Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy for dissolved gas

analysis
Benefits and Experience

Donal Skelly
GE Energy
Lisburn, United Kingdom
donal.skelly@ge.com

Abstract 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.
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 of successful applications of this
technology are presented and discussed.

DISSOLVED GAS ANALYSIS

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).
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 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.
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 meantime as a result.
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.

ON-LINE, REMOTE DGA

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, 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).

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.

APPLICATION OF PAS TECHNOLOGY TO

DGA
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.

Methodology
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.

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..
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.

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

Oil samples were collected from various transformers

with online PAS based systems. These samples were
analysed in a laboratory GC system and results
compared.

Carbon Dioxide 71,6 151

RESULTS

Acetylene

60

165

162

111

142 103

19,4

58

60

58

62

61 -13,8

1,60

Table 4. High gas-in-oil result.

Gas Samples
Actual
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

Gas

69,4

143

PGA Recorded Value (ppm)

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.

Gas ID :

Gas Concentration PPM :

Quantification
Diff.

Std. Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Test 5Test (%)

6

Std
Dev ppm

Ethylene

35,1 31

33

33

32

34

35

-5,98

Table 2. Results of mixed gas sample analysis showing

accuracy and repeatability of PAS detector.

Ethane

32,1 29

31

32

32

37

33

+0,73 2,66

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.

Methane

36,3 31

34

35

33

36

38

-4,96

2,43

Carbon Monoxide

36,6 29

30

31

29

31

31

-17,6

0,98

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

35,8 130 139 122 131 121 122 +256

7,12

Acetylene

34,7 29

1,17

31

31

30

32

32

-11,1

1,41

Table 5. Medium gas-in-oil results

Standard Gas-in-Oil Samples
GAS ID

GAS CONCENTRATION

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

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 :

Std.

Quantification

Test Test Test Test Test Test Diff.

(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6

Std
Dev
(ppm)

Table 3. Three concentration of gas in oil standard were

prepared, Low, Medium and High.

Ethylene

17,4

17

17

17

17

17

16

-3,26

0,41

Concentrations of gas-in-oil are shown for each range

and are normalised to 20oC

Ethane

16,0

17

17

18

15

15

16 +2,08

1,21

Methane

18,1

19

19

17

19

18

18 +1,29

0,82

Carbon
Monoxide

18,3

15

16

16

14

16

15

-16,2

0,82

Carbon Dioxide 17,9 110 109 131 124 105 111 +542

10,14

Gas ID :

Gas Concentration PPM :

Std.

Quantificatio
n

Test Test Test Test Test Test Diff.

1
2
3
4
5
6 (%)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

Ethylene

70,2

62

61

63

60

64

65 -10,9

1,87

Ethane

64,2

59

60

61

59

59

63 -6,28

1,60

Methane

72,6

68

62

66

64

70

70 -8,17

3,27

Carbon
Monoxide

73,2

60

57

59

57

62

58 -19,7

1,94

Acetylene

17,4

16

16

16

16

15

15

-9,96

0,52

Table 6. Low 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.

affect fault diagnosis. Clearly this transformer has some

excessive gassing issues.

Field Experiences
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 :

Gas Concentration (PPM)

Quantification
Ave

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3
(ppm)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

Diff

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
Monoxi
de (CO)

32

31

33

32

3,13

Carbon
Dioxide
(CO2)

334

312

331

325,7

11,9

3,66

Acetyle
ne
(C2H2)

118

119

118,7

0,58

0,49

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

from field transformer

Gas Concentration
(PPM)

Gas ID :

Test 2

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 (see figure 3)
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 (see figure 4). The unit was then managed out of
operation.

Quantification
Ave

Test 1

Many examples exist of where DGA has prevented further

damage occurring to a transformer by notifying asset
managers of a developing fault through increasing gas
levels.

(%)

Ethylene
(C2H4)

119

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.

Test 3
(ppm)

Std
Dev
(ppm)

Diff
(%)

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-inoil 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

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.

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 highend standard for monitoring critical transformers.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

IEC 60567 standard

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
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

2012 General Electric Company. All Rights Reserved.

*Trademarks of General Electric Company.