 Condition4 12000 PPM 10000 8000 6000 4000 Condition2 2000 0 0 10 10 20 2030 3040 Age 4050 50 60 6070 7080 Condition1 95% 99%

90%

Condition3

CH490%,95%and99%
1200 Condition4

1000

800 PPM

Condition3

600

400 Condition2 200 Condition1 0 010 1020 2030 30 40 Age 40 50 5060 6070 70 80 95% 90% 99%

C2H690%,95%and99%
800

700

600

Condition4

500 PPM

400 99%

300

200 Condition3 100 Condition2 Condition1 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 95% 90%

C2H490%,95%and99%
1400 Condition4 99%

1200

1000

PPM

800

600

400

200

Condition3 Condition2

95% 90% 10 20 20 30 30 40 Age 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80

0 0 10 Condition1

C2H290%,95%and99%
100 90 80 70 60 PPM 50 40 30 20 10 Condition2 0 010 Condition1 1020 2030 3040 Age 4050 5060 6070 7080 90% 99% Condition4

Condition3 95%

10

Influence of Rating:

TDCG90%,95%and99%
25000 Condition4

20000

15000 PPM

Condition3

99%

10000

95%

Condition2 5000 Condition1 0 <1MVA 15MVA 5 10MVA 1020MVA 20 50 MVA 50100 MVA 100 500 MVA >500 MVA Power class

90%

Influence of voltage class:

TDCG90%,95%and99%
18000 Condition4 16000 14000 12000 PPM 10000 8000 6000 Condition2 4000 2000 0 <34.5KV 34.569KV KV 69230KV >230KV Condition1 90% Condition3 95% 99%

11

Open or Closed:
3,000

TDCG vs Oil Preservation System

2,500

2,000

Closed Unknown
1,500

Open
1,000

All data
500 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Suspicious VS All
90% All Suspicious H2 93 782 CH4 85 912 C2H2 1 32 C2H4 56 1255 C2H6 92 452 CO 717 738 CO2 7491 7749 TDCG 1034 4305

Rate of rise (ppm/day)

ppm/day 90 95 99 H2 0.13 0.43 6.9 CH4 0.08 0.23 3.3 C2H2 0.00 0.00 0.22 C2H4 0.04 0.14 3.1 C2H6 0.08 0.23 2.0 CO 0.60 1.25 6.3 CO2 6.6 14.1 69.6 TDCG 1.01 2.5 26.3

Discussion: Question: Fredi Jakob Regarding Table 1 vs Percentile slide He indicated he wonders that if Table 1 was from late 80s and 90s, they were pretty young. If still in service, twenty years later, is the difference due to age? Certainly on the CO and CO2 values. Response: Beauchemin - Age is likely influencing the difference. If this is the case, it will show up in the slide on age. If an influence is seen, it will be identified. Question: Jin Sim Utilities have started measuring DGA on smaller transformers such as layer type transformers. This also could be influencing the data. Response: Beauchemin Yes, this could be influencing the data. Question: Juan Castellano Was the type of TR compared? Response: Beauchemin It was not. A very small percent of the data population included this information and what we have we will look at. Question: Fredi Jakob In his opinion Table 1 should only be used to give an idea of when a next sample should be taken. He recommends that Table 1 provide direction on what to do in this regard. Response: Beauchemin There are instructions to this effect already there, but unfortunately, it is often not read. Ladroga Whether the table will be kept or

12

not is being looked at. The challenge is make the guide simple and useful. The intent is to gear the guide more toward how things are really done. Question: Jin Sim Does the core group feel the values in Table 1 should be erased.? Depending on the volume should there be correction? Response: Beauchemin He indicated that the statistics will dictate, not the core group. Sim Disagreed, indicating that there are many of the data that are not valid. Response: Beauchemin That is why there is statistical analysis done to remove some of these outliers. He indicated he also would like to see a resolution to this. Luiz Cheim We expect that the data is representative. Outliers and cases that could confuse the data needs to be removed, however this is not simple. Better tools and people with time to analyze the data are needed. One thing that may be looked at is making the table more of a matrix to look at the level along with the rate of increase. The goal is to come up with something helpful to the industry. Fredi Jakob Paper in IEEE Journals for Power Delivery There is emphasis on TCGs, which doesnt make much sense. Rick Ladroga requested a copy of the paper. Question: Anthony McGrail Indicated he is disturbed that we are having this conversation at all. He indicated that we need to be very careful that the 99 percentile does not indicate a condition. Response: Ladroga It is very much indicative of the data distribution. The goal is to determine if we can correlate. Question: - Indicated that the Table is used by his insurance company to tell them what maintenance needs to be done. Question: Doug McCullough Have we asked the manufacturers to give a table on the gas concentrations on materials used in the transformers. This may help to draw correlations. Response: Ladroga That is a good suggestion and if the manufacturers can provide this information, it will be reviewed. Question: Leon White Samples were not always taken properly. Is there any thought on using only samples taken in the last 10 years now that people are more aware of how to properly take the samples? Response: Beauchemin Yes, the data could be reviewed based on the date of samples to see if there is an evolution in this regard. Mel Wright - Looking at the total dissolved gas and the ratio of oxygen and nitrogen can tell you if the sampling is consistent and if it was properly obtained. Rick indicated that there has been a concern raised about the quality of the data and the security of the data. He is hoping to keep the data with IEEE for future use and limit the access to the data. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm. Rick Ladroga WG Chair Claude Beauchemin WG Vice-Chair Susan McNelly WG Secretary

13